A constitutional catastophe?
As the polls narrow in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty a respected German think tank argues that a "no" vote would be a catastrophe" for Europe.
Well, like so many questions, it depends where you stand.
For those who wish their country would leave the EU, it strengthens their arm. For those who want to halt or slow down the project of further integration it helps enormously. For those who simply delight in damaging the European Union, it is a godsend.
It would provoke another big debate on why the European Union exists and whether it is fit for purpose.
But I wonder what practical effect a rejection by the Irish people would have on Europe.
The authors of the paper from the think tank, "Green light from the Emerald Isle" say that if Ireland votes "No" there are four possible consequences. (pdf link)
But it seems to me the first three of their options are variations on the same theme: vote again...
Their first option suggested in the paper is simply that: after a time the same treaty would be put again to a referendum. The authors describe this as not particularly probable. I would say "politically unthinkable.
The second and third options they identify are either amending the treaty or offering new opt-outs to meet Irish objections. The authors rightly point out that it would be a hard job working out exactly what bit of the treaty voters objected to, so this would be "highly unlikely".
And the fourth option? The European Union abandons its plans for a comprehensive treaty and makes much smaller scale changes.
Seeing this is the only option left, I presume this is what the authors consider a "catastrophe" for Europe.
A practical, pragmatic catastrophe? I never quite understood this view after the rejection of the constitution and I don't understand it now.
I don't underestimate the hurt pro-Europeans would feel. There is no question that a "No" vote would, and should, send them into an existential tailspin over the lack of popularity of the European Union. It would certainly provoke another period of navel-gazing, as boring to outsiders as someone else's psychotherapy.
But I have never grasped the desperate need for the changes contained in Lisbon and the constitution. The argument usually is that a union of 27 destined to grow larger still, would simply seize up without new rules.
Yet I started this job shortly after the rejection of the constitution, and while a lot of last year I was watching the EU designing a replacement, it hasn't been the only show in town. I have seen, and reported on, the adoption of a difficult budget, agreement on a hugely ambitious policy on climate change and carbon reduction, the expansion of the European Union to include two new countries, the adoption of the Euro by three more countries, the opening of talks about Turkey joining, the growth of the passport-free area and much greater co-operation on home affairs and justice. These are the big policy areas, but there have been plenty of more minor ones.
I stress I am not arguing that these are good or wise policies, simply that they show that the European Union is doing the things its main players want it to do without any new rules. It's doing them without a smaller commission, a new voting system, a president of the council, or the loss of national vetoes.
The rejection of the constitution was described as a catastrophe. But it was one that didn't stop the EU in its tracks. It was a funny sort of catastrophe. Would an Irish "No" be just the same?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~27~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
If the Lisbon Treaty unravels, it will be business as usual. Federalists will feel let down because they probably won't live to see the United States of Europe, but the EU will continue to chug along, demolishing borders and nationalist barriers, bit by bit. Even if the EU disappears, this process will not stop. Younger Europeans are more multilingual, more mobile and more open to other ideas beyond their borders than their parents, and their children in turn will be even more so. Nationalists moan and complain about loss of sovereignty but the truth is, there's no going back, with or without the Lisbon Treaty.
LoonyCanuck
Toronto, Canada
Complain about this comment
I'm not counting on anything but I'm hoping the Irish will reject the dictatorship of the political elite and vote NO. Three months ago I wouldn't have given a dime for such an outcome, now at least there is an outside chance parliamentary democracy might be saved in the EU countries after all.
The Irish can expect a lot of scaremongering coming from the political elite in the next few weeks (same thing happened in Netherlands and France 2 years ago, and the more the yes-side lied and scaremongered, the more votes the no-side got, a repeat please!).
Europe, lets keep our fingers crossed that the elite lose (again) and our parliamentary democracies are saved! And also, that the BBC will finally wake up about the fact that the EU is a direct (covert) attack on parliamentary democracy.
Complain about this comment
And what impact will an acceptance or rejection of EU Const..err..Treaty will have on the larger world?
None.
Complain about this comment
Mark, the big thing about Lisbon Treaty is that it makes the Union more fair. Voting is more straight forward and as decisions need double majority of both countries and populations, it's very easy for a common man to understand how decisions are being made and how the decision making machinery works. The treaty also puts an end to countries sabotaging or blackmailing the Union for their own advantages.
I also would like add that there is a fifth option: forming of an advancing core group of countries. I think that in the end of 90s it was quite much discussed that European Union could split to two groups, one running with the current rails and another forming an core that integrates more quickly. If Irish will vote NO, I think that the only option for those countries that see further integration as vital to their and Europes interest is to a form a new core group. Maybe in the future we could have European Union that gives current levels of integration and European Federation has further integrated.
To mcdv1975 (2): I think that if your own country's parliament democracy depends on the Irish vote I think that you are in a really sorry state.
Complain about this comment
I never understood why Euroskeptics oppose every Reform Treaty, including the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty will make the European Union more fair, something Euroskeptics always demanded. Strange enough they oppose all changes but are also against maintaining the status quo.
I agree we should have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but I'm affraid people will (ab)use a referendum to vote against their current government (that's what happened in France and The Netherlands in 2005). People often complain that their governments are undemocratic because they don't allow a vote on the Lisbon Treaty. But doesn't the parliament represent the people? We vote to choose our parliaments. So when the parliament votes in favour of the Lisbon Treaty their isn't anything undemocratic about that vote.
The Irish will probably vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty because the European Union created much of Irelands current welfare.
Complain about this comment
Re post 5 I agree Ireland has done well economically out of their membership of the E.U. The fact that is the case and such large numbers still look like voting against the treaty should suggest something is wrong at the heart of the E.U.
Please don't claim it is all down to people who vote no not liking their Government, while I suppose those who vote yes are well informed people who have made rational decisions. There is a lot of real issues people have with the E.U. at the moment and pretending they don't will not help us improve the E.U.
That said Ireland will still probably vote yes but it will be closer than any one thought possible and should be a wake up call.
Complain about this comment
Actually it is all going to happen anyway. It just may take a bit longer that is all.
Remember to moterway round London that was not going to be built. Instead we got this by-pass and that, this bit of road improvement, a big bridge across the Thames and suprise, surprise at just all got called the M25. Another example from England of how these things happen. When the site for Londonds third airport was being considered and before the public planning enquiry I told a friend not to worry, it was going to be at Stansted. Not because I am a profit or have second sight but because I regularly drove from Cambridge to London on the then new M11. Why else would they buid a 3 lane motorway to level with Stanstead and 2 lanes from there on if not to serve the airport? As they say the rest is history.
As for the British Euroskeptics, if Gordon Brown, who has never been pro-Europe would not grant a Referendum, who must know something that you don't. Perhaps that the EK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK.
Complain about this comment
As a member of a youth organization in the Netherlands, I was one of the attendants of last weekend's Congress of Europe, held in The Hague (Netherlands), celebrating the original Congress of Europe, held in 1948, chaired by Sir Winston Churchill. Just like 60 years ago, the question of last weekend was again: given the situation at hand, how do we proceed?
60 years ago the problems Europe faced were pretty obvious: Europe was in ruins because of WW II, poverty was wide-spread, nothing kept the European nations from preparing yet another destructive war and on top of that, the totalitarian and communist Soviet Union presented a serious threat to the security of European nations, one that would become real. The organizations that were founded in the years following 1948 could be understood as trying to solve or reduce those problems: NATO, the Council of Europe the European Coal and Steel Community, the EEC and the failed European Defense Community.
What about the problems of today? Not surprizingly, some of them are related with the developments you mention. Some problems have been solved by time or by the organizations mentioned, others still remain. The Soviet Union has disappeared, in its place there is Putin's autoritarian Russia. Cold war has changed into icy economic and also military rivalry with the West. Europe's countries can no longer go to war, but remain disunited and easily manipulated by external powers.
In addition to these problems relating to security, new problems were identified, among which: migration, climate change, a lack of democracy in the EU, and again security. NATO is showing cracks as a result of political and military disagreements; yet another country, Iran, is illegally developing nuclear weapons and thereby threatening European and Western interests; Russia and China are increasing in power; and finally there is terrorism, with its free havens. Like the problems of 1948, these problems cannot be solved by individual European countries, a united approach is required.
We can sometimes solve or reduce the problems together with the rules laid down in old treaties, but the process is often slow because of national vetos. In many cases there exists semi-permanent indecision. The intergovernmental Common Foreign and Security Policy has been proved a complete failure, the same with the migration policies and as said above, democracy is too limited in the EU. The credit crisis has rather moderate effects for most of Europe, thanks to the Euro, financial experts say, but it could do better with more central coordination of member state's economic policies. The Lisbon Treaty tries to improve all of that. The step is still rather small, but it is a step nonetheless. Yet even that step is too big?
How many wars, threats and terrorist attacks do we need before the people of Europe realize that we need a truly common foreign, security and defense policy? How many thousands of illegal immigrants need to drown before they realize we need to have one immigration (and development-aid) policy? How many more jobs have to go to China before people realize that our wealth and our countries are dependent on the EU and the free trade it facilitates? How many more refenendums do people need before they realize that given this dependency the EU won't dissolve and that, hence, the only way towards more democracy is the way forward instead of backward? Will it be when NATO is disbanded over disagreements with the US? Or when Iran has it's nukes ready? When an airliner hits St. Peter's Basilica? When Russia cut's off the gass supply?
The world will not wait for Europe to discuss endlessly and to slowly arrive, if ever, at its decisions. We have to stand together, be decisive and act, or we will gradually lose the competition with other key players in the world who are often less concerned about the individual citizen's well-being. The developments on climate change are great, but we need much more.
We need to make Europe a strong and united international player that can meet all these challenges. We need to have a strong single voice for a foreign policy, backed by what is potentially the second strongest military in the world, standing side by side with the Americans, sharing the burden of defence and preventing dictators from genocide, like in Bosnia and Kosovo and getting weapons they're not supposed to have, like Libya and Iran. We need to have effective border patrols coordinated centrally. We need to preserve an attractive economic climate to prevent jobs leaving the EU to other countries. We need a democratically elected European leadership visible to the people of Europe and properly accountable for its actions and lack thereof.
But we also need to make sure that local customs and traditions do not fall victim to globalization, genalization and unification. We need to preserve languages and culture that makes Europe so interesting. We need to allow for people's self-rule and local autonomy in the globalizing world. The preservation of culture policy, education and social security on national or sub-national levels. The rights of member states at their own judicial and policing policies, while allowing for fighting cross-border crime as effective as possible throughout the union, with all means possible.
All of those challenges are impossible without a new treaty, and for that reason, we need the Irish, the British and all other people in Europe onboard to adopt the new treaty, to improve the EU to gradually become the organization that meets our needs.
Complain about this comment
As Mr Mardell said, the delays in adopting the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution have not prevented EU countries from moving forward on some issues ... except that the did so on the less controversial ones, because whereas national vetoes are still in place, the undemocratic minority rules.
To name but one big item, the latest round of renewed partnerships between the EU and Russia has been delayed/taken hostages by the politics of basically only 2 countries for the past 3 years : first Poland over an imported meat ban, then Lithuania about an EU show of support to Georgia.
In both cases, the real reasons were purely domestic about posturing and energy security.
The same way eurosceptics (and the Brits in particular) like to grossly misrepresent the CAP, they should know it would be much more easier to form voting coalitions and hold national farm ministers accountable for how much is spent on the farming policy and how.
In addition to most of the reasons mentionned by Caspar_Heetman #8 (even if I don't ascribed for EU nations to be the neo-cons sidekicks of the US), it's clear that getting rid of national vetoes and enforcing a voting weight more in line with population size can only add credences to a more transparent and democratic management as to how decisions are taken through the EU.
No matter what eurosceptics/phobes claim about the YES campaigners, the narrowmindness and the scaremongering is still the main tool of the NO sides.
Warning people about the consequences of not voting (YES side) is not the same as misrepresenting them and pushing voters to abstain rather than to vote opposite them, like the NO side is doing.
The more they muddle people's views the more they claim to be doing the right thing. How sick is that ?
Claiming that a Irish YES would force Ireland to go to war in Iraq (because the EU is presumed to be militaristic) as has been mentionned by NO side is an outright lie. Notwithstanding the fact that other fringe of the NO side would then ridicule the EU for being too pacifist and unaware of today's challenges (as if Atlanticists had been particularly successful in identifying and confronting them).
Like in previous referendums, the NO vote rejecting the EU is actually very low. If all Irish voters were to turn out, they would gather no more than 15%-20%, but voters are apathetic, extremely unhappy about the impotence of the politicians and afraid of a downturn in the economy thanks to credit binge of US/UK-style (remember where the assumptions that easy credits and consumerism are both all-good and pain-free for an economy come from ?).
Add to this localised and generalised grievances coupled to a cultural shock resulting from mass immigration (african, asian and east european), and yes, the Irish people are seriously pissed.
So a NO vote is a very much potential reality. And with a turn-out of around 30%-40% of the registered voters !!
But not for the reasons eurosceptics would like to glee about ... quite the opposite. And that's also what's so depressing about it.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila
"..it's very easy for a common man to understand how decisions are being made..."
I think it's easy to understand already. They are being made in secret by people who were unelected and unaccountable. In fact many are faceless.
I read the opt out addendum with its red lines, did anyone from Europe posting here read them? (I can be almost certain nobody here read the entire 400 page constitution.) It was very tedious reading, not at all easy to follow. But what I got out if it is that these red lines are not opt outs at all but merely delays of five years. After that time, if the UK does not comply with the entire treaty, the rest of the EU will decide its punishment which has no cap, no limit and about which the UK will have no say. Now someone tell me YOU actually read it and didn't find that in it.
What I like most about how the EU works is the way it paralyses individual nations from making any decisions on their own. France's government wants to reduce the tax on fuel because that added tax revenue it collects is killing its already weak domestic economy. The EU won't let it. Surprise, the Eurocrats are already more powerful than the French government. Personally I wish they'd have passed the entire constitution. That would have been most interesting.
LoonyCanuck
"...the truth is, there is no going back..."
I think you are right. Their fate is already sealed. I'd hate to see a comparable mistake in North America. I don't think that will happen, at least not in my lifetime.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
It would be a sad day for the Europeans if they rejected this constitution..
Complain about this comment
Time and time again we hear the same thing, that the EU is an assault of parliamentary democracy. This raises two points:
Firstly, if you really feel that way then vote of a party that will withdraw. If there are no parties that will withdraw, then stand yourself. This is an options to everyone, but somehow no state has ever left the EU (though the territory of Greenland did, which rather shows the system works). In fact, in the UK, supposedly the most anti-EU country in the EU, UKIP (anti-EU) does appallingly at national elections, and at EU elections equally with the Lib-Dems (pro-EU).
Secondly, do all of these anti-EU types fail to see the massive irony in what they're saying? You are angry at parliamentarians for "giving away sovereignty" and ignoring the "true will of the people" and your answer to this is to say we need more powers at parliamentary level!! The supposed abuser must be given more power to abuse in order to protect the abused!!
What this is principally about is people who get their knowledge from one source, say, a tabloid newspaper, and thus assume the whole world thinks as they have been told to, or, people who realise they lack legitimacy, and thus fabricate it by claiming to represent some sort of silent majority.
Well, if there is this silent majority, upset at the malfunctioning of "their" democracy, surely they should wake up and realize they are the source of the malfunction, by failing to vote to protect the democracy they love so much!
All that said, I simply do not believe there are people who are so lividly upset at what they see as the failure of democracy, yet who don't actually vote themselves. If there are people who are genuinely that stupid, then maybe we should all be grateful they don't vote.
Complain about this comment
The NO-campaign is way too optimistic. There's another option Bertelsmann has not mentioned, but which is debated already.
Of course, Ireland would hardly voluntarily leave the European Union, no matter how much they disagree with every Treaty people have to vote on. So it would be impossible to have a referendum on leaving the EU in Ireland. People would vote NO on leaving the EU.
But if there is no way the EU can reform due to the problems during ratification processes the 26 other Member States can decide to go ahead without Ireland and cancel the treaties with Ireland. Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is what might be the last resort for the EU against a NO of Ireland.
Nobody wants to get rid of Ireland, everybody wants Ireland to be in the EU, it would be a very difficult decision, but a few million people cannot stop a project that is meant to be for about 500 million people.
People in Ireland should not believe that they are the country that will matter when the rest of the Member States decide to move on. But Ireland could re-join the EU at a later point, when the people have finally understood what the Lisbon Treaty really was about when they voted against it.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII (10):
Many decisions today are done behind close doors, that is true, but not by unelected people. EU commission makes suggestion for new legislation. Council of ministers decides if they accept the proposed legislation or not, and the EU parliament either accepts, amends or rejects the proposal. Now, EU commission members are suggested by member countries and EU parliament makes the decision to either accept of reject proposed EU commission. Representatives to Council of ministers are nominated and given authority to negotiate and make deals by the administration of member countries and their legislation. Members to EU parliament are voted by citizens of EU. People that make decisions have been elected and do represent people. The only problem with the current setting is that for common man this system is hard to explain. It would be easier if we had EU parliament and senate, but then again we would concentrate enormous power in hands of senators. Thought that might work in senators would be elected by local parliaments and parliaments could at any time vote to reject them.
I haven't read the Lisbon Treaty nor other previous treaties as I have hired help to do that: 200 members of Finnish parliament, the Finnish goverment and all the advisers and experts they have. I know the abstract what the treaty holds and why it has been composed and why it was ratified and should be accepted. If I have a problem with some proposed treaty or legislation, I can voice my concerns to members of local parliament or to EU parliament members. I actually voice my concerns when there was proposal to bring software patents to EU and hard lobbying of independent citizens and concerned groups succeeded on defeating the proposed directive that was driven by EU commission and large corporations. Democracy works when you put effort to it.
I think that you don't understand the concepts of giving power to get power and getting gains by giving out. In example EU countries have harmonized VAT legislation and rates to further harmonize and integrate EU common market to axe protectionism and make sure market place is fair for all businesses. Lets make an example... In UK no VAT is charged on biscuits and cakes which make them cheaper and more competitive against other forms of sweet products like candies or ice cream. I don't know why there is no VAT on biscuits and cakes in UK, maybe goverment wanted to give competitive edge to local bakeries against foreign products like Mars bars? VAT can be used as an instrument of protectionism and thus authority to change and make decisions about VAT was pooled to EU. If member countries could make freely decision about VAT we could soon have a situation where in example Germany gives lower VAT to cars that have 5 star EURO NCAP rating, French giving lower VAT to Champagne etc.. You trade some power for some gains, it's as simple as that.
I would also like to add that EU doesn't paralyze decision making of EU countries. What EU does is make sure that EU countries don't do decisions that interrupt and distort common market. The common market and it's functioning is more important than anything other as the power of EU and member countries are based on having businesses, people and the overall economy running and producing. It should also be noted that member countries have quite much power still and example here in Finland I haven't ever heard goverment nor politicians saying that EU is inhibiting their plans of course EU has limited some things, but usually there is some other way to archive the same end result.
Complain about this comment
Mark, Daniel Hannan writes interestingly about the forthcoming Irish Referendum in last week's edition of The Spectator.
Caspar Heetman @8 provides a well-written and well-considered post in support of the EU and the Lisbon Treaty. It is, however, flawed.
He writes about 'Europe' [I assume he means the EU - a different thing altogether] being "... a strong and united international player that can meet all these challenges. We need to have a strong single voice for a foreign policy... ". This is all very good and well, but the question is what voice? What is the political nature and direction of this 'united international player'?
There is a wide spectrum of opinions as what type of beast the EU should be: Socialist, Liberal Democratic, Isolationist, Xenophobic... The following poster (Starbuck @9) demonstrates this immediately by stating "...(even if I don't ascribed for EU nations to be the neo-cons sidekicks of the US)..." - a typical and widespread anti-US position favoured by many ardent EUrophiles - something that seems to directly contradict a central pillar in Caspar's geopolitical outlook (though without the silly 'sidekick' reference).
From a reading of his writings, It's quite probable that my 'EUrosceptic' view of 'Europe' is actually closer to Caspar's than those of many of his fellow EUrophiles. There is no way to undo this tangled knot.
Europe is, and should remain, a continent of independent nation states collaborating as and when required to further their interests. For this we do not need an over-arching, over-bearing nascent federal super-state.
Ireland fought long and hard for its freedom and its independence. They may pay scant attention to the words of a friendly Englishman, but I do hope the Irish preserve their independence and freedom. They surely didn't leave one empire to throw their lot in with another.
Complain about this comment
For all the little englanders out there...
What democracy are you fighting for? The house of Lords? Or the unbelievably democratic "Big Brother is watching you" house of Commons who pass laws decriminalizing theft and housebreaking, stick speed cameras every 55 yards, have one of the highest fuel tax on fuel in europe?
When I last voted at home, I had the choice of Labour, The UKIP The Lib Dems and and (possibly) the Conservatives. What if I wanted to vote Green? Or 'Independance for Yorkshire' for that matter? There are a few more parties now, like the Put Britons First (that garnered a whopping 0.12% of the vote...) and whoopy-doo, the BNP are back like a stain on a white shirt.
Voter turnout was approximately 35.76%, as compared to 37.52% in 2007 in Leeds, So we are goverened by, let's face it a party who got roughly a third of the vote from a third of the population. Brilliant! A tenth of the population can put you in power (unless, of couse you inherit like a certain Mr. Brown).
So what exactly, is the difference between our fantastic democracy and this 'closed shop' that is the EU?
I'd rather have Jean-Claude Junker running the show than Dr. Bob Spink...
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax, plz don't mistake my comments.
No matter how much I agree on this part "We need to make Europe a strong and united international player that can meet all these challenges. We need to have a strong single voice for a foreign policy, backed by what is potentially the second strongest military in the world, standing side by side with the Americans, sharing the burden of defence " the following "and preventing dictators from genocide, like in Bosnia and Kosovo and getting weapons they're not supposed to have, like Libya and Iran" smack of the same moral arrogance that "the West knows best" when it comes to international relations and actively promoted by neo-consertatives and so-called liberal hawks (latest hubris were Kosovo and Iraq, but also Lebanon and Georgia).
That attitude, not only misreads the power realities on the ground, but also creates a dangerous backlash around the world against western values.
I just read Dan Hannan column and I would agree that no matter the result of the Irish referendum, it's likely to be the last for some time on EU matter (not considering the UK if Cameron is back in 2 years time ...).
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11 @17, I was just using your post to demonstrate that there is no single EUrophile 'voice' - and there never will be so long as this continent is comprises different peoples living independent nation states. Taking away or limiting the independence (or sovereignty) of these nation states will not forge an EU 'demos' - it will just breed resentment and - ultimately - reaction.
And, one final thing: Yes, the West does 'know best'. Can you think of any region, nation or culture that knows better? ;-)
Complain about this comment
Dear Mark,
You say that a re-vote on the same treaty is 'politically unthinkable'. However this is excatly what happened after the Irish rejection of the Nice treaty.
I can still remember Romano Prodi landing in Dublin Castle, live on RTE teatime news, to berate the nation for our 'wrong decision'.
My enthusiasm for the EU died that day, as did any notion of an Irish democracy.
Regards,
Complain about this comment
As somebody pointed out in a HYS debate dealing with space exploration, prompted by spectatular landing of Phoenix probe on Mars:
"while US in conquering new frontiers EU is debating whether Eurovision songs should be sang in English or in Flemish".
Of course one could always ask: WHAT's Euro Vision?
Something created by Euro CONS perhaps?
Complain about this comment
Eurosceptic use to think about the EU "taking away" their sovereignty - Europhiles think about "pooling" sovereignty.
So I guess the difference is about which ones is better armed in dealing with interdependance in today's world : the nation-states or the larger community ?
Regarding the the "West knows best" ... well, yes the world without the west is pretty much on the roll already.
In the same way that Asians are multiplying regional forums and hedging their relations against the US/EU, so are the Africans and the South Americans.
the burgeoning SCO and BRIC meetings are just some of them. You could add a resurgence of pan-arabism in the Gulf too.
to quote Steven Weber developping nations "use the forces of globalization to gradually revise the terms of their connection with the Western world in ways that enhance their autonomy"
Complain about this comment
The eu will lead to one thing the biggest internal european war in history, the thought of a european war is un thought of now , but the EU will cause it
Complain about this comment
Re post 22, as much as I have misgivings about the E.U. I really cannot see it ending up in war.
Yes political wrangling, disharmony, acrimony and a growing feeling of alienation towards the E.U. by the european peoples,but war no.
Complain about this comment
@marcusaureliusII
funny thing is: what you don't want to happen in North America has already happened.
It's callled the USA.
13 individual colonies pooled their souvereignity and means in order to gain independence and later on to keep it.
And while these 13 young nations weren't as divers as those over in Europe, they were divers enough to have differences in economies and societal structures (with everything that comes with it). It's no surprise that the early US were a confederation rather than a federation.
You yourself must be aware how long it took the US Federal Government to become what it is now: a true government for all of the United States of America. Just as you must be aware that the States that make up the federation in most cases never were able to develop all the trappings of a real country. But I don't think you'll say that the federalisation of the USA has been to the detriment of its members.
The same goes for the EU, but one cannot ignore that its federalition has to start from a base of truly developed nation-states. The result so far, in so short a time, is definately impressive and has been beneficial for all involved.
But there must also be the acknowledgement that it'll take ages still before we'll arrive at something that could be called the United States of Europe. I doubt any of us alive today will see it happen.
Complain about this comment
@jaws1912
an intra- european war bigger than WW1 or WW2? That'll be very hard.
I'm sure you are aware of the sheer scale of nations and people(s) involed in WW2 (European theatre).
not counting Spain which just had its own bloody civil war only two countries in Europe were really spared from participation: Portugal and Ireland.
Both Switzerland and Sweden were surrounded by the Axis and could have gotten into serious trouble when resisting Adolf and Co.
Everyone else was in the fight.
Complain about this comment
If a country, that has benefitted so much from joining the EU, votes no, then it is not the EU's fault. Then it is sheer ungratefulness and they shouldn't receive anything anymore.
Complain about this comment
To Gheryando (26):
I don't think that we should mix the question of benefits to this debate or call Irish ungrateful. Ireland as an member of EU has benefited from and also given its contribution to EU. Irish have a right to decide on where their country is heading and this right includes a right to say NO to the Lisbon or any other treaty. However what Irish and everybody else has to understand that just saying NO doesn't mean that things will stay the same. Evey decision, be it Yes or No, will have consequences and people have to decide what vote will bring them best consequences.
The sad thing about any campaign concerning the EU is that the NO side always keeps quite about what consequences there are if they win. My advice for the Irish would be to vote as they see best, but before making their decision to find out what consequences different options might have.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately the NO is more powerful in the mass media arena than the YES.
During the approval of the failed EU Constitution 18 countries said YES, including two of them (Spain and Luxembourg) by referendum.
However what was the news? The two states which said NO.
The deformation of media coverage made us thinking in last years "Europe says NO to her Constitution", although it hasn't been true at all.
Irish know that. A NO is more valuable in terms of media coverage than a YES. Simply for the fact to be in the first page of International press, in Ireland could win the NO.
Afterwards we would read and hear that "Europe rejects the Treaty".
Despite deformed media coverage, the truth will always be "the majority of Europeans said YES to the Lisbon Treaty, through their respective parliaments, which represent the popular will in a democratic system. Only a country of 4 million people said NO (less than 1 per cent of EU's citizens)".
That's the concealed and unfair power of the NO: to deform reality.
Complain about this comment
Re post 28 the suggestion because a Parliament votes for something always mean the majority of the polulation support it is a novel concept but not true.
In most if not all European countries we entrust our sovereignity to our elected representatives for a period of time. After that time we have it back and either let them have it again or give it to another party. What that temporary Government cannot do is give away any part of our sovereignity to another institution. They are only the temporary custodians of it.
If a group wants to either give away or pool sovereignity (depending on your point of view) then I firmly believe they should get express permission from those who have permanent ownership of it by way of a referendum
As an example I lend my car to a friend, John, he can drive it where he wants, but he is to take care of it and I want it back at a given date. I would not expect him to come back to me and say I have given it to another friend, Jane, but it is ok beacuse you can still use it yourself sometimes and also you can use Jane's car sometimes aswell. No I want my car back, unless I agreed expressly to the deal.
Similarly at the end of a Parliament I want the sovereignity of my country back in the same state as it was entrusted to the ruling party.
Complain about this comment
To BernardVC #24,
I don't think there will be a war just like #23 but don't forget the civil war in the USA that forged the USA you see now, their integration was very painful it seems from the history books.
To #12 Olyus1,
I would hope most now use the Internet to trawl multiple sources like news, history, encyclopedias etc. Unfortunately trying to find anything factual out about the EU is very difficult by intent. I have often searched for facts and statistics to prove or disprove something, but what is published, especially on eurostat, is deliberately vague and unspecific. Even facts on how much each country contributes are suppressed to all but professional subscribers. This is why so many have to read the 'Daily Mail' and others (within the EU) as they are the only source available for that data.
Finally, on the so called revised treaty I did look at the PDF and found it deliberately confusing and ambiguous in it's legal format with lots of cross referencing, for that reason only I cannot trust it. Show me any law that has been written in legal format that does not have gaping holes or tricks in it, just as the UK anti-terrorism law is now being used to spy on ordinary householders, parents etc. If the treaty is not unambiguous then it cannot be trusted, it is simply a fudge and therefore unworthy of our support since it will not resolve the problems the EU is facing.
Complain about this comment
The attacks on the Roma in Italy are horrible and unjustified. The people who do it are responsible for their own actions.
However the "EU" is in part to blame. No country which functions reasonably well can take in all the people who would like to live there. There are many countries in comparison with which, even Italy can be said to function well.
The remarks I have heard in the UK from people who vote BNP are awful. We could have stuff like this happening in the UK.
The "EU", Eurovision Song Contest, European football, the Olympics etc. do not bring peace. love joy and harmony. They create new sources of tension.
We should be like Switzerland was before it made its special arrangement with the "EU". Many foreign workers would be allowed in for only three to six months.
If you employ two Romanians swapping over every six months, then you support two families in Romania and you don't have to provide them with accommodation in the UK when accommodation in Romania is cheaper.
Complain about this comment
To #26 Gheryando
"If a country, that has benefitted so much from joining the EU, votes no, then it is not the EU's fault. Then it is sheer ungratefulness and they shouldn't receive anything anymore."
I can't believe you could actually believe what you've written, because you're saying everybody should always vote 'Yes' which is tantamount to saying what point is there of having a democracy. All EU countries have received as well as given, some more than others, but that does not mean they have to support everything. Look at France with the CAP, how many times have they said 'non' to reform, is that also sheer ungratefulness and they shouldn't receive anything anymore.
Complain about this comment
I seem to remember back in 1993 when there was a referendum in Denmark, plucky Danes, that they were told they had come up with the wrong answer and that they should endeavour to try again to get the sought after "yes". After tons of money being thrown in from Europe and lots of concessions from the Government, surprise of surprises, the Euro-desired option comes through. Given that sort of history what do you think will happen in Ireland? I have a feeling Bertelsman Siftung are wrong.
Complain about this comment
betuli @28,
You seem to ignore the fact that the citizens of the members states that comprise the EU:
a) vote on the basis of national self-interest
b) don't care one way or the other about how the citizens of other states vote.
There is no EU demos so there is no EU citizenry from which to form a majority. It is upon just such a myth that the EU is trying to push through it's move to majority voting - and a federal super-state (aka 'ever closer union').
Do you believe that the free citizens of Ireland really give an empty Guinness can about how the pampered, rich and over-subsidised citizens of the 450,000-strong pygmy state of Luxembourg voted? (450,000 people is the size of a medium-sized city - Europe has dozens if not hundreds of them. Maybe we should give Leeds [pop 445,000] its own EU Commissar?).
Complain about this comment
Gheryando @26
"If a country, that has benefitted so much from joining the EU, votes no, then it is not the EU's fault. Then it is sheer ungratefulness and they shouldn't receive anything anymore."
I'm sure the Irish will be please to receive your rebuke and will be suitably cowered into voting 'correctly'.
Perhaps, to be sure, you should post your friendly comment on the Irish Times. Then stand well back.....
Complain about this comment
2. mcdv1975 wrote:
"I'm not counting on anything but I'm hoping the Irish will reject the dictatorship of the political elite and vote NO."
From which I take it that you're anti-EU. If so, logic requires that you urge everyone to approve it because it provides a legal mechanism for states to withdraw from the EU.
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax,
Well, you mentionned Luxembourg's tiny and pampered population to discredit their verdict on EU Constitution, but you "suspiciously" forgot Spain, with 45 millions inhabitants who said YES.
Alarmingly this good news was no news. Anyone knows what counts in media is bad news, and very rarely the good ones, especially about Europe. So let's dedicate 99 per cent of press coverage to the French and Dutch NO, and 1 per cent to the YES from the 18 other EU countries (big and small ones).
Now you might change your reasons about LUX by highlighting Spain has benefited a lot from EU subsidies. So what? Will you revert this EU positive consequence into a negative one?
Of course, you will. Anything goes against the European project, even if you fall in contradictions.
I've said it before: the culture of NO, of the permanent complaint, gets a disproportionate attention. Any journalist knows it: good news is no news.
Complain about this comment
There's some rather loose talk here! I have two points to make.
1. Firstly, after our (the Irish) rejection of the Nice Treaty in 2001, it was put again to the people in October 2002. This was done in tandem with other constitutional changes on conditions for our involvement in common defence. So, it was NOT the same proposal that we voted on again.
2. I’ve seen a few comments implying that our current level of wealth is entirely due to EU aid. Gosh, if that’s the case, why aren’t Spain, Portugal and Greece as rich? Also, now that we no longer qualify for this aid, why has our economy continued to expand far faster than the EU average (growth rates of 4-5%) for the last several years – with the exception of 2008? The truth is the Irish economic boom was due to a well-trained work-force, ability to speak English, canny tax policies and tight control of budgets. The EU funds did help but as can be seen from the countries I’ve mentioned above, far more is needed.
Complain about this comment
Back to the Irish referendum, the EU will still move on, but at a slower pace. People that object to "pygmy" states having too much power should be happy there is a treaty that may remove some power from "pygmy" states, also people that don't like the EU and want out should be happy there will be a treaty that gives states a clear path to exit the "tyranny" of the EU. So all in all, the EU will not end if the Irish vote no, it will leave decision making as it is today, it robs millions of people from their rights that the new treaty promises to then, but the multinationals will keep all the benefits that the EU offers. So really all it will do, is leave the "demos" outside the decision making process and allow any national leader bring international agreements to a hold just because they feel like it!
Cheers, Chris
Complain about this comment
I am living in Ireland, and plan on voting Yes in the referendum. I do want to point out however that Ireland's current economic prosperity is not solely down to the EU, as seems to be suggested by many people here. EU grants, while a great and generous help, never amounted to any more than a small fraction of our GDP, and it was a low corporate tax rate, and a cheap english speaking labour which attracted american business looking for a gateway to Europe. The Irish economy has done well because of its own initiatives, and not because of EU money.
The campaign on Lisbon in Ireland has so far been terrible, with the electorate unsure about just what the treaty stands for. Because of this, I suspect we may get a very big No vote.
Complain about this comment
The "pampered, rich and over-subsidised citizens of the 450,000-strong pygmy state" Luxembourg give more to Europe per capita than any other country in the Union. The people way well be relatively wealthy (jealous are we?), but this is largely through the banking sector, just like Ireland (well, Dublin) has done recently. The Prime minister at the time of the referendum said he would quit/retire if the result was "No". This Pygmy State, as you so eloquently put it, had a common currency with Belgium well before euro's were thought about. They were a founder member of the pre-cursor to the European Union, the ECSC (based on Supranationalism). It has a proper multicultural society and welcomes people of all creeds. Have you ever set foot there?
I think, as a country it should be considered a role model! Much more than the dump where I was born!
As for your theories on voting, plenty vote X because "My father always voted X".
Complain about this comment
@41 writes: "Luxembourg give more to Europe per capita than any other country in the Union"
Really? Luxembourg has (according to the World Bank) the world's highest GDP (PPP) and yet is a nett recipient of EU funds. Check your facts.
(And no, I've not set foot in Luxembourg. I've driven through it though. Does that count? ;-)
Complain about this comment
#40 Gaoth_,
Well said, as for the treaty I would be very unlikely to vote yes if I lived in Ireland as I like to know what I'm voting for (at least to some degree), and as I mentioned in post 30 I can't help but get the feeling we are being conned by the politicians. The treaty is far too ambiguous and vague with cross referencing everywhere which means people can't understand it and we have to ask why?
If the originators had wanted us to read and understand it (because it was good for us) they would have composed it in simple unambiguous language just as the US constitution is apparently, but they haven't so I'm a doubter.
Complain about this comment
To G-in-Belgium #41
Yes it is a lovely country and a role model, mostly due to it's position in the Finance world. This has given them a great GDP which is why the per capita calculation method seems to enhance their contribution standing as there are only 450k people. I guess likewise that the uncontrolled immigration into the UK means that using this system their contribution has declined. I much prefer the hard cash method to the per capita method as it shows it for what it is, the per capita method invites only jealousy and feelings of injustice as it concentrates on us personally.
Ps. The feeling in Wallonia where I live is that if Belgium splits their first choice would be to try and re-establish the historical links with Luxembourg, as the provinces of Namur and Luxembourg were apparently linked once. Second choice, keep asis just with Brussels, and worst choice, joining France as a new department.
Complain about this comment
If the Irish electorate were to vote against the Lisbon Treaty, there's no doubt they would come under pressure to vote and vote again until they "get it right".
Trying to struggle through the Treaty, you can see how the EUrocrats attempted to tortuously disguise many of the areas that make this so close to the original Constitution. Were the document to be re-written in plain language, rather than incorporating cross-references and obtuse legalese, you'd agree with EU leaders that this is a Constitutional document.
Does it matter? Yes.
Helping nation-states to work closely on important things seems to be a good idea. The problem is that the EU is just too busy. Laws and regulations pour out, affecting virtually aspect of life. Politicians (and civil servants) probably care, but too often just don't assess the impact of decisions as they apply to individuals and companies. (That's true in the House of Commons, too, so not just a whack at Brussels.)
Many years ago, I voted for the UK to be in the EEC. I'm still waiting for a Common Market, let alone gagging for any more integration. I'll believe the Common Market is alive when France accepts that Air France or EdF could be bought by a "foreign" company.
While largely state-owned are allowed to buy up private companies, there is no sensible commercial environment.
If only the EU would get real. Scrap that migration to Strasbourg. What a waste of money. And for what? Just to make the French happy! If the circus has to travel, why should it only be to France?
And, for those who dream of a United States of Europe - seemingly along the lines of the USA - just remember the history of that nation. At first, the members of a narrow strip of colonies fought a civil war against the UK. Then they bought a huge tract from France. Then they managed to get into a fight with Mexico, to claim the south and west. And they imposed a common language and common laws.
Which bits of Europe will have to be conquered, or bought, to create the State of Europe?
Will France ever accept that the "common language" is English?
Could things get better? Yes. Shrink the political ambitions and focus on simple things, not on complicating people's lives.
Complain about this comment
Ireland has gained much more than any other country from its membership of the EU. The now gone economic boom has been due to the country priviledged position and closeness to the USA, which has heavily invested here (the Luas tram carriages have been paid by Microsoft) and also to the low company tax regime and relaxed financial rules. The EU Irish lobbyists also ensured that Irish could be given an official language status, quite weird when considering that Catalonian does not. Ireland has been treated more than well in the EU and is more than adequately represented so there are no proper arguments against the Lisbon Treaty. It is about time even Ireland is called to behave like the other member states and accept the responsibilities of EU membership!
Complain about this comment
For me the single most important lesson learned from the entire constitutional process (or debacle depending on your outlook) beginning with the Laeken Declaration, is the utter fallacy/impracticality of maintaining the Europe of Member (Nation) States foundation upon which the EU is based.
As one contributor has already commented "There is no EU demos so there is no EU citizenry from which to form a majority.
This might be largely true at this juncture but such a feature does not arise overnight, it emerges slowly over time and one simple way of initiating that process would be to engage with a "European" electorate on matters of "European" import.
Therefore, should our political masters ever display the collective wisdom to develop democratised structures of European governance, they should be legitimised exclusively through the medium of pan-European plebiscites, rather than the farcical member state by member state method.
Complain about this comment
Oh yes I forgot to say .....
I travel and live in the EU and have recently lived in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Finland and Sweden.
In all of these countries the PEOPLE I have met and spoke to are ALL ANGRY that their governemts have avoided referendums.
They are crying out to IRELAND to say "NO" for them and to stop the ever greter oppresion and regulation.
Many countries have been under more "controlled" governement based on the GERMAN model for decades .... most of he younger people hate it.
They are affraid to speak out for fear of "quiet reprisals" from the POLICE STATE that has far more draconian powers than in the UK.
However this is the very same type of POLICE (GENDARMERY) that the EU want to "quietly invade" the UK, to impose the "fear of god" in people, to forcable put down "any type of social unrest" ..... Why !!
I know how they work and they can be "Bloody Brutal" as they have no concept of the PEOPLE.
They represent the POWER of the STATE and the low is that the PEOPLE belong to the STATE not the PEOPLE have ultimate POWER and Government (should) impliment the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
The BBC, and the media should there to reprisent the people and provide / promote impartial debate not assist goverment to suppress it.
With the advent of the Internet (and UNCENSORED / UN-MODERATED) sites people are far ahead of the politicians on this.
The politicians can no longer fool the people any more and it will not be long before we start to PHYSICALLY REBEL´......
Which answers your question .... "Why the rush" ..... becasue they know the public have woken up to the lies and deceipt and back door hand-out (gold plated pentions etc) .... an the Elite (in all countries) want to retain the status quo .....
For them it is rapidly getting more difficult and sooner or latter the EU with either totally implode (Just like Labour is) of the Military Police (Gendarmery) will be allowed entry and impose the will of the EU.
I hope this answers your question and clarifies your questons.
Complain about this comment
About the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty: small states tend to be less Euroskeptic then large states.
The latest opinion poll, 24 May 2008, suggests the Irish will vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty: 41% yes, 33% no and 26% is undecided.
Complain about this comment
Ey up Max, you're right I should check my facts.
Going on the contribution /expenditure of the EU, only eight countries (in 2006) spent less than they contributed, in the same way London's income balances Cornwall's deficit. The only population that could have any issues are the Germans, who input far more and recieve far less than anybody else.
I hope you stopped for Petrol, fags and booze rather than just shooting past, right? ;)
And Buzet is right, the real contribution from Luxembourg is not much more than Lithuania, yet happily Luxembourg keeps Wallonia afloat with huge chunks of cash to the Belgian government("loss of earnings" apparently). I'm sure the Flemish seperatists would hate to lose that ;)
Complain about this comment
The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State
can shield the people from the political, economic and/or
military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus
by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State."
- Joseph M. Goebbels
Complain about this comment
Looks like my first post did not get onto the system so to avoid confusion for anyone reading Part 2. I have retyped the gist of it.
The reason that the EU is in such a hurry is this :
Recently Bush signed a treaty to combine Canada, USA and Mexico. This was done quietlybehind closed doors and without the agreemtn of the people.
In a similar manner Africa and the Asian countries are doing the same.
The we would have 4 super states.
The final step will be the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT (often mentioned at speeches but using different names) here it is refersd to Post Democracy ......
What is wrong with democracy ???
The One World Government proposes the following :
A worldwise DNA database from which to sellect future generations
Human chipping, so that every aspect of our lives can be monitored
Substantial Reduction of population (already happening through War, Starvation, Sickness and failure to help after natuaral disasters. Etc.
The OWG want the remainng people to be totally subservient to the control of a small number of (invisible to us) people.
These people already own most of the planet's wealth and many countries including Germany, USA, UK and others.
Check the activiteis of international banks over the centuries and the war loans (wars are good as countries borrow lots of money)
People consider this is conspiracy theory, but a careful chack on the facts reveals the true nature of this stitchup.
Meanwhile, closer to home The BBC and the media either totally failed to grasp the EU treaty lies and deceipt or deliberately chose to aviod the issue.
All I can say is that the EU can be very generous to those people, businesses or media who are advantageous to the EU cause.
Most politicians will receive gold plated pensions worth substantial sums, and then we are expected to believe that they can be impartial to wishes of the EU.
The Whole Political stitch up over the referendum is a classic example of the way the EU subverts the politics and laws of the UK (and other countries).
Finally. if the PEOPLE deided to vote "NO" the plans for the EU and more importantly OWG would be stopped.
They will not let this happen because the OWG plans have a time schedule and the EU has to complete the next stage before middle of 2009 for the OWG to move to the final stage in 2010 or 2012 .....
Far fetched ..... check out the facts ......
Then ask why the EU is so concerened about the delay.
Complain about this comment
Ref:
10. At 01:35 am on 28 May 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Jukka_Rohila
LoonyCanuck
"I'd hate to see a comparable mistake in North America. I don't think that will happen, at least not in my lifetime."
It HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, Bush quietly signed away the USA about a year ago.
And created a new state of Canada, USA and Mexico and will have its own currency.
See other posts for more details of the total agenda.
Complain about this comment
To mcdv1975: you're asking the Irish to reject the Treaty in order to punish the political elites, yet you're praising parliamentary democracy.
The political elites are an intrinsic feature of each parliamentary democracy. You cannot avoid it, sorry.
I do agree that there could be more accountability and transparency in the functioning of the EU Institutions. The Treaty will help in that respect so I hope the Irish vote YES.
Complain about this comment
Re post 52 while I can no way be described as a euro enthusiast I think you overstate the point. If I was being unkind I might enquire whether you have been drinking, but as I am not like that I won't
Complain about this comment
To say that the "NO" vote would be a catastrophe for the EU is nothing short of fear-mongering, not to talk of democracy! In many ways EU is already a catastrophe in the making. With time it will all become apparent. Nothing men put together ever lasts long! Has history taught us anything?
EU needs first to prove that it is a credible and viable institution. When this happens the EU wheel will begin to roll under its own strength and weight. Current EU members must put interests of EU above their own!
The whole notion of the EU was to help businesses get most for the least. This type of approach is an invitation to abuse, cheating, stealing and lying. Good luck!
Complain about this comment
Here is the legal argument that should STOP the EU in its tracks is is the REASON WHY IT IS ILLEGAL for us to join the EU
Forget all the "political süeak"
IT IS ILLEGAL WITHIN ENGLISH TO BECOME SUBSERVIENT TO THE EU they know this and are trying to get us to agree to BREAK THIS LAW ..... The (informed) people of the country know this .... but the BBC and the Media have chosen NOT TO INFORM THE PUBLIC of the importance of these laws.
Subject: No Parliament may bind its successors - the detail
I am delighted to be having this debate as ****** makes many good
points. I must persist that the doctrine is not at the basis of our
constitution.
****** is right in his understanding of my assertion. If the Lisbon
Treaty breaches our Sovereignty (and we are all convinced that it
does) then the principles by which we permit our governance are
breached. Under the rules of our constitutional law there is no power
vested in the Crown (that inherently includes the Houses of
Parliament) to enact the treaty. To the extent that it breaches our
sovereignty it is Ultra Vires. Aha he says but they will and then
what? A very good point. The most important principle about such a
ratification is to realize that it is an assertion of power beyond
the rule of law, a usurpation. We now arrive at the nitty gritty of
the real argument. Remember that Heath admitted that he lied in order
to achieve the ECA 1972; one wonders what was said to the Queen was
she deceived in her grant? This is something that ought to be clarified.
I would like to explain why all this is not dependant on a partially
irrelevant doctrine. The question hinges on what are the true
limitations to Parliament's power and what is meant by the 'rule of
law'. Since Dicey's time many people, lawyers, the administration and
the politicians in particular have taken the phrases 'Parliament is
sovereign' and the 'Crown in Parliament may make or unmake any law'
as to mean that there is no restriction upon the power of Parliament.
This is illogical and not quite what Dicey himself advocated. Dicey
made plain that the difference between the droit administratif and
the rule of law was that under the continental system the executive
control the judges whereas under the 'rule of law' (The rule of our
law define a specific process for our governance), it is the law that
controls the executive. This logic is evident when one investigates
the principles that underlie another often quoted legal phrase 'We
have a constitutionally limited Monarchy', it is the law that limits
the institution of the Crown.
The legal power of our nation is vested in the Crown under the terms
of the Coronation Oath a contracting principle ( See Halsbury's Laws
of England Etc) with and for the protection of the peoples' liberty
through their governance. The great principle which came from the the
settlement of the Glorious revolution was not that power was given to
Parliament but that the governing power is always subject to the
'rule of law'. In effect the settlement was that 'sovereignty' lies
in the law, and the law is to be made for the specific purpose of
upholding the subject's Liberty. This purpose of our governance is
vital and fundamental. It has become sidelined by politics and vested
interests; we must reclaim it. If we do not we may be exposed to
suffer to live under the rule of absolute power as Torquil has so
clearly warned, the police state.
The Revolution confirmed the limitation of the Crown under the law
'Be ye King or commoner the law is above you'. As far as our
constitution is concerned Dicey noted that the American legal system
had received a 'development beyond ours' meaning that the courts were
enabled to over turn an Act that was found to have breached the
constitution. He attributed this power of the American courts to the
hierarchal nature of their legal system creating differences; yet the
basic construction is identical to ours. Law is made, oaths of office
are sworn and the people and their courts adjudicate, there is
separation of power.
There was a famous case in 1803 called Marbury v Madison in which
Chief Justice Marshall held that a law passed by Congress was in
conflict with the constitution and thus invalid. This case had its
roots in English law. Lord Coke had once pronounced that should 'a
law be passed making a man a judge of his own cause he would have no
hesitation in calling it no law at all'. It was Marbury v Madison
that empowered the American Courts to overturn unconstitutional
law. Now here it gets interesting :- it is that the Congress was
unable to bind it is successors, why because it was bound to the
principles of it predecessors by the rules of their law being
adjudged logically! To this extent the doctrine applies here. Our
Crown acting in or out of Parliament is bound to the rules of our
constitutional laws. Our constitutional law forbids any breach of
sovereignty (See Laws LJ Metric Martyrs) ergo the Crown in Parliament
is not vested with any power to breach the constitution. Apart from
other proof that I have already volunteered it is obvious that we
could not have a Constitutionally limited Monarchy unless there are
rules of law to bind. It is the law which limits and bind the Crown
in our governance (see the Erskine May Quote from the previous Email,
The Act of Settlement Etc). Remedy and redress are contained in the
rules of our law, they are also fundamentally inherent to the
principle enshrined in the 'rule of law'.
There have over the centuries been many breaches of principle. The
divine right of kings being the last great mal practice. This in
turn led to the final settlement in 1688 where power, whilst being
fully vested in the Crown, was made beyond doubt at all times subject
to the rule of law. The Rule of Law was upheld over the assertion of
any dictatorial or absolute power.
The means of remedy lies firstly in the law and secondly where there
is a general complaint that persists in the right of resistance
(Blackstone's Commentaries, Magna Carta etc). The law has not as yet
been tested let alone thoroughly. We have not had a Marbury v Madison
albeit that the principle has been muted in several judgments. We
have the Courts, we have a right of petition, we have the law and we
have a right to demand that the limitations of the Crown shall not be
abused. We can demand that the Crown abides by its constitutional duty.
Complain about this comment
What is this about Luxembourg paying onto the EU? According to the latest figures I could find (2006) it receives 996,500,000 more than it pays in, or a whopping 2075 per capita, making it by far the biggest benefactor. The next biggest benefactors are Greece (464 per capita) and Ireland (295 per capita).
The EU has been a big help in getting Ireland rich, through improving it's infrastructure, the rest it has had to do itself.
Can someone explain to me why Luxembourg receives so much more per head than any other nation? Surely it's need is not so great?
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 @43:
You may be interested to know that some time ago Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister, and a central figure in the process of reviving the EU constitution said: “EU leaders had decided that the document to be drawn up by an intergovernmental conference should be ‘unreadable’. “If this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any prime minister - imagine the UK prime minister - can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum’. “Should you succeed in understanding it there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”
Cynical or what?
FreedomOK - you're doing the EUrosceptic cause no favours with this global conspiracy theory (but then maybe that's the idea). Who's behind this fantastical centuries-long plan? The Masons? The Jews? The Illuminati? Giant lizards?
Sorry to be a spoil-sport.
Complain about this comment
Replying to 58, Luxembourg gets such a high score in terms of receipts because the expenditure by the EU on administration in Luxemboug (HQ of of European Court of Justice, Statistics Office, meetings of Council in June and October etc.) is included in the calculation. The pernicious concept of 'juste retour' is, incidentally, a consequence of the calculations required for the UK rebate mechanism.
Whatever the outcome of the Irish referendum, it will be marked by one of the oddest collaborations in the history of UK-Ireland relations viz. that between the Eurosceptic right in the UK and Sinn Fein, the only political party in the Irish Parliament canvassing for a no vote.
This says a lot about the coherence, whatever about the validity, of the arguments used by the two parties.
Complain about this comment
Re post 60, no matter how many times you say the no vote is made up of the euro sceptic right in the UK and Sinn Fein in Ireland, it will not make it so. I am certainly not from the right and want to stay in the E.U. However I am opposed to the treaty and would support a no vote in any referendum.
Similarly there are many in Ireland who would vote no from all political spectrums. To be fair there are also those from all political spectrums who would vote yes.
In the UK, with the possible exception of the liberals you will find those who would vote yes or no in all parties.
This debate is so much more important than labelling each side and trying to fit them into a particular political box. For myself it is a very real struggle for democracy. You can argue I am wrong but do not label me, it is the lowest from of debate
Complain about this comment
I hasten to reply to 61.
My post referred soley to the two parties concerned. I said nothing about the other participants in the debate for whom I have the highest respect, as in any democratric debate (also, of course, including the 'Eurosceptic right in the UK' and 'Sinn Fein').
By the way, this was my first post on the topic.
Complain about this comment
Re post 62, over sensitivity on my part perhaps as I do get a litttle fed up of those who do not agree with the treaty being labelled right wing, or SinnFein for that matter, sorry no insult intended.
Undoubtedly members of Sinnfein and the right wing in the UK are part of the no vote, as are members of Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats' among others. As well as members of the labour party in the U.K. For the sake of brevity will not go into Northern Ireland political parties.
But I do not believe that members of these parties would necesarily see themselves as in collaboration together just because they happen to share a viewpoint on the treaty. It just refelcts the large number of people across the political spectrum who would vote no. As I said already there is a similar number across the spectrum who would vote yes
Complain about this comment
A NO vote would be a disaster for the unelected bureaucrats who are snuffing out democracy throughout Europe. A NO vote would be a victory for those who believe in democracy and freedom.
Complain about this comment
To FreedomOK
You wrote:
"However this is the very same type of POLICE (GENDARMERY) that the EU want to "quietly invade" the UK, to impose the "fear of god" in people, to forcable put down "any type of social unrest" ..... Why !!
I know how they work and they can be "Bloody Brutal" as they have no concept of the PEOPLE."
I share your concerns about continental policing and it is one of my main reasons to object to membership of the "EU"
You do seem to be quoting some source: "quietly invade" etc.
Are you quoting a source? If so please tell me what it is.
Thank you from Suffolk.
Complain about this comment
I find it odd how everyone equates the EU with the creation of some kind of super state. I know of no EU state (I have lived in three and travel to a large number of others frequently) that actually want an EU super state. Thus as usual the British (and most likely the Irish) press are scaring people into thinking every one actually wants this. In reality most recent EU proposed changes have been to reduce the horrible paper trail that is the EU and to moderise its institutions - all which are badly needed. A vote against in any EU referendum is therefore a vote for the status quo. Which will only please those who have an innate hate of anything foreign as it strengthens their hand and arguments for leaving the EU.
Keep in mind that a large number of newspaper owners are against the EU and this is reflected in the titles they own. Therefore its almost impossible to find reasoned debate in any major title.
I really with we could spend our time fighting real battles rather than one which largely does not exist when it comes to the EU.
Complain about this comment
We are stronger as a united Europe.
The more decentralised the power is the better.
The skeptics might not like this logic, but happily we have rulers who have more sense.
If we were to leave the EU, then we would suffer economically for years.
The EU has given the British population its first constitution of enshrined rights which cannot be taken away.
Most other countries want to be part of a strong united Europe, and so leaving now would be crazy.
Any adjustment of the constitutional framework of Europe needs to be discussed and negotiated, yet the key thing is that it persists.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Thanks ScepticMax #59 I didn't know Giuliano Amato had actually said that about baffling us peasants and it doesn't surprise me at all. I've often tried to discover statistics such as net contributers and the like only to find it's policy to not publish such details as they might upset the peasants. It is a source of great annoyance to me that when pro-EU'ers demand facts, those facts are not published freely and are only compiled by News sources who can be easily ridiculed by the pro lobby eg Daily Mail.
One other amusing thing occurred to me Yesterday after a few people here suggested that Ireland should be grateful for the funding and always accept anything proposed because of that. Conversely since the UK is amongst a small number of net CASH contributers (ignore the fallacy of per capita), that therefore means that the net recipients must always accept anything the Net contributers propose to show their gratitude. We all know that happens for Germany and France (CAP) but almost never the UK with it's fears for the direction the EU is taking.
Complain about this comment
"The more decentralised the power is the better." [#67]
Could you please tell that to unelected members of the Supreme Soviet (council in Russian) in Brussels?
You don't have to preach to the believers.
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax @ 59
That comment from Giuliano Amato does little service to the cause of europhiles, the same way that comments like FreedomOK @ 57 does little service to the cause of eurosceptics.
Amato's comment makes the cause for Europe sound arrogant and elitist (do you have a source for the comment by the way?), but at least there's a ring of truth and honesty to it, unlike many comments from eurosceptics accusing the EU as the next great Satan that will enslave the whole continent in a Soviet Stalinist manner. The first one is so obvious that to qualify it as a conspiracy is laughable, the other is so crazy it would make more sense to classify it as dementia.
I can understand and even sympathize with eurosceptics who are euroscpetic because they don't like bureaucracy. I can understand, but not sympathize, with eurosceptics who are eurosceptic because they want to cling to their nationalist ideas. I do not understand and I certainly do not sympathize with eurosceptics that are eurosceptic because they buy into the crazy b.s. put out by tabloids and fringe radical ideologues.
Thomas Patricio
Toronto, Canada
Complain about this comment
as a anti eu person i ma sad to say the irish will vote in favor of this treaty .But as the EU is forced on its people without consent , there is great trouble ahead .The EU can only get a away with murdering european nations for so long,
Complain about this comment
@Buzet23, post 30
I am aware of the USCW and it's importance in the fomation of the US as it is now.
However, I believe I also made it clear that although what happened in the US is similar to what is happening now in Europe the process will not, and cannot, be a carbon copy.
So there's no reason to assume that the european peoples will have a civil war, especially if you consider that the EU was born from a war between european peoples (a sort of "civil war". But using that term for WW2 is stretching it... a lot)
Complain about this comment
LoonyCanuck (Thomas Patricio) @ 71.
As requested: the source of Giuliano Amato's speech:
- Speech at the Centre for European Reform
in London on 12 July 2007.
Source: euobserver.com (16 July 2007)
I agree that FreedomOK does a disservice to the EUrosceptic cause, but he is a private individual - and as such relatively harmless. Amato, on the other hand, is a high-ranking EUrophile politician - and his deceit is all-too-typical of his political class.
Those interested in the Irish Referendum may also be amused by this one:
"As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."
Dr Garret FitzGerald
Former Irish Prime Minister,
Irish Times, 30 June 2007
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell notes that agreements have been reached under existing EU treaty rules in recent years and asks why it is that EU supporters describe the possible failure of the Lisbon treaty as a 'catastrophe'. The question would have validity if the purpose of the EU was to reach agreements under existing treaties. The EU has however existed from the very beginning to fulfil the higher goal of an ever closer union to be achieved by Monnet's method of 'integration by stealth'. Under this method EU law is introduced under the PRETEXT of solving real-world problems but with the real purpose always being to achieve a permanent transfer of decision-making authority to the Brussels institutions.
In areas where the EU has already assumed competence the Monnet method avoids the need for any further consent from voters. All that is required is proposals from the EU Commission for new European law and the one-time consent of a qualified majority of national governments. This can happen entirely outside the democratic arena with no need for public debate. There is not even the need for a debate in national parliaments because even though each new EU law leads to a de-facto permanent loss of their legislative power, no vote in a national parliament can block a Commission proposal. The only time that 'integration by stealth' must survive contact with the electorate is when the treaties on European Union must be modified to expose new policy areas to the Monnet method.
Therefore when EU supporters describe rejection of the Lisbon treaty as a 'catastrophe' they are talking about damage to their primary mission and not about any inability to reach agreement at EU levels under existing treaties. Indeed such agreement is already all too easy considering the lack of democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions. Monnet's plan always involved two parts; (i) the creation of self-aggrandizing EU institutions that engage in a relentless campaign to draw powers away from national institutions and (ii) that the loyalty of the people would gradually be transferred to these new EU institutions. The 'catastrophe' EU supporters describe is that rejection of the Lisbon would confirm the second part of Monnet’s plan has failed.
Complain about this comment
LoonyCanuk
I, on the other hand , have never bought into the EU b.s. put out by the BBC, Guardian, Independent and the Foreign Office. If you don't believe the scare stories of the tabloids, try reading extracts from Bruno Waterfield in the Daily Telegraph website to get an idea of what's going on behind closed doors in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Current opponents of the EU are not on the fringe and they are not the zenophobic crackpots as painted by the europhile establishment ... didn't they translate the Lisbon Constitutional Treaty before the politicians and eurocrats had even planned their 'spin'?
I opposed the UK's membership of the Common Market in 1972/73 - my early reading of the Treat of Rome suggested to me that the 'distortion' clause prevented any nation from subsidising their own industry (unfair competion). My then industry and my country abided by that rule, other countries ignored it and the UK paid the price - sounds familiar?
PS more power to MaxSceptic - I thoroughly enjoy his jousts with the europhiles on this blog. They are at a disadvantage though - they are defending the indefensible!
Complain about this comment
Oops!
# 68. At 10:08 am on 29 May 2008, gerardmulholland
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules."
What house rule did I break?
'Eireann go bragh" is a standard gaelic slogan ('Ireland for ever') and "agus Eorpa" ("and Europe') merely contextualises it.
Surely you don't object to the use of relevant foreign language expressions? Do you remove blogs for using French ('n'est-ce pas') or German ('nicht wahr') or Latin ('cui bono' - misspelled in one of the comments you've published) expressions?
Or Scots expressions? (Scots wha hae')
Or English dialect expressions ('Awa' the lads')?
What's wrong with Gaelic?
Ah well, if that's really the case, please reprint mine without the last sentence. I don't have a copy of it so I can't re-send it.
Complain about this comment
To BernardVC #73,
Quite so, but just because the world has moved on 150 years or so does not mean that something similar could not happen . I'm not American and know only what the 'history' books say but it seems that one so called politically aware side forced their politics on the other 'PC backward' side, whilst slavery was detestable it still involved a 'forced' takeover for political reasons however justifiable in those times. Translate that into our current PC times and well, you only have to look at many EU countries and the rise of PC speak and you have a new similar scenario.
#74 and #75
Keep quoting the researchable facts, It's very good for those who can accept a reasonable debate, but catastrophic for those who resemble people like Ken Livingstone and his comrades, and I knew them in the 70's.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 (78): In response to your request for references, might I suggest this short Wikipedia article on 'neo-functionalism', the doctrine most influential in the plan developed by Monnet's Action Committee for a United States of Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofunctionalism
This describes the self-aggrandizing nature of EU political institutions ('technocratic automaticity'), the 'spillover effect' whereby one step towards EU integration can be used to create justifications for more steps and finally the assumption of a 'transfer of domestic allegiances' from national to European political institutions. When Continental federalists speak of 'catastrophe' they mean the failure of this transfer of allegiance. No matter how hard political elites try, the peoples of Europe reject the artificial layer of supranational governance like a layer of oil on water.
Complain about this comment
#78 Freeborn-John,
Thanks, I will indeed take a look at the wikipedia entry as I use that site quite often for many topics of research. It's a shame that what most people wanted, a common market with open borders, has been manipulated into a grand design whose direction most are questioning, whether that be in the UK or anywhere else in the EU. I forget which poster made the quote but the gist was the "truth is the enemy of the state", it seems the man who made it was correct as trying to find out facts from the EU Institutions is well nigh impossible.
Complain about this comment
It's a common song from disgruntled eurosceptics to blame the EU for the mother of all evils in the UK, whereas instead of spilling your anger, the easy and democratic way would simply be to petition your government to hold such a referenduma bout the extent of UK involvement in EU integration. And if that government were to be deaf to your grievances, then to elect new MP in parliament to form a new government.
That would also be very helpful in making sure UK citizens start either to make a useful contribution to european prosperity or look after their own isolationism.
If I sound arrogant, please excuse my character : I have a hard time staying put listening to the excuses of whiners who try to rationalize their grievances instead of acting to remedy them.
And please, oh please, stop saying UK citizens (or subjects) were consulted only once on that matter.
A true representative and alive democracy doesn't wait for its political elites to decide what and when is deem worthy of discussion. Every local council/european parliament/UK general election can be used to make that point.
You should maybe start asking, why despite the posturing, the main partieshave been unable (unwilling ?) to actually fend themselves off the EU.
And this has nothing with EU treaties and institutions. No European countries is going to start a warbecause one of its members decide to go sulking its own way. It's purely a matter of political leadership ...
so thx again for the lecturing about democracry, but real democrats are still waiting for the UK to get its act together.
Complain about this comment
To #79, neofunctionalism is accurately described in Wikipedia.
To quote : "Neofunctionalism assumes a decline in importance of nationalism and the nation-state; it sees the executive power and interest groups within states to be pursuing a welfarist objective which is best satisfied by integration of EU states"
But EU institutions aren't just about european integration, they are also about cooperation too.
To quote from the same article :"Intergovernmentalism is an alternative theory of political integration, where power in international organizations is possessed by the member-states and decisions are made by unanimity. Independent appointees of the governments or elected representatives have solely advisory or implementational functions. Intergovernmentalism is used by most international organizations today. An alternative method of decision-making in international organizations is supranationalism."
Do you really believe that unanimity is going to help to decide when facing tough decisions ? isn't it why so many people critize the UN for apparent impotence, or why the UK has fought hard to prevent the removal of national vetoes ?
Unanimity is the best tool for those who wants to stall decision-making under the guise of plurality.
Now, the question is about the best tools to ensure the welfare and the prosperity for the citizens of the EU member-nations.
Does competing national powers (19th style-1st half 20th), always afraid that the relative status quo in military capabilities are best to look after the welfare of their citizens ?
Nationalist ideals have been proven time and again countrary to humanist and democratic ideals on european soils, yet it keeps having proponents. Wonder why ?
Or do you consider that a rule-based system, where every country is accountable to the others are best suited ?
Does it infringe on sovereignty ? sure. Everytime you get into contract with someone, whereas it to be human to human, or state to state, you are losing some of your freedom in order to get something you can't have by yourself.
So what is it that the UK gains by subsidiarizing part of its sovereignty to EU institutions ?
By reading eurosceptic comments, it would seem the UK citizens get nothing from it ...
no peace, no security, no trade, no influence, no rights, but a lot of responsibilities and loss of ressources.
By this account, it would seem that nationalism and isolationist instincts are what serves the UK best.
Guess the same people didn't yet digest the loss the British Empire ... it'll get scary when the US realize that their American Century is on the way out too.
Ah no, you are willing to push for open markets and free lecturing of the wonders of UK democracy or anglo-saxon capitalism.
Except that would it have barely any influence in non-EU environment, where governments don't see their neighbours as their worst enemies
As if a replay of the late 19th-early 20th situation didn't teach us any lessons ...
Complain about this comment
To #74, About the references to Guiliano Amato, it would be good to actually quote in context, that sure would make for a lot of intectual and factual honesty, instead of debasing it.
http://centreforeuropeanreform.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-mice-men-and-language-of-eu-reform.html
From one of the participants : "by Hugo Brady
Beware the humourless, especially in politics. At a CER/Clifford Chance conference last week, Guiliano Amato, Italy’s interior minister, pronounced that the Reform Treaty was a return to familiar territory for the EU: an unreadable treaty. A few refused to get the joke, portraying Amato’s playful observation as an explosive revelation that the Reform Treaty is indeed the EU constitution encrypted. ("Loathsome smugness", seethes Open Europe’s blog).
Complain about this comment
To #76, what industries in the UK were "victims" of unfair competition from other EU countries ? Last time I checked, the UK government made the rational choice of stopping the subsidies to the mining and manufacturing sector out of a firm belief that it was economically inefficient, not because of some international treaty ? isn't it one of the fallout from the 1984-85 strikes ?
Hasn't the government been particularly smug that the UK moved from an industrial economy to a financial and services economy ?
The various commissioners for competition have an active bunch since the mid-90' and quite forceful in harmonising a fair-level playing field for all companies across the EU.
About the Daily Telegraph, how can a self-styled politically activist newspaper be relied to provide "fair assessment" about a project (The EU) that is still seen by the UK political elites as :
1) "a threat to the old way of doing things" (aka divide and rule the european powers)
2) is a constant reminder to the loss of influence and power since the end of the British Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_telegraph
If you want snippets and continued cultural prejudices in a coverage of political or foreign affairs, whether you read the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Sun or the Times, it doesn't make any difference.
Some will be more entertaining than others, but none wants you to make educated guess. That is from their own political agenda ...
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11 (82): The topic of this thread is why EU supporters describe the possible rejection of the EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty as a 'catastrophe'.
I have provided an answer in post 75. Is there any relationship between your post 82 and this topic? What is your explanation for this talk of 'catastrophe'?
Complain about this comment
"it'll get scary when the US realize that their American Century is on the way out too." [#82]
I thought that American Century has ended (in the year 2000) and now the world is dominated/controlled by such superpowers as China, India and Russia.
How interesting that none of those 3 alleged superpowers doesn't dare to even think about challenging the declining and waning USA. And EU has a serious bout of flue each time "collapsing US economy" sneezes. :-)))
-------------------------------------------------------------
"WE SHALL SOON CATCH UP WITH AND SURPASS UNITED STATES!"
(Nikita S. Khrushchev - 1962)
Complain about this comment
BTW.
What does CIA Handbook (quoted here so often) say about Deutsche Telecom spying on its employees?
Was it professional enough? :-)
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John, my post is clear enough.
A refusal to ratify the Treaty would be a refusal to allow
- more subsidiarity between the EU and its 27 member-states
- more democratic transparence and accountability
- more stream-lining in the decision-making process
The consequences would indeed be "catastrophic" as it would mean a refusal to move beyond a 19th century style "concert of nations" (sovereign nations) to a pooling of nations sharing a common destiny.
To Powermeerkat, what is your CIA handbook ? The American Century started not in 1900, but from 1945 ... the first half was the end of the British Empire century (1815-1932 to be more exact).
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11 @88 wrote:
"The consequences would indeed be "catastrophic" as it would mean a refusal to move beyond a 19th century style "concert of nations" (sovereign nations) to a pooling of nations sharing a common destiny."
Seems to me that one man's catastrophe is another man's cause for celebration.
Complain about this comment
Ireland has proved to be one of the most Europhile countries since her accession in 1973, not least because Irish economy has transformed from being poor into a Celtic tiger, surpassing by large the UK one.
Dublin has also bypassed London patronizing influence, getting direct contact to Brussels, Paris or Barcelona.
However if the NO wins will be explained for domestic matters (Ahern's involvement in corruption) or international crisis (credit crunch), not because anything from the Lisbon Treaty.
Therefore the "catastrophe" mentionned by Mark will only affect this peripheric small country, not the rest of EU states, which have already approved the Treaty.
With a No, Ireland will have to find her own formula to stay in EU, with all the necessary opt-outs, which haven't helped at all her neighbour UK, as everybody can see nowadays. What is granted is Ireland will never withdraw from EU.
Regardless to the Irish referendum, Europe will continue to go on. The proof of the EU success is the mere fact that no country has pulled out since her fundation more than 50 years ago and 6 enlargements.
On the contrary, other countries, remarkably Croatia, will keep knocking EU's door to get in.
Good luck, Irish friends.
Complain about this comment
76.BackintheEUssr wrote:
"try reading extracts from Bruno Waterfield in the Daily Telegraph website to get an idea of what's going on behind closed doors in Brussels and Strasbourg."
Question. How does he know what's going on behind closed doors?
"I opposed the UK's membership of the Common Market in 1972/73"
Comment. I noticed at that time that the most virulent opposition came from the fascists on one side and the communists on the other.
Complain about this comment
re post 88, Starbuck while I do not agree in pooling soveriegnity ( as per my post 29) I think it is a valid viewpoint. Bit I do re-iiterate if we are to do it we need the express consent of the population of each country.
Large numbers of the populations in all E.U. Countries are starting to realise an agenda is being driven about which they are not necesarily in agreement with. Hence we have the situation in Ireland where large numbers incredibly look like voting no. (Still do not think the no vote will be enough but it will be significant) You need to take the people with you if you want to drive the project forward along your path.
I for one do not want to be part of a new political superblock to be able to stand up to the other superpowers that are emerging. This is so last century and I was hoping we could move forward from that viewpoint.
Britain for 200 years was a superpower in the world. I for one would now like us to take a back seat and watch the show from the stands. We still can influence by diplomacy and shared interests, but I would prefer if we did not feel the need to go to war to reach our goals, except with the express permission of the U.N. I know the U.K. has failed in this recently with the Iraq war debacle, I did not and still do not agree with that war. I also think it is highly unlikely we will go down that road in future due to the fall out from it.
As soon as you start talking about pooling sovereignity we are along the process of creating a supranational state which at some point in the future may lead to a flexing of muscles. I do not want this future.
What I want is a free trade area in europe where we can move about freely and enjoy our differing but wonderful cultures.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John: In general
If you had been around at the time would have have opposed the union of England with Wales, their union with Ireland and the final union of the three with Scotland? In other words, would you have opposed the creation of the United Kingdom. If so, why? If not, why not?
If you reply, please stick to these questions and don't fly off into other issues.
Complain about this comment
I didn't break any rule in my post 90 as usual. It must be a "technical" problem".
Anyway, I basically wrote this referendum will only affect Ireland, not the entire EU.
Complain about this comment
To Starbuck11 #81
You wrote "t's a common song from disgruntled eurosceptics to blame the EU for the mother of all evils in the UK, whereas instead of spilling your anger, the easy and democratic way would simply be to petition your government to hold such a referenduma bout the extent of UK involvement in EU integration. And if that government were to be deaf to your grievances, then to elect new MP in parliament to form a new government."
I'm sorry but I think you've missed a very important point, the population of many of the EU countries have been petitioning their governments, providing electoral shocks, demonstrating, and still their governments and the EU politicians ignore it and give lame condescending comments. Look at what's happening in the news today about the fuel price protests and the response of the EU Commission, eg "to subsidise the price would be illegal". If the TVA/VAT rules are so cast in stone as to be impossible for the Commission to amend the tax rates or tax band then there is something very very wrong. To watch while a large number of people descend into near poverty, and businesses approach collapse, and do nothing to help is more reminiscent to a dictatorship than a democracy. If you think I'm exaggerating then remember a lot of people in Europe use diesel for home heating, in Belgium it's taxed at 21% and it's rare now that I hear of anyone being able to fill their citerne as the official price is now 0.9357 €/litre incl TVA, meaning almost €2000 for 2000 litres which is only 2/3rds of my own tank.
Remember the saying, laws are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. The various governments and the EU Commission are ignoring us at their peril as it's not just the English that are fed up, I can introduce you to many Belgians and French that I know.
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot(94): The United Kingdom was created by military means in a pre-democratic era and I would have opposed that. Today I support the right of a majority of Scots to decide their future via the ballot box. Let me ask you a question: Would you have favoured denying Irish independence in 1921?
Starbuck11 (88): Ratification of the Lisbon treaty would run counter to your first two objectives. The transfer of more powers to Brussels cannot lead to more subsidiarity (i.e. the taking of decisions at the lowest level possible). The transfer of more powers to Brussels where they would be subject to a decision-making mechanism (the community method) known to lack democratic legitimacy cannot lead to greater democratic transparency and accountability.
Ratification of the Lisbon treaty would in fact only further the 3rd of your goals, i.e. more 'stream-lined' decision-making. However as Mark Mardell observes there is no actual problem there. It should be obvious that more 'stream-lined' decision-making is contrary to your other two objectives because that phrase is just a code word for over-riding the policy preferences we vote for in national elections and therefore must be contrary to democracy and subsidiarity. Carried to its logical conclusion stream-lined decision making can be used to justify one-man dictatorship, the most efficient form of government ever devised. Is this really the only reason you have to support the Lisbon treaty that holds water?
You conclude by essentially agreeing with the central point of my earlier post #75 that the meaning of the word 'catastrophe' here is that another defeat of the EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty would be a popular rejection of the institutions devised by Monnet to lead to a United States of Europe. However, since that goal is not supported by more than a few percent of people in any European country I think it can hardly be a real catastrophe for anyone except a diehard federalist.
Complain about this comment
Mark refers to a "respected German think tank.
On the website of that think tank is written:
"Gerade die Europäische Union muss den globalen Wandel gestalten."
I take this to read that the "EU" has to form or control change in the world.
Elsewhere Mark wrote that he could not understand why non-ratification would be a catastrophe.
It would be a catastrophe in the eyes of some not because of difficulties in the "EU" continuing to work "as well" (sick joke!) as it has up to now but because of what the "EU" would not be able to do externally.
The "EU" is about megalomania.
Complain about this comment
We have a saying in my country, be careful what you wish for, you never know when your wish may come true. The EUSSR is a case in point. What unimaginable irony. The reunification of Germany is a model of the EUSSR in miniature. From the time Germany was partitioned to the time the wall came down, the West Germans prayed for the day they would have one country again. And when their wish came true, they found that East Germany was populated by the same barbarians they had evolved from right after the second world war. Impovrished, unskilled by Western standards, their infrastructure a worthless shambles that would take hundreds of billions to rebuild to modern Western standards, East Germany became a lead noose around West Germany's neck. It has set back the Germany economy and German civilization many decades and sown new seeds of social strife that had long ago been resolved. What a mess. Now not only did East Germany need someone to subsidize it after the wall fell, all of Eastern Europe needed a new source of money when the Soviet Empire collapsed. And what suckers the Western European taxpayers were played for. So now it is Londoners and Parisians who pay to build roads and bridges in Hungary instead of Moscovites. Why did the evil empire fall? Because it went broke, the same reason the weasel empire is falling. And why did this happen? Because of the foolish idea that somehow, if enough European guppies swam together, they could look like an American whale. The problem is, they are still all just a lot of guppies and the ones who decide which direction to swim in are not necessarily those in Paris or Berlin. In fact, many times when the guppies want to swim in different directions, they wind up going nowhere. There are those who have dreamt of unifying Europe under a single political structure from the time of Alexander the Great to Hitler and Stalin. Europe's wish has come true, now it will have to live with the consequences.
Complain about this comment
Sorry! I forgot something in my last posting.
The undemocratic "EU" has attempted to bully Switzerland over its internal financial arrangements. Switzerland must be the best country in the world. It must have the best democracy in the world and it is outside the "EU" because its democracy has functioned.
The "EU" has supported arrogant Spain against the Morrocans in the matter of Parsley Island, which I think should be Morrocan.
The "EU" does not recognise Canadian sovereignty over the North West Passage. I do and my guess is that the majority of Brits do.
In none of the above does the "EU" represent me. I doubt if it represents the majority of Brits or Europeans. And based on its performance over the Lisbon wotsit it doesn't care.
We are not citizens of the "EU" We are its prisoners and its victims. It thinks we are its property.
Complain about this comment
#99 Suffolkboy2,
Re. The undemocratic "EU" has attempted to bully Switzerland over its internal financial arrangements.
You forgot every other non EU financial centre as it's also trying it on in Asia with Singapore and Malaysia, the Cayman Isles etc etc. The grand excuse is of course 'money laundering', is there anybody actually foolish enough to believe that?
This all comes down to tax revenue and keeping every last penny/cent that you earn after tax within the EU, so that it can be milked some more by direct and indirect taxes. Some chancellors have even the nerve to demand their population return all overseas and EU money to their own country, Didier Reynders in Belgium certainly did that a couple of years ago, even though it is against all the EU virtual rules on freedom of movement etc within the EU.
Ps. I say 'Virtual' since there is little physical substance to them.
Complain about this comment
96. Freeborn-John:
"The United Kingdom was created by military means in a pre-democratic era and I would have opposed that. Today I support the right of a majority of Scots to decide their future via the ballot box. Let me ask you a question: Would you have favoured denying Irish independence in 1921?"
Actually Scotland was "sold out" by wealthy landowners. But, no, I wouldn't have denied Irish independence. For that matter neither would I deny the Scots, the Northern Irish, the Welsh or the English the right to secede today if that was the democratically expressed wish of the majority. Further, I would accept (but not support) the same for the UK in respect of the EU - and I'm pro-EU. (And the Lisbon Treaty provides a legal mechanism for doing so)
The problem is how to explain arguments for and against without descending to rabid xenophobia or wishing for a return to the days of Empire as do some participants in these debates.
As an aside, I seriously doubt that the American participants here would agree if, for example, Texas wanted to go back to being an independent republic. Is there even a mechanism to secede from the USA?
Complain about this comment
99. SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
"The "EU" has supported arrogant Spain against the Morrocans in the matter of Parsley Island, which I think should be Morrocan."
Do you also think that Gibraltar should be Spanish and the Channel Islands should be French?
Complain about this comment
Re post 102, I would favour the approach you took in your post 101. That if the majority of the Channel Islands population want to be French, let them. Same for Gilbraltar re Spain. If they want to be part of the U.K., again that is their choice. We should not force any resident population to be part of something they are not happy with.
I do not know enough about the Parsley Islands to make an informed comment about that particular case
Complain about this comment
Hi Greypolyglot #102
Since the EU has the desire to remove National boundaries and identities, as I'm sure you'll agree, the question of Gibraltar is of no more relevance to that of any region that wants or has it's own independence, since how long will Spain actually exist if Nations dissolve into regions or groups of regions as has been suggested a few times by EU think tanks.
Still I like your comment, and if those independent countries wished to join the nearby Nation so be it but recent votes in Gib were pretty well unanimous against it. The Spanish enclaves in North Africa are a bit of an unusual case it seems but if Morocco joined the EU as some seem to want then my comment above may apply.
Complain about this comment
The North African enclaves Ceuta and Melilla belong to Spain since the 15th century, that is 400 years before even Morocco existed.
The immense majority of people from these 2 cities want to keep being Spanish, including the 40 per cent muslims who live there.
Spaniards couldn't care less over Ceuta and Melilla, let alone inhabited Parsley island, but it's fair to respect their identity feeling based on historical reasons.
And from a juridic point of view, Gibraltar should be handed over to Spain (see Utrecht Treaty, 1714). But again Spanish don't care, except their government for legal reasons and also because Gibraltar has become a laundering money centre and a tax free haven.
Complain about this comment
Very interesting Betuli, there's been some news about those two cities in the last year as Morocco were rattling their sabres recently as there was some sort of confrontation.
As for Gib and the money laundering angle see my post #100 as I think this is not so much preventing the laundering of illegal money, but enabling the governments in the EU to prevent nationals putting their legally earnt money outside the EU.
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot (101): Prior to the American civil war it was believed that an American state could secede from the USA and indeed the southern states did exactly that to form the Confederate States of America. The issue of nationality has however never been of practical relevance to the succession of any American state because the inhabitants of California, Texas, New York etc. do not regard themselves as distinct nations in the way that Britons, French and Germans do. Whatever factions have appeared in the history of the American republic have always been based on political issues (e.g. slavery) rather than any issue of distinct national identity within one part of the country.
Quebec is a better North American example than Texas of a group on the threshold between regional and national status. It has a distinct language, culture and history that mark it out from the rest of Canada. There have been referendums on independence in Quebec, the most recent of which rejected independence by the slenderest of majorities (50.6% to 49.4%). Given that the cost of being an independent state is getting lower it is quite possible that Quebec will vote to become an independent nation-state at some point in the future.
The more one studies the EU issue the clearer it becomes that the question of national identity is of prime importance in explaining the catastrophic breakdown of Monnet’s plan. Political institutions that take binding decisions in sensitive areas by majority vote are only accepted as legitimate because of the strong solidarities afforded by national identity. At international level alternatives arrangements (traditionally the need for unanimity) are always needed to preserve legitimacy but the EU has largely abandoned these with catastrophic consequences. Today we have federal political institutions in Brussels but not the strong European identity necessary for them to be accepted as legitimate. This is why the EU is so keen to breakdown national identity, but it seems quite unlikely to me that is can succeed.
n.b. The issue of the relationship between nationality and representative government and how this may evolve over time is quite a complex one. One interesting reference is Chapter 16 of “Representative Government” by J.S. Mill which, despite its age, still sheds light on the issue in contemporary Europe.
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645r/chapter16.html
Complain about this comment
107. Freeborn-John wrote:
" the inhabitants of California, Texas, New York etc. do not regard themselves as distinct nations in the way that Britons, French and Germans do."
I gave Texas as an example because for ten years it WAS a distinct nation with Embassies in London, Paris and Washington!
"the EU is so keen to break down national identity"
Please substantiate.
Complain about this comment
105. It was Portugal who controlled Ceuta in the 15th century (and the 16th century). In fact you can still see the Portuguese coat of arms in the flag of Ceuta. :p
Complain about this comment
Re #103
And what can be done about Baskonia and Catalonia which clearly don't want to be parts of Spain, just like Chechnya and Dagestan don't want to be parts of Russia?
Re #98
Reunification of Germany has made it possible not only for former (?) Communists (PDS) but Neonazis (NPD) as well to make it into Bundestag where they play increasingly significant role.
Complain about this comment
To powermeerkat (87):
I think you were little bit satirical. China, India and Russia are not superpowers, the only superpower today is US. The only party that could become a superpower in a short while is the EU, which has the needed population, industries, economy and high technology, but then again no real yearning or political will to become superpower. In the future US will stay alone as superpower to approximately 2030 - 2050 when China with its current growth can start to match with the US. India can become a superpower to at the end of this century if it plays its cards right. Russia on the other has lost the game forever.
Now (82) I think referred both to what was happening in the British Empire just before the WW1 and to think thank called Project for New American Century that has influenced the current administration and political thinking in US. Now the thing about British Empire was that much before WW1 British goverment made policy that it would have the strongest navy in the world and it would not allow any other power to challenge its hegemony at the sea. As Germany was rapidly building its navy, more of less for national and emperors pride, Britain allied first with French and then with Russia to block the growing threat of Germany. This eventually lead Germans to fell threatened and eventually after unfortunate incidents lead to WW1. Another thing to remember is that Churchill during the WW2 virtually gave up British Empire to defeat the Nazis: India was promised independence and almost all resources where dedicated to European front and virtually not on defending the colonies in Asia and the pacific.
I think that the scary part starts when US starts to ally with any power it can find to block the growing influence of China and it starts to instruct its older allies to assist it more and more in projects and campaigns that have no basis on defense, but on taking global strategic positions: Iraq is good example of this. The thing that puzzles me is that the wishes of US administration now and then will be more or less schizophrenic. In example US has with strong words suggested that its European allies should use more money on their defense, but then again US wouldn't be too happy if European countries would indeed use more money to armaments and developing new weapons technology. In example Galileo, that does have a defensive dimension in it, was bitterly objected by the US. US is and wants to be a leading superpower now and in the future be it democratic or republican administration and as China grows and Europe integrates more, I fear that todays current black and white and under-siege mentality will just grow which will have implications to the rest of the world.
Complain about this comment
To powermeerkat (87):
Deutsche Telecom spying its employees is not that uncommon. Former Finnish telecom company, Sonera, now part of TeliaSonera, did the same too. The big thing to remember here is that what Deutsche Telecom has done is illegal and what Sonera did was too illegal. Sonera faced prosecution and was judged to be guilty and its former management was punished. Same will happen with Deutsche Telecom. The difference in here to what ATT and other american telecom companies did together with NSA was that spying was done because of goverment spying program which seems to have been very illegal. Now its bad when a private company does it, but its much worse when the goverment does it. (I think you were referring to this by your comment on 'was it professional enough'?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
Socialism isn't evil. You should notice their is a difference between Socialism, Communism and Social Democracy.
Socialists are in favour of democracy but oppose capitalism.
Social Democrats (Tony Blair, a good friend of George Bush is a Social Democrat) are in favour of capitalism and democracy. They are responsible for:
- universal suffrage
- universal healthcare
- the Welfare State
Communists oppose democracy and capitalism. The Socialists and Communists are against the European Union so comparing the European Union with the Soviet Union is ridiculous.
I'm not a Socialist, Communist or Social Democrat.
Complain about this comment
" Now its bad when a private company does it, but its much worse when the goverment does it." [#112]
Not really, particularly if national security is concerned. However if any law enforcement agency [such as FBI, for example] does it it has to be on legitimate (nor frivolous) suspicion and in each individual case police, etc., has to obtain a permit first ; otherwise a wiretap is illegal, and information gained through it is inadmissible in court of law, just like an incriminating evidence obtained during ann illegal search (without a warrant).
[Cf Miranda]
If your refering to NSA program of monitoring internatonal traffic linking known terrorists abroad with terrorists sympathizers/recuriters in the US (and not only by phone) it's neither illegal, nor even secret. What you're probably refering to it was a tag of war between executive
Complain about this comment
" Now its bad when a private company does it, but its much worse when the goverment does it." [#112]
Not really, particularly if national security is concerned. However if any law enforcement agency [such as FBI, for example] does it domestically it has to be on legitimate (nor frivolous) suspicion and in each individual case police, etc., has to obtain a permit first ; otherwise a wiretap is illegal, and information gained through it is inadmissible in a court of law, just like an incriminating evidence obtained during an illegal search (without a warrant). So any law enforcement agency which would not do it lege artis, would basically shoot itself in the foot [Cf Miranda].
If your refering to a NSA program of monitoring/analyzing international (not domestic) traffic linking known terrorists abroad with terrorists sympathizers/recruiters in the US (and not only by phone) it's neither illegal, nor even very secret (in general sense).
What you're probably refering to (if you're talking about Patriot Act, that is) was basically a turf war between executive and legislative branch (which has a v. long history in the US) about whether president has a right to authorize such an activity by an executive order under existing broader law, or has to ask Congress to pass a specific legislation (which Congress would) pertaining to a specific program.
White House, concerned about a possible erosion of executive privilege, claimed that the activity was covered by the existing law; Democrat-controlled Congress, which wanted to reassert itself and challenge the current Administration after the last election - that it wasn't.
It remains to be seen how that particular issue is going to be resolved (if at all) by the next administration and the next Congress.
Complain about this comment
I usually try to keep my comments short and sweet, so sorry if this becomes a bit winded.
First of all, to Sceptic Max. I checked the reference to Amato's comment and it seems indeed the comment he made was done in jest. If Mr. Amato is guilty of anything, it seems he's guilty of underestimating euroscpetics ability to distort and misrepresent. I wouldn't be surprised if you naively got this quote from a tabloid and took it at face value, which brings me now to BackintheEUssr (76). In my view, the BBC or the Guardian garner more respect from people who detest sensationalism and the presentation of news as entertainment than any tabloid can ever dream of. The day tabloids start putting real news ahead of gossip, then I'll respect their opinions and their readers. As for the Daily Telegraph, let's not be naive here. They have an agenda just like The Guardian if not more so. I won't quote the Guardian to you if you won't quote the Daily Telegraph to me. They only preach to the converted, and I have no issue with them. Tabloids on the other try to grip the masses through sensationalism and then brain wash them with falsehoods by presenting propaganda as fact. With that I have an issue.
"Current opponents of the EU are not on the fringe and they are not the zenophobic crackpots as painted by the europhile establishment."
Well I doubt very much every eurosceptic is a radical “zenophobic”. If you read my post carefully (71), I believe my underlying message is that I actually respect eurosceptics that are able to put forward well balanced and informed opinions. It just seems to me that when all communist and all fascist are eurosceptics, moderate eurosceptics just don't seem to be keeping good company.
I'm not sure what your industry was so I can't really comment on that, but if it needed subsidizing to survive, then good riddance to it. It seems to me you're just trying to scapegoat your industry's problems to the E.U., something unfortunately many politicians and businesses do to explain their own shortcomings. Easier to blame some other than yourself.
U.K.'s willingness to fight the tendencies of many European countries to protect their national industries is why the E.U. needs the U.K. The fact is that the U.K. is an example on how following the rules is actually smart and beneficial. The U.K.'s economy has shown to be one of the most dynamic (despite the current credit crunch) and one of the most competitive within the E.U. and I have no doubt that a big part of it is due to a willingness to follow the rule of law and the sense of fair play that characterizes most British people.
Which now brings me the issue put forward by Buzet23 @ 80.
"It's a shame that what most people wanted, a common market with open borders, has been manipulated into a grand design whose direction most are questioning, whether that be in the UK or anywhere else in the EU."
An open market needs its checks and balances. The idea that regulation should be discarded and that capitalism should run amok as been discredited time and time again (current credit crunch a good example). To set up a system of check and balances, you need somebody to propose rules (a parliament for example), somebody to implement those rules (an executive for example), somebody to rule disputes that may arise (a court for example) and somebody to enforce the rules and disputed settlements (a police force for example). Now it seems to me these check and balances necessitate common policies, be it judicial, environmental or regulatory as a few examples. It seems to me this is exactly what the E.U. is doing. You can't have an open, properly functioning market without some political integration. Believing otherwise is naive and ideological.
I just want to finish by stating the obvious. Many Europeans who oppose the E.U. love the benefits the E.U. brings them. Ask most Europeans if they enjoy crossing borders freely, and I'm sure the majority will say yes. Ask most Europeans if they enjoy the superb transportation links they enjoy, and I'm sure the majority will say yes. Ask most Europeans if they enjoy Europe's high environmental standards and strong consumer rights and the majority will say yes. These are just a few of the benefits Europeans enjoy thanks to the E.U., and that's why if the Lisbon Treaty falls through, it won't be a major catastrophe. Europeans would revolt if any if these benefits were revoked or even rolled back. Europeans want even more benefits, such as being a positive force in the world, be it environmentally or helping other nations achieve the same level of prosperity. They want their rights respected wherever they choose to live, work or play within the continent. The extra benefits Europeans want will come, whether the E.U. is liked or not, whether the Lisbon Treaty goes through or not.
Thomas Patrcicio
Toronto, Canada
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot (108): Texas may have been an independent state for a short period of time between separating from Mexico and joining the USA but that does not mean that its population ever formed a distinct nation seperate from both Mexicans and Americans. On the contrary, the changes in its political institutions at that time were driven by competition between these rival hispanic Mexicans and Anglo Americans for control over the area. This is a very different situation from Quebec where there is a long-standing community with a language, culture and history of its own whose roots that can be traced back to France rather than to England or Spain.
There is a huge amount of academic literature on the quest to strengthen European identity such as to manufacture a European 'demos' sufficiently strong to bear the weight of democratic politics. A lot of this academic research is funded by the EU Commission itself. The Commission's own 'forward studies group' produced the following paper which studies the issue.
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/cdp/working-paper/european_identity_en.pdf (See for example the section beginning page 27)
This led in turn to the 2001 EU White Paper on European Governance which aims to stimulate the construction of a European 'civil society' as a vanguard of a true EU citizenship, stimulated in part by the activities of the EU institutions themselves. For example beneficiaries of EU spending programs are required to partner with others in other member-states in the hope that the people involved will become Europeanized by the experience. Whether such moves will be enough to construct a European identity sufficiently strong to legitimise EU governance seems questionable to me considering that strong self-reinforcing national identities already exist, and that globalisation is replacing the earlier phase of Europeanization of the economy. However there is little doubt that the EU is trying.
-----------
"We have created Europe, now we must create Europeans" -- Romano Prodi (then EU Commission president)
"We have made Italy, now we must make Italians" -- Massimo d'Azeglio (first prime minister of Italy)
Complain about this comment
"what can be done about Baskonia and Catalonia which clearly don't want to be parts of Spain?": one more example of outsider's ignorance.
Learn if you can from a Catalan about his own nation:
Most Catalans want to be part of plurinational state Spain, as it is shown election after election (last ones, March 2008, Constitutionalists: 43 deputees; Separatists: 3).
Moreover, Spain's PM Zapatero won the last elections thanks to Catalonia and Basque Country, 2 self-governed regions where "Spanish" Workers' Socialist Party (PSOE) is the first one by far.
We don't need you to be worried, thanks.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 @ 104
"Since the EU has the desire to remove National boundaries and identities, as I'm sure you'll agree, the question of Gibraltar is of no more relevance to that of any region that wants or has it's own independence, since how long will Spain actually exist if Nations dissolve into regions or groups of regions as has been suggested a few times by EU think tanks."
How typical of nationalists to equate cultural identity with national borders. It's this kind of thinking, the nation as a homogeneous cultural identity within a very specific border, that has caused so much grief throughout human History. The fact is, within any nation, a variety of cultures exist, overlap and even spill over into other borders. National borders are meaningless when it comes to cultural identities. If anything, borders hinder the normal cultural flow between peoples and regions. A borderless Europe will enhance and reinforce cultural diversity.
By the way, in case you didn't know it, the Lisbon Treaty actually puts into the forefront EU's duty to protect and enhance Europe's cultural diversity. If the Treaty falls through, the loss of such provisions would indeed be a catastrophe.
Thomas Patricio
Toronto, Canada
Complain about this comment
Thanks to Schengen Treaty and Euro, there are no practical state barriers between all Catalans and Basques living in Spain and France.
The same for the Catalans living in the Italian Sardinian city of Alguer, and even Andorra, a non EU Catalan state which is inside Schengen though.
This is one of the samples of "hidden" EU benefits: national groups living peacefully spread across EU states.
I must thank the friend who mentionned Catalonia and Basque country, giving again examples of EU as soft power.
Complain about this comment
LoonyCanuck @116 wrote:
I'd say - as someone who also researched the source - and the various comments on this affair - that the notion that Amato's comment was made in 'jest' is retrospective justification. It was made in a cynical manner. Amato's mistake was to be recorded by non-sympathetic ears.
Amusing that when politicians' speeches are taken at face value, then their opponents are guilty of trying to "distort and misrepresent" when they report it verbatim.
If this was a single instance of confirmation that the Lisbon Treaty is virtually the same as the rejected Constitutional Treaty, then I might have let it pass, but there are dozens of well-documented statements from prominent [sic] politicians and officials.
Complain about this comment
117. Freeborn-John:
Re Texas, you and I obviously apply different meanings to the word "nation". But I'd agree with you about Quebec.
A "quest to strengthen European identity" does not de facto destroy national identity. I see no incompatibility in having superimposed layers of allegiance (nationality) e.g. European, British, English and Wessex.
Did the Welsh, Irish and Scots lose their sense of identity through being British? Most definitely not!
Complain about this comment
ScepticMac @121
Since I wasn't there when Amato made the comment, , and I assume you weren't either, we can only take what others assumed his meaning was.
I admit that the Lisbon Treaty will accomplish much of what the Constitution was set out to do. There's no reason to deny this. I think most opposition to the constitution was because it was called a "constitution" and not so much for its content. Most people don't know what's in it and don't even care. Most opinion for or against the treaty is visceral and has nothing to do with what's in it or if it's a good thing or a bad. I wish eurosceptics could give a few exact things that's in the treaty that they oppose, instead of the usual "It's eroding national parliaments" (sic).
Thomas Patricio
Toronto, Canada
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax (122): Thomas Patricio is a school child from Canada who has never been to Europe. Based on his deep knowledge of world affairs he tells us that because 60% of our trade is with the Continent we must be part of the EU super-state, but that his own country (which sends 83% of its exports to the USA) must be independent of America; that the relationship of state borders to cultural and linguistic communities should be arbitrary, because the route to ever-lasting peace is to mix up different national communities under common state institutions as in Belfast, the Balkans and Palestine. I do not question his right to post comments here, but is it really wise to reply to him?
Complain about this comment
Out-Rider @124
Thank you for your support. Regarding Thomas Patricio's comments: Courtesy is, I believe, a form of wisdom, and therefore a reply is not a concession - or an encouragement... ;-) Additionally, it is good for all men [and women] of goodwill to debate issues in a reasonable manner. (I sometimes loose my goodwill with a number of fanatical posters, whom is always good fun to taunt, but I'm only human.... )
At this late hour (at least in the UK) I'd just like to add that, irrespective of what is or isn't in the Lisbon Treaty [aka Constitutional Treaty], the fact that our elected government and most politicians deem it expedient to shamelessly lie about its nature is sufficient cause for its rejection by the British people.
Complain about this comment
Although almost the entire mainstream of Irish leaders in society and political life have lined up on the "yes" side of the Lisbon Treaty campaign, there is a great deal of unease amongst Irish voters about the forthcoming referendum. The "no" side have made valid points, and highlighted discrepancies in the "yes" argument which makes uncomfortable reading for the "yes" campaign.
People who consider themselves natural supporters of the European idea and have voted in favour of change in previous referenda are questioning the pretense under which the current campaign is being pursued by their leaders.
The electorate in Ireland are a sophisticated body of people. They value their democratic right, a right bestowed upon themselves when they adopted the Irish Constitution in 1937, which made them, it must be emphasised, a soverign people, not parliment. Parliment only derives it's authority from the people.
This is an important distinction in a European sense, the only other Country in Europe in which this occurs is in Switzerland,
except the Switzerland is not in the E.U.
So the E.U. has had to, up to now, seek the consent of the Irish people, not the Irish Parliment, to approve of changes being made to how the E.U. (and it's predessors, the E.C./E.E.C., are governed.
The Irish electorate are aware that this is the rejected European Constitution being put to them in an ambiguous guise, and there is more to what is being proposed for adoption in the Lisbon Treaty than meets the eye.
It doesnt help that the wording of the Treaty is so ambiguous and so tediously dense. There could be any number of interpretations made to the text in future judgements by the European Court of Justice, and this is it's weakness. Any Euro lobby group could take a test case to the ECJ and a decision could be handed down to the detriment of what an E.U. Country's
electorate wants law. This is too much power for one Court.
As the 12th of June draws near for the vote,
these and other flaws in the Lisbon Treaty are being aired in the media, and people are getting a chance to consider what to do with their vote. There is much to ponder. It is not lost on the Irish voter that they are the only Country out of the 27 E.U. members
that are being given their democratic voice.
The other member Countries of the E.U.'s parliments digested the Lisbon Treaty. THEY did not ask their citizens whether they wished to adopt the Lisbon Treaty.
I wonder why?
One thing is for certain, the Irish voter has
a lot to take in, and consider, on referendum
day. It is imperative that EVERYONE who is registered to vote DOES VOTE. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD ON JUNE 12th!
Complain about this comment
To #96, The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.
In reference to the Lisbon Treaty and the EU organizations, the Commission and Council of ministers have, time and again, repeated that not all decision-making should take palce at EU-levels and that some policies were better devised at national or local levels.
In short, the Lisbon Treaty ensures that "Brussels" doesn't become some king of mammoth bureaucracy, but instead focus on the policy planning of cross-border cooperation and harmonisation.
National ministers have been adamant that, for example, health and education can't be run through an EU-like common organization, but at national and local levels. The EU in that case should focus on establishing benchmark rules for best practices and facilitating the free movement of individuals/goods through an equivalence system of educational degrees and work experiences.
In conclusion, subsidiarity is not the "power-grabbing" that you describe, but the better identification of power that should be pooled in the EU and the ones that should remain national.
And that is great, because it removes uncertainty on the roles between EU and national governments in devising policies.
Complain about this comment
to 96, the Lisbon Treaty would increase the democratic transparence and accountability of the EU, most notably in 3 ways :
1) it will enhance the duties and reach of the EU parliament, if still short of the capability to dismiss the Commission (it can refuse to recognize the new Commission from being set up)
2) generalizing the qualified majority, in parallel to a voting weight more in accordance to country's demographics, it will provide for decisions to be more easily understood by the public. ie: no more 1 country blocking in the shadows the whole process from mving forward and necessitating horse-trading.
Incidently, this kind of paralyzing attitudes is one prefered by the UK governments (of alls tripes), yet the UK press is the first to blame Continentals for the "un-democratic" and "sleazy" deals which are then forced for the EU to keep on working.
3) by providing a legal status to the EU, it will be able to represent EU countries to international forums and be the "face" to the public for those policies. EU citizens will be able able to see what national and EU politics are really responsible for.
The so-called lack of democracy you mention, comes first and foremost from the blurring between the national and EU level of politics.
Not because commissioners are unelected by EU citizens.
WH officials are unelected, that doesn't make them illegitimate.
Government officials in many EU countries are not elected, yet they are legitimate.
The counter-balances to the Commission comes from the EU parliament (elected), but chiefly from the Council of ministers and the head of states (both elected).
The real problem is the lack of identification to the EU organization by the general public, and that is because "Brussel" is synonymous with policy pains and regulations, while national politics as resistance and common-sense.
All of this being complete bollocks, because of the lack of leadership and complete grandstanding of irresponsible self-centered national politicians.
ps : I'm trying to keep the press out of it, but like greypoliglot said, UK press actions are particularly despicable in respect to the general public for that matter (all EU countries have tabloids though).
Complain about this comment
To #126, to your last question, it's clear that other national parliaments (barring Spanish, French, Dutch and Irish ones) failed in their duties to explain and frame the debates. Worst, they assumed that the stakes were too high to be let to the common people to decide on this.
That's shamelessly elitist, even though I understand the risks of popular referendum. The blame comes mostly from the failureof the past 20 years to adequatly explained what are the responsibilities of the EU, the place of national politics within it and what are the stakes.
The fact that the Treaty/Constitution is very legalistic and dense in nature shouldn't be a real problem.
A real national Constitution must be easily understandable, yet amendments make them hard to digest nowadays (the UK has no constitution, so what could they know about it ?). But the Lisbon treaty is a condensed version of previous treaties establing the EU, none of which were easily understood by common people previously.
What's important is that the tools and objectives allowed by the treaty, must be clearly understood, and that's where politicians must engage with the general public ...
Failure to do so, is their failures, not because of the document.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Starbuck11 (127): The principle of subsidiarity is not new and has never been of use before in preventing the one-way ratchet of powers towards Brussels. Under the Lisbon treaty there is only a yellow card system so the Commission is under no obligation to withdraw its proposals no matter how many national parliaments complain about encroachment under the principle of subsidiarity. Anyone who prefers that their vote can shape the policies they live under should wantr those decisions to be taken by their elected government and not by some unelected Commissioner with the monopoly on all legislative proposals for law superior to any other for 500 million people which once agreed to by a qualified majority is binding on us for all of time to come no matter how we might ever vote again. Do you really believe that transferring powers to Brussels leads to greater democracy? Frankly I do not believe for 1 second that you do.
Worldweary1 (126): Nice post, especially regarding the point about the Irish being a sovereign people. However the Irish constitution makes clear that this is not the case in any of the ever growing areas where EU law exists.
"Article 29.10: No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union … from having the force of law in the State."
P.S. If the Irish vote NO there will be Irish jigs of joy on streets from Edinburgh to Athens and a Guiness drought of unprecedented proportion. Don’t let your politicians fool you into believing anything else.
Complain about this comment
To #130, you are keep being off the mark :
The Jacques Santer commission proved that an EU parliament refusing to "trust" the Commission by approving EU directives and budget can't keep working, and is therefore face with forced resignment.
Subisidiarity is the act of decentralisation of powers.
Who can realistically say that any individual country is better armed by standing in isolation rather than engaging its most important partners, when it comes to ensuring the welfare of its citizens ?
That's what pooling sovereignty in a subisdiarity relations is : doing at EU level what's best achieved at international level. doing at national level what's best done locally.
Too bad you prefer to close your eyes to what contradicts your illusions of "power-grabbing".
Finally, the Constitution has legal prevalence over international treatis and can amended by popular assent (usually referendums).
Therefore, if national parliaments don't want to enact treaty obligations, they are not forced to. They have to amend the Constitution.
Ultimately, they are still in power.
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11: Subisidiarity is only an act of decentralisation of power in a federal nation-state that derives the limits of its own power from a sovereign people and grants its regions some of that power. The EU is not however a federal republic so the concept cannot apply. It has no sovereign people and no power of its own to grant to us. It should only exercise those powers that are conferred to it from the nation-states as described in treaties. It should be the owner of that power (the various peoples of Europe as represented by their parliaments) who make the final decision as to whether the EU has exceeded the limits of these treaties; not the other way around. The supranational institutions have been angaged in a relentless campaign throughout their existence to transfer ever more power to themselves and cannot be trusted to be the final judge on matters of the distribution of power.
National parliaments only remain sovereign to the extent that they may leave the EU to resume their sovereignty. The Irish constitution article I quoted is an accurate description of the situation which applies in every state so long as it remains an EU member. The EU is obvioulsy then in control when its law is superiror.
"Article 29.10: No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws . . . necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union . . . from having the force of law in the State".
The Lisbon treaty would exacerbate the existing crisis of democratic legitimacy by extending undemocratic decision-making methods into new areas. It should be obvious that extending qualified majority voting means more occasions on which law will be imposed on a national electorate against their wishes as expressed in democratic elections. Not only must these countries live under law which they never agreed to in the first place, but the supremacy of EU law means they can never change it again in the future no matter how they vote. How is that more democratic?
Also the votes in the Council of Ministers are block votes are therefore should be weighted (as in the German Bundesrat) in proportion to the square root of population and not directly in line with population. The Nice treaty voting rules are closer to the optimum of the Penrose Law than the Lisbon treaty rules which seriously over-represent large countries (especially Germany). These new rules resemble those that used to apply in the British Trade Unions Congress where a few of the larger unions could effectively decide everything by wielding big block votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_method
The lack of democracy in the EU cannot be fixed by any institutional tinkering in treaties because it arises directly from the linguistic and cultural diversity of the peoples of Europe. You could take constitutional arrangements of the highest democratic credentials, for examples those of the US or Germany governments, and apply them to the EU and the result would not be democratic at all because the peoples governed by these institutions do not regard themselves as a single polity. In other words we do not agree to be bound to decisions that we as a nation disagree with simply because there are majorities in other countries that would like us to. The only solution is to remove politically sensitive areas from qualified majority voting, or to make national law superior to EU law such that we can democratically overrule it when necessary.
Complain about this comment
The lisbon treaty is disapointement to me
Iam now in may 60 and i will pass way before my dream is a realty a Fedaral Europe with one gaverment and army force
truly indipendent from Nato.
I like to see a fast track process to a united state of europe.
Johnsag
Complain about this comment
Johnsag, we could resuscitate the idea of a EU in two speeds, which is quite realistic with the current situation:
1st speed: Hard core EU, basically compounded by the Euro countries, maliciously so-called by an outsider "Old Europe". These countries could go far away towards a federal European state strenghting a united policy.
2nd speed: UK, Denmark, Sweden and Eastern countries that could be added to the first speed, according to their populations will.
Within this scheme, everybody could be satisfied and the perennial discussions, remarkably with the UK, could be happily ended.
Complain about this comment
To LoonyCanuck,
You say "How typical of nationalists to equate cultural identity with national borders. It's this kind of thinking, the nation as a homogeneous cultural identity within a very specific border, that has caused so much grief throughout human History."
It seems it's your style of thinking where a large superstateor even World government has to be better, this is almost never the case as even small regions with different cultural identities are having problems eg tribal killings in Africa. A current scenario is actually in Belgium where the Flemish and Wallons are at each others throats, luckily, so far, it is mostly the politicians that are fighting but who knows how long that will last as there is a precedent for trouble in recent times. Furthermore, if I wish to call myself English or Londoner, or Belgian or Wallon or anything else then who are you or any politician to say I can't or shouldn't because it is not expedient to your failing grand design if there is a border of some kind, whether cultural or physical.
To Greypolyglot #108
"the EU is so keen to break down national identity"
Please substantiate."
One irrefutable sign of this is that you have so called freedom of mobility of people across the borders but when you are resident in a different country you are only only to vote in the municipal or EU elections. You will not have the vote for the government even though you pay tax and social in that country, hence you are disenfranchised.
It is said by some to have been a hole in the relevant directive, but the reality is that since Nations and National power are being eroded why support something that is not in the grand design. What WAS probably a 'hole' in the directive is that you can't even vote in regional elections and there is a huge gap between a local councilor and an MEP as far as your democratic representation goes.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23, the situation in Belgium might make good headlines in the UK, but it's nowhere near a civil war or even an imminent break-up of the country.
Btw, plz read a post more carefully before replying : Looneycanuck never supported some kind of world government as you claim. He just made the point that nations and borders are artificial products of men and history. But that cultural identities are not limited by these. They cross-over, and changes while spilling over.
You can call yourself whatever names for that matter. that will still be an incomplete pictures of what your identity is.
Start limiting one's culture or merge it in the support of the state (ie:nationalism), and you end up with abuses.
No talk of world government there !!
Next, about the comment from Freeborn-John that Greypolyglot would like clarification
"the EU is so keen to break down national identity"
what has the policy of national government on limiting the ability of non-citizens to vote in local elections got to do with national identity ?
Paying taxes is no absolute right for citizenship. This is something defined by every country. A green card pay taxes in the US, yet that doesn't make him a citizen.
The more inclusive the definition, the more liberal the society.
For some countries that the right of the soil (where you are born), for other the blood (who you parents are) that determines whether or not you are legally a citizen.
But national identity is framed by a sense of shared cultural history.
So if national identity is the act of suppression of regional or minority cultural identities for the sake of a centralized state, then what the EU is doing, is to ask member states to respect that diversity.
But in no way, does the EU (meaning the countries themselves) act in a way to break cultural identities within its members.
That's just outlandish paranoia ....
Now, what you do is equate national power and sovereignty. The EU does not erode national powers, it offers them an arena to joust internationally whereas otherwise they would have been powerless to act decisively.
In that respect, it is an influence multiplier.
If some countries are better able at that game, then it must thank its national politicians. Those who fail, have only their own politicians to blame for, as the rules are the same for everyone.
And please stop the hearsays when you start trying to make a point. You know or you don't. Anything else is useless.
In conclusion, explain what Freeborn-John meant by ""the EU is so keen to break down national identity" if you really know - because so far you still haven't.
Complain about this comment
"Thanks to Schengen Treaty and Euro, there are no practical state barriers between all Catalans and Basques living in Spain and France."
I'm sure that Basques who don't won't to live either in France, nor in Spain are grateful for Schengen Treaty. And I can see that members of ETA take full advantage of "no practical state barriers".
That they don't have to convert currencies when they need some more ammonium nitrate or timed fuses is also beneficial to their activities.
P.S. I know for a fact how grateful many EU countries are that refugees from Sahel who make it to the Canaries have no trouble spreading a little later to Hague, Marseilles, Paris or London.
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11 (136): I think you need to follow your own advice. I have explained my point regarding the EU institutions doing everything they can build construct a European Identity with links to documents from the EU forward studies unit, quotes from former EU Commission Prodi and a reference to the White Paper on European Governance.
The federalist project is failing due to lack of democratic legitimacy with the root cause being very weak European identity. The definition of 'demos' used by political scientists (e.g. from Fritz Scharpf) is "a community in which the identification of members with the group is sufficiently strong to override the divisive interests of subgroups in case of conflict". Weak European identity means we that when there is disagreement between EU institutions and national institutions we will not agree to be bound by majority decisions reached in EU institutions.
The EU Commission knows this and has been polling (via Eurobarometer) on the strength of European Identity for decades. The question they ask is whether people consider themselves:
(i) National only
(ii) National plus European
(iii) European plus national
(iv) European
Page 94 of Eurobarometer 62 has a 10-year chart showing that European identity has actually been getting weaker. The report shows that Luxembourgers are the people with the strongest European identity, but even in Luxembourg there are more people (37%) answering (i) 'national only' than (iii) + (iv) combined (17%+9%=26%). The EU25 average for respondents answering either (iii) or (iv) is only 9% . In the heartlands of 'core Europe' only 17% of Belgians, 13% of French or 14% Germans have a stronger European identity than national. The British figure is 7%. The figures in Ireland, Denmark, Asutria, etc. are yet lower.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb62/eb_62_en.pdf
The simple truth is that EU federalists are a tiny minority everywhere. You have a missionary zeal that others will follow you but polling data indicates your dream is dying. EU Federalism is a 1950's idea with no more relevance for our future than fins on cars or beehive haircuts.
The world is evolving towards global economic activity, with politics decided by representative government within the context of nation-states shaped around the contours of community defined by language, culture and history. There is less and less role for the EU in this future because it is the WTO that is building the low-tariff global market while the attempt at European political union has been shown to be incompatible with democracy and is being rejected by voters.
Complain about this comment
As if Basques were all terrorists (by that account, should we consider all Yanks as either unscrupulous murderers or fanatic crusaders ?) or that free movement of people within the Schengen area was responsible for the misery in Sub-Sahara Africa ...
That's the role of custom officers to look for illegal migrants at the borders of the EU.
And the role of the EU Neighbour policy to devise ways to better develop neighbouring countries economies and enhance law enforcement cooperation.
Better to focus ressources were they most need to be. The experience of the UK (not part of the Schengen area) in regard to border controls and illegal migration is actually not quite so rosy.
And this, despite being an island and so far up isolated from African or Asian population movements ...
Complain about this comment
138.Freeborn-John wrote:
" have explained my point regarding the EU institutions doing everything they can build construct a European Identity .... "
Fair enough. But you choose to ignore my comment that "A quest to strengthen European identity" does not de facto destroy national identity. I see no incompatibility in having superimposed layers of allegiance (nationality) e.g. European, British, English and Wessex."
Do you? Are you perhaps both British (from the UK) and English (from England). Is it incompatible to be both? If not, why then is it incompatible to be European-British-English?
Complain about this comment
To #138 Freeborn-John, I'm not arguing the fact that EU institutions are developping a european sense of shared destiny.
I'm arguing with your premises that :
1) such an european sense neither exist nor never existed and was instead artificially built by EU institutions.
There is an european heritage based upon Christianity, the Enlightments and the greco-roman law/philosphical legacies.
But any European "demos" is a work in progress due to the long history of struggling national countries and the duality of EU institutions as both safeguarding the responsibilities of sovereign countries AND acting as a democratic counter-check to EU institutions (confederation-style).
Ratifying the Lisbon Treaty will actually improve the EU parliament and position it as a cornerstone of democratic accountability to EU institutions.
2) that "the EU is so keen to break down national identity" (your own words), whereas it is in fact helping to protect local and regional cultural diversity. All too often suppressed in the name of cultural homogeneity.
If this consitutes a threat to national identity, then it is a revelator to the shaky grounds on which such "identity" was built upon in the first place.
3) I do not dispute the fact that the eurobaramater pollings show a net preference for local politics (as opposed to EU/international relations)
That's just human nature to associate to he closest identifiable object/group.
What's amazing is to actually find so many people willing to put european before national identity, considering the preeminence of national politics in everyday life, the fact that there is such a strong history of struggles/wars in Europe and the importance of communautarism.
Poll Corsicans to know if the feels French or Corsican. They will overwhelmingly vote for their island, yet consider french rule as legitimate. Does it mean that French identity doesn't exist in Corsica or that it is only a construct of French institutions ?
The same EU polling also show clear approval for EU actions and further deepening. Does it mean EU institutions lack legality or legitimity ? certainly not, quite the contrary.
What you describe as the future "global economic activity, with politics decided by representative government within the context of nation-states shaped around the contours of community defined by language, culture and history" is actually nothing neither new or particularly refreshing. It is the same old story of nation-states using the lowest common denominator to engage in cooperation.
That was already the case during the 1890-1910 period for example ... that doesn't bode well for the future.
If European states were to reversed to that period, I sure don't give much for a safe and prosperous future.
I assure you, I'm no missionary, but believing that the WTO is anything but a litigation forum and can actually enforce trade disputes is sure being naive.
If it wasn't for european countries to actually build a trading bloc step by step, the WTO would never have evolved from the unilateralist instincts of all the nations around the world, most notably the US. They still don't want to recognize the ICC or the Kyoto Protocol. Wonder why ? (bonus tip : that's neither because of the economic or ethical burden).
The WTO is very useful in limiting protectionism and opening up markets, but like the UN, it is totally dependent on ALL its members to stick to the rules. Do you believe that the UK can on its own either influence significantly the WTO or either dictate its terms ? I'm no daydreamer either ...
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot (140): We each identify with multiple communities, e.g. the street or town in which we live, England, Britain, the Western world or the whole of humanity, but there can only be one supreme political authority over us. The legitimacy of political institutions is almost entirely dependent on the relative strength of these identities. If an individual feels their Scottish or European identity is stronger than their British identity they will desire the political decisions that shape their life to be taken in a Scottish or European parliament rather than at Westminster. If that view becomes the majority opinion in their community, then referendums will be won for Scottish independence or to create a European state.
The 2007 British Social Attitudes survey shows the proportion of the UK public who say that "British" is the best way to describe their national identity has fallen to less than half the population. Ten years ago, 52% of us described our primary identity as British but a decade later it is has slipped to 44% with English and Scottish identity on the rise. This is significant in my opinion in the context of a British debate on devolution in Scotland or the establishment of an English Parliament (or an alternative arrangement such as only English MPs voting on English matters in the Westminster parliament). However it is clear that no majority (or anything near it) exists in Britain supporting the EU as the supreme political authority over us in all the areas where it has assumed competence since Maastricht and where it can now impose law on us through a pan-European qualified majority in which we are outvoted.
Therefore (to answer your question) it is the relative strength of our primary identities which determines the legitimacy of political institutions. The EU Commission is certainly doing all it can do build European identity up relative to national identity (including by encouraging a Europe of the Regions to undermine national identity from below) because the ultimate survival of Monnet's self-aggrandizing institutions is dependent on what he called the transfer of domestic allegiance.
Complain about this comment
"As if [...] free movement of people within the Schengen area was responsible for the misery in Sub-Sahara Africa ...
That's the role of custom officers to look for illegal migrants at the borders of the EU. " [#139]
Just the opposite: it's no controls whatsoever within Shengen area which are responsible for uncontrolled influx and spread of miserable economic immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa. It's CAP, though, which could be partly blamed for their economic misery in the first place.
[BTW its not the role of customs officers to look for illegal migrants: it's a role of immigration officers; the role of customs ofifcers is to look for illegal goods]
And it's not illegal immigrants who are a threat to EU countries national security; it's very legal citizens of EU itself roaming freely across the superstate as records of BND, Surete or MI-5 clearly indicate.
Complain about this comment
To #143, granted, I should have said, customs AND immigration officials are responsible for controlling EU borders.
It is to be added that country's Navy is often used to patrol seas and not civil officials.
But never did I claim there were controls of EU citizens within Schengen area, even though random controls can take place be where ID cards exist. Most other controls are rather part of cross-border police cooperation. Can't you try to be earnest sometimes ?
As for the CAP being responsible about sub-sahara misery (even partially) is sure stretching reality. Regional conflicts have much more to do about it.
Now, if you think that the free "roaming" of EU citizens is such a danger, then I can only guess you would be more delighted if the EU were in fact some kind of big-brother, fascist organization which would monitor and control their flows ? ... mildly joking ...
Complain about this comment
To Starbuck11 #136,
Whether Belgium might make UK headlines is not important but to us who live there the current and continuing impasse is important. I don't know where you live but I do live there and I hear the opinions of senior politicians, via political friends, who are very depressed about the future of the country ASIS as the impasse is not resolving at the moment.
As for World government that was a throwaway comment to invite a response, as there are seemingly many politicians (communist or otherwise), religions etc that would like to go that way. The bottom line for politics etc is that political ambition will always try to make the beast bigger and more controlling no matter whether it's communist or fascist or religious, and I am totally against all that.
Finally about the point of being not able to vote in several of the elections all I can say is that it's not down to being citizen, National or anything else, it's simple basic democracy as if you are accepted to live there you are in their system and you should integrate in every respect. You may also remember that prior to these EU rules it was possible to vote in many countries since you were resident and domiciled there, now due to an EU directive you are not until you have been granted Nationality as I have. It is an abomination that 'immigration' from wherever has been taken over by political considerations and seemingly who the 'immigrants' are most likely to vote for.
Complain about this comment
Hi Buzet23,
I honestly don't know which EU voting law you are refering to, but one very common rule is to respect the law of the land you live in, before expecting to live by the rules from where you used to be.
For EU parliament elections, you must be a proven resident (usually 1 or 2 years record) so as to avoid double-voting or election frauds (activist groups gathering specifically at a place to tip the odds). Nothing extraordinary in that.
I live in Ireland, but I have some knowledge about Belgium (Brussel and Lîdje areas mostly), and if the political impasse is indeed serious, it is nowhere near the kind of catastrophic/civil war headlines you can read in UK press.
Partition is already a fact on the ground and has been for years. Nothing new in that. Notwithstanding the royal family, what mostly obstruct a complete immediate separation is the unresolved status of Brussel.
But even though, that wouldn't prevent people from carrying their normal daily lives and Albert, to be King of Belgium.
There won't be any link-up with either Holland or France or Luxembourg. Wallonia and Flander would be recognized as such.
But when this happen, it won't be before at least 2 decades ... and in the meantime a lot can happen eihter way ...
One significance for above posts, is that suppressed regional identities for the sake of a strong, centralized government relying on artificial "national identities" just don't stand to the test, once diversity is protected and nurtured.
And still, what people needs to feel like a group are shared expectations, the will to live together and common threats.
Like Looneycanuck and others were saying "identities" (local/national/suprantional) are pretty much a continuous work in progress. they are neither an end in itself nor a pre-requisite for government legitimity (but it sure helps for social cohesion)
Complain about this comment
"I can only guess you would be more delighted if the EU were in fact some kind of big-brother, fascist organization which would monitor and control their flows ? ... mildly joking ..." [#144]
No, I certainly don't approve of any big-brother, fascist organisation in EU which monitors, snoops, eavesdrops...etc.. Not even of Deutsche Telecom. ...mildly joking...
Complain about this comment
Buzet23,
Although you live there (or because of this) in my opinion you exaggerate the "Belgian impasse".
Whatever happens in Belgium, this is still a country with a growing power economy and a well established welfare state.
If Flemish and Wallons will finally split, it will be for sure through peaceful meanings. I'm not sure if this "peaceful proceeding" to resolve the case is thanks to the EU. But it is quite clear that before the EC was founded in 1958, the "Belgian impasse" would have been a source of war fears, once again across the Old Continent, with Germany, France and UK rattling sabres.
We have seen recently and still how outside EU these disputes are solved. Ask people in the Balkans or even in the Caucasus how they see the accession to the EU: besides economic stability, EU membership will bring them a strongly credited guaranty of a peace umbrella.
So let's discuss how to improve EU institutions ans politics, but EU utility is out question, even in the "dramatic" Belgian case.
Proofs? No country, including the most sceptic UK, has never considered to withdraw from EU.
One more thing: I agree with Timothy Garston-Ash who defends UK will enter next term the Euro and Schengen, paradoxically with a Conservative David Cameron as a PM. Let's see.
Complain about this comment
Hi Starbuck11,
re the law on voting, when I first voted in Belgium, which was an option for a resident (domiciled), I could not be given the regional or government lists. When I checked I discovered that it was an EU thing rather than Belgian as even in the UK, non-nationals cannot vote, whereas before residency and presence on the electoral list allowed you to. I did check on several EU sites and they confirmed it but I can't give you the references as that was some years back. It has an effect on any region wanting independence eg Scotland, Flanders etc as I'm sure you can realise.
Hi Betuli,
re "Although you live there (or because of this) in my opinion you exaggerate the "Belgian impasse".
Whatever happens in Belgium, this is still a country with a growing power economy and a well established welfare state."
Sorry but my opinion is a reflection of people very much inside the current political parties and I won't say more. Whilst in no way I think there could be violence there is a deadline approaching in July for PM LeTerm. It's possible there will be a fudge as now but who knows, as the welfare state is a key part of what the Flemish part are complaining about. Mainly due to historical rivalries and feelings that until the 60's or so they were the 'financial recipients' of the union and that has now turned full circle.
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11 (141): Christian values or enlightenment values are shared by the whole Western world and not just European countries. However ‘civilisational’ values such as those you describe are the weakest form of community we have and are not sufficient to hold a state together under the weight of democratic politics. The world-wide experience is that if a community wish be governed by the same shared political institutions, then they must have more in common than that; a shared language is normally necessary (but not sufficient) plus shared history and cultural identity.
The Commission has tried to use its spending programs to ‘create’ Europeans, and also tries to convert school children through its “Spring Day in Europe” program.
http://ec.europa.eu/malta/youth/schools/spring/index_en.htm
Complain about this comment
142. Freeborn-John wrote:
"The 2007 British Social Attitudes survey"
The most recent on offer is 2006! (published March 2008)
"shows the proportion of the UK public who say that "British" is the best way to describe their national identity has fallen to less than half the population."
The EU isn't a nation so, if that's how the question was put, it's clearly excluded even as a POSSIBLE response. So you're into the realms of logical fallacy on a par with "when did you stop beating your wife".
Anyway, since the number of productive interviews was only 4 291 I'd hardly count the BSA survey (2006) as being all that "significant" if by that you meant "a fairly large quantity". If you meant "statistically significant" I'd downright disagree
150. Freeborn-John wrote:
"The world-wide experience is that if a community wish be governed by the same shared political institutions, then they must have more in common than that; a shared language is normally necessary (but not sufficient) plus shared history and cultural identity."
Well, Switzerland isn't part of the EU but with its four languages and (at least three) cultural identities it shows that such a merging can occur and can succeed.
And how many languages, histories and cultures managed to come together to create the USA?
Come on, admit it, your objection to the EU is simply visceral. No amount of reasoning, examples or proof could sway you. Right?
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot (151): I should have referred to the 2006 British Social Attitudes survey whose findings were available in 2007. I know of no single opinion survey covering attitudes to British, English and European identity but I have provided the best figures available from Eurobarometer and the BSA survey to explain what is happening to Monnet's project. What more do you want?
As you say the EU is not a nation. It is, in the words of Elmar Brok MEP, a ‘state under construction’, but one which is unable to derive legitimacy from the consent of the sovereign peoples for whom its law is supreme. This is confirmed by the ignored and cancelled referendums.
I am certainly against the EU and the way it is developing, but my opinion is the majority one in this country and will not be dismissed.
Complain about this comment
I don't see a reason to be so touchy [#144]
Isn't it true that a free flow of people and goods within EU has also made it much easier for some of its more unsavoury citizenry to move from one country to another, transfer arms, explosives and money, open new branches of their criminal organisations or new cells of their terrorist one?
P.S. I'll leave an issue of massive expansion of Russian mafia from Spain to other EU countries for another occasion since it's a problem related not to the lack protection of external Shengen zone's borders, but to a very real corruption of officials within it.
Complain about this comment
149. Buzet23.
Last time I checked EU residents are allowed to vote in the local elections in Belgium (which is common in all EU countries if I'm not mistaken) However if you want to vote in the national elections, then you need to get a Belgian citizenship, which is not an EU thing.
Unless you're talking about something completely different.
Complain about this comment
152. Freeborn-John wrote:
"I am certainly against the EU and the way it is developing, but my opinion is the majority one in this country and will not be dismissed."
The majority opinion changes with time. Do you remember when the majority smoked, when the majority believed in God, when the majority thought homosexuality was a heinous crime, when the majority expected a wife to defer automatically to her husband?
Pro-EU as I am, I would agree with you about holding a referendum. But to ensure a level playing field I would, however, like to see the British press put as much effort into providing genuine information as it has put into providing disinformation.
see http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/facts/index_en.htm
Complain about this comment
ETA is in an agonising situation partly thanks to the transfrontier French-Spanish co-operation, derived from Schengen treaty, where police from both countries are allowed to act in both sides of the border.
As to mafia movements, I'd recommend to read "McMafia" by Misha Glenny, in which he provides evidences over tight links between mafioso rings in Montenegro, Albania and Kosovo -non-Schengen countries and best American friends in Europe- and the US State departement.
Nota bene for outsiders overworried in European affairs: see BBC World report on Health system in US. It seems more than 40 million American citizens haven't any access at all to medical care, putting US as a target for NGO, notably Medecins Sans Frontieres. It's frightenning and worthy to be worried.
Complain about this comment
149. Buzet23 wrote:
"re the law on voting, when I first voted in Belgium, which was an option for a resident (domiciled), I could not be given the regional or government lists. When I checked I discovered that it was an EU thing rather than Belgian as even in the UK, non-nationals cannot vote, whereas before residency and presence on the electoral list allowed you to."
Just demonstrate that it's not "an EU thing" I'll point out that a Member State can, if it chooses, allow foreign nationals to vote. The UK allows resident Irish and Commonwealth nationals to vote in parliamentary elections.
see
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Politicalpartiesandelections/DG_073240
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot (155): The majority opinion does change with time, but I think you are underestimating the causes behind the long-term trend towards EU-scepticism. From your post it seems you put it down to elements of the press, but I find that very hard to believe, especially considering there are significant pro-EU forces in the media such as the FT, Independent, Guardian and the BBC. Also I find it difficult to believe that giving the public more information about the EU would lead to greater popularity. On the contrary, it seems that whenever the EU becomes seriously debated in this country (as for example when Euro-membership was a live political issue) its popularity always falls. Indeed the entire ‘integration by stealth’ approach is motivated by the need to keep the accretion of power low-key.
In my opinion the long-term trend towards EU scepticism has a more fundamental cause. It is connected with the EU assuming competence in politically-sensitive areas for which the combination of the supremacy of EU law and the community-method are inappropriate. When the EEC decided matters such as the maximum curvature of cucumbers, the triviality of the issue masked the inherent lack of democratic legitimacy in the decision-making process. But the problem becomes more and more exposed as the one-way ratchet of power leads to the EU deciding more and more of the political matters that used to be decided in general elections. If this analysis is correct, then we can expect the EU to become more and more unpopular in the future no matter how much of the press or political class lines up behind it.
Complain about this comment
Excuse me, Freeborn-John, where did you find this "news" about "maximum curvature of cucumbers", was it in the Sun or in the more serious Mail?
Don't take me wrong, but this trivial and silly issues are often used to discredit EU policies by certain British press.
EU become more and more unpopular in the same rythm at least than national governments do. "Unpopular authorities" among the public opinion is just one treat of modern societies. Who do you think is more unpopular in UK Brown or Barroso?
The lack of democracy in EU policies making is the main target to sort out in the new Lisbon Treaty, which you may oppose, and prove once more the internal contradictory reasons from eurosceptics.
I will believe EU is really unpopular the day hords of people will take the streets in any EU country demanding to their government to pull out from EU. Do you think this could happen? Another contradiction.
Complaints are free of charge.
Complain about this comment
betuli: Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1677/88 of 15 June 1988 states (article 2B) that 'Extra' and Class 1 cucumbers must "be well shaped and practically straight (maximum height of the arc: 10 mm per 10 cm of length of the cucumber)". [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
158. Freeborn-John wrote:
"I think you are underestimating the causes behind the long-term trend towards EU-scepticism. From your post it seems you put it down to elements of the press, but I find that very hard to believe, especially considering there are significant pro-EU forces in the media such as the FT, Independent, Guardian and the BBC"
May I suggest that you add up the readership of the "anti" press and that of the "pro" press and see which camp reaches and therefore influences most people.
"it seems that whenever the EU becomes seriously debated in this country (as for example when Euro-membership was a live political issue) its popularity always falls."
I would suggest that we've never had a "serious" debate.
"When the EEC decided matters such as the maximum curvature of cucumbers, the triviality of the issue masked the inherent lack of democratic legitimacy in the decision-making process."
Sorry, but you're wrong again. The European Commission was asked by national agriculture ministers and the industry to draft legislation in this area. Following extensive consultation with the industry, the proposed quality standards were adopted by national ministers in Council in 1994. Please note "asked by national agriculture ministers and the industry" and "adopted by national ministers". Would you have preferred a national referendum on fruit standards?
Complain about this comment
"ETA is in an agonising situation" [#156]
Which it's just demonstrated with today's (June 1st) attack.
[Unless, of course, the bomb was detonated by them Kosovar mafiosos]
Complain about this comment
Hi Ticape #154,
Spot on, that's exactly what I said, if you are a National in an EU country than you can vote in Municipal, Regional, Governmental and EU elections, if you are non-National the Regional and Governmental elections are excluded for you. This means that although you are accepted in an EU country, pay your taxes and Social there, you have no democratic influence on the Government or Regions. Formerly, it was the case in the UK and maybe other countries that certain non-Nationals on the electoral roll could vote especially Irish and Commonwealth, the EU directive caused changes to those UK rules some years back I understand.
Ps. I have been thankfully given Belgian Nationality recently so I look forward to the next vote as no longer am I disenfranchised.
Detail from Source Wikipedia
****************
Belgium
(EU member) European Union residents in Belgium were given the right to vote and to be candidates for the 1994 European Parliament election, then for the 2000 Municipal elections. They had however first only the right to be elected as municipal councillors, not at the executive level (schepen/alderman or burgomaster/mayor), the alderman level was only opened for them from the 2006 Municipal elections, the mayor level may not be opened to them because it includes a function of administrative police. In conformance with EU regulations, EU residents are submitted to the same residence conditions as Belgian nationals, i.e. residence in the commune at the closure date of the electoral roll (July 31 for the municipal elections).
In 2004, voting rights in municipal elections were extended to non-European Union foreigners living in Belgium, with certain conditions attached.[3] Non-EU foreigners must have been living in Belgium for at least five years before becoming entitled to vote. Any non-EU foreigner who wants to take advantage of the new legislation must also sign an oath of allegiance to the Belgian constitution, formally agree to respect the country’s laws and sign the European Convention on Human Rights. Also, non-EU foreigners are not allowed to stand as candidates.[11]
As voting is compulsory in Belgium, and all electors are automatically on the electoral rolls (extracted from a computerized National Register[12]), foreign residents have to enlist voluntarily on the electoral roll, then only they are submitted to the compulsory vote. At the 2006 Municipal elections, only 20.9% (110,973 out of 529,878) of the potential EU voters enlisted (17.6%, or 87,858 out of 498,315 at the 2000 Municipal elections[13]), and 15.7% (17,065 out of 108,607) of the potential non-EU voters.[14]
United Kingdom
(CN and EU member) Since 1949, the United Kingdom, citizens of the Commonwealth countries and of the Republic of Ireland have had full voting rights at all levels and can be candidates, as they could before 1949 as British subjects; they are not regarded in law as aliens.[2][8]
For local, supralocal (Greater London Authority) and regional (Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland Assembly) elections, EU citizens, enjoy the same rights as Commonwealth citizens.[77]
Under Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, local electors in Northern Ireland were either Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland, the Representation of the People Act 2000 replaced that section by "a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union".[78]
The Representation of the People Act 2000 also introduced a new system of electoral registration, with 2 electoral registers, one for parliamentary elections, one for local elections:[79]
* "A person is entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election in any constituency if on the date of the poll he (...)(c) is either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland"; "A person is entitled to be registered in the register of parliamentary electors for any constituency or part of a constituency if on the relevant date he (...) (c) is either a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland"
* "A person is entitled to vote as an elector at a local government election in any electoral area if on the date of the poll he (...)(c) is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union"; "A person is entitled to be registered in the register of local government electors for any electoral area if on the relevant date he (...) (c) is a qualifying Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union"
* "In this section “qualifying Commonwealth citizen” means a Commonwealth citizen who either"
o (a) is not a person who requires leave under the [1971 c. 77.] Immigration Act 1971 to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
o (b) is such a person but for the time being has (or is, by virtue of any enactment, to be treated as having) any description of such leave"
*************
Complain about this comment
Hi Greypolyglot #157
The Treaty of Maastricht on European Union established the following which explains what I've encountered, it would seem from the UK's angle that some leeway was given to certain traditional countries, but so far I have not seen whether it was an opt-out or otherwise and if limitations were put in place by this treaty or later ones as this was 1992 and many changes happened way after that between 2000 and 2006.
http://europa.eu/scadplus/treaties/maastricht_en.htm
CITIZENSHIP
One of the major innovations established by the Treaty is the creation of European citizenship over and above national citizenship. Every citizen who is a national of a Member State is also a citizen of the Union. This citizenship vests new rights in Europeans, viz.:
* the right to circulate and reside freely in the Community;
* the right to vote and to stand as a candidate for European and municipal elections in the State in which he or she resides;
* the right to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of a Member State other than the citizen's Member State of origin on the territory of a third country in which the state of origin is not represented;
* the right to petition the European Parliament and to submit a complaint to the Ombudsman.
Complain about this comment
R162,
Indeed, today's attack was perpretated by ETA "activists", "terrorists" I should say according to UN, EU and US department terror lists.
Like any agonising body, it hits blindly and aimless. It doesn't totally desappear just because their mere existence has become a way of living.
As to Kosovar activities, call the White House to get to know their whereabouts.
Complain about this comment
164. Buzet23 wrote:
"Every citizen who is a national of a Member State is also a citizen of the Union. This citizenship vests new rights in Europeans,"
Which means simply that these rights are ADDED to those pre-existing.
Complain about this comment
152. Freeborn-John wrote:
"I am certainly against the EU and the way it is developing, but my opinion is the majority one in this country and will not be dismissed."
I have the feeling that you probably already know "argumentum ad populum" but if not do please look it up.
Complain about this comment
#166:
164. Buzet23 wrote:
"Every citizen who is a national of a Member State is also a citizen of the Union. This citizenship vests new rights in Europeans,"
Which means simply that these rights are ADDED to those pre-existing."
Just like the rights of the Soviet citizens were simply ADDED to the pre-existing rights of Armenians, Azeris, Belorussians, Estonians, Georgians, Kazakhs, Latvians, Lithuanians, Turkmen, Ukranians, Uzbeks, etc.
And we all know how their rights and freedoms expanded because of the privilege of being also citizens of that Union.
Complain about this comment
EU citizenship was not a right pre-EEC period.
There was simply no possibility of participating in the democracy of the european community. Furthermore, EU citizenship doesn't REPLACE national citizenship (as for soviet republics), but is ADDED to it in parallel.
very much the same way that being able to vote to national elections doesn't infringe on your rights to vote at local elections ...
Finally, pre-soviet times, russian empire subjects had not much democratic rights. In that respect, the Soviet Union was a huge improvement in their access to politics.
Powermeerkat, by your standards of comparing EU democracy to Soviet Union ones, should we start comparing US government to fascists/imperial ones ? get real ...
Complain about this comment
168. powermeerkat wrote:
"Just like the rights of the Soviet citizens were simply ADDED to the pre-existing rights of Armenians, Azeris, Belorussians, Estonians, Georgians, Kazakhs, Latvians, Lithuanians, Turkmen, Ukranians, Uzbeks, etc.
And we all know how their rights and freedoms expanded because of the privilege of being also citizens of that Union."
I don't recall Soviet citizenship granting the rights under discussion.
And we all know how the rights and freedoms of negroes expanded in the USA because of the privilege of being citizens of that Union.
I know that's a cheap jibe but people in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.
Complain about this comment
R160 Freeborn-John,
Alright, I must accept you convinced me. However cucumbers dictated shapes seems to be the basic pilar of British euroscepticism, if you consider how popular has become this issue in tabloids. 20 years later, it still occupies front pages.
EU has failed here, let's face it. Being europhile doesn't mean to happily accept anything coming from Brussels offices.
There should be absolute tolerance on length, width and curvature cucumbers. Philes and phobes should be united to get removed this draconian measure.
Complain about this comment
I've found some EU references for voting rights in a published response to a question E-1301/02 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission. Voting rights of EU citizens.
The key bit is as follows, so it would seem my up till now disenfranchisement is down to both UK and Belgian law rather than EU. The conditions of UK voting from overseas were pretty onerous I recall from when I enquired, you needed to know another British subject in both where you live and where you used to vote in the UK, so I couldn't vote.
"The right to vote of own nationals of a Member State in elections of that Member State belongs fully to the competence of the Member States, independent whether those citizens reside in its territory or outside of its territory. This is explicitly confirmed in the relevant Directives 93/109/EC(1) and Directive 94/80/EC(2), which provide that nothing in those Directives affects each Member State's provisions concerning the right to vote or to stand as a candidate of its nationals who reside outside of its territory.
The Community law guarantees only that every Union citizen has the right to vote and stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament and at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State."
Complain about this comment
171. betuli wrote:
"R160 Freeborn-John ... I must accept you convinced me."
So I take it that you didn't read 161. Yes, he's right there is such a Directive but wrong in his implication that power-crazed eurocrats were looking for things that they could regulate unnecessarily.
Never take the declarations of others at face value, even mine, but do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
Complain about this comment
In post 81. Starbuck11 wrote:
"instead of spilling your anger, the easy and democratic way would simply be to petition your government to hold such a referendum about the extent of UK involvement in EU integration. And if that government were to be deaf to your grievances, then to elect new MP in parliament to form a new government."
Unfortunately it is impossible for us to do this
Our currently unelected Prime Minister knows that he would lose any election, so will hold of from calling one until it is too late to reverse the Lisbon Constitution
Over one million people have signed petitions demanding our promised referendum, yet we are denied this
What else do you suggest? Armed insurrection?
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot (173) and betuli (171): Note that I was NOT complaining about the vegetable regulation. My point was that the community-method is only suited to deciding matters of low political salience such as that because nobody is going to get worked up about losing a qualified majority vote on such a minor issue. However the community method is now used to decide many of the politically sensitive issues that used to determine national elections, thus revealing a lack of democratic legitimacy that was previously hidden by the minor nature of the issues decided by the EU.
The weakness of European identity means that there is only a limited range of relatively minor issues that the EU can decide before the natural fractures between the various peoples of Europe emerge. The changes introduced by recent EU treaties mean that this legitimacy base has been exceeded, leading directly in my opinion to its growing unpopularity.
Complain about this comment
We can safely assume that an Irish "no" vote would not allow any conclusions on the problematic issues. As in France and the Netherlands it would be an expression of a certain sentiment at a certain time (don't forget that in France lots of people voted "non" as they found the Constitutional Treaty lacking ambition - they wanted more).
The obvious consequence of a no would be a split of the EU. The six founding members and some others would move on, leaving the others behind. To some extent we already have that with the Euro and Schengen. If the Irish are stupid enough to stall the process it will simply blow up the pretension that we are together.
As this would be the end of the British "divide and rule" approach to Europe I am all in favour. If we cannot progress with 27, we will progress with less.
How would Britain and other "sceptics" stop France and Germany from building an "ever closer Union"?
Complain about this comment
Gruenebaum (176): I see no reason why the UK should stop France, Germany or any other nation from doing what they want so long as they do not harm the interests of anyone in another country.
Starbuck11 (169): Citizenship is the relationship between an individual and a state. No matter how much it wants to be one, the EU is not a state and therefore has no citizens.
EU citizenship is an entirely empty concept dreamt up in a 1990 meeting by former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez. True citizenship is something people feel in their hearts and imposes serious obligations on the citizen, including the obligation to pay taxes, obey the law, and in exceptional circumstances even to fight and perhaps die. It can only be based on a strong national identity, forged by common language, history and culture. Citizenship is not something that a politician can invent during a tea-break at an EU summit to impress his peers with his federalist zeal in order to secure EU regional assistance funds.
EU citizenship means nothing more than being a citizen of a state which is a member of the European Union. If EU citizenship were real it would imply a direct relationship between an individual and the EU and I would personally be able to renounce my EU citizenship; but I cannot. The only way to renounce EU citizenship is to renounce your national citizenship, or for your state to withdraw from the EU. The phrase therefore signifies nothing except that certain EU leaders regard the EU as a state under construction.
Complain about this comment
175. Freeborn-John wrote:
"I was NOT complaining about the vegetable regulation ... nobody is going to get worked up about losing a qualified majority vote on such a minor issue."
You call it a minor issue. Since industry actually asked for it I can only suppose that those directly concerned thought otherwise. To be honest I can't recall if QMV was applied in that case. Was it? Chapter and verse, please.
"the community method is now used to decide many of the politically sensitive issues that used to determine national elections"
Such as?
Complain about this comment
To #174 chrisboote,
If petitionning your government and MPs are fruitess tobring in a referedum, then you have no choice but to vote the current parties (Labour in your case) in power out ... while clearly stating why.
However, an EU referedum doesn't seem to top the list of things that matter the most when it comes to electing MPs ... but that's still the way to do it democratically and peacefully.
Complain about this comment
177. Freeborn-John wrote:
"Citizenship is the relationship between an individual and a state."
This is a very narrow interpretation of the word. Please do not seek to impose on others the one and only meaning that you choose.
May I invite you to research the origins and evolution of the term and its current plurality of meaning.
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot R173,
You misinterpreted me since I tried to be ironic when I said Freeborn-John had convinced me.
I cannot take very seriously "the cucumber row" from any angle. It's a silly issue overexploited by 20 pence newspapers for 20 years.
We could discuss instead over the tremendous EU success in forcing UK to implement the metric system like everybody else on earth.
Complain about this comment
181. betuli wrote:
"We could discuss instead over the tremendous EU success in forcing UK to implement the metric system like everybody else on earth."
Aargh!!! Long before the UK joined the EU it had a Metrication Board attempting this move.
There may have been some persuasion of late but using the term "forcing" only feeds anti-EU sentiment and xenophobia. Or are you being ironic again?
For a long time most continentals just laughed at our quaint old-fashioned weights and measures and the self-imposed difficulties they presented for UK exporters.
I find it amusing that our former colony, now the USA, persists in using Imperial measurements.
Complain about this comment
Oh, Polyglot, I just forgot how touchy can be British about vocabulary.
Indeed, all EU coutries can be "forced" to comply EU directives, except UK, which has to be "sweatly convinced", even if it is about a logical measure.
As far as I remember there were deadlines for UK to enforce the metric system but, of course, it was a consequence of progressive persuassion, and not "forcing".
England forced world wide to abide her rules during better Imperial times. But England can NEVER be forced to do anything.
Eurosceptism or xenophobia don't need to be fed. Like any irrational pathology, they are self-feeding.
Finally, the UK ex colony USA may still use the Imperial system for domestic duties, however it seems their exporters have learnt the proper lesson long time ago.
Complain about this comment
DutchNemo,
The European countryside would be better off without any kind of culture... just leaving it to mother nature to regenerate the former woods.
The landscape in Benelux and Northwest Germany seem more a huge garden than wild nature.
Complain about this comment
It seems as though the majority of those contributing to this thread are happy to toss disguised insults at each other ad infinitum and/or attempt to score petty points without actually discussing the vital matter at hand.
Central to this discussion is the concept of reconciling the apparent conflict in roles played by differing constitutional elements of the European Union.
The vast majority seem to resort by default to using labels to describe differing groups, most notably National markers of identity but is this the most appropriate means of compartmentalising differing sections of European society?
For example; do all French people share the same goals and aspirations? Does the French government represent all French citizens in a uniform manner? I don't think so but some might wish to rebut that statement.
These are the kind of questions, mirrored across the entire Union, which we should be addressing. Are old style traditional European Member (Nation) States the only legitimate form of political structure or should something different, more adaptable to rapidly changing geo-political circumstances, begin to emerge?
These are the important issues we should be deliberating upon rather than endless discussion of meaningless trivia.
Just an idea?
Complain about this comment
Betuli (183): The EU has given up its campaign to force metrification on the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2007/09/imperial_victory.html
I think one of the things that always puzzles Britons is the Continental desire to force everyone to do exactly the same thing. Why is it important to you what units we measure beer or petrol in?
Three centuries of union between Scotland and England have not prevented these two countries from doing things their own way, but the mania for uniformity seems deep-seated on the Continent and a contstant source of puzzlement to Britons and indeed frustration with the EU.
----------------
"That a totally different system of laws, and very different administrative institutions, may exist in two portions of a country without being any obstacle to legislative unity is proved by the case of England and Scotland. Perhaps, however, this undisturbed co-existence of two legal systems, under one united legislature, making different laws for the two sections of the country in adaptation to the previous differences, might not be so well preserved, or the same confidence might not be felt in its preservation, in a country whose legislators were more possessed (as is apt to be the case on the Continent) with the mania for uniformity". J.S. Mill 'Representative Government' (1862).
Complain about this comment
Just a slight point, I seem to recall the US weights and measures system is not the same as the old UK imperial system. I also found it somewhat amusing bearing in mind the legal cases in the UK about products being labeled in Imperial, that here in Belgium plumbing products are stilled labeled as 1/2 inch, 3/4 inch 1 inch etc as well as in metric, amusing eh!
Ps Betuli, wouldn't it be nice it the non-UK EU countries I know well actually observed the laws they sign up to rather than ending up in the ECJ and being forced to pay daily fines because they won't, since those fines are effectively our taxes they're blowing.
Complain about this comment
# 102. At 12:00 pm on 30 May 2008, greypolyglot wrote:
99. SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
"The "EU" has supported arrogant Spain against the Morrocans in the matter of Parsley Island, which I think should be Morrocan."
Do you also think that Gibraltar should be Spanish and the Channel Islands should be French?
SuffilkBoy2:
Only if the inhabitants want it. There are no inhabitants on Parsley Island. It is only a few yards from Morocco.
Kosovo should be fee of Serbia because apparently the majority of its inhabitants want that .
Northern Kosovo should be free of Kosovo because apparently the majority of its inhabitants want that.
South Tirol ...Italy...
When the matter is not clear there should be a referendum as we should be having in the UK about the "EU".
If Scotland becomes independent then there might be some bits that should be allowed to stay with the UK if they want to : e.g. Shetlands, some areas bordering England.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John 186,
"I think one of the things that always puzzles Britons is the Continental desire to force everyone to do exactly the same thing".
Come on, John! It took to long for you to adapt the metric system! How can anyone understand each other nowadays if we don't use same parameters for length, weight, temperature and so on?
The same should apply for language. I strongly support English become the only EU official language, that it already happens de facto.
As a native English speaker, you should be more than satisfied. Stop complaining.
Complain about this comment
Betuli (189): Did you ever hear a British proposal that English should be the only official language in EU institutions? That does not sound very British to me.
Why do think everyone always has to do the same thing?
Complain about this comment
That's right Freeborn-John, the British never propose anything, only complain much later on in the day when the outcome of someone else's policy is not to their liking.
Why does everyone have to do the same thing? Rather, everyone pulls in the same direction for a common goal of peace and prosperity. Not much to ask?
Re your post no. 152, I'm afraid that your notion that somehow the UK population is in favour of withdrawing from the EU is but a eurosceptic wetdream. The reality is that it's the desire of a vocal minority, largely composed of older individuals who hark back to a distant era when Britain was a world power. The same minority who find it unacceptable that the UK should have to abide by rules and regulations issued by a "foreign" body.
Complain about this comment
Ravenseft (191): If the EU only acted towards goals of peace and prosperity then no-one would have any problem with it. After all the UN was created to maintain the peace and the GATT/WTO to remove wealth-destroying barriers to trade and both these institutions are quite popular in the UK.
The EU is about something other than you claim; namely the objective of ever closer union leading towards a common government for Europe. There is no majority in this country in favour of the Lisbon treaty whose objective is to take us closer to that goal, which is of course why the UK referendum on it has been cancelled. Opinion polls show that if referendums had been held on the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice then they too would have been defeated, as would any UK referendum on the Euro. Opinion polls also show there is a sizeable majority in this country who think the EU has too much power over us and who would like to see a UK-EU relationship based on trade and not political union. While I cannot be sure what the Conservative party will promise for their 2010 manifesto, it is not impossible that we will have a UK government 2 years from now elected on a popular mandate to negotiate something like this.
My question to you is why anyone on the Continent would object to a trade based UK-EU relationship that might enjoy popular support here? Why this relentless campaign to force an unnatural political union on us that we clearly do not want?
--------
P.S. I am afraid you are wrong about the young supporting the EU and older people being against it. The opposite is in fact true. Page 9 of the last of the post-referendum surveys conducted by the EU Commission after the 2005 votes says the following:
"The sociodemographic breakdown confirms phenomena noted in Spain, France and the
Netherlands and shows that the voters of the two camps have a well-defined profile irrespective of the country where they are. So, the 'Yes' come out on top more clearly among women (60%) and especially among the more elderly (72%), whilst the great majority of young people (62%) tend to side with the 'No'."
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl173_postref_lu_en.pdf
Complain about this comment
192. Freeborn-John wrote:
"If the EU only acted towards goals of peace and prosperity then no-one would have any problem with it."
Aaah, if only!
"The EU is about ... ever closer union leading towards a common government for Europe."
Please give source - not for "ever closer union" but for "common government".
"There is no majority in this country in favour of the Lisbon treaty ... which is of course why the UK referendum on it has been cancelled."
You state the reason for there being no referendum as a fact. Isn't that rather your opinion?
"Opinion polls show that if referendums had been held on the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice then they too would have been defeated, as would any UK referendum on the Euro. Opinion polls also show there is a sizeable majority in this country who think the EU has too much power over us and who would like to see a UK-EU relationship based on trade and not political union."
We're back to "argumentum ad populum". Of course "the majority" counts in a democracy but the majority isn't necessarily right. It's just the majority. There was a time when the majority "knew" that the world was flat!
"... why anyone on the Continent would object to a trade based UK-EU relationship that might enjoy popular support here? Why this relentless campaign to force an unnatural political union on us that we clearly do not want?"
Um, that's not quite true. Please see Treaty of Lisbon:
Article 3a
1. In accordance with Article 3b, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.
2. The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.
Article 3b
1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot (193): We do not hold elections to determine scientific truth, but as the best method available to determine the course of action most likely to lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. If I understand you correctly you are saying that because democracy is is not perfect, we should not use it in certain circumstances; such as when the course of action favoured by the majority does not make you happy?
You quote very selectively from the Lisbon treaty when referring to the article that says competences not conferred upon the Union remain with the member states. Note the definition of shared competence is open-ended meaning that everything falls into that category and can therefore be conferred to the EU. Note the careful use of negative wording in the article 4 below and the use of the word “principal”. The list of areas (a) to (k) below may look to be definitive at first glance, but a careful reading shows it is for illustrative purposes only.
ARTICLE 4
1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a competence which does NOT relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 (exclusive competence) and 6 (supporting areas).
2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following
PRINCIPLE areas:
(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy;
(j) area of freedom, security and justice;
(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.
And what does the EU mean by a shared power? Note the definition in article 2 below. Once the EU acts to create legislation in a so-called area of shared competence the national parliament can never contradict that legislation again. Shared powers are only shared in time, starting of as a national power that can be influenced by our votes and becoming an EU power at the later point in time when the EU first legislates.
ARTICLE 2.2:
When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has NOT exercised its competence.
The inevitable and automatic consequences of such wording is that over time EU competence will expand without limit and the legislative power of our national parliaments will tend towards zero. One can debate the speed at which this journey will take, but not the destination that will be arrived at.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655.en08.pdf
----------------------
"Here in Brussels, a true European government has been born. I have governmental powers, I have executive powers for which there is no other name in the world, whether you like it or not, than government" - Romano Prodi, EU Commission President, speaking to the EU Parliament.
"But what is the Commission? We are here to take binding decisions as an executive power. If you don't like the term government for this, what other term do you suggest? ... I speak of a European government because we take government decisions." – R. Prodi, The Times, 27 October 1999.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
195
I am perplexed. Would the moderators please contact me directly to explain how I broke the house rules.
Complain about this comment
@ 192, Freeborn-John
The EU offers a much better long-term guarantee of peace and prosperity than either the UN or the WTO which are increasingly dominated by the larger nations (of which Britain is not one). I'm not sure you can say that either the UN or the WTO are "popular" in the UK, rather they don't receive the Murdoch press treatment. I wonder if that would change, were the UK to lose its seat on the security council?
The Lisbon referendum was cancelled as the Murdoch press created an unobjective hostile climate which effectively prevented any real debate. Rather like a jury in a murder trial only being presented with the prosecution's arguments. Joining the Euro, on course to be the world's leading currency, is inevitable and people will vote for it when they are hit in the pocket by the plunging buying power of the pound.
Yes, there may well be some in the UK who would prefer a far looser association with the EU. But as the EU has no interest in creating a two-tier system which would effectively allow the UK to have all the economic benefits, but none of the political commitments. You can't neatly separate what is trade from what is political; one is entwined with the other. Free trade rests on the four pillars of free movement of persons, goods, capital and services. Ensuring a level playing field in those areas entails necessarily conferring competences on an independent body to create common applicable rules and standards. Those rules will relate to anything from tax, to employment, the environment, competition and security.
The UK has a choice to make, either to accept the system as it is or to leave. You have to remember that the UK needs the EU far more than it needs the UK.
----
In so far as opinion polls go, Eurobarometer is fairly conclusive on the young/old divide:
"support for membership is somewhat higher amongst males, the young, those with the longest education and higher-earning occupational groups." (p. 24, December 2007)
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb68/eb68_first_en.pdf
Complain about this comment
194. Freeborn-John wrote:
"If I understand you correctly you are saying that because democracy is is not perfect, we should not use it in certain circumstances; such as when the course of action favoured by the majority does not make you happy?"
No, you do not understand me correctly. I have never gone beyond pointing out that holding the majority opinion is not necessarily the same as being right.
"You quote very selectively from the Lisbon treaty".
Don't we all choose the quotes that we believe best support our argument?
"Romano Prodi, EU Commission President, speaking to the EU Parliament and R. Prodi, The Times, 27 October 1999."
I’ll trust your quotes. But people make mistakes. Just because some high placed person says something does not of itself make it true. I recall various highly placed individuals declaring as fact that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction.
Complain about this comment
To #197 If and when, France decide to "lose" its UN Security Council to a common seat for the EU, the UK will likely lose it own as well for a seat to India, or take the risk being labelled for what it is : a proxy for US policy.
Complain about this comment
Re 15
ScepticMax says:
"Ireland fought long and hard for its freedom and its independence. They may pay scant attention to the words of a friendly Englishman, but I do hope the Irish preserve their independence and freedom. They surely didn't leave one empire to throw their lot in with another."
Your repeated and lengthy comparisons of the EU to an empire (British, Soviet, etc.) shows either deep ignorance, or the simulation thereof. Your arguments, if you really hope for reasonable people to consider, must be backed by something more solid than easy and short-lived demagogic analogies. By the way Skeptic comes from the Greek word that stands for thinking and analysing. Quite ironic.
Complain about this comment
Ravensaft (197): You start from the position that the UK is powerless to advance its own interests and that the EU has no interest to taking our aspirations into account. You proceed from there to conclude that the UK must either accept the terms dictated by EU federalists, or must leave the EU.
The UK is however the 5th largest economy on earth. The demographic and economic trends relative to Germany indicate we will become the largest European economy in the 2030s. The UK financial contribution to the EU budget is very significant and indeed is vital to Brussels in securing the loyalty of less affluent member states. Therefore your starting premise is implausible. Population projections for the 21st century show all the English-speaking countries growing rapidly while that of the Continent (especially Germany, Italy, Russia and all of Eastern Europe) is in decline. Therefore your starting premise is likely to become ever more doubtful in future.
However, even if your starting premise were true your argument would still be unacceptable. You are basically saying 'we are strong; you are weak; you have no choice but to do what we want'. My hope and expectation of state and international institutions is the opposite of yours; namely that they serve not as the vehicle by which the strong can impose their will on the weak, but that they protect the weak from the strong. Individuals and nations should be able to do what they want (providing they do not harm others) with international institutions acting like policemen to ensure that overgrown playground bullies on the international scene do not impose their will on others.
Yours views are noteworthy to the extent that they are unfortunately representative of the Brussels mindset, and therefore highlight a disturbing problem with the EU institutions that any real reform treaty would seek to amend.
Complain about this comment
Well all I know is that the EU has lost far too many funds by unelected officials for far too long.
That alone is enough reason do doubt it's integrity and vote no, never mind someone in some other country deciding on local matters whilst they have never even travelled there.
The world is in a mess and charity starts at home.
Complain about this comment
"And we all know how the rights and freedoms of negroes expanded in the USA because of the privilege of being citizens of that Union." [#170]
If you mean that descendents of former slaves (with no prior nationality but merely a tribal mentality) can be now Chairmen of JCS, National Security Advisors, Secretaries of State, and presidential candidates, you're absolutely correct.
Except that that's happened thanks to a fact, that US is not a Union but a single country with a clear national identity. And not even a Democracy - horrible dictu - but a Republic.
P.S. If you want to find out what ultimately always happens to multi-national unions organized from the top down, look no farther than to former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia.
Complain about this comment
See this as an opportunity to allow an INFORMED decision to be made at a later time.
A vote for 'No' is neither Nationalist nor Europhobic.
A no vote in Ireland will not prevent an EU constitution. That we can all agree on. The Minuscule Minority will try again and maybe with a different tact; but that remains to be seen.
Unfortunately only the unelected Commissioners and cronies know what their real plan is in its entirety.
They will insult you, rush you onto the road they want you to take: BUT NOW IS THE opportunity to allow for an INFORMED decision to be made at a later time.
Look beyond THEIR Media.
Trust in your OWN judgement.
Be charitable.
And beware the Minuscule Minority.
Complain about this comment
@ Grunebaum (176)
lets have referendums in every country whether people want economic cooperation or political union. I think economic cooperation is what the majority wants. There is no mandate for political union.
A majority in every EU member state wants a referendum on the Lisbon 'enabling act' treaty. The Financial Times Poll clearly stated that. What is your reaction to the majority of peoples wanting a referendum? Who is holding back who here? Who is the minority?
Complain about this comment
@ Ravenseft (197)
the UN and WTO are intergovernmental. The EU is supranational and effectively functions as a supreme government of Europe (one that is undemocratic and has no popular mandate).
Also, where is the mandate for political integration? If put to a vote, the majority would vote for economic cooperation but not political integration.
Complain about this comment
mcdv1975: "A majority in every EU member state wants a referendum on the Lisbon 'enabling act' treaty. The Financial Times Poll clearly stated that. What is your reaction to the majority of peoples wanting a referendum?"
Their National governments cannot grant it to them as they are made slaves to low interest loans of the European Central Bank.
They control the money.
They control the base rate.
They control the Govenments.
"Who is holding back who here? Who is the minority?"
Beware the Minuscule Minority.
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot (198): You make a very valid point about people choosing selective quotes to suit their point of view and there is no denying that is what 99.9% of debaters do. However after debating the EU issue here and elsewhere for quite some time now I hope I have moved beyond that. I am confident that my critique of the EU and especially its lack of democratic legitimacy cannot be refuted. However even if my best arguments against the EU cannot be refuted that does not mean that I am necessarily right. To be sure I have to understand the best arguments that others can make for the EU, to think over those arguments, and see if I can refute those arguments. Therefore I encourage you and also other intelligent supporters of the project who post here to articulate your point of view and test it though discussion.
Best wishes,
Freeborn John
Complain about this comment
@ Freeborn-John, no. 201
* The EU, as a regional grouping of countries, has to take everyone's interests into account. However, it can't bend over backwards to satisfy the needs of one particular country to the detriment of the rest. In deciding the future, the EU has to go for the greater good. This is not a two-speed Europe, which would only benefit the UK.
*That the UK is a successful economy is down to the fact that it has always punched above its weight in terms of overseas trade. At present over 50% of trade is conducted within the EU. That has the potential to increase with the economic renaissance of the Eastern European Member States. The question is, will the UK still be around to reap the benefits?
*As for the UK's "vital" contribution to the budget - please bear in mind that as a consequence of the rebate, the poorer countries are paying 6% of the money going back to the UK. Yes, the pot would be smaller for a few years if the UK left, but the difference would be made up in time.
* You can't compare the UK with Germany which doesn't have a trade deficit, and is far stronger in terms of industrial exports. By 2030 I doubt that the UK will exist, let alone match Germany in economic terms.
* Talking of the "strong" and "weak", your argument rests on the UK throwing its weight around as a large economy to get what it wants in Europe? Other countries have made concessions in joining the EU, why not the UK?
Complain about this comment
208. Freeborn-John wrote:
"I hope I have moved beyond that (choosing selective quotes to suit ... point of view)"
Hope springs eternal.
"I am confident that my critique of the EU and especially its lack of democratic legitimacy cannot be refuted."
I, on the other hand, am not working from critique but from actual knowledge acquired over 30 years.
"even if my best arguments against the EU cannot be refuted that does not mean that I am necessarily right."
True
"I have to understand the best arguments that others can make for the EU, to think over those arguments, and see if I can refute those arguments."
Loop back to 1.
"post here to articulate your point of view and test it though discussion"
Loop back to 4.
"I encourage you and ... other ... supporters ... to articulate your point of view"
I had hoped to find a forum to correct misunderstanding and misinterpretation. I see now that there is no point. Have fun debating with Jaws1912.
I have decided to withdraw permanently and shall not return even to see if the moderators have let this through or whether you or others reply.
Complain about this comment
PS
For those who hold up the US Constitution as a model.
Good as it is it was drawn up for only 13 States with a small population.
Congress intended to accept it if only 9 of the 13 States accepted it. (Happily, as we all know it was unanimous in the end)
Nonetheless 577 delegates voted against it in the face 1071 who voted for it.
Unless you count the Civil War, there was no referendum on it.
It didn't prohibit slavery. That came later in one of 27 Amendments. (so they didn't quite get it right first time around).
Complain about this comment
You can't compare the UK with Germany which doesn't have a trade deficit, and is far stronger in terms of industrial exports. By 2030 I doubt that the UK will exist, let alone match Germany in economic terms.
[#209]
"About 23% of "added value" by Europe's top 750 firms came from the UK.
Germany was the next most productive country, making up 19.7% of the total, with France (18.5%) in third place. "
And that despite UK still being an EU member. Boy, oh, boy! :-)
Complain about this comment
unfunny powermeerkat ...
The same article in the FT show UK business complaining that UK firms are more taxed their Continentals counterparts :
"The annual value-added scoreboard, published Monday, shows the 185 top wealth-creating companies in the UK handed over 12 per cent of the added value they created in taxation last year.
The German companies among the 750 top European wealth-creators paid 6 per cent of their value-added in tax, while the French and Swiss companies in the league table paid 8 per cent.
British companies are also more efficient at creating wealth. Last year they converted £100 spent on labour and equipment into almost £194 of value-added, compared with £142 for German companies and £157 in France.
The government report also shows large companies pay out a higher proportion of their value-added in dividends and interest than their Continental counterparts. But the proportion of the wealth they create that is invested in sustaining and developing their businesses is lower than in Germany or France."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f5a04ef6-358d-11dd-998d-0000779fd2ac.html
Cherrypicking information ... how lame for a jester :)
Complain about this comment
And speaking about Irish referendum and the FT (not a particularly europhile newspaper ...)
Don't hesitate to read it all
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/be68bac8-357d-11dd-998d-0000779fd2ac.html
here is he conclusion :
"Putting the treaty to such a plebiscite is absurd. There is nothing in it that damages Irish interests, or significantly affects the constitution. It is certainly not perfect. No negotiated compromise of 27 states could be. But Irish voters would be ill-advised to reject it. There is no cost-free No vote. Ireland would be weakened in Europe, and Europe would be weakened in the world."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ravenseft (209): I do not accept there is a common good different from that which all EU countries can agree to unanimously. The only time that binding law should be imposed on a country against the will of its electorate (e.g. by QMV) is when the law exists to protect people in other countries. All countries should favour EU laws if they satisfy this criterion, because each country should wish that others are prevented from doing things harmful to them, such as erecting protectionist barriers against their goods, or emitting damaging pollution which can be carried across borders. Unfortunately the EU regularly exceeds this limit thereby interfering in matters of general politics which should be only ever be decided democratically within the nation-state. The EU does this because it was created to gradually replace our national governments with a European government, a goal that is fundamentally incompatible with representative democracy.
I am not going to get into a discussion between the relative merits of the UK and German economies, but I disagree with you that Britain would not benefit from trade with east European (or any other EU countries) if we were outside the EU. Countries like Switzerland, Norway and Mexico can trade freely with the EU so why not a post-EU UK? Indeed our trade would hardly be affected even without a UK-EU free trade agreement. The overwhelming majority of Britons work in the service sector and the EU external tariff on services is 0%, so that trade would be completely unaffected. The tariff on industrial goods averages 2% which is too low to distort trade as is evident from the huge number of goods now being imported from China and other low cost manufacturing centres. The only area where the EU tariffs are high enough to distort trade is agriculture which employs less than 1% of Britons and where the tariff mainly acts to raise food prices above world levels for the 100% of Britons who are food consumers.
Complain about this comment
"Cherrypicking information ... how lame for a jester :)"
I always liked picking cherries; since I turned 13.
And cherries would tell me I was not too bad at it. :-)
Complain about this comment
@ 210 Greypolyglot
Your common sense contributions to this forum will be missed and I, for one, hope that you decide to return. Yes, it may feel like banging your head against a brick wall sometimes, but think back to how it must have been for Copernicus convincing the others that the world was round?
@ 216 Freeborn John
*Do you have any concrete examples of the EU intruding into matters which are best dealt with on a domestic level? The problem is that most things affect trade and the EU has to act to ensure a level playing field.
*The UK's reliance on the services sector is exactly its achilles heel as the services are freely moveable from one country to another. Example: established UK accountancy firm with a worldwide presence; UK leaves the EU, it will simply move its base of operations to another EU capital and trade from there. Outside the EU is outside a trade barrier. Example 2: what would prevent a foreign competitor seeking to take the accountancy firm's business once its host state left the EU?
*I really don't understand why there are still some in the UK who make comparisons with Norway and Switzerland. Norway won the state equivalent of euromillions in the 1960s when it discovered oil. It has no interest in joining the EU whilst it still has that oil which forms its main export. Fishing is also an important industry which would be affected by the CFP.
As for Switzerland, this country is in the same boat as Liechtenstein, small, very rich and inherently neutral which is a good sell for companies from wherever wishing to discretly carry out business. Can you even contemplate Switzerland going to war with Iraq? Apart from the financial services element, there's nothing between the UK and CH. As for Mexico, it and Panama are likely to join the Union of South American Nations, founded on 23 May 2008, and modelled on the EU.
Complain about this comment
Ravenseft (218): You are no clearly no Copernicus if you do not know that the EU has acquired powers in almost all policy areas now, including 55 new areas in the Lisbon treaty such as sports, immigration and asylum, foreign policy, etc. Please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by pretending it is only about trade.
There are numerous examples where the EU intrudes on decision that should only be taken democratically within the nation-state. Some currently live examples are that our government cannot lower VAT on environmentally-friendly products and that (despite the UK having negotiated an opt-out from the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty) the EU is now trying to impose conditions on UK temporary worker contracts and trying (again!) to impose a 48-hour maximum working week on full-time employees in Britain which will damage our flexible economy.
The main industry in Norway is oil. The main industries in Switzerland are financial services and pharmaceuticals. The main industries in the UK are oil, financial services and pharmaceuticals. Can you tell me which countries are more like the UK than these, or why we would be any less successful outside the EU than two non-EU European countries which are among the five richest in the world?
Your example on accountancy is meaningless. As already mentioned the EU has 0% tariff on services meaning that the trade barriers you imagine do not exist. There are non-tariff barriers in the service sector but because of the failure of the Bolkenstein directive these also apply to trade in services between EU member-states.
Complain about this comment
Ravenseft (218): You are no clearly no Copernicus [#219].
"think back to how it must have been for Copernicus convincing the others that the world was round?" [#218]
Copernicus did not have to convince anybody that the Earth was round; this had been already established. C. didn't even deal with that issue.
What the Polish astronomer did do was to prove that Ptolomeian geocentric model was false, and heliocentric was the corrrect one.
Complain about this comment
Answering directly to Mark's original entry:
To understand why a No from Ireland would be a catastrophe for me, you would have to be born in Western Continental Europe, where every inch is drenched in blood, where peace was fragile and war the rule, where Erzfeind and ennemi hérédiaire (both mean arch-enemy) were the usual choice of words when refering to one's neighbor. We yearn for unity here on the border. My village (Germany) and its neighbor (France) developed a sercet code in order to not accidentally kill a neighbor/relative/friend during WWII. We want to be united. I don't want a border between my village and the next. And I'm privileged, there are villages where the border runs smack though high street. (Don't believe? Google Leidingen or "Nieuwstraat Neustrasse"). So it's only an emotional thing. And anyway - war in Europe? Impossible. !??? Better safe than sorry; an Irish Yes would probably make it impossible.
Complain about this comment
It would be a big failure if this constitution did not go anyplace...Because it has many problems with it.
Complain about this comment
The UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK does it old-man-mike!?
What tosh. The UK is a net contributor to the EU!
I very much resent having to pay VAT on everything to the benefit of the corrupt and undemocratic EU.
We should tell them where to put their superstate. The British public were only ever consulted on a tradeing-bloc not a united states of Europe.
Complain about this comment
Ireland has been one of EC's success stories, transforming itself with the help of billions of euros from the European Union that began pouring in during the late 80's. However, now it finds itself in the less happy position of having to help finance the newer, and poorer, countries who have recently joined or who will be joining the Union.
When there's no money in it for Ireland they vote 'NO'
We need to move forward, with or without Ireland.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
At 12.28 pm my comment was removed because it contained the "F word" - which is fair enough. Nonetheless Mr. Mardell, it appears, can safely use an acronym which contains the "F word" without a thought. I was merely pointing out that I considered it disrespectful to our Taoiseach (Prime Minister) for him to be referred to on UK television as a " Big Ignorant F-word from Offaly". I now realize that the full blooded version, recognized by every person in the Irish Republic is too vulgar for the delicate sensibilities of the moderators, but the insult to our Prime Minister is apparently acceptable.
Complain about this comment
A constitutional catastophe? i think that in reality if more countries; have voted against the treaty then it would be a very bad day....
--Dennis Junior--
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS