A Polish No?
How important is the Polish president's interview with a newspaper stating that at the moment it is "pointless" to sign the Lisbon Treaty? Our man on the ground Adam Easton tells me that the constitution says that if parliament ratifies a treaty, as it has done, then the president must sign the ratification to bring it into force. But the constitution does not specify a time limit.
If the government wanted to push things they could take him to the state tribunal - but that is unlikely.
So at the moment, he can refuse to sign until or unless political pressure on him becomes too strong.
But if anyone has any other view on the legal position I would love to hear your thoughts.
My own feeling is that if the Irish are "persuaded" to vote again it is very much a side issue. But if the Irish government won't call for another vote, and other countries start to get heavy with them, it becomes very important indeed: the battle would then be between those who want to kill Lisbon and those who want to move on without Ireland.
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~17~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
My considered opinion on the legal position?
I couldn't give a damn!
When it comes to the "EU", judges appear to be the glove puppets of the "EU"-dictatorship.
We need referenda.
No referendum = no recognition.
Complain about this comment
Is it not the case that the treaty, as it stands at the moment, can't move on without Ireland?
Complain about this comment
I understand that the Polish president had been negotiating for a change in the Polish Constitution, such that their UK-style opt-out arrangements from EU justice and home affairs could not in future be surrendered without the agreements of both houses of parliament and the president. He had been refusing to sign-off the Lisbon treaty until he had won this concession, which would safeguard Polish abortion laws and other policies dear to him. I am not sure if the latest reports are part of this ongoing negotiation, or indeed real intent not to ratify.
Complain about this comment
From my understanding Mark you have it spot on; He has to sign a treaty or law passed by the parliament, but he can do so whenever he wants (unless of course forced by political pressure).
As it stands, if the Irish vote again, or if it is forced through (which is illegal I assume due to the Irish Constitution) then he will sign, until Ireland decide how to "move forward" he will drag his feet (as rightly he should by the EUs own rules).
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I have read the BBC Report to which you have linked this article, "Poland in new blow to EU treaty".
I noticed another piece of the jigsaw that is there to give President Sarkozy a headache!
In the BBC Report there is a paragraph that reads, "German President Horst Koehler has also delayed ratification - until the country's highest court has delivered a ruling on legal challenges."
Is there any way of knowing how long it may take for the German legal challenges to be ruled upon?
The plot(s) against the Lisbon Treaty seems to thicken daily and makes the idea of Lisbon becoming law less rather than more likely and makes the haste with which the UK Labour Government pushed UK ratification of the Treaty all the more ridiculous!
Complain about this comment
As for the legal situation - you're right. Our President believes he has no time limits, but I think the Tribunal may disagree, because this is just plain outright evading the law.
And as for the Irish No, it's just an excuse for him. He hates the Lisbon, but he can't say it straight for two reasons: 1) he's a President of a largely pro-European nation and 2) he's the one who negotiated Lisbon in the first place and at the time he described it as a success. Now he says the treaty is fine, but what will happen if the liberal government opts out of the opt-outs; that is accepts the whole treaty in it's full form? So he originally threatened to veto the ratification (which some experts say would've been illegal) and then he struck a sort of a deal with the government that he will allow the Treaty to be ratified and then a bill will be written that will say that no-one can alter Poland's position in the EU (i.e. remove the opt-outs from the Treaty) without the president's authorisation. It was quite clear from the start that they were only buying time then and that this bill would never work out the way the President wants it to. Now he's using the Irish No to buy even more time and hopes that Europe will abandon Lisbon all together before he is forced to take a clear position against it.
Complain about this comment
Adam Easton hits the nail right on the head, as does Pawel_M above. President Kaczynski will not sign it unless he's forced to and frankly speaking I cannot see anything apart from his own decision that could make him sign the treaty. However legally dubious his not signing can be, all attempts to force him are similarly dubious, as no one would want to get involved in a political or legal battle for fear of making the internal Polish politics even more highly charged.
Complain about this comment
President Kaczynski is a lame duck, if you pardon the Polish-English pun ('kaczor' means 'drake' in Polish). His popularity within Poland is comparable to that of Dubya in the US these days. I think he should be taken to the Polish Constitutional Tribunal where I think he would be found to be in breach of the constitution. Not having a formal time limit does not normally give someone the freedom to withhold signing interminably. Something about justice delayed being justice denied and all that. Quite apart from that, however, all these problems are making clear how necessary the Lisbon Treaty is for the EU to be able to move forward. The Poles who know their history know that the requirement for unanimity is what paralysed their parliament in the eighteenth century, leading in the end to political collapse and more than a century of foreign control.
Complain about this comment
#8 Talmont
"these problems are making clear how necessary the Lisbon Treaty is for the EU to be able to move forward"
Or maybe these problems are making clear how the EU isn't working in it's current guise and we should go back to the drawing board and actually create something everyone wants.
Of course that would mean first of all we'd have to find out what everyone actually wants by asking them, rather than telling everyone "this is how things are, like it or lump it"
Complain about this comment
#9
ah yes, and do you have any idea how an agreement between 27 states would look? Especially if they need to achieve unanimity?
Oh right, it's called the Lisbon Treaty.
Complain about this comment
The question is whether the Polish president is doing this for domestic reasons (oposition to Donald Tusk who beat his twin's party into opposition), or whether he truly has any misgivings about the treaty.
By the way, isn't it about time for a little breather on the whole EU subject in the UK because it seems that any little snippet of news is front page material at the moment.
Complain about this comment
#10
well that's the thing isn't it, first of all we had a nice, clean, "easy" to understand document called the Constitution.
This was put to a couple of referendums and rejected.
The Constitution then morphed into the not so nice, clean or even close to "easy" to understand Treaty.
This was not put to any referendums except for Ireland, who rejected it..... And if other countries had been given referendums I imagine (and this is just my personal opinion) that it would have had at least a few more rejections.
Are you seeing a pattern here?
Maybe the idea of an ever closer EU is just fundamentally flawed.
Maybe it's a brilliant idea and the people are just too stupid to understand what an amazing opportunity is passing by.
I don't know unfortunately, but what does seem apparent is that whenever "the people" are asked they seem to say no.
Complain about this comment
xoser73 @ #11
Yes, let's play along with there being no news about the EU in the UK.
The EU could then quietly carry on bull-dozing it's way to implementing the Lisbon Treaty despite the Irish "No" vote and despite The German, Czech and Polish Presidents having doubts and even President Sarkozy suggesting that their is something wrong with the EU.
We could quietly wake up to find that despite all the misgivings from some very eminent politicians that the Irish and Polish have lost their veto on their right to retain a ban on abortion, Irish neutrality has gone to the wall and territory granted to Poland post-WWII has been ceded back to Germany through France and Germany having greater voting power versus the lost of voting weight by other EU Nations . . . . all very good reasons why Poland and Ireland should have doubts about QMV!
And the UK - well we're stuffed anyway as the present UK Government includes so many former Young Socialist Idealists who's dream is an EU having been given all of the UK National Parliament's Sovereign Powers that all that is left is a Westminster that is no more than a talking shop.
You might want respite from EU news but I want to make sure that my country is not sold out by the idealists!
Complain about this comment
11. No, I don't think it is time for a breather...In fact, the longer it is kept high in the news, the better. It reminds people just how damn dogmatic our leaders in Europe can be.
It is evident from polling that there still a lot of people who feel strongly about the non-referendum issue in Britain and whilst newspapers and the media think that enough people care, it'll remain front page news.
I will be most worried if it slips out of the news, to be honest. Public apathy, media quiet and stealth means that much of the EU Constitution has already been passed piecemeal in any case.
Complain about this comment
At least one thing have been proven the last couple of years: a referendum is a brilliant tool to cripple decision-making.
Ever wondered why the Tories were suddenly such a strong supporter of direct democracy?
Hoe long will it last?
Complain about this comment
#11 xoser73
Sorry, I have to disagree, I'd much rather have more news I'm afraid. I think that enough decisions have been made behind closed doors as it is.
What I would really love is a piece by piece breakdown of the current Treaty, something like;
Part 1a - How it is now
- How the Treaty will change it
- Possible side effects
Part 1b - How it is now
- How the Treaty will change it
- Possible side effects
Part 2a - How it is now
- How the Treaty will change it
- Possible side effects
etc etc
I think that would be much more useful than the current reporting of the treaty that seems to be along the lines of "he said, then she said, then they did, then I said....."
Lots of words, not that much detail :)
Complain about this comment
Please people, stop using the French and the Dutch as an example of countries having said no to the European Constitution. Both France and the NL are pro european countries and voted NO in their respective referenda for reasons that had nothing to do with the actual constitution. I think on many French 'No' posters it said: 'Non a la Turquie en Europe'
In the netherlands the no camp was a combination of anti-capitalists against the european internal market, 2 fundamentalist religious parties against any provisions in the consitution in. favour of abortion and the LPF and group Wilders, both campaigning for a No against Turkey entering the union.
Complain about this comment
Sorry guys, at no time am I against a well informed public and if there is truly good information available, let us have it. I am talking about a sense of histeria that seems to accompany any news issue on the EU.
I am all for democracy and well-nformed voters!
Complain about this comment
EU is long time dead and we just need to bury it. Once the unity and solidarity are broken, there will be no more.. and the Francho-German Co just destroy unity.. what united and sincere policy is when you deal with russia, and bypass poland with the north stream pipeline..ukraine as well, but since latest is not in EU yet, lets skip it..
EU is a farce, colonialist countries have starting using small countries, but NO.. if this, then NO more EU..
Have you all noticed that there is one alternative in power to EU??? and they are the EU elite..same as one-man election.. you must always vote yes,,, because NO doesnt exist, since there is no such group or political party in EU who is in opposition..
Complain about this comment
#17 Xoser
I do realise that the No's for the original constitution were not necessarily all votes against the EU, I believe that there was also some animosity towards the various governments at the time which swayed the vote to a negative.
But could you clarify a few of your points for me;
The internal market - wasn't that what the EU project was originaly set up for, trade and industry etc? Therefore a vote against this was a vote against the basic premise of the EU.
Abortion - I'm not sure what is actually in the Treaty or Constitution about this issue, but I believe (and may be wrong) that any subject like this were guidelines and could be overruled by the individual governments. Therefore the No vote would have been due to the Yes campaigners not doing a very good job...
As for Turkey, many people are worried about the continuous expansions (expecially the French about Turks), and if they felt that that was a deal-breaker I don't see why we should ignore their views just because we don't agree with them.
Complain about this comment
by the way,,,, is not about abortion, or human rights,.....
it is about money, money and more money,,, economy.... thats why treaty fails, and will fail... if it doesnt,, economy will fail,,,, because you cant go on stealing EU money, coruption, and MEP wages...
you have same politicos same faces for years, incompetent people runing EU, and not allowing other people of different opinion... a NO doesnt count,,,,
what are chances EU elite is exclusive, and has a Kasta indian rules applying to it??
Complain about this comment
Kaczynski is a lame duck and his opinion doesn't matter in Polish politics. The Polish President has a ceremonial function only and has to sign treaties and laws the parliament already ratified. The Polish President can't refuse to sign Lisbon because the Polish parliament already ratified it.
The Polish President desires the advantages of European Union membership only without accepting the disadvantages. Not that it really matters. At least Donald Tusk represents the Polish people. Kaczinski represents ultraconservative/far right farmers and labourers in small villages on the Polish countryside, less then 50% of the population. Most Poles feel ashamed he is their President.
Complain about this comment
xoser73 @ 17 and 18
How can you belittle the French and Dutch votes in the two referenda on the EU Contitutional Treaty in #17 but suggestthat "I am all for democracy and well-(i)nformed voters!" @ #18. It appears that you decry the voters for having a vote because they would vote 'wrong' and then suggest that if they have a vote we should ignore it becaue they vote 'wrong'. . . It appears to me to be a circle that cannot be completed?
There seems to be this inane idea promoted that anyone who is anti-EU is automatically anti-european. I am anti-EU but certainly not against closer European cooperation, free trade and free movement!
You suggest that the French are solidly pro-EU but I suspect that a free vote of the French would indicate they are pro-Europe Cooperation but not as fond of the EU as you seem to suggest?
If you suggest that the French and Dutch did not vote against the Constitutional Treaty you denigrate their intelligence. I am sure that every voter has an opinion on further EU expansion being a good thing or not or whether the EU should be a socialist economy or a capitalist free market and many Europeans are against inclusion of Turkey within the EU - but the referenda question was unique, fairly asked and voted upon. I believe they nknew exactly what they were voting aginst when they derailed the Constituional Treaty.
Like the Irish "No" vote against ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, the Irish majority may have had many reasons to vote "No" but they are an intelligent and well-educated people who knew exactly what would happen by voting "No".
Over-analysis of peoples voting choice seems to be a trick employed by losing governments ("It wasn't our fault. Honest!") and the EU ("They must not be able to understand the Treaty so let's not give them a vote or, if we do, we can say they didn't understand the treaty that's why they voted the wrong way. Never mind we can always ask them to vote again and get it right the second time!").
It's all smoke and mirrors.
The truth is the French and Dutch voted against the Constitutional Treaty - Full Stop! The Irish voted against the Lisbon Treaty - Full Stop! No ifs, buts or maybes.
Second Opportunity to re-vote is merely a confidence trick by the EU to bribe electorates to vote in favour at second go and is a prime example of what Mr Sarkozy suggests is wrong with the EU.
The confidence trick of over-analysing voters simple "No" votes in referenda and then bribing them to vote the right way at second referendum merely drives a further wedge between the EU and the people and begets the people feeling further alienated from the EU!
Complain about this comment
I think you must have missed the previous brilliant thought of Kaczynski a.k.a. Young Potato 1, that Walesa was Communist Secret Police Informer. I guess his latest behaviour allows me to add to Talmont (8) opinion that Polish president is almost as smart as Dubya.
Complain about this comment
To karolina001, the EU is not dead: after the French and Dutch "No" (for whatever reasons) and the Irish "No" (again, for whatever reasons) the EU continued to operate - and will continue to operate - under the Teaty of Nice. Whatever Kazynski might or might not do, and whatever some EU leaders and Barrosso might hope, Lisbon, however, IS dead.
The EU has got over worse crises than Constitution/Treaty failures without dying.
The problem is critics and supporters both come to this debate with preconceptions of what the EU is (or should be?), rather than knowing the reality - which is really quite boring!
Complain about this comment
Some people, especially eurosceptics seem to have real short memories; the same president who now is making life hard for the government of Poland, was the one who put his signature to the Lisbon Treaty when it was agreed upon.
Seems a bit strange that now all of a sudden he doesn't agree on what he already has agreed on.
Complain about this comment
Kaczynski unfortunately has negative veto powers. Though both Houses of Parliament voted with a 2/3 majority for the Lisbon Treaty which automatically overturns such a veto, nevertheless his physical signature is still needed on the paper and there is no fixed time limit within which he has to sign. The Constitution when drafted did not take into account such negative blocking behaviour.
Yes, he can and should be impeached in the Consitutional Court but when? He is arguing that the treaty is dead because of the Irish referendum result. Kaczynski behaves with his wretched twin brother Jaroslaw as a one-man (twin!) dictatorship!. Both are violently nationalistic ultra catholic right wing europhobes with a bootlicking attitude towards the USA and paranoic towards Russia (not without cause).The Poles don't like either of them and threw out Jaroslaw and his party from power in last October's general elections. President Kaczynski unfortunately has another 2.5 years in office before the next presidential elections are due. Cohabitation in Poland does not work as the man is a spoiler with serious character defects which make him unfit for office.
Complain about this comment
According to Polish media, President Kaczynski has said today that he will sign the treaty once Ireland have signed it. He's also said that he is in favour of the treaty and the whole issue is about the rule of unanimity being respected.
#22
Polish president is neither a ceremonial figure like, say, the German one, nor as powerful as, say, the American one. He (or she, although not this time) can veto bills and to overturn his veto the parliament needs a much higher majority. This makes for a more balanced decision-making, but can - and often does - mean a problem of "who's the boss here".
Complain about this comment
Kaczynski may or may not be a 'lame duck' or a 'Polish Dubya', the only thing that matters is whether or not the rejected Lisbon Treaty is 'dead'.
If it is 'dead' then it is pointless to sign it.
I assume that if forced by the Polish Constitutional Court [or whatever it's called] to sign it, Kaczynski could always resign and cause further delay. Perhaps our Polish friends can tell us how Polish Presidents are elected/appointed and how long this process takes.
Meanwhile both the German and the Czech presidents are unwilling to sign the documents of ratification until their validity is confirmed by their respective Constitutional courts...
Complain about this comment
dj1979 @28 wrote:
"According to Polish media, President Kaczynski has said today that he will sign the treaty once Ireland have signed it."
Brilliant!
Complain about this comment
Oh my dear, once again we have posters getting abusive over a politician that refuses, for one reason or another to continue to swallow their beloved dream. Me thinks it is those who relish the return of a USSR style environment, sorry we don't!
Complain about this comment
#31
If the USSR was about politicians acting contrary to what the people want, then that's precisely what Kaczynski does - not signing the treaty that is favoured by most of the population. Remember that he's the least popular of the three presidents of the 3rd Polish Republic, the previous two being Walesa and Kwasniewski. He really does not represent all or even most Poles.
But it's a non-issue now - he has said that he will sign it once the Irish have signed it and the only condition is that they must do it according to their law and on their own free will.
Complain about this comment
So that's it then. No need for any more slating President Kaczynski as he will never have to sign the ratification documents for Poland as the Irish Government are not able to ratify the Treaty!
Job done! No need for any further comments about President Kaczynski.
Oh yes. That is, of course, unless the Irish are flim-flammed into a 2nd referendum just like the French, the Dutch and the Danes previously.
It is almost as good as a Whitehall farce!
note: The word "farce" derives from the Latin verb for stuffing, possibly a reference to the 17th-century practice of inserting short comedic farces between the acts of a theatrical tragedy!
Complain about this comment
Blatant revisionism to frame the No verdicts delivered by the French and Dutch as solely a no to the inclusion of Turkey.
Several surveys and studies have been done on the issue, and it is only in the eyes of people who refuse to accept that their EU dream is not shared by everyone else that Turkey becomes a scapegoat.
As the BBC reported at the time, the gist of the No Constitution Rap which was being used as the No camps theme was "If you want a social Europe, and a Europe for the people, not for business and money, then say 'No' to the constitution."
People have issues with the EU that are far closer to home and far more in the here than now than any vague notion of Turkish inclusion in 20 odd years time.
Complain about this comment
#32,
Re "If the USSR was about politicians acting contrary to what the people want",
The one notable factor about the USSR and Communism is that it believed in the one party state, rubbishing Kaczynski because he disagrees with Europhiles is simply showing that you think the USSR's method of stopping all dissent at source was correct. Every democrat should have the ability to change their mind, if not then it's dictatorship, so for whatever reason this guy has the right to object. As for "not signing the treaty that is favoured by most of the population" like everywhere else apart from Ireland you have absolutely no way of proving that statement, they changed governments, that's all.
Complain about this comment
Hasn't the time come to create a paneuropean party of all those who are in favour of no more wars, no more borders, freedom to choose where to live and work without the big brother watching over us and pointing its finger at us.
I believe that a majority of peoples of Europe would like to remain united and also would not go back to their national currencies. It is not only a Europe for big corporations but for a little man too.
It is true that it is very undemocratic on the surface, although it is run by democratically elected representatives of all member states. And here there is much room for improvement. But you will not improve it by raising the barriers again; by petty national interests; by fears and xenophobia. Watch out for the Asian rising and Uncle Sam and the land of Putin. The whole world would be a better place if there is strong balance. There are so many challenges for the survivial of mankind that we have no more time for petty nationalism.
There must be strong democratic central power and strong democratic regional authorities that will preserve the national identity of all far better than thus far. I want to call myself a European and feel at home in whole of Europe. We should all speak several languages and learn about each other. Even the smallest country can make a great contribution if what they offer is great in itself. And lastly about the referendums a simple yes and no is given for many different reasons, this is not democracy it is a lunacy. How many countries change their constitution by a referendum. Yes we do need strong European institutions to keep check on each other as they do in good democracies and not forums for propagating narrow national interests.
Complain about this comment
What a frustration it must be to hear comments like from the author of #31...this, to me, seems uniquely a British phenomenon and despite it bordering on comedy, its really just incomprehensible how removed certain people are from reality. I quite frankly, dont understand these little Englanders that always come up with the same arguments (EUSSR and the likes). Don't they see their arguments are pathetic at best? Must be an island thing that makes people so short-sighted. Come over to the continent and see things from a different perspective.
Complain about this comment
As an outsider watching all this from a distance, I'm laughing my you know what off as Europe spins like a top, not knowing which way to go next.
It seems to me, if the EU respects its own laws, then the No vote in Ireland is definitive and no means no. So it doesn't matter what Poland does. On the other hand, if it is not going to follow its own laws, what difference if one or two nations don't approve, it will be yes anyway.
I don't see why Poland wouldn't be eager to have closer ties with the rest of the EU. As a relatively new member, it probably gets lots of net income from donor nations like Britain and Germany and it was able to send 650,000 plumbers to plug up the leaks in Britain and bring home a lot of money. This kind of subsidy was also a benefit for the slave colonies to be part of the Soviet Empire. But for some reason, money isn't everything. After all, a lot of Scotts would like to leave the UK and look at how much money they soak out of England every year.
Complain about this comment
''...until Ireland decide how to "move forward" ''
I still cannot understand why the Irish should have to vote again... if they are compelled to have a second vote, surely they will need best two of three referenda; not replay for a yes...
No repeat referendum: explain yourselves, or don't bother at all until someone will.
...and why are the mainstream media (who are apparently opposed to the treaty... or so the Lisbonites claim) are leading the British public to believe they are the only people in Europe who have legal challenges and opposition to Lisbon for legitimacy reasons... how against the treaty actually are they?
Are they perhaps more hostile to a Europe of united people, who are not governed centrally?
It is all rather odd.
Complain about this comment
The US Constitution was created by down-your-throat compromises in smoke-filled rooms that resulted inevitably in civil war 75 years later.
Europe must not go down that road.
Only if the EU is open and democratic can it ever have the trust and consent of the sovereign people.
01. No further changes to the EU Treaties should be permissable other than by Referendum in each and every member State.
02. Any proposals to change the EU structure -including this- should be made by a popularly elected Constitutional Convention. No special places for special interests.
03. The Convention should propose problems for consideration and submit the alternatives for the people to determine by Referendum.
04. The Convention should then formulate the new proposals in accordance with the peoples' instructions given by Referendum.
05. The proposals should then be resubmitted to Referendum to check that they've got it right.
06. The only EU legislative body should be the Parliament which should be elected by Single Transferable Vote (7 member constituencies with MEPs responsible to their electors and not to their parties. No more special interest law makers like big business, trades unions or Banks.
07. Only the Commission or individual MEPs or a fixed number of electors by petition should be able to initiate legislation in the Parliament.
08. All other bodies -ECB, Regions, EconSoc, Council etc.- should be consultative subject to deadlines and without delaying power.
09. The EU President (with a running-mate Vice-President) should be elected by universal suffrage for one non-renewable fixed term of five years.
10. The Presidential election should be on the same day as the election to the European Parliament.
11. The Commission should be nominated by the President but appointed by the Parliament. They should all be sackable -individually or collectively- by the President or by the Parliament.
12. The Parliament -or a fixed number of electors- should have the power to recall the President and/or Vice-President and oblige them to seek a popular mandate to continue in office.
Any decision making process can result in mistakes. But if the mistakes come from special interest pleading or corrupt compromises, the consequences will one day be violent. Only the sovereign people have the right to be wrong!
Complain about this comment
37. At 11:55pm on 01 Jul 2008, Gheryando wrote:
"...this, to me, seems uniquely a British phenomenon ... (EUSSR and the likes).
Come over to the continent and see things from a different perspective."
It is not a uniquely British thing. A few years ago some German founded an anti-"EU" party using similar arguments.
I did go over to the continent. Before I went I was pro-common market. In less than six months I turned against the common market and its successors and have been anti ever since.
The "EU" forces us to concentrate on the negative aspects of the continentals. These things are politically relevant and make political union with them unacceptable.
If we were not in the "EU" we would be able to concentrate on the many positive things on the continent. We would be able to learn from the continentals more easily, be more friendly with them and cooperate with them better.
Complain about this comment
gerardmulholland #40
I don't think you have anything to worry about. I cannot conceive of any way Europe could ever come to even remotely resemble the United States of America.
Complain about this comment
Well, I am pro EU mostly but I have no problem with Kaczynski not putting his name on the treaty. Ireland said NO and we all should respect that. We did not continue to ratify constitution after French and Dutch veto it. It would show to the Irish that they do not count as much as French if we ignore their vote and just continue like nothing happened. By saying that treaty is fine but there is no point of sighing it without Irish YES Kaczynski puts them at the same level as we did the French.
Even that I am pro EU I think we need simple constitution which is voted by people in referendum instead corrupt governments that are owned by big corporations. I also do not see why we need 1 vote on whole big treaty. Why we can’t make few amendments that people would vote on each one and the ones everyone agrees to will become law.
Example. :
1.Do you want to have EU tax of 2% for infrastructure and environment? Yes or NO
2.Do you want extradition of criminals across member states? Yes or No
3.Do you want single service market? Yes or No
Est. Est.. If majority of people in each nation vote yes and any of the questions it would become law. Ones rejected by some nations would have to be worked on and maybe voted on in few years when citizens could adjust to common constitution and trust EU more. Anyway I do not think we should give supreme power to the institution who never passed auditors test when comes to finances.
Complain about this comment
Agora9 @ #36
I applaud your realism and in many ways you paint a picture that could be an image of the EU as it should perhaps have been.
However, in your wishlist of ideals that would benefit the common man in the real EU may I point out a few errors in the construction of the EU that you paint as the ideal!
Quote: " . . . big brother watching over us and pointing its finger at us."
The EU has been given undemocratically selected and appointed Commissioners and, even just today, Peter Mandelson is pointing his finger at President Sarkozy who claims that Mandelson is selling the EU CAP down the river in order to get a World Trade Deal. As it happens I believe Mandelson is actuallty right to try to ditch the CAP as it is a particular French piece of protectionist EU benefit that panders specifcally to the French Farmers. BUT Mandelson is (a) unelected and (b) has no authority to point his finger at President Sarkozy who is at least democratically appointed to his post - even if he (Sarkozy) is exposing a fundamentla flaw in the construction of the EU by defending a piece of defunct EU Legislation in national self-interest (not that I blame him; it is merely an example of wanting your bread buttered on both sides).
Quote: "I believe that a majority of peoples of Europe would like to remain united and also would not go back to their national currencies. It is not only a Europe for big corporations but for a little man too."
Quote: "It is true that it is very undemocratic on the surface, although it is run by democratically elected representatives of all member states. And here there is much room for improvement."
I wish you were right on both counts BUT as a 'little man' please do not tell me I have any say on how the EU is run, formed or develops . . . my Nation State Government is forever formed by political parties that NEVER offer me a voice or a choice on joining the EU let alone how it has developed. It is therefore grown to be a 'political' institution without the direct consent of the people for whom it is supposed to 'politically' provide government.
My vote when cast for an MEP is a wasted vote as they never offer promises that they could keep let alone would keep and MEPs do not decide the structure of the EU - that is done behind closed doors by Heads of National Governments who deliberately withhold power from the MEPs. Even under Lisbon, MEPs would only be allowed to vote for preselected candidates chosen by the Heads of Governments. Democracy at work in modern Europe - yeah, right!
Quote: "But you will not improve it by raising the barriers again; by petty national interests; by fears and xenophobia."
This is exactly what President Sarkosy is doing when he undermines Peter Mandelson who is negotiating a World Trade deal on behalf of the EU.
France is the biggest supporter for the EU but when anyone dares to cut the protectionist legislation in-built within the EU to more than amply support French farmers . . . . the French are the first to say "Non" and expose their petty national interests, fears and xenophobia.
Even pro-EU comments within this blog have suggested that, when the French say "Non" to an EU Constitution, their "Non" is based on an anti-Turkey-joining-the-EU vote and they are not doing it to prevent the EU developing a Constitution so I am stumped . . . it is okay for the Eu to be protectionist, not allow Turkey to sit at the same table and get the benefits of membership but it is okay to have a Constitution and an EU that protects French interests and unduly rewards and condones poor French farming practices? The French cannot have it both ways yet they are the biggest bullies when it comes to driving through changes to the EU.
Oh I get it. The EU is great as long as it is modelled on the the French ideal. So much for no petty national interests - unless your French of course!
And finally, I quote: "And lastly about the referendums a simple yes and no is given for many different reasons, this is not democracy it is a lunacy. How many countries change their constitution by a referendum."
It is an absolute essential feature of democracy that "the people" are regularly allowed to vote to change their government and, in my view, it is essential that "the people" are allowed to vote on ANY changes that may effect how they are governed. Anything less and it is not democracy!
It is balderdash to suggest that people should not be allowed to vote because they may not understand the question, they may not understand the implications, they may not understand the purpose, that they may vote for other reasons, they may vote because "No" is easier to spell than "Yes", they are not clever enough, they don't know what is good for them . . . . BUT that IS democracy in action! It is the fundamental right in a true democracy that "The People" have a right to cast their vote in a free ballot FOR WHATEVER REASONS THEY CHOOSE. The votes of the majority should always be upheld as the democratic choice regardless of why they voted.
Complain about this comment
@ # 41 Suffolk Boy
You might be right about the German politician founding an anti-EU party. Interesting enough, however, I do not know who you are talking about and German politics are still made by the three big parties CDU, CSU and SPD. Since German is my first language you'd expect me to know if this man had any sort of influence. Of course, France has Jean -Marie Le Pen. He is Anti EU as well but well...you see..of course every country has these people...what strikes me is that in the UK...these people are a sizable bunch. Since I lived in the UK for two years I also know what I am talking about. Little Englandism is alive and well. So you DID go over to the continent? I cant imagine how six months there turned you against the EU? You probably supported it as long as it was a common market thing but when you realized them Continentals want to make something bigger out of it... Yeah..that happens. Too bad people dont realize the age of the European nation state is coming to an end and we will be defenseless without an EU.
Complain about this comment
#35
I definitely DO NOT believe the USSR methods were correct as I come from a country that had to live under the shadow of the USSR for half a century. But that led me to believe what counts is what the people on the ground want, not what alienated politicians at the top fancy for whatever reasons.
Ironically enough, eurosceptics moan about the elites pushing Europe forward against the will of the people, but when Kaczynski is pulling Europe backward against the will of his people, suddenly he is all right.
You see, all the opinion polls are on my side and I live among the people here and I know how they feel about Europe and the treaty. You may think otherwise, but that's just the way it is.
Complain about this comment
Mark
would it not have been fairer to say that the polish president has been the first Pole to have signed the treaty, or that he was there when it was finally agreed by all members? The democratic process has been completed in Poland as it has in the UK. That he refuses to sign a "bit of paper" before sending on the AGREEMENT OF THE POLISH PEOPLE is only showing his very personal disrespect of the citizens of his own country.
It seems to me equally unfair (a stronger term might even apply) your insinuation of "persuading" the Irish people. Should you not report on how the Irish feel these days? That the Irish do not need persuading, that they are quite capable of reaching their own conclusion on what needs to be done?
joe hoch
Complain about this comment
DJ1979
you live in the moon or mars.... even in ireland opinion polls were "pro-EU" but in referendum they failed... and even in POLAND or any other country it will fail, as long as arrogance persist on arrogant people who beleive they are right and can decide for us,, but not make way for the people to decide.
that's your problem, you beleive, and beleive in supranatural miracles to save the treaty and keep your wealthy status without sweting.. no way my friend..
if you are not good, and incompetent enough but you get help from conection or coruption, you will destroy EU, and not make it better... let see and wait...
EU is dead, Europe is re-born.
Complain about this comment
It is very refreshing to see that there are comments from "other Europeans", Gheryando who introduced himself as a German does his credability however no good at all when referring to the "three big parties in that country as CDU, CSU, and SPD". The exclusively bavarian party CSU, where by agreement the CDU does not operate, is in fact only the fifth party if one takes the voters into account! It seems to me that our friend is more of a Bavarian and that his immodesty is that of a Bavarian rather than of a European.
joehoch
Complain about this comment
* # 45
I think you are getting confused between the continent of Europe and the political organisation which is the EU.
They are not the same thing. Most Brits are not anti European at all but are very against a corrupt and undemocratic EU.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Agora9 @36 shows typical muddled EUrophile thinking:
"... But you will not improve it by raising the barriers again; by petty national interests; by fears and xenophobia. Watch out for the Asian rising and Uncle Sam and the land of Putin."
One sentence contradicting the next!
Complain about this comment
Sarkozy accused Mandelson of selling the french farmers or CAP, and said that Sarko will protect all Europeans(he all means french)... as you all see it is NOT about EU, it is about national interests,,, EU is dead long time ago... french interests are in danger with CAP, they fight and bit back, germans already secured their interests with the north stream pipeline, and rest of EU should loose their sovreignty to France arrogance..
if the big two dont lower their profile, they will get in trouble soon... hahaha..
CAP is dead,,,, french must start working and sweting, enough with parasitism.. we are not your slaves... there is also wine in australia, cheaper and better..
lazy people never get far than their nose.
Complain about this comment
Well I just think that if it is ok to do referendum again and again till people vote YES, then it should be ok to remake the threaty again and again till everyone likes it :)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
thank you joehoch for your correction...i am, in fact, not german but italian so youll forgive my ignorance. it changes nothing about my previous argument, however, that none of the main parties are anti-EU (now please no more haarspalterei, thank you very much)
princetruedemocrat - well..you say america and mean usa...so youll forgive me for saying europe and meaning EU. When you say most brits like europe i dont disagree. after all, they buy lots of properties to get away from the wind and fog down south. however, i also like the chinese...doesnt mean that I feel close to them culturally.which is essentially what i was talking about: a spaniard feeling culturally close to an italian or a frenchman feeling culturally close to a german etc. The british might "like" the continentals but as long as they talk about "europe" as if they were not part of it, its pointless.
Menedemus - I acknowledge the fact that the UK has always been a beacon of democracy in europe but what you are talking about is sheer non-sense. how long will you keep using WWII as a reference point of how Germans, french, polish etc. are? it is pathetic that after all the change Germans have gone through they are still called Nazis by some, while the Japanese have never really apologized for anything they have done in the past. I believe that europeans have profoundly changed in the second half of the last century and have realized that without unity, they will not be able to compete with countries that number in the hundreds of millions or even billions.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando
German society in what was West Germany has changed so profoundly since the end of WWII that it is hardly recognizable. There is simply no comparison between former West Germans today and the way their grandparents and great-grandparents were. Those who lived in the former East Germany are another matter. They seem to have hardly evolved at all. It must have come as a terrible shock for West Germans to find out that they had inherited responsibility for these Neanderthals. The cost and effort to bring them up to speed will set back West Germany by decades. There must be at least some Germans who wonder if it was really worth it to re-unite with them. It's as though East Germany had remained suspended in a time warp, not the same people or nation at all. In a way the EU taking on former Soviet colonies and Republics is in the same situation in a larger sense.
Have the Germans come to grips with their dark past? Maybe not completely but I think to a degree yes. It's a matter of education and accepting what was that can never be changed. Then you move on. This is what the Japanese have never done. They do not know what happened because their government has kept it a secret from them by not educating them. As a result, they will not only not be forgiven or at least accepted by their neighbors, they will not understand why.
Is the UK a beacon of democracy as you say? If so, why hasn't it held a referendum regarding the EU. Its citizens were tricked into voting for what they thought was a trade pact only to find that their national sovereignty is being handed over to foreign people who do not have their best interests as their primary priorarity and they've had nothing to say about it. What kind of perverted notion of democracy do you call that? And they've had no chioce in the matter. All three major parties have conspired against them. There is no public debate, no public outcry, no demonstrations, petitions, or demands to be heard. If Britain were a true democracy, all of these things would have happened or its citizens would be ready to take up arms against the government. That's what would happen in a real democracy, that's what would happen in the US. Britain is still a place of taxation without representation. That's what the tyranny of King George III was about in 1776 and that's what the EU is about in 2008.
Complain about this comment
dj1979 wrote: ''You see, all the opinion polls are on my side...''
Unfortunately the existing EU law isn't. The treaty needs unanimity, which it hasn't got: you may not agree with your Prime Minister; but fortunately he chooses to follow EU rules and not ratify. How can one 'hold Europe back' by following the rules?
joehoch wrote: ''...[Kaczynski] his very personal disrespect of the citizens of his own country.''
By respecting the convention of unanimity, not signing up for a treaty that is non-existent unless ratification processes start again Europe wide. In the next round of ratification, the Poles can rush to sign: this round is over...
Wakey wakey.
Menedemus wrote: ''...President Sarkosy... undermines Peter Mandelson... negotiating a World Trade deal...''
Obviously CAP is the only reason France bothered joining the EU and staying here for so long. Now, moving on...
Some of Mandelsons policies for trade are absolutely ridiculous; and some are dangerous. I am pro-EU co-operation, in all fields; but Mandy does not speak for me. He deregulates (regulation is not always a barrier; it can be a facilitator), subsidies corporate proliferation.
The EU sanctioned the use of Bt Corn as a gesture to their friends in big Agribusiness; and Mandelson would like to see widespread use of many Genetically Manipulated PRODUCTS. The fight for / against CAP, is turning (perhaps co-opted) to sanction these potentially (in some cases proved) dangerous to our bio-diversity [reminder: we need it....] and in some cases health directly.
If Mandy's plan means GMOs and Corporate take-over; then he must go.
The UK only stays in the EU because our government and financial interests reserve the right to keep our wages low and working day long: I do not agree with all aspects of CAP and acknowledge the need for a level playing field; but at least the French look after their peoples agricultural interest.
Notice the word AgriCULTURE...
Save it from agribusiness and the denaturing of food chain.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII # 57.
"Is the UK a beacon of democracy?"
Well clearly not yet. We are still working on how to elect a government through the fiasco of "hanging chads".
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelius @ 57
When the history books are written about the cold war, West Germany will not look as good as portrayed here, particulary at the beginning of that war. What became of the East Germans had a lot to do with that. The chance of one Germany as a neutral state as offered by the Soviets in 1952 was not even examined by the then West German Government. Austria by the way has been just such a neutral state for many decades after the war.
Germans like to pride themselves of their "rule of law" state (Rechtsstaat). They indeed had the "law" on there side when entering what is now the Czech Republic where they recruited collaborators amongst other forms of "friendlyness" towards the population like emptying jewish bank accounts at the Union Bank in Prague.
After the war a banker by the name of Abs got a prison sentence for this in Germany, he would also become the chief executive of the biggest West German Bank as well as an adviser to then government.
They also had "their law" on their side when entering the same country in their limousines instead of tanks in the nineties and "recruited collaborators" once more, to be more precise their friendlyness this time came in form of bribes. These bribes were taxdeductible until the end of 1998 in Germany. Pressure had been on the West Germans since the seventies to give up this practice.
The sad fact is of course that not many Germans know their history. But do ask them when you meet them.
Maybe you will also find that a stronger EU, a more democratic EU, a more responsive EU will play a better role in the world than any nation state within it ever could.
joe hoch
Complain about this comment
I always find it hilarious when people bring up the USSR as something that the EU is turning into. Almost invariably the ones to do so did not actually live in the Communist Block and have a cartoon-vision of what life was like there. They might as well be saying that the EU is turning into the Big, Bad Wolf. Also almost invariably such claims are linked to a nearly complete failure to appreciate the significance of representative democracy and the rule of law for the functioning of any normal democracy. This is not coincidental. A few years within the old East would have painfully taught them what happens when these are lacking. Given that this is thankfully no longer an option I would suggest that they go and read those who have had that experience such as the Polish MEP Bronislaw Geremek. I rather suspect it would make them into ardent europhiles.
Complain about this comment
EU wants: CAP (costs), energy (costs), food (costs), military and defence (costs),,,,etc etc
BUT: financial crisis, bankrupt system, no more liquidity,,, wealth is going east..
why all these priorities for EU now?? and how they will solve it?? and where they will go to find a solution?? and what to do if...?
first, lets impose a constitution, then lets start a war, and send people defend EU in Iran, Africa,,etc etc...
i agree in the plans for an EU defence force or military force.. i am MEP and i agree.. send your sons and daughter there... i will watch from my office how it goes, and support you with all my heart..
I support CAP, I am a french and i dont like to die working in field like third world people do...
I say lets attack Iran bc i need oil to go to brussels.. and so on, you know it..
i support EU, because i am benefiting a lot form EU,.. i feel a king of my own.. i am part of elite, so you common people cannot undersand, ..
aurvoir..,
Complain about this comment
My comment at #51 having been supressed.
I rephrase to try avoid breaking the house rules.
Gheryando @ # 45
Quote: "Little Englandism is alive and well."
Quote: "Too bad people dont realize the age of the European nation state is coming to an end and we will be defenseless without an EU."
The 'little englandism' to which you refer is the British desire to remain free and above all, in control of their own destiny.
60+ years ago, a German supported by German-led Wehrmacht conquered most of Europe except for Great Britain with its 'little englandism' spirit or what the British call 'bulldog spirit'!
The day that British boys and girls are given orders by a German officer or General in defence of the EU (with it's own Wehrmacht) will be the day that the sacrifices that many British and other Free nationalities made 60 years to regain their national freedoms will be lost!
Fortunately, the sovereign state power of EU member states to control their own defence and miltary has not yet been ceded to the EU so we are still responsible for our own National Defence.
Complain about this comment
Talmont wrote: ''I rather suspect it would make them into ardent europhiles.''
Ardent democrats perhaps; but then hats exactly what Lisbon tries to prevent. Democracy and hard won Habeus Corpus.
Complain about this comment
The electorate, elect a government to make such decisions. Therefore is is not necessary for a referendum. A referendum is an admission of failure by a government. If the electorate wish to leave a treaty they can then vote for a party which would do just that.
Whether the treaty is good or bad for a country is complex and most vote on their limited knowledge or deep rooted predigest. It is the government's job to make the correct decision based on the information it has. This may not be in the public domain. At some point the people must have a degree of faith in the government they elected. If the government does not reflect the views of the people it is removed at the next election.
My point is this most DO KNOW, they are not informed, they are biased. This also doesn't take in to account that some vote against or for, for party reasons, treating it like a game. Choosing the destiny of the country is not a game, serious thought should go into deciding which way to vote. Sadly most don't do this.
What is clear is in the present form the EU is too slow to make decisions. The Franco-German model is also a failure and needs to change. The EU must be more accountable to the general populous. Waste of resources needs to clamped down on.
In short the EU parliament needs to be given real power or scraped. There is really no need for one as each country has an elected leader to represent their interests. Committees can take care of the mechanics. Members of the committees are determined based on the population and GDP of the member countries. With each country's member appointed at the time of a general election by the incoming government. This way the current views of the people are represented in each country. Decisions are made by majority voting.
If the people of a county don't like this then they can elect a government which has promised to remove them. Once a country as elected to leave the EU it cannot rejoin for 10 years.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus...I read your previous comment before it was deleted..i must say it didnt really offend me and i find your new post to be almost the same...anyhow..the fact that you talk about the possibility of the EU having a "Wehrmacht" is yet again another proof that you are incapable of moving on and realizing the benefits that a common approach to foreign policy (including defence) would have on all of us 490 odd millions. The EU spends a decent amount on military but most is redundant and there are too many programs trying to do the same thing. If we could optimize this then your tax money would be spent better. Furthermore, you mention that the day a briton is given orders by a german is the day you know your "freedom" has been lost..how about a briton ordering a german soldier (due to a higher rank)..now wouldnt that please you? I suggest you look at how successful the EU has already staged missions, such as the one right now in Chad. There we have even Irish. another positive example are the EU battlegroups. Look at the example of the Nordic Battlegroup, with even non-EU country Norway...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Battlegroup ....I fail to see how such cooperation between European peoples puts you and me at a disadvantage
Complain about this comment
Gheryando @66
I would be no more content with British Officers commanding German troops.
The fact is that France has agreed to rejoin NATO but as part of the 6 month Presidency, Mr Sarkosy is seeking to beef up the EU Armed Forces.
The UK has agreed to associate our forces with the French but merger is ruled out. In the words of Gordon Brown to a question in Parliament: "in other words we will work together, not merge, not amalgamate."
You may want an EU Army to defend you but I do not - I would rather rely on Nation States working closely under the banner of NATO which IS the organisation that has kept the peace in Europe (and not the EU)for last 60 years!
Complain about this comment
Re post 66, the problem is that armed forces should never be put under control of the E.U. How on earth would it work? Arfgentina invades the Falkland Islands, would the E.U. send it's army to take them back? I think this is highly unlikely but perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.
If there is a large scale threat we have NATO, which has worked for the last 60 years. I do not want the E.U to aquire another trapping of state. This is nothing to do with not working with or under German command, it is all to do with recognising what the E.U. should be about - a free trade area, no more no less.
Re post 65, such arrogance does annoy me. You have every right to say what you want to see the E.U. become. You have no right to say if people want it to be some thing else they should leave. I and others will fight all the way to make the E.U. what we want it to be. I am sure you will do likewise - Who wins, well I suppose time and the people of Europe will decide. But listen carefully, I and many others like me are not going anywhere.
Complain about this comment
To Gheryando #37,
You mentioned "Don't they see their arguments are pathetic at best? Must be an island thing that makes people so short-sighted. Come over to the continent and see things from a different perspective."
I have lived in Belgium for 18 years and during that time commuted to work in Germany for 16 months. You say that you are Italian, in which case I would say you probably know what it is to be a little Englander or little Italian. Many Southern Italians came to work in the coal mines in Southern Belgium after WWII and even now many have not changed their Nationality and Italian can be heard everywhere rather than the native French. Your own countrymen are not an advert for truly integrating.
ps I have Belgium Nationality and also have some Italian friends who have now changed their Nationality but many still consider themselves Italian first and Belgian second.
Living on the continent for so long has opened my eyes which is why some of my views have now hardened. I have no wish to see a USSR style environment created here. I used to know a number of Czechs who had lived under the Russians and I visited there just after Communism fell. Whilst what is happening now is not communism, the EU tendency is shifting towards the command stlye of working, and that is not good for the ordinary people, only the political mandarins gain from this type of subservience.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23,
E.U is not perfect,but is no way near USSR.
E.U is democratic,and if there is room for improvements then people will have all availeble tools they need to bring change,E.U does not in any way take power away from the VOTE.
While USSR was created and worked for Utopia and global domination,enslaving hundreds of milions of people in the process,the E.U is the complete oposite,it is created out of very practical reasons,and out of need for cooperation in issues wich individual countries can not deal with already (let alone in near or distant future),its goals are no global and is not advocating some kind of new man,or even some kind of new regime.
No one can escape from the fact that the EU is a necessity,in order to have peace and stability in the continent.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion wrote: ''...E.U does not in any way take power away from the VOTE.''
And yet it clearly does in any way it can.
Named-Erion wrote: ''No one can escape from the fact that the EU is a necessity,in order to have peace and stability in the continent.''
Not even by democratic vote; and why would that promote peace by ignoring a mandate from the people...
Or do you think the Elite would rather start another European war than see a democratic and progressive EU. Which is what we all (the majority) want: not to end EU; but to make it work for Europeans rather than multinational companies and international arms dealers.
Uphold laws: not break them.
Work for peace: not domination.
It seems so plausible; and yet its the one thing the Elite will not give us.
Complain about this comment
@Named-Erion (70)
"No one can escape from the fact that the EU is a necessity,in order to have peace and stability in the continent"
Is that supposed to be a joke or something?
The real fact is, take away the EU and peace would continue and prosperity would increase (except for politicians who would lose many potential cushy jobs). In no way is the EU an essential element for having peace and prosperity.
@chewbaccadefense (65)
although we could remove the current national government if it did something we didn't like, we would still be stuck with the treaties they signed against our will. And furthermore, in the Netherlands we voted for a majority of politicians who promised a referendum. Our national politicians have no mandate to permanently sign over their (legislative) powers to Brussels.
The EU cannot be left to politicians because politicians have a vested interest in making it as big as possible. The bigger the EU is, the more cushy jobs there will be for them.
Complain about this comment
Talmont wrote:
"I always find it hilarious when people bring up the USSR as something that the EU is turning into. Almost invariably the ones to do so did not actually live in the Communist Block and have a cartoon-vision of what life was like there. They might as well be saying that the EU is turning into the Big, Bad Wolf. Also almost invariably such claims are linked to a nearly complete failure to appreciate the significance of representative democracy and the rule of law for the functioning of any normal democracy. This is not coincidental. A few years within the old East would have painfully taught them what happens when these are lacking. Given that this is thankfully no longer an option I would suggest that they go and read those who have had that experience such as the Polish MEP Bronislaw Geremek. I rather suspect it would make them into ardent europhiles."
I wonder. How about those who had a lot of the described experience with the system of the former USSR, but still keep some reservations concerning the form of "representative democracy" adopted in EU? Would it be correct to ascribe their lack of "ardent europhilia" to the failure to read Geremek's book?
Complain about this comment
Well..many Britons went to America and Australia..and dont consider them British anymore...if someone from Texas goes to Massachusetts he also remains a Texan..so if an Italian emigrates to Belgium, he, of course, remains Italian. I fail to see your point. What do you mean by little Italian? Furthermore, identity in Belgium is a rather difficult subject meme pour les belges.
Complain about this comment
Mendemus thank for your comments. The last paragraph is a bit revealing or may be you slipped a little. As for Habeas Corpus in your subsequent comment one immediately thinks of Guantanamo and the 42 days. What really worries me is how democracy gets twisted even by the most democratic of societies.
I think we agree more than we are prepared to admit. I have no problems with your insistence on democracy I too want a democratic Europe and it is absolutely essential. I am always a bit puzzled by people thinking how much say they have in running their countries. Most elections are at best haphazard and at worst predictable.
Anyway as an illustration of what I was talking about I will say this. Last September I drove from London to Athens. The first time I was stopped at a border crossing was after Maribor on the Croatian border. I crossed six different countries. Soon I believe Croatia will join so it will be moved another hundreds of miles to the East. Hopefully one day I will not be stopped at all. Now this is the Europe I want and most people value a great deal more than you may think. Incidentally I did not need the green card, my mobile phone bill was a bit – not yet enough- more reasonable and so on. Why not have all the phone calls in Europe at local rates? Why not have the mail service at local rates? Why not have the excellent rail service all over Europe?
And I could go on.
Complain about this comment
To Gheryando #74,
My point was that the 'English' are not the only poeple to try and recreate a little England abroad. My experiences of living in an area with many first, second, third etc generation Italians has shown that the people of Italy are no different to the English. Whilst you always retain your original origin what can vary is to what degree you integrate. This is very evident around Brussels as there are 'quarters' for many of the EU member countries where their people orientate to.
As for our Belgian identity I guess you mean Wallon or Flemish rather than Belgian, and that's a very open subject here at the moment, and one that gets discussed often.
Complain about this comment
Yay for the good bits and nay to the bad, I say...
Shame they have other plans.
This could be our last chance to have any real say in our futures. If they set a precedent of ignoring the people and planning in private and following it to the letter despite any scrutiny they may receive, then all will be lost.
But there is a reason to be optimistic...
The people of Europe are not going to make knee-jerk decisions based on fear and propaganda. They will choose love and co-operation and move towards a brighter future, not the darkness that our self proclaimed rulers have in store.
The peoples memories are long; and they will say no.
L’organisation civile et militaire
die Weiße Rose
Solidaridad Internacional Anti-fascista
The nazis and fascists (of all nations) labelled them terrorists.
They are unsung heroes; who helped the British in their fight for freedom and liberation of the main land. The true internationalist movement.
The divisions that arose after the war were in part due to the lack of solidarity in the Elite of Europe, whereas the people were eventually united in a desire for a better world.
The people of Europe can and will work together.
Forget the divisions of the Ruling Elite.
The politics of divide and rule will fail.
Choose love.
Complain about this comment
Re Menedemus, no. 63
"The 'little englandism' to which you refer is the British desire to remain free and above all, in control of their own destiny."
Suggesting that the EU prevents the UK from having control over its destiny overlooks the fact that Parliament can decide at any moment to leave the Union. It also forgets that we live in a rapidly changing world of ever more scarce resources dominated by large predatory countries, and to keep our competitive edge as a trading nation as well as our international presence, it will require a little more than nation state politicking.
"60+ years ago, a German [sic] supported by German-led Wehrmacht conquered most of Europe except for Great Britain with its 'little englandism' spirit or what the British call 'bulldog spirit'!"
Nice idea, but "bulldog spirit" would have meant very little without Uncles Sam and Joe. Goes back to the "control over one's destiny" issue.
Complain about this comment
It's a sweet irony, isn't it? A Polish leader delays the ratification process, even though his people favour it. This frustrates all the leaders who want to ratify the constitution, even though their people don't want it.
Who could do it justice? Jonathan Swift, perhaps, or Gilbert and Sulivan.
Complain about this comment
Why bother removing my message of solidarity in Europe no. 77
It just re-enforces my fears that fascism is on the rise again...
Complain about this comment
Ravenseft @ #78
Just to clarify a few things.
The decision to withdraw the UK from the EU will never happen.
All of the three major UK political parties are intent on close European co-operation. With this, I have no issue in itself.
I am not anti-European I am, however, anti-EU as I have never ever had the opportunity to choose neither the UK's membership of the EU nor any of the surrendered areas of sovereignty from the UK Parliament to the EU. From membership request through to accession and though treaties such as the Maastricht Treaty, the UK voters have NEVER had an opportunity to vote for one party or another offering the UK voter choice in regard to the EU. We have moved surreptitiously form Common Market to full EU membership with not so much as a ‘by your leave' from our UK parliamentary politicians.
Through closer European co-operation I believe that the UK can pursue the original ideas behind the EEC with the purpose of building a European Trade Bloc to rival the future other global Trading Blocs that are developing. We do not need a socio-political EU to provide this free trade area as free trade essentially existed BEFORE the EU came into being.
As regards the supercilious comment ""bulldog spirit" would have meant very little without Uncles Sam and Joe.". Very revisionist thinking there!
From 1939 through to December 1941 only Great Britain with the assistance of free troops who had escaped Europe and members of the British Commonwealth countries such as Canada, India, Australia and New Zealand (just to mention some; not to ignore the other contributing countries from the free world) stood alone and resisted the complete conquest of Western Europe.
America (I presume that it is America to which you refer by 'Uncles Sam and Joe') lent/leased Great Britain 50 Destroyers and we have only just finished paying off that lease fairly recently.
It was not until 1943 that the American Troops actually engaged with the enemy in Europe via Morocco and Tunisia.
Thus, although I am eternally grateful for the lives of my parents that the American's did come to Great Britain’s aid in due course, it was Great Britain and her 'bulldog spirit' epitomised by Winston Churchill that maintained Great Britain as free and indomitable for almost 2 years before they ('Uncles Sam and Joe') actually entered battle. Please do not belittle the lives lost within Great Britain and elsewhere that stood for independence and freedom in those dark days without the direct support of the Americans.
Complain about this comment
Agora9 @ #75
Quote: "Mendemus thank for your comments. The last paragraph is a bit revealing or may be you slipped a little. "
Yes my support for British Troops being able to fit into NATO would seem somewhat of a contradiction as I would find the use of British Troops within the EU 'Euro Force' objectionable (But lets be open and honest and admit that the long-term objective of any 'Euro Force' is to become a Standing EU Army!) but this because the organisation of NATO is based upon the experiences of multi-national warfare in WWII. NATO utilises provided troops under side-by-side deployment with only supreme command being a unitary role.
This NATO structure allows UK troops to operate in a part of the battle field with other nations operating in other parts. Direct command is provided by same-nation officers who are aware of their tasks and have remit to achieve their objectives as they see fit using their own nations troops. Please imagine this as lateral battlefield deployment.
The problem with the Euro Force is that this is envisaged to be an amalgamation of forces and would allow for troops to operate under single chain of command. An EU Supreme Commander with officers from all EU Nations commanding troops of mixed ability would order troops of all nationalities under their command to go to war - if the EU could ever agree to the objectives and actually commit to warfare which I sincerely doubt.
Unfortunately, there is another drawback to the use of a Euro Force and the "Battle for the Falklands" would be a prime example of how this army would fail.
Argentina invades a sovereign territory owned, under treaty with Argentina, by the UK. The UK asks for the EU Euro Force to be deployed to recover the invaded Falklands. Ooops, the Spanish say - "Not with our boys, we support the Argentines - no way Jose!".
Oh well, Argentina gets their Malvinas, the British Citizens in the former-Falklands are now Argentine citizens and the prestige of the EU is that of Neville Chamberlain.
Under NATO rules, the UK can go it alone and do what it needs to do to protect it's citizens, in the way it deems most appropriate - hence a task force is formed, we go to war with Argentina, the UK recaptures the Falklands and order is restored. Prestige of NATO is unharmed and UK pride is maintained.
The same would never happen under EU political decision making!
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus #82:
Agree with you with regard to the EU, it needs reforming and the people should have a vote on it.
Back to the war. By "Uncle Joe", I was referring to Mother Russia - more died on the Eastern Front than the entire allied war dead. As for the period between 1939 to 1941, lend-lease commenced in March 1941 amounting to $31bn in aid. Between 1939 and June 1940 after which followed the Battle of Britain which ended in May 1941 following the withdrawal of bomber units in preparation for the attack on Russia.
"Bulldog spirit", admirable as it was, would not have saved us against Operation Sealion.
Complain about this comment
Ravenseft wrote: '' "Bulldog spirit", admirable as it was, would not have saved us against Operation Sealion.''
The question needs to be asked; who made the rise of Hitler possible. Who bank rolled his movement?
Who supplied the aviation fuel additives needed to blitz London?
Who gained in the aftermath of the war?
Who gains, who loses? Why? How?
Only then can one fully understand the history of the events of that time.
Back to the topic at hand...
President, Lech Kaczynski, had announced that he would only sign the ratification papers if Ireland approved the treaty in a new referendum. "If Ireland makes another decision - but not under pressure, and without changing its constitution - in the same way as the first, then Poland will not place a block on the treaty,"
Uner the existing rules they cannot do that; and they are unlikely to. So surely they will continue to block it...
Complain about this comment
I did not intend to come back any more in this debate however I came across a non-EU newspaper in which there was an article entitled "Football et tribalism" by a lecturer of Human Rights at Bard College New York. The author analyzes the atmosphere of the Euro 2008 and inter alia says that he has never seen so much harmony among the supporters of different nationalities. He then goes on to say something I did not like, but it may be true. May be it was because of the absence of the English that this was so. And he continues that it was an atmosphere of festivities and peace that dominated with flags of both Germany and Turkey side by side. There he referred to pre semi final match between the two countries. He also pointed out how the supporters of Germany and Spain mingled together after the final game thinking that it did not mean the loss of national sentiment but a new spirit of Europeanism that was being forged. He admitted however his slight joy at Germany losing the final if only because Spain played better football.
And just one final thought. I wish people stopped going on about the WWII. It should not be forgotten and we have the commemorations and cemeteries and the Remembrance Day but please accept that the World has moved on.
By the way I enjoyed reading all your comments, so much so that my dinner burnt on the stove last night. Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Ravenseft #83
Some revisionist history with your dates and facts I am afraid.
"Bulldog spirit", admirable as it was, would not have saved us against Operation Sealion." Oh yes it did!
Did you not know that Winston Churchill authorised the proscribed use of Mustard Gas in the event of a German landing and, pretty much wherever you go in England, there are still remnants of the bunkers that were built in the spring of 1940 to stop the anticipated invaders if they succeeded in getting ashore.
But this was all theoretical as the Battle of Britain took place that same summer and the Royal Air Force proved its worth as Goering vaunted Lutwaffe were unable to take control of the skies in daylight ending up bombing the civilain population at night. Their bomber fleets were not withdrawn until the end of September 1940 when Goering informed Hilter of his failure to control the skies.
Without air cover, Operation Sealion was a dead duck!
The suggestion was that Operation Sealion was halted because he was turning his eyes towards the attack on Russia but, in truth, Sealion was simply halted because at that time the only boats that Hitler had to convey his troops across the Channel were Rhine Barges and the planned invasion could only occur in daylight and that summer of 1940 - without air cover the invasion was doomed.
That is why he stopped as well as thinking that Great Britain, given the speed of the German Victories, would seek armistice like France. He used intermediaries through Sweden to see if Great Britain would sue for peace. He was rebuffed!
That was our finest hour and was the epitomy of the spirit of Great Britain at that time! We refused the offer of armistice.
I'd call that "Bulldog spirit"!
Now to Uncle Joe. Your "Mother" Russia was invaded in the June of 1941 and the Soviet armies were in full retreat until the autumn of that year. This reoccurred the following year with the culmination of Stalingrad as the defeat that stemmed the German hopes of victory.
During that same period 1940 - 1941/42 before Great Britain got any physical assistance from the USA, gallant merchant sailors were losing their lives to deliver raw materials to Archangel and Murmansk on the Arctic Convoys. If sunk, the sailors new that death from freezing was a matter of minutes but they gave up their lives to supply the Soviet Allies without fear and at great cost to themselves.
More 'bulldog spirit' if you ask me!
At no time did the Soviets come to our aid other than by being the first front and retreating and then coming back twice for retreat to eventually defeat Germany.
The 31$ Billion lend/lease was a loan, it was Roosevelt's "hosepipe lent to a neighbour who's house was on fire!". The USA have got their money back but I thank them for the loan anyway.
Actually WWII pretty much bankrupted Great Britain but I guess, as children of that generation, I'm glad they spent the inheritance money on fighting the Germans
- money well spent in order to retain our freedoms I'd say.
To make sure that their sacrifices are not forgotten, I will continue to fight to retain the independence of my country and not become a part of an undemocratic European state that would treat me as a serf without voice or choice over my destiny.
Complain about this comment
Ravenscraft @ Number 83
I think that your dates contradict your arguement. Operation Sealion was planned for the summer of 1940. It was postponed indefinately in September of that year. American support did not play any significant part in the British defence during this period.
The decision to postpone was due to the failure of the Germans to achieve air superiority, the threat posed by the Royal Navy as well as the inherant risk of such an operation.
In wargaming exercises carried out since the war, the British defence plans were shown to be viable and successful in a range of circumstances.
The plan was only to destroy military forces against them and required Britain to collapse politically after some military defeats. The decision to postpone the invasion was influenced in part by the realisation that a polical collapse by the British was not a forgone conclusion. Fairly clear evidence of the "Bulldog Spirit".
Had Germany attempted to invade, it was their assessement that it was possible, if not likely, that they would fail. That would have reduced their ability to attack Russia, and perhaps they would have settled for a sort of Cold War, dominating Europe and the "near East".
Britain could not have won the war in Europe, that was done by a world effort led by the USA and Russia, but we didn't lose it, and perhaps that is a worthy of some credit.
Why does this matter? At the time that Germany was stomping over Europe, Britain still had the most powerful empire in the world. Had Britain chosen to sit it out as Hitler expected, we probably would have remained a world power for another 50 years. As it was, we gave it all up to rid the world of the scourge of German and Japanese nationalism. Truly our finest hour.
Notwithstanding the sacrifices made by US servicemen, UK spending on US equipment in WW2 brought the economic depression to an end, bancrupted the only economic competitor and ushered in 50 years of US hegemony.
Complain about this comment
In Germany, President Koehler, has decided to heed a request from the Constitutional Court *not* to add his signature to the embattled reform treaty pending its ruling.
"The president is respecting the request of the Constitutional Court," his office said in a statement.
Apparently two separate court cases...
Choose love.
Complain about this comment
Mark
it is sad that poland said NO to this treaty.
Complain about this comment
re comment 65
I really get annoyed by this type of comment.
Of course we (the electorate) elect a government to manage our affairs, and of course we (the electorate) can change that government if we don't consider they have done their job.
To suggest though that a government, being elected democratically, has carte blanc to do anything it wants on behalf of its electorate is unbelievable. To suggest that a future government would be able to reverse a decision of this magnitude is total ignorance.
Furthermore, to believe that an electorate is unable to form an opinion relating to complex issues (I would question that this treaty is a particularly complex issue) is a terrible slight on a population, and, in itself totally undemocratic.
An issue that will effect generations, with very little realistic possibility of being reversed should be put in front of the electorate as a single issue (so that it does not become clouded with many other issues), and explained effectively (so that the voters can understand the implications).
Only then can something that will change the future life of generations be called a democratic decision.
Anything else is undemocratic, like so many things in today's political climate; an affront to the intelligence of the majority. Elitism at its worst.
I am a great believer in a free Europe, unfettered by borders, and with ever-growing cultural and economic ties. I would love a democratically elected European parliament that people understood, that worked towards the benefit of its people.
I hate the idea of a badly constructed, undemocratic, inefficient European gravy-train that is called the EU parliament, commission and whatever else they have that makes up the EU government.
Complain about this comment
"it is sad that poland said NO to this
treaty." [89].
Poland did not say no to Lisbon treaty.
It's just its president (Mr. Kaczynski) refused to sign something which has become dead the moment the Irish (the only nation allowed to have a referendum) voted 'no'.
In case you haven't noticed, the president of the Czech Republic (Mr. Klaus) also refused to participate in an attempt to resurrect the very dead horse.
No wonder then, then French and German media try to smear those two politicians as much as they possibly can.
Complain about this comment
Russ000
Don't condemn the European Parliament as it IS the only directly elected body by us citizens.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando
I will critisize it, because although it is elected, it is not representative. It is not much more democratic in reality than Zimbabwe.
Ask almost anybody in Europe who their MEP is, and they will not be able to tell you.
How many people vote in the EU elections? Very few. Why? Because no-one knows what is happening. To be effective, and truly representative, it has to start communicating. It has to have a system that transgresses national politics.
MEPs should stand not for their national parties, who are then allied to some EU group that nobody knows, but for the EU group that they are allied to.
There are so many errors in the system, but to me the major one is a deliberate and complete lack of communication with the public that it is supposed to represent.
Complain about this comment
Excuse me but I thought we promote demoscracy and empowerment of the individuals. I noted that even the top officials in EU are talking of new referandums or even considering continuing without NO voters. Itis obvious that either the citizens of Europe do not know what the treaty about or they have objections. You need to respect. In my opinion, what is happening now is simply putting pressure against the freewill of the citizens and the legislative bodies of a sovereign country.
Complain about this comment
The best thing would be to adapt the US constitution, and substitute Europe for America.
Complain about this comment
Warning to the Eurosceptics from the Top EU Boss.
"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together"
That is, you will get kicked out of the EU if you don't ratify the Treaty of Lisbon.
Bye Bye Ireland?
Bye Bye Poland?
Bye Bye Czech Republic?
It's your choice. The UK as no choice!
Complain about this comment
Warning to the Eurosceptics from the Top EU Boss.
"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together"
That is, you will get kicked out of the EU if you don't ratify the Treaty of Lisbon.
Bye Bye Ireland?
Bye Bye Poland?
Bye Bye Czech Republic?
It's your choice. The UK has no choice!
Complain about this comment
With all due respect Mark, since you screen the comments anyways, why then do u allow double posts?
Complain about this comment
At number 8, Talmont wrote:
"The Poles who know their history know that the requirement for unanimity is what paralysed their parliament in the eighteenth century, leading in the end to political collapse and more than a century of foreign control."
That is very true, but Poland is a nation. A "nation" can be defined as a population which agrees to be bound by the views of a majority of that population.
We Irish know our history too. In 1800 we were voted into the United Kingdom by an unrepresentative and bribed Irish parliament. But that United Kingdom was never a nation and the Irish people refused to accept foreign control in the form of an English majority in the Westminster parliament.
In a Union of nations, majority voting can be accepted for minor technical issues but not for a fundamental question such as the transfer of powers to the Union. That requires unanimous agreement and the unanimous agreement does not exist.
Lisbon is dead. The EU and its member states should now move forward and deal with real issues that affect people's lives and forget about grandiose constitutional plans.
Complain about this comment
The Poles have no real recent history or sense of demoracy suffering partitions then a short republican interlude with a sort of military 'dictatorship' and then communism clearly voted in by the masses.
So it is hardly surprising that Tusk the lap dog of Europe and Kaczynski the bete noir have different views about those silly Irish people that did not follow the dictate of the informed political elite.
Young Poles know that singing Beethoven will get them more money and that slowly becoming less US oriented will get them brownie points from the Germans and French who after all owe the US nothing except perhaps their countries. Being good Europeans they know which side their bread is buttered on.
So good on the wily Kaczynski who illegally has some sense of decency if not democracy. After all if the Irish said no and the rules were followed what is the point of signing a treaty that is supposed to be dead. Common sense No!?
Complain about this comment
Kaczynski (one of the two at least) is a clown, we've grown used to that. He's just posturing to garner some support from the xenophobic right in Poland, knowing very well that in the end he cannot keep his word. He'll sign, and he'll blame it on the EU, atheism, communism, nazism, and all that, that he was forced to do it by the EUropean dark forces of evil :-) The saga goes on.
Complain about this comment
Re 87: Wopitt
Very clear analysis (someone, at least, who doesn't just throw ready-made sentences).
According to your analysis, then it's Uncle Jo the Euros have to thank first for their survival, then Uncle Sam :-)
Complain about this comment
Re 81: Menedemus
Uncle Sam = USA
Uncle Joe = USSR (Joe is short for Joseph Dugashvili aka "Stalin")
In 1975, UK people were give the chance to drop out of the EEC, which was clearly heading towards the EU. Too bad, you did not have the chance to vote then, but others did for you. You can't go on voting for the way the state you live in is done. Otherwise you'd have to vote to keep the UK monarchy in place every 20 years or so...
Complain about this comment
I some times think I am living in a strange parallel universe where people are criticized for upholding the law. Ireland voted no, what on earth is Sarkozy going on about. The treaty at this time is dead, deceased, no more, gone to treaty heaven. How can people ratify something which does not and cannot exist in law.
Complain about this comment
lacerniagigante @ 103
Some commentators have already kindly pointed out to me who "Uncle Joe" was. I already knew but was confused by the misleading context the somehow "Uncle Joe" had saved Great Britain in the WWII. My post at #85 should settle that revisionist historical inaccuracy.
You mention in #103 that th UK had the chance to 'leave the EEC'.
Unfortunately, I am old enough to have voted in that one and only Europe related referendum in the UK and the purpose of that referendum was for the United Kingdom to join with the EEC or 'Common Market'. There was no surrender of any sovereign powers and there was no EU at that time so it was a novelty but it did set a precedent that subsequently UK Parliaments ahave lamentably chosen to deny the people as the Common MArket gave way to signing up to the Treaty of Rome without absolute mandate ot do so.
You mention the EEC " . . . was clearly heading towards the EU". At the time of the referendum in the UK, that was not on the agenda and was not part of the referendum question. It might have been the dream and a secret agenda of the Edward Heath administration but it was not alluded to openly and the "Yes" vote was sizeable as most UK Citizens do want a free market relationship and to be part of a trading bloc within Europe.
You also mention "You can't go on voting for the way the state you live in is done. Otherwise you'd have to vote to keep the UK monarchy in place every 20 years or so...". Balderdash!
In a democratic society the purpose behind elections is to change politicians it does not authorise them to make changes to the constitution. They may only change or alter the constitution in the case of a special Election asking for that mandate or by referendum asking for authority on the basis of a plebiscite.
At no time have I, as an elector, ever had the opportunity to vote for one party or another in order to cede constitutional or sovereign powers from the UK to the EU. Yet that is exactly what John Major's Conservative Government did when in power.
In the UK, we have never had a referendum to join the EU nor to ratify the Treaty of Maasticht which actually ceded sovereign powers to EU.
I have no idea whether the UK electorate would or would not want to rid itself of the Monarchy. But if there was a move to do so, just like joining the EU, I would demand there be a referendum asking the electorate for the authority to disestablish the monarchy.
Any changes to constitutional authority of Parliament, i.e. that impacts upon the UK constitution done by politicians without the absolute mandate through specific voted authority is a travesty and an abuse of democracy. Such was the Parliamentary vote for the UK to join the EU and sign up to the Treaty of Rome. It was also a travesty of democracy for Parliament to have ratified the Treaty of Maastricht without direct authority of the people of the UK.
However, be that as it may, I am not anti-European nor do I want to necessarily leave the EU. I merely wish to give power back to the UK people to decide and, if the will of the people by way of majority, is to remain in the EU then so be it!
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @ 105
I am glad to hear that you are not anti EU and that your aim is to give power back to the people. I completely agree. Constitutional issues should be clearly defined and people consulted. This does not apply to other legislation which should be left to the democratically elected Parliament.
I would like to know, if you be so kind what is your opinion on forming a European democratic party which would go towards making the institution of European Parliament democratic and also give all peoples of Europe a say in running their affairs? MEP's should be directly elected and not appointed by Party chiefs. It should not be jobs for the boys.
Complain about this comment
To Mr. Tzvetkov: sorry to dissapoint you but Walesa WAS a Communist Secret Police Informer. Get your facts right before making any future comments (and please do stop being so condescending!)
Complain about this comment
Agora9 wrote of: "...forming a European democratic party which would go towards making the institution of European Parliament democratic..."
Grumpy_Fogey, in his/her post #99, explains this point very clearly. A democracy needs a demos. There must be a group of people, conscious of unity and willing to be governed in common. That is: there must be people by the majority of whom you can be out-voted without the result feeling like it is being imposed from outside.
The boundaries of a nation are neither inevitable nor permanent, unfortunately. There will never be 100% agreement on the existence of such an identity. It's simply a function that a given body of people at a given time may more or less conform to. The United Kingdom can still function as a nation and, to the extent that this is ceasing to be the case, England certainly can. Europe can't; and even if there were a Europe-wide referendum every day, it still wouldn't be democratic.
Complain about this comment
Why are referendums necessary?
Our governments are so poor that we, the electorate, have no other choice when we see the damage being done by them. They seem to think they know what they're doing but they don't , and the people have no alternative but to let them know what they should be doing on our behalf.
Now, when a referendum is held such as in Ireland recently, the Irish people voted against the Lisbon Treaty - Politicians please take note, you should stop what you're doing. I don't care if you are the most ardent pro-european in the world, but if the people who elected you say they don't want something, it is your duty to do what they want, because you were put in power for that very reason, and not to impose your beliefs on the electorate. When politicians realise this then we might actually start getting somewhere.
Complain about this comment
Lisbon might be dead, but the truth is Europe at present must deal with real present challenges (glogal warming, energy crisis, immigraition, productivity, competitiveness..).
There's been for instance a recent directive over Immigration which have been agreed between France and Spain first, and then trespassed to the EU.
If nowadays Nice isn't a proper tool to work with and Lisbon is agonising, then the EU policy making will continue to be based on the agreement of 2 or more big EU states, and the assent of the rest.
That's how EU is going on right now, because paralysis is not an answer.
I wonder if such a situation is what Irish No voters wanted to have: big EU states making bilateral or multilateral accords to be aplied in the 27 EU countries.
Complain about this comment
Why would Poland who has only recently thrown off the shackles of one Communist Dictatorship only to enter another.
It's not the Lisbon Treaty we should be debating it's making this stinking European Union democratic. As it stands it's a dictatorship and the whole thing stinks to high heaven of Marxism.
The whole thing should be pulled apart and re-assembled into something that we can all learn to trust and work with, at present we can't trust anything it says and does and that's why you have this problem.
How about you start with a financial audit that can be signed off?
How about you stop wasting public money on little treats for MEP's and such like.
How about getting rid of the unelected commissioners?
How about proper debates about issues that effect us instead of a one minute say and then a hasty vote, no wonder we get stupid laws thrown at us that are totally unworkable and make no sense whatsoever.
The Irish have said no, accept it, that's the law, and it's no use saying oh Ireland is only a very small percentage of the EU! that's the point of voting. Your rules are 100 percent or it does not fly...so it does not fly, live with it.
The EU is a joke and I'm not laughing.
Complain about this comment
To Betuli #110,
Re "I wonder if such a situation is what Irish No voters wanted to have: big EU states making bilateral or multilateral accords to be applied in the 27 EU countries."
Are you joking, do you really think Lisbon would have changed the stitch up between the French and German governments, there's more chance of pigs flying. Just look at QMV if you haven't understood that, as that was fabricated to screw every other country than them.
To Catmar #111,
Well said!
Complain about this comment
One can ask, why the EU must go on with the the Constitution (now called The Lisbon treaty) if the people of Europe simply do not want it. The Irish voted "no" , and the treaty
is dead. (Off course they did not "vote as they should") President Kaczynski is right ,that he does not want to sign the treaty. And his worries, are fully understandable.The treaty is shifting the power in the EU, into the hands of the the biggest countries, (namely Germany and France).And that what they usually call: "The European interest" is very often, their own interest. Recent German foreign policy is openly pro Russian,and anty Polish. Germany, together with Russia - a ruthless authoritarian regime-,are building an
underwater pipeline on the bottom of the Baltic, openly violating polish vital interests. Germany blocked Ukraine access to MAP (NATO), because Russia does not want it. And people in Poland remember other egzamples of russo-german cooperation in the past, with dire consequences for Poland. Saying "no" is the only way ,we can teach those guys, that they should consider the interests of the EU members first. Besides, President Kaczynski is not as unpopular in Poland as the post communist owed polish press usually suggest. I am afraid , he is one of the few politicians in Poland, for whom the country is more important, than private or party interests.
Complain about this comment
Democracy is not perfect, and really only works well on a small scale. When you attempt to increase the size it fall apart. This is because the voice of one region can be ignored simply because other regions disagree.
The issue with Europe is down to its size and diversity. Ask 100 people and you'll get 100 different points of view. Generally, people will agree on some things, but not all.
This makes it virtually impossible for the people of Europe to agree on something as complex as the Lisbon Treaty.
The only way forward that I can see, is by some considered a step backwards, but I don't see it that way.
Why not have a 'league of European Nations', which can pull together in times of crisis, but then in times of peace reverts back to a simple and straight forward free trade agreement. There is really no need for laws to be passed that encompass the whole of Europe - if one nation decides to copy a law from another country then they can, but lets not impose any additional laws where they're neither needed nor wanted.
If Ireland want to continue to ban abortion, the this is a matter for the Irish, Europe doesn't need to be involved. If France and Germany want to work closer together, then that is a matter for those two countries - there is no reason whatsoever to drag any other nation into this agreement.
Complain about this comment
I am grateful to the guy who currently impersonates the Polish President.
85% of his population are not with him on this, neither are government or parliament.
Do we need more prove that Europe is held hostage by small groups and individuals who are ill-informed and have bad intentions?
Their model for Europe is shifting alliances of nation states as we had it in 1914. And we all know where this led.
I have stopped reading all the nonsense posted here, but sometimes I see a highlight:
#9 says that a treaty should be drafted that creates "something everyone wants". How utterly silly and infantile. Can we have 24 hour sunshine on top of this, please.
Complain about this comment
Gruenebaum @ 115 you say
"Do we need more prove that Europe is held hostage by small groups and individuals who are ill-informed and have bad intentions?"
Surely you're talking about the politicans here!
Complain about this comment
To #115. Gruenebaum1,
Nonsense is correct when you say 85% of the Polish are not behind him, that is a figure pulled out of thin air, nobody knows the percentage of his voters who support the Lisbon treaty since there has not been a referendum and as for opinion polls LOL. The assumption that the voters who voted for the incoming prime minister all support Lisbon is a joke, just as it is a joke to assume that all Nu Labour supporters in the UK also support Lisbon.
glenn_fleetwood #116 got it right as the only small group holding us all to ransom are the political elite, who are like you say ill-informed and have bad intentions (corruption). Maybe a few of them will take note of what Sarkozy said recently about there being something wrong in the EU and finally realise that it's themselves.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS