EU's financial reform plan
"You make it sound as if France is trying to take over," chuckled the French President, as the Commission president made a joke about speaking in a minority language, English.
But there seems to be a pattern here. People wonder why on earth the hyper President has called yet another special summit, and then have to agree that something at least has been agreed.
The 27 leaders have signed up to a detailed plan on reform of world financial rules which they will take to Washington (I was wrong - there was a text issued at the end of the meeting).
The EU is calling for:
Rating agencies to submit to registration
No institution or territory to escape regulation
New codes of conduct to avoid excessive risk taking
More responsibility for the IMF.
The 100 days after the summit should be used to come up with some concrete new rules.
President Sarkozy said: "We mustn't seem rigid or aggressive, but Europe, get used to this new idea, is speaking with one voice - that's the way its going to be."
Despite speaking with one voice, President Sarkozy said he understood the annoyance of Spain, the world's 8th largest economy, and the Netherlands, the 16th, being excluded from the meeting of what is meant to be the world's 20 largest economies. As you do with parties, he's having a word with the host, George W.
Lets hope the current US president wasn't listening to Mr Sarkoy's lavish praise for the President elect.
"The American people have made their choice, open, generous America has spoken. We love America when it can live up to the dreams it inspires. What do we expect from President Obama ? To help us create a fairer world. "
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~16~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
IMF = Global Federal Reserve.
hahaha Sarkozy wants to take over the world, the Little Napoleon.
Sovreign and future biggest economies will never allow this, they became rich with this rules and they will keep this rules or rules that they can become even richer.
Can you stop the bleeding of money mr. Sarkozy? NO, because those vacations in Egypt, Dubai, with Carla Buruni are so iresistible that it is worth borrowing beyond your means.
Complain about this comment
"People wonder why on earth the hyper President has called yet another special summit, and then have to agree that something at least has been agreed."
....because leaders are paid for everything, including champagne that they share at such meetings. No leader pays a plane ticket or book a suite in a hotel at his/her own expenses.
http://kalamoha.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-06-30T10%3A16%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7
Complain about this comment
Yes, but is this new 'centralised' regulation really what is required ? Won't it be far too distant from the national level where financial regulation can be more adequately monitored and policed ? This attempt to get 'Europe to speak as one voice' when we don't speak the same language or even share a common currency seems doomed to failure to me.
Complain about this comment
We must also remember that France's term as president of the EU is coming to an end and January will see a new president. Therefore although Sarko does seem to be trying hard "aaaargh" what is clear is that he would like to have a deal, any deal, agreed before he goes. Since he was elected in France he has jetted around the world trying to be a world statesman, just like Tony Blair did for so many years, and just like Tony he loves to be in the spotlight.
What is a bit odd is why Spain and Netherlands are excluded from this summit especially when one considers the fact that the Dutch probably still have the amazing grip on the worlds banks and financial transactions that they used to have some years back.
Therefore I am a little concerned with the proposals being touted as I suspect there is little real substance there.
"Rating agencies to submit to registration" No idea about this one.
"No institution or territory to escape regulation" could this be a way of extending the so called 'money laundering' controls that are in effect more designed to keep money in your country of residence so that it can be taxed more.
"New codes of conduct to avoid excessive risk taking" will change very little for the traders who've never shown much will to obey rules anyway in their search for ever bigger bonuses.
"More responsibility for the IMF." responsibility for what, bailing out yet more failed banks, or maybe failed governments, Gordon Brown will be all for this one I guess.
Complain about this comment
The EU unelected dictatorship never misses an opportunity to abuse a 'crisis' in order to grab more powers for itself. Shameless.
Politicians keep lining up to betray their countries and engage in massive power transfers to Brussels. They know very well the Brussels' system is undemocratic, and they like it that way. Treason.
Complain about this comment
There is a recession on. The government should be concentrating on measures to get us through that, rather than getting suckered into ill thought out changes to regulation, that cannot be of any use until the end of the next economic cycle anyway.
Complain about this comment
more EU RUBBISH
The European Union parliament last week gave final approval for a pan-European driving license scheme. The current plan is to create a database tracking drivers' history throughout Europe, rather than allowing drivers with a bad record in one country to obtain a new license in a different country.
Individual European State governments would have a choice of whether to issue the new forgery-proof licenses for 10 or 15 years. The credit card-style license, with photograph and possibly a microchip, will begin introduction in 2013; phasing in of the new license will be completed by 2032.
300 million drivers throughout the European Union currently use at least 110 different paper and plastic licenses and various documents. The single biometric license would replace most, if not all, of these documents.
Belgian MEP Mathieu Grosch said some licenses still in use were so old that they had been issued by states that no longer exist, such as the former East Germany.
Greatly reducing the number of possible documents and making the new license "forgery-proof" will ease the burden on all law enforcement agencies throughout Europe. Biometric RFID chips, if they are included at the option of individual States, would allow agencies to scan the licenses locally and connect to an international database, often in near-real time.
Complain about this comment
On this blog I read:
' ... President Sarkozy said: "We mustn't seem rigid or aggressive, but Europe, get used to this new idea, is speaking with one voice - that's the way its going to be." ... '
" ... Europe is speaking with one voice. ..."
The "EU" is not Europe. Europe is wonderful. The "EU" is rubbish.
The "EU"-dictatorship is speaking with one voice.
I have no objection to European countries getting together to agree something. I do object to a "party line". When George Brown claims to agree with the other "European leaders" at this summit, he may well be lying. It discredits everything he says and means that he represents Sarkozy and others and not the British people.
" ... We mustn't seem rigid or aggressive ... "
But Sarko, you do!! (And you are!!) The majority of the peoples in Britain and the continental part of the 'EU' do not want your European Empire. You know it. You don't give a damn. You are arrogant beyond belief.
I say "you don't give a damn ..." That may be wrong. My observation of other control freaks is that they love to do things to people that they object to. You ask them not to do something and it is the next thing they do.
" get used to this new idea ..."
NO!! Large numbers of people hate and despise your "EU". It has had a chance to respond to the wishes of the people of the UK, Ireland and elsewhere and it refuses to to so.
You get used to it!!
Get used to it before it is too late!!
Other posters have complained about my "obsession" , my hobby horse or whatever. They want me to stop posting. You get your "EU" to stop its megalomania and I might just stop posting. On the other hand, I might not.
I demand te referendum we were promised.
Complain about this comment
In the Wiener Kurier, ex-German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher is reported as telling the newspaper: "Membership [of the "EU"] was promised to Turkey at the beginning of the 60s in the last century and confirmed by the EU a few years ago. One has to keep ones promises. ..." (My translation. See: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] I didn't make that promise. The British people never made that promise. The British people were not told of that promise before we joined the predecessor of the "EU". We were never told of the restatement of that promise by people representing an organisation which has no right to exist. Our permission was never asked to confirm that promise. Yet another reason to leave the "EU" !! Yet again to "EU"-lovers who want me to stop me posting: You "EU" doesn't stop. People like me are not going to stop! "One has to keep ones promises. " I wonder if he thinks that that also applies to the promise to give us a referendum.
Complain about this comment
I imagine Iceland is a nice place right now... Globalisation without the rule of law is the global financial system we have at the present time.
Sarko is doing a great job. Markets need regulating at the level they operate. He, at least, has the courage to shape the future in a way that departs from the speculative nonsense that has dominanted thinking since the late 1970s. Those who prefer to delude themselves that sovereignty means anything in the contemparary world should look to Iceland for an answer. Ask the Icelandic people what price sovereignty. Mr Brown knows that as well as Sarko. We live in a world of faceless forces that can destroy lives on the basis of a an emotion 'confidence' or greed 'speculation'. Enough please.
Complain about this comment
Other than living on Mars I would like somebody to explain how sovereignty and being out of the EU would have saved us from the consequences of the global financial crisis. Perhaps Ireland outside of the Euro zone would have been a good test case. Hungary is a good example of the value of the irrelevance of zero-sum sovereignty. We live in an open and inter-connected world that needs common rules and generally agreed solutions.
Complain about this comment
It seems hard to believe that the US would agree to be subservient to rules drawn up elsewhere by those who wish to impose them on America. Europeans may have forgotten what sovereignty is about but Americans haven't, they continue to jealously guard theirs. Many Americans even want out of NAFTA and WTO and while willing to voluntarily work to reduce CO2 emissions are not so ready to sign a treaty which imposes limits and fines for violating them.
Sarkozy is looking for a situation where the US seems relatively week. What I think will happen is that the US will appear to be cooperative and positive while committing to nothing. Any treaty negotiated would have to be ratified by Congress. Congress is in no mood now to be manipulated by either the White House or by an alien entity. Why should it. The US is in a relatively stronger position than Europe is. What a surprise.
Complain about this comment
Sarkozy does not speak for me.
The EU does not represent me.
Europe yes.
The EU no.
Complain about this comment
hahaha I touched a nerve of EU-politiburos,
People are EQUAL...if you are from Ireland, but not from France, it does not mean that your less clever, or that you must not be listen to. According to EverCloserUnion big fat people are clever than small tiny people.. hahaha in knowledge and brain size doesnt matter.
If Hungary is an example of Soverignty, then Ukraine, Belarus, Pakisatan, Afganistan and Iraq must be as well sovreign.
China is a future biggest economy, India too, therefore how will they agree to bailing out the socio-financial bunkrupt WEST?
And again How can you stop the bleeding of money, Mr. Little Napoleon? If Carla Buruni doesnt get her expensive vacation, she leaves you..
Arrogance is as it is, it doesnt allow you to see beyond your nouse.
Complain about this comment
"President Sarkozy said he understood the annoyance of Spain, the world's 8th largest economy, and the Netherlands, the 16th, being excluded from the meeting of what is meant to be the world's 20 largest economies."
Mark, I wonder who is to be corrected, you or Sarkozy?
CIA factbook informs us that Spain is the world's 11th largest economy, and the Netherlands 20th (2007 GDP PPP ranking).
Complain about this comment
As of this morning the Prisident of the Spanish Government will be at the meeting. This has been agreed by President G W Bush as Chairman. Direct quote from two of our T.V. channels so I guess somebody has been speaking to someone.
To: Buzet23.
This is actually round 2. Round one was the meeting held between President Bush, Sarkozy and Barasco at Camp David. It is going to be a long road artly for the reason given by Marcus at 12 above reflecting common American attitudes.
BTW Rating Agencies are those who rated the rubbish instrument as AAA. Rather like selling wine as Grand Cruz which when opened proves to be intervention wine lake plonk only good for cooking.
To: Marcus 12 above.
Although you would never believe it from some of the post on this blog, the European Community is a partnership between sovereign states. It is something quite new and is still being worked out. We are trying to use negotiation, compromise and agreement rather than confrontation and conquest.
What ever mood Congress is in it is Congress that is altimately responsible for the economy and therefore th sale of many billions of Treasury Bonds to cover Government debt. This does not put the U.S. in a relatively stronger position than Europe, rather the reverse.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This post is only an experiment to determine if a euro sign can be produced in the blog. Please ignore the contents of this post.
1. [ ? ] (decimal numeric entity)
2. [ ? ] (hexadecimal numeric entity)
Complain about this comment
Hmmm, the euro signs do not appear on this page, but they do appear on the user profile page (if one follows the username link above, between the date of the post and the word 'wrote').
Moderators: would it be possible to update the blog software so that HTML entities (both character entities and numeric entities) are rendered on these blog pages also ? It would certainly be useful to have pound sterling signs, euro signs, and other typographical symbols be usable in the blogs. Thank you !
Complain about this comment
heh, MAII needs to realise that the US is already subservient to rules made up in other countries, cause if it wasn't it wouldn't be able to trade with the countries (or tradeblocks).
In other words: US goods coming into the EU have to fullfill EU requirements.
And vice-versa.
Sovereignity is a relative limited thing, and has always been such.
Complain about this comment
To Jan_Keeskop (19):
The character problem probably comes from using something else than UTF-8 as an character set in the database that drives all message pages in blogs. To change that, the database would have to be converted into another character set and that is either deemed not worthy of trouble or just nobody in management understands that.
This is by the way one thing that I always hate about US and UK originated systems, they always for some reason opt-out on not doing internationalization from the beginning. Like how hard can it be? Every system that I have been designing or working with has been internationalized from the day one! Duh!
Complain about this comment
Remberance Day people have died for this country cause they loved it and what happens these days these give it away to the EU regime
Complain about this comment
#22. jaws1912
wrote:
Remembrance Day people have died for this country cause they loved it and what happens these days these give it away to the EU regime
On both occasions we engaged in a global war with an opening pretext of a European incident. Firstly an assassination in Sarajevo and then the invasion of Poland.
We must keep close to our continental cousins to help prevent a third occasion. It is better to be respectful participants inside all of the talking shops with them than to meet them on field on battle. Today, started as a Remembrance Service for the 'war to end all wars' and we must remember that, or betray those millions of our fellow Europeans, and others, who died.
I hope you will agree with me that today of all days that it would be a tragedy for the more rabid isolationists to be allowed to risk damaging the peace in Europe. But I fear from your previous somewhat intemperate postings that you do not subscribe to the dictum 'jaw jaw is better than war war'...
Complain about this comment
# 23. At 9:02pm on 09 Nov 2008, John_from_Hendon wrote:
" ... would be a tragedy for the more rabid isolationists to be allowed to risk damaging the peace in Europe."
This seems to be the argument that I have heard and read repeatedly that somehow the "EU" and/or its predecessors have been responsible for us having peace in Western Europe since 1945 and that the "EU" has made war in "Europe" impossible. I do not accept that claim.
I believe that we have had peace in W. Europe for several reasons:
1) The death with Adolph Hitler of Social Darwinism which included the idea that war was good.
2) The state of Europe after WWII. Nobody was in any state to attack anybody.
3) The presence of American and British soldiers in Germany.
3.1) I spent most of the seventies in German and came to the conclusion that had there not been those soldiers on German soil, Germany would have become a dictatorship. I do not believe that it would happen now.
3.2) The Americans would have stopped any war between NATO countries.
4) The presence of the Russians on the other side of the iron curtain. You could feel it. Any war between W. European states would have given them a chance to march in.
5) The fact that no part of W. Germany was taken away permanently. Some parts (Saarland, Elten ?) were taken away temporarily but given a REFERENDUM, THE RESULT OF WHICH WAS ACCEPTED.
The "EU" has not made war between its members impossible. It would still be possible for the Spanish to attack Gibraltar. We need better armed forces which means money which means leaving the "EU" to save billions.
German and British "EU"-lovers have told me on a number of occasions that the UK has no right to leave the "EU".
I am confident that the majority of Brits do not see it like that. I fear that we could have a War of Independence if we leave leaving the "EU" too late. Then we would see that the "EU" has not brought peace but caused war.
The "EU" is about megalomania. It wants a European Army, European GPS-like-system etc. The "EU" wants to throw its weight about on the world stage. It hates the Americans. I expect it to cause a war sometime.
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio website reports massive attempts in German to prevent nuclear waste being taken to Gorleben: burning straw balls on the rails, rails being undermined and having to be repaired, 40 tractors blocking the journey, a burning barricade, sit-down protests etc.
The police used water cannons, clubs and tear gas.
A fun time was had by all.
I cannot see any mention of this on the BBC website. Have I missed it? Is there a policy of playing down unpleasant news about our "partners" ?
Complain about this comment
@suffolkboy2 (24)
now don't go using logic and solid arguments to counter the mindless babble of the anti-democracy (ie pro-EU) crowd. It's not fair!
I've argued my point about the state of parliamentary democracy many times (in my view, parliamentary democracy doesn't really exist in the EU as most national parliaments are now subject to EU diktat). Not a single time has any EU-luvvie ever countered my claim with solid arguments to the contrary. Always the rubbish about 'a system where politicians who are appointed by those who are elected and in turn appoint others is very democratic'. And the argument about parliamentary/democratic control on the EU politburo is always ignored or ridiculed. The pro-EU crowd know very well parliamentary democracy has been undermined, but they like it that way.
Complain about this comment
Some remarks concerning war and peace in Europe.
1. Europe is the most militaristic part of the World, if measured in terms of the number and intensity of the military conflicts.
2. Practically all major conflicts in Europe concerned regular attempts of European unification. Like the one we observe now.
3. The post-WWII half-century period (Cold War) was unprecedentedly long period of peace in the history of Europe.
4. The reason for that was the fact that during the Cold War period Europe was controlled by two superpowers, neither of which is a part of Europe.
5. The end of the Cold War, signaled by the German unification, was celebrated by another Balkan war. Germany again bombed serbs, the third time within one century.
Considering these facts, the only hope for peace in Europe would be the increasingly visible technical inability of degrading European nations to engage themselves in a serious conflict.
Complain about this comment
The US is already in a trade war with the EU. It's a strange relationship, both sides need to cooperate in the current financial crisis but beyond that, they are inherently adversaries. In this regard, the US is in a far stronger position and has used China as an economic ally to great advantage. Were it not for profits repatriated from China by large European corporations, Europe would have had almost no growth at all this last decade. The economies of France and Germany, Italy and Spain are all but dead.
Europe has not pulled its fair share of the weight in the mutual defense pact of NATO. While the US cleaned up Europe's mess in the Balkins much to the chagrin of Russia and to a lesser extent Greece, Europe has not done anything remotely like its fair share in Afghanistan. And of course in Iraq, not only did most of Europe not cooperate, it was downright obstructionist. When the US assesses its financial situation, I think and hope the new administration will put strong pressure on Europe and if it does not comply, then the US should threaten to pull out of NATO. NATO seems to have been a one way defense agreement, not a mutual defense agreement. That would leave Europe to deal with Russia itself.
Pundits on TV today said that they believe that the US missile defense planned for installation in Poland and the Czech Republic where Russia has threatened to install offensive missiles in Kaliningrad if the US goes ahead will be put to a public referendum in both countries and will be defeated to the pleasure of President Obama. I don't agree. I think the US will press ahead and tell Russia if it attacks the ABMs in Poland or the radar in the Czech Republic, it will be an act of war against the US. The issue of Iran for which these missiles are intended to defend against is a vital security issue for the US. The alternative is a pre-emptive strike directly on Iran not waiting for them to launch an attack. The intelligence and military in the US will push Obama hard on this issue.
I agree with SuffolkBoy2. Were the US to pull out of NATO and withdraw its military from Europe, Europeans might go back to what they have done for millenia, fought with each other. This next time, the US should stay out of it. It no longer has any vital security interests there.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon (23): Those who say that the EU prevents war between its members should remember that it (like the League of Nations) lacks the 'sword of justice' to force a belligerent member into compliance. A state can only be an EU member if it already has a working relationship with the other members. The experience of Eastern Europe testifies to this as former countries of the Warsaw Pact only joined AFTER the Cold War ended. Peace between EU members is therefore a necessary condition for the EU's existence rather than a consequence.
The relationship between the EU and peace is that economic interdependence between its members creates the condition that any member-state which rattles its sabre towards another is threatening the overseas customers - and therefore the prosperity - of its own citizens. However the emergence of a genuine global market now creates the same condition worldwide. The truth is that the EU is becoming obsolete as a genuine global market emerges and as the costs of membership (both in financial terms and in the cost to democracy) have risen past the level at which it still makes sense to remain a member. The UK must renegotiate EU membership or walk away if this proves impossible.
Complain about this comment
The Russians moving their intermediate range missiles westwards shows that we need a missile defence system. However, I doubt if the one envisaged by Bush is the right one.
Complain about this comment
The missile defense system President Bush proposed for Poland was not intended to protect anyone against a Russian attack. That is not possible SuffolkBoy2 because Russia has fifteen thousand nuclear warheads. The only way to deter them is for the US to maintain its own strategic arsenal at the ready. The anti missile defense shield consisting of ten anti missile missiles and a radar system in the Czech Republic is intended to intercept an Iranian attack with an ICBM against the US. Russia knows that. They are just playing games. Very dangerous ones at that. Russia seems to be ruled by some remarkably stupid people right now. Expropriation of BP and Shell investments just killed any hope they have of external capital investment of any meaningful amount in their country for a generation or more. It's investment they desperately need.
Complain about this comment
#24 SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
".. the argument that I have heard and read repeatedly that somehow the "EU" and/or its predecessors have been responsible for us having peace in Western Europe since 1945"
Has it occurred to you that you have heard this argument (which by the way I was not making) because it happens to have some validity?
I guess not, as from you previous postings all you seem to be interest in is destruction and isolation and there seems to be no glimmer of any from of cooperation in your understanding of national or human relations. I really pity your neighbours.
#29 Freeborn-John please note that I am not saying and did not say that the primary purpose of the EU is to prevent another World war. Even as an isolationist little-Englander I am sure that even you will appreciate that a degree of stability of trading relationships benefits all participants and that it is better to foster these relationships by talking rather than going to war (no matter that Bush/Cheney did not understand this! Please Note #31. MarcusAureliusII)
Complain about this comment
# 31 MAII
We all know that the proposed missile defence system that would have been deployed in Poland (which looks like it may never be deployed according to Obama's aides) was never a threat to Russia; it was never even meant to be a defence against Iran. It was a deployment to ease the fears of the Poles, who were concerned about whether the west would come to their aid if attack by their big neighbour (look what happened after WWII; we let the Poles down), but it was more of a probe to test the Russian mettle. There is still a global post communist struggle going on between the USA and Russia. Russia is no threat to us in the West as the communist idea of world domination is dead. What Russia doesn't want is for American (not EU) interference in Russia's back yard. Russia does not fear Bush's warmongering attitude but I suspect that it is annoyed by it. I hope that when Obama becomes president that he will have the foresight to see that Russia can be a useful ally of the west and not provoke it into becoming an enemy again; just because it would help the defence industry in the USA.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not having a go at the Americans but at American policy (if it has one) concerning relations in Eastern Europe. We should not forget the help the USA have given us when the USSR was a threat.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon,
Jean Monnet's concept of "ever closer union" and a Europe of nation states unified together in a Federation and used in a Monnet prepared speech was based upon his idea that, through economic and social ties evolved through ever closer union, a third European War of the nature seen in the two Great Wars would never happen again.
We might all argue about the nature of how the EU is the greatest thing since sliced bread or undemocratic, unrepresentaive, unloved by the people or as useful as a chocolate teapot . . . . but above all else the goodwill of Germany and France to push for ever closer Union has been a good thing.
NATO membership has also certainly served to have countries work together militarily but the EU does take "working together" that much further and, ultimately, the idea of Monnet's Unified Europe remains an excellent ideal taken to being a real project.
The question is, does the EU evolve as a Superstate designed solely by politicians and Bureaucrats or should it be a Superstate designed with the involvement and consent of the people.
British Conservative, Adrian Hilton paraphrased Monnet's ideal as follows:
"Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."
That does seem to be what is happening, especially when we see how the Lisbon Treaty was agreed by politicians and then, less clearly, an unspoken protocol was agreed that no nations would hold referendum (I suspect they forgot that Ireland had to have one if it was a constiturion change or if they did not overlook this they presumed the Irish would roll over quietly!) because of previous perceived failures with referenda in France, Holland and Denmark.
Therein lies the flaw that the EU-sceptics can always seize upon and say that the EU, by ignoring the people, is potentially creating imposed autocracy on people who are used to democratic government. This sows the seeds for revolt and revolution as you can treat the great unwashed with contempt but the people are not as stupid as politicians and bureacrats of the EU seem to think they are and, sooner or later, their voice will need to be heard or they will rebel against the Monnet ideal despite it's peaceful intent and achievement.
Complain about this comment
Some people here say
Europe yes
EU no
as if they have the choice...
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, the policy of placing anti missile missiles in Poland was stated explicitly as being a defense against rogue states. The only rogue state who could fire an ICBM where Poland's geographical location would be of value is Iran and the target the USA. An ICBM launched from Iran towards the US would take it in that general direction. The US cannot prevent a determined nuclear attack by Russia against Poland or against anyone else and everyone knows it. Ten missiles will not stop 15,000 warheads. The only defense is the American nuclear deterrant. Russia remains a threat to Europe because it still has a large nuclear arsenal, it is attempting to rebuild its armed forces, it wants to reconstitute as much of its former Empire as it can, it can severely disrupt energy supplies to Western Europe, it would like to dismantle NATO and divide Europe from the US. In the last regard, Europe has already done half the work for them by demonstrating that NATO as a mutual defense alliance is a sham. Will the election of Barack Obama be the other half of that process? We'll see. But Russia is not a direct threat to the US, not in the way the former USSR was. You can see the political dynamics shifting as Europe tries to kiss up to the US where five years ago it was looking for confrontation with it. And that is the point. Real allies don't warm up to you when they need you and then "confront" you when they don't. Why does Europe do this? Because deep down it is no damned good.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon (32): Have the seen the film "It's a Wonderful Life" where the little girl believes that 'Every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings'. Well every time I am called a little Englander Monnet's dream fades a little more. Insults from those unable to counter an argument are music to my ears, so feel free to keep them coming.
I think others have done a good job in explaining why the EU cannot preserve peace yet represents a great danger to democracy. The spread of democracy is the true reason why we have peace in Europe, and it depends upon the spread of the nation-state. Before you repeat the tired mantra that the EU is responsible for peace perhaps you will be ready to explain how there is peace in the rest of the world without the EU? And perhaps you will be able to explain how EU integration can preserve the peace any better that the unification of Germany (upon which it is modelled) which proceeded from a customs union ('zollverien') via confederation to a unified state that started two world wars?
Complain about this comment
I can get used to (actually I strongly support) the idea that the EU (not "Europe") must speak with one voice in its external affairs.
What I find it hard to swallow is that Mr. Sarkozy unilaterally decides that he will *be* that voice, just because France happens to be on that rotating presidency nonsense term.
The EU-ropeans did not vote for Mr. Sarkozy to represent them. Only the *French* voted him to represent *them*. This is the same people who voted "Non" to the constitution... by the way. So maybe the French are *really* trying to take the EU over :-)
Complain about this comment
#34. Menedemus
The question arises surely can we be shackled by the rabid isolationist Anti-Europeans?
Unlike the citizens of the USA the vast majority of Europeans have passports and do travel around their continent. I wonder how many would like to have to get a visa to visit other European countries as other foreigners do, but that seems precisely what they want.
There are a number of posters on these blogs whose interest is only to denigrate the EU. Their arguments are specious and repetitive, but unless they are refuted on every occasion they will think that their extreme minority views are widely held. I will not call them Euro-sceptic as it is a bowdlerisation. They are Anti-Europeans. There is nothing positive in their arguments. Indeed I suspect that are Anti-Unionist too.
No organisation is perfect or static and neither is the EU but that must not mean that any form of isolationist withdrawal ought to be countenanced. We should be like the majority of our fellow European, who we share so much with and engage in the thrust and parry of constructive debate. It is in my view, and I believe the majority view of all European, that the institutions of the EU can and will be improved over time. Presently the head of the national governments have too much personal sway in setting the agenda and the elected representatives of the people too little. The EU's civil service needs better control mechanisms, but I am afraid the present situation suits the national leaders.
We should be debating ways to improve the EU rather than acting like a pack a hounds determined only to rip it limb from limb - there lies only destruction for us all. I would apply the same argument to Westminster and the Welsh and Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments - Don't we need some from of English regional assemblies with similar powers to the other parliaments? Above all subsidiarity should be the watchword.
Complain about this comment
#37 Freeborn-John wrote:
"Well every time I am called a little Englander Monnet's dream fades a little more. Insults from those unable to counter an argument"
Hasn't it occurred to you that if you see Little Englander as an 'insult' you are deeply ashamed of being one! You did not present 'arguments' but bigotry. You are set upon destruction and have not expressed any positive view in your writing. The whole impression is of a massive negative outpouring of bile. Please join in Europe and suggest positive and constructive ways in which Europe can be made better.
Complain about this comment
Re 29: Freeborn-John "Peace between EU members is therefore a necessary condition for the EU's existence rather than a consequence."
Usually, your logically flawed arguments, peppered with the usual EU-phobic folklore and clichés, make me smile only, but this needs some comments (which you may find useful):
"Necessary condition" and "consequence" are two names for the same thing in logic. Let me explain with your own words.
Consider the statement:
(S) "If state A is an EU member then A is not at war (with another EU state)".
To test the statement, consider the premise:
(P) "Cyprus is an EU state".
The conclusion (assuming the statement (S) and the premise (P) are true) it follows *as*a*consequence* that
(C) "Cyprus is not at war (with another EU state)".
This is called a syllogism.
Note that "A is not a war (with another EU state)" is the *consequence* of "A is an EU member". Which the same thing as saying that for "A to be an EU member" it is *necessary* for "A not to be at war (with another EU state)".
Got it? Necessary is the statement that follows.
Ok, now let's see what the statement (S) leads us to. Assuming it is true, it means that being member of the EU guarantees peace (with other EU members). That's what folks mean by saying that the "EU guarantees peace".
To see this more clearly, consider the "contrapositive" of (P) (which is logically equivalent to it):
(P') "If state A is at war (with an EU state) then A is not a member of the EU."
This does not mean that if there is no EU there will be war, it just means that if there is war there is no EU. Or, put positively, as long as there is the EU there is no war. Which is (let's assume also this) what we all want.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon (39): If I try to filter out the insults from post 39, all that is left is the following:
1. You appear to believe that UK citizens would require a visa to visit the EU if we were to leave the EU. But no Western nation requires a visa to visit either the UK or Schengan countries. So what has this got to do with EU membership?
2. You appear to believe that it is impossible for governments to engage in debate unless they are EU members? How do you imagine the UK is able to co-operate with the US or Canada or Japan or Norway or the great majority of countries that are not EU members?
3. As lacerniagigante (38) points out, the national leaders only have a democratic legitimacy within their country and have no mandate to speak on behalf of the voters of other countries. The same is true for MEPs. If you are suggesting that giving more power to MEPs ('elected representatives' of a non-existent EU people) is an answer to the EU crisis of democratic legitimacy then you have to explain why doing precisely that (i.e. the increasing the powers of the EU Parliament since 1979) has coincided with the increasing widespread feeling that the EU is undemocratic.
Please answer the three points above or I will conclude that it is you that is unable to refute argument and indeed that you are not up to anything except throwing insults.
Complain about this comment
at #41,
lets see it from another prespective..
what if Russia which is not in EU, attacks EU.. is this statement that: if there is EU there is peace/NO war?
and one more prespective:
then since we have the EU, then why we (the EU-countries) are fighting/making war in Afganistan? Why EU wants an army, other than go and make war in other countries outside EU?
Maybe we have peace in a geographical and political entity called EU, but for people living in EU countries there is no peace, if their soldiers=people are sent to other non-EU countries for war.
Lets assume if a country for ex. Russia nuclear bombs EU completely, Russia still will have peace inside its territory, but EU not..
So, this statment is only to show that peace is with the strongest, and wisest.
Complain about this comment
Lacerniagigante (41): Your logic depends entirey on your assumption that "If state A is an EU member then A is not at war (with another EU state)" will always be true. Let me ask if you to apply your logic to the following 'statement' (actually an assumption), and ask what were the consequences of it no longer remaining true?
"If state A is a League of Nations member then A is not at war with another member of the League of Nations".
Presumably in your next post you will prove the existence of God by assuming that the statement "No-one has proved God does not exist" will be true for ever?
John_from_Hendon (40): I have been called everything up to a "fascist maggot" for criticising the EU takeover. Not pleasant, but if it is the price to be paid for protesting the EU takeover then so be it.
I look forward to an insult-free reply to post 42.
Complain about this comment
43. At 2:21pm on 10 Nov 2008, karolina001 wrote:
"what if Russia which is not in EU, attacks EU.. is this statement that: if there is EU there is peace/NO war?"
"No war" was short for "No war among member states." I used Cyprus in my example, because technically Cyprus is at war with Turkey... and Turkey is required to solve this issue before joining the EU. It is *necessary* for Turkey to be at peace with Cyprus, for it to join the EU. Otherwise stated when (assuming ever) Turkey will be in the EU, it will be automatic that it is at peace with all the EU members, including Cyprus.
As for Russians, I don't think they're planning on attacking any NATO member soon.
Complain about this comment
Sorry guys, I fail to see what this has to do with the financial regulation...
Complain about this comment
Marcus re. #36
I think you meant this to be addressed to gedguy2 regarding his comment re #31 made at #33?
I would not disagree with your response other than to say that the US, Europe and China work better together than behaving unlilaterally as despite each region having it's faults it is better to be friends than seeking to always denigrate one another for our failings.
We do not need each other due to our numbers but, acting in symbiosis, could benefit the world and our "collective" selves immeasurably.
Complain about this comment
Re 44: At 2:59pm on 10 Nov 2008, Freeborn-John wrote: "Lacerniagigante (41): Your logic depends entirey on your assumption that "If state A is an EU member then A is not at war (with another EU state)" will always be true."
Which is what *you* said in 29. Maybe you didn't mean it, but *you* said that ;-)
You said that "Peace between EU members is therefore a necessary condition for the EU's existence".
But don't worry, I didn't expect (though I hoped) you would understand my post.
Complain about this comment
Re 43: At 2:21pm on 10 Nov 2008, karolina001 wrote: "Lets assume if a country for ex. Russia nuclear bombs EU completely, Russia still will have peace inside its territory, but EU not.."
1. Russia has not "yet" peace inside its territory (remember Chechnya). And bombing the EU won't help.
2. Russia won't bomb the EU because then there's less people to sell gas to. (Ukrainians won't pay and the Chinese get it from Iran.) :-)
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon re. #39
Cooluvaduck! I find myself agreeing with MarcusAureliusII in one post and then John_from_Hendon in the next.
What is the world coming too!
But, I totally agree with all of your comment.
My only addition to what you suggest would be to try to address changes to the Constitution of the EU before it is agreed as the Lisbon Treaty. Once Lisbon (if Lisbon) is ratified then the EU Constiturion is pretty much cast in stone and not subject to change without the MEPs making the changes I would dare to suggest?
Perhaps now is the time not to ask do Europeans want an EU but what form of EU do they want. Being positive instead of negative is a far better way of driving improvements.
As a group leader I would always suggest to people not to come to me with problems but come to me with solutions as they would inevitably come up with better solutions to the problem than me. Then, if their solution was implemented, they could adapt to the change or the effect much more happily and cheerfully by feeling part of the process than isolated and ignored.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (50):
The Lisbon Treaty doesn't carve Constitution of EU to the stone.
What we have to remember when talking about the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitution of EU is that they aren't essentially constitutional, they don't establish EU as an sovereign body. EU stays as an supranational organization even after the Lisbon Treaty has been accepted. What this means is that ultimately EU member states have the power to change and shape EU as they want it. The Lisbon Treaty will just be an another treaty in collection of other treaties, just the same as Nice Treaty is.
Where I think this whole deal has went to forest was using the name Constitution when it just was an another treaty with the only exception that it was done in a bigger circle and with more transparent process. A true constitution of EU would make it sovereign, a federation like the USA where the Federal government is sovereign and individual states are not sovereign but dependent of the Federal government. Clearly both Constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty wont make this happen.
Also I would like to remind people about having a parliamentary system means: it means that we the people choose our representatives to govern and lead the country according to rules laid before them in their respective country's constitution. Many people in here shout that their or others governments are not democratic or not doing the bidding of their people when accepting and ratifying things like the Lisbon treaty in parliament. Well what you people forget is that its parliaments duty to govern and lead according to how they see best for the people, and if this is done according to laws then the representatives have done their duty without blame. If you don't like parliaments making decisions regarding things like EU treaties then you have to first change the system by changing the constitution that governs the government and the nation, but you can't just say that their undemocratic or don't do their job as overseers of peoples interests.
Complain about this comment
To Jukka_Rohila (51):
PS. To my own message. The first part regarding the EU constitution was to Menedemus, but of course the last part about workings of parliament democracy wasn't meant to Menedemus solely, but it was addressed to all people in here who bad-mouthing parliament democracies as undemocratic or not be driven by peoples interests.
Complain about this comment
Lacerniagigante (45): I said that peaceful relations between its members is a necessary condition for the existence of the EU and not a consequence of its existence and I stand by that claim. Indeed you accept the first part of this claim when you say "It is *necessary* for Turkey to be at peace with Cyprus, for it to join the EU". Where you go wrong is in assuming that this condition once established is permanent (which is what you imply when you deny there is a difference between conditions of membership and future consequences).
I explicitly reject the proposition that the mere fact that a country is a member of the EU guarantees peaceful relations between that country and other member of the EU permanently. It was not the case with the League of Nations and the EU does not have some magic property that the League lacked.
Complain about this comment
haha this is funny... you say EU is at war in Cyprus against Turkey which is a NATO member.. hahaha never heard of this before..
First of all south Cyprus should not have been allowed into EU without recognizing/or solving the question of the north.. same for the north of Cyprus.
By allowing the south Cyprus to join EU, EU has in fact recognized the north as independent.
By the way, Turkey has no problem with Cyprus and can join EU any time they want, and remember they are in NATO therefore they dont need EU for protection. If Turkey is involved then Greece is involved too, by your logic. Then why Greece is in EU?
The problem is with the Cyprus itself, north and south parts. So, why EU allowed one part of Cyprus? so that it can have problem..
And if there is EU and peace, why EU'countries are in Afganistan making war?
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon @39 wrote:
"There are a number of posters on these blogs whose interest is only to denigrate the EU. Their arguments are specious and repetitive, but unless they are refuted on every occasion they will think that their extreme minority views are widely held. I will not call them Euro-sceptic as it is a bowdlerisation. They are Anti-Europeans."
What a lot of tosh.
I love Europe - its countries, peoples, and cultures.
I travelled widely in Europe from Ireland in the West to the Black Sea in the East, and from the Arctic Circle in the North to the Southernmost parts of Spain and Greece.
I have many friends from all over the continent and appreciate and revel in the linguistic and cultural diversity that Europe offers: its art, architecture, music, cuisine, history, literature, etc., etc.
The fact that I don't want or support 'ever closer union', or to be part of an unelected over-arching, nascent supra-state that is increasing its legal powers by stealth and has a democratic deficit wider than the Grand Canyon, does not make me 'anti-European'.
Your statement does, however, make you appear to be truly ignorant and intolerant. You have an opportunity to correct yourself.
Complain about this comment
ABOUT FINANCIAL REFORM PLAN:
Sarkozy, and EU should reform themselves, since they are becoming a burden and a liability for us the citiziens.
EU should *reform* its accounts first, since their financies are not based on a market economy /business principle but on a fixed tax on citiziens. They make are responsible or incompetent we still pay them, so that they never go bunkrupt, since they are unelected. We bail them out always, or better say the big corrporations bailed them out so EU turn to bail out them.
Complain about this comment
I remain confused as to why Cyprus - an island east of Suez and south of Tunis or Tehran - ever admitted to the European Union?
Who next:Taiwan?
Complain about this comment
53. At 4:39pm on 10 Nov 2008, Freeborn-John wrote:
"Lacerniagigante (45): I said that peaceful relations between its members is a necessary condition for the existence of the EU and not a consequence of its existence and I stand by that claim."
You don't get it mate. Let me simplify
necessary condition = consequence
Understand?
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #51
Perhaps "Constitution" is the wrong word but the fact that the Lisbon Treaty creates a permanent elective President of the EU and a permanent elective Foreign Minister (plus the creation of Embassies representing the EU around the world and an EU Diplomatic Corps) could be described by some other word other than "Constitution?" Would you care to suggest such a altrnative word for me to consider as I cannot think of one to use instead of Constitution?
If Lisbon is constituted with an elected President and Foreign Minister then I can only see this being changed by the EU Parliament at a later date otherwise we have a President and Foreign Minister and with the trappings of a Supranational State with embassies throughout the world without the views of the electorate being taken into account.
That is why, I would suggest that the Lisbon Treaty, which I am personally in favour of, would have been better submitted to the people as a positive step towards developing a Union of European States and have this accepted by the majority of Europeans as a positive step rather than have the treaty slipped through, almost as a fait accompli, by the Council of Ministers using their parliamentary majorities to effectively force this though without a general concensus of the population. It is thos electorates and general population who are ultimately the demcoratic electorate who should have a say in how they are governed within a democracy.
Complain about this comment
Calm down..
Lets focus on EU and the financial reform they want to do to the Global financial system..
I wander why not start to reform EU financial system first?
Why this rush to go global, mr Little Napoleon and Queen Burundi?
Expensive vacations in Egypt, Dubai, are always worth borrowing beyond your means. It's tax free as always.
Complain about this comment
57. At 4:51pm on 10 Nov 2008, MaxSceptic wrote:
"I remain confused as to why Cyprus - an island east of Suez and south of Tunis or Tehran - ever admitted to the European Union?"
Beats me. Do you think that giving the Falklanders (inhabitants of an island that is closer to Antartica than Britain) full British citizenship in 1983 may have set a silly precedent? ;-)
Complain about this comment
Jukka (51):The fact that the Lisbon treaty is not the Constitution of a sovereign state does not mean that it is not of constitutional significance. It specifies the rules under which supreme law of the land will be decided in each of 27 countries so it clearly has constitutional significance. This is underlined by the need to modify numerous state constitutions in order to ratify it.
Elected representatives only have the right to govern for a short period or time within constitutional limits on their power. That does not mean they have the right to introduce changes of a constitutional nature in direct violation of the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent that contradict the promises they made when running for office. The Lisbon treaty contains commitments binding on future governments and generations of voters and will, if forced through, establish government without the consent of the governed.
Lacerniagigante (58): I understand that you are claiming that the condition for EU entry is the same thing as permanent consequences of EU entry. I hope you understand that I am saying this is obviously not true. Maybe you will be telling me next that the consequences of the Molotov Ribbontrop pact was the permanent prevention of conflict between Germany and the USSR?
Complain about this comment
54. At 4:40pm on 10 Nov 2008, karolina001 wrote:
"haha this is funny... you say EU is at war in Cyprus against Turkey which is a NATO member.. hahaha never heard of this before.."
I never said that (read carefully :-)
I said that Cyprus is technically at war with Turkey.
Cyprus is not part of NATO. It is in the EU.
Turkey is not part of the EU. It is part of NATO.
Turkey has invaded part of Cyprus, and Cyprus demands it removes its troops from there and agrees to a peace agreement as a condition for it to join the EU.
Panimayit?
Complain about this comment
lacerniagigante @ #61
My guess is we'll know whether the Falkland Islands actually matters if they are granted membership of the EU, adopt the Euro and start sending contributors to this Blog! ;=)
Complain about this comment
Mark just published new topic.. so lets skip this topic since time will tell the truth
Complain about this comment
# 36 MAII
I still think that the USA are playing games when it comes to this missile deployment in Poland.
1. Does Iran have any ICBMs? No.
2. Is Iran likely to get any ICBMs soon? No.
3. Does the USA have any missile defence systems in Turkey? Yes.
4. Does the USA have a nuclear deterrent in its submarines close to Iran? Yes.
So ask yourself why it needs them in Poland. It is not for any strategic reason, for if the missile were to be fired then it would have to explode the ICBMs over EU soil. I don't think so!
Complain about this comment
lacerniagigante @61,
Perhaps.... Does that mean that the Falklands can become the EU's 28th state?
Complain about this comment
# 47 Menedemus
I think he did mean to answer my posting, but I am more than happy for you to take the blame. ;-)
Complain about this comment
57. MaxSceptic wrote:
I remain confused as to why Cyprus - an island east of Suez and south of Tunis or Tehran - ever admitted to the European Union?
Who next:Taiwan?
Funny fact: European Union covers every continent (yes including North America) except for Asia.
Complain about this comment
to MarcusAureliusII :
#The economy of Germany is far from being dead compared to the US - it is thriving.
#US leaves Europe for sure, in the coming 20
years. Europe should think about its own strategical interests. They do not necesseraly need to follow the US. NATO is now being misused for the crasy american
military actions.
#US with their deadly Balcan policy made such a mess -in the centre of the continent!!!
Nobody knows where it is all going to end.
#I am sure that Europe will come to mutual understanding and agreement with Russia. Both need each other .
#as to the antimissile system-
Russian decision is absolutely correct.
#Bush administration who lied to the world about weapons of mass distruction in Iraq, about illegal prisons in Europe etc - now says that its system is not against Russia but Iran. The problem is that this system will
be used for survellance purposes
# strike on the Iran# - that would be typical american decision - first act - then think.
# i can only agrre that the US should stay out of european affairs. European destiny should be decided by Europeans.
Complain about this comment
karolina001,
I am Russian. We don't want to "strike EU".
Can't explain why.
Why don't we eat corn-flakes for breakfast?
All supermarkets here are full of them.
We simply don't.
Don't know if it is a convincing explanation :o) but I am at a loss to find a better one.
Ab Turkey - they badly want to be EU, but are not taken in. I have no opinion if it's good or bad. It is simply a fact, that they appeal and are constantly refused. To the degree that I think they are about to threaten to leave NATO, if they are not taken.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (62):
I disagree strongly with you regarding what elected representatives can do.
What elected representatives can do in their term depends on the constitution under they serve. In example in Ireland representatives can't change constitution without referendum. In France constitution can be changed either by having a refendum or either by having constitutional majority in both houses and the president signing the changes. In Finland constitution can be changed either by parliament the parliament under the term accepting it and the next parliament voting it in favor of 2/3 or by having 5/6 of parliament accepting to hear the legislation and 2/3 to voting in favor of it.
In most EU countries parliaments have the power to do constitutional changes if they see need for it. I think that the question where our views differ is the position of the elected representative, do we see the representative and the parliament as managers of the country or as leaders of the country? I see, at least in my country, the parliament and representatives as an leaders of the country and the nation, thus they have the power and right to make, in constitutional order, even drastic changes.
I do accept that in some countries like Britain, it can be questioned, at least partly due to monarchy and partly due to not having written constitution, on what the parliament can and can't do. What I don't accept is questioning the systems of other countries, all EU countries are parliamentary, and especially republics and federal republics are build largely to the notation of parliament being the supreme power deciding the fate of the nation and the country. Thus I don't accept that the parliaments didn't have power to accept EU legislation and that their decision didn't as large constitute as the will of the people.
Also to Menedemus (59):
I disagree on you both about the Constitutional treaty / the Lisbon treaty. The Constitutional treaty would have been just another treaty in the history of EU, it enlarges competencies of EU, it creates new posts, it modifies internal working of the EU, and these are the same things that every other EU treaty has done. All things that are introduced can be repealed in the future by another EU treaty. If you think that CAP can be changed in future treaties, then you have to accept that other things also can be changed.
From my point Constitutional treaty would be truly constitutional if it made EU sovereign. After that the EU itself would be free to change its and its parts positions as does the US Federal government with its relationships with its states. Now and in the future EU is still regulated by the treaties of its member countries not by itself. I should also add that in now and in the future EU law is supreme to national law only by consent of the member countries, if the EU would be sovereign then EU law would be supreme despite national law.
In the end, I have to add one thing. If there would be a treaty that would make EU sovereign and its member countries subsidiaries to it, then the consent of the people via referendums would be needed as states don't have the right, neither legislative or moral power, to dismantle the sovereignty of the state. However, Constitutional treaty nor the Lisbon treaty don't change this, they are just EU treaties among other treaties concerning supranational organizations.
Complain about this comment
Jukka (72): You believe it is OK for elected representatives ('leaders' as you presciently call them) to find whatever constitutional loop holes they can, even to abolish representative democracy itself. That is what Hitler did after winning the 1933 election and what the successive treaties on European Union will do in stages. I believe elected representatives are the custodians of a power that rightfully belongs to the people, and which should be returned intact to them at the next election so that they can entrust it afresh in a new government.
There is no room for compromise between us here; you believe in unlimited state power, I believe in the sovereignty of the people. One of us is right and one is wrong. You can disagree with me as strongly as you like, but i believe the vast majority of mankind would side with me.
--------------------------------
"The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others", John Locke ('Second Treatise on Government')
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #72
Why would the EU Constitutional Treaty be commonly called the "Constitutional Treaty" if it were not a Constitutional Treaty?
Even the UK Labour Party called the Treaty the Constitutional Treaty in it's manifesto in which it promised the UK Electorate a specific referendum for national approval of this particularTreaty.
The fact that the French and Dutch Electorates sunk this particular treaty meant the UK swiftly moved to not proceeding with the Constitutional Treaty either and it died a death.
The Lisbon Treaty replaced the Constitutional Treaty and the UK, along with many other EU member States have chosen to ratify that treaty without recourse to a Referendum process - except Ireland where because the Lisbon Treaty requires changes to the Irish Republic Constitution to transfer constitutional powers to the EU the Irish Constitution (quite rightly in my opinion!) had to ask the Irish People if they agreed to the changes to their Irish Constitution.
If you actually read the Irish Repbublic Referendum Question it itemises the changes required by the Lisbon Treaty to the written Irish Constitution.
The UK Parliament divided over whether the Lisbon Treaty IS a constitutional treaty in another guise and Gordon Brown used his parliamentary majority to vote "Aye" to agree to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. The Liberal Democrats decided to abstain from that vote but, interestingly enough, if the Liberal Democrats had voted against ratifying Lisbon there were sufficient Conservative, Liberal Democrats and rebel Labour Party Members of Parliament to defeat the Lisbon Treaty acceptance vote.
I listened avidly to William Hague, Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary, clinically pull apart the Lisbon Treaty item by item in his main speech for the Opposition and he convinced me and many members of the UK Parliament that the Lisbon Treaty is an EU Constitution forming treaty.
I think we will have to agree to disagree that the Lisbon does or does not create a Super State but given that Ireland have said "NO" and that there are other EU States such as Poland and the Czech Republic who may decide that they too require referendums, I can hardly see the Lisbon treaty ever gaining full 27 Member State ratification.
As it happens, I think that that is a potential shame as the one feature of the Lisbon treaty that rarely gets a mention (but is a superb little component of the treaty) is that the Lisbon treaty does allow any EU State to leave the EU without having to repudiate the Treaty of Rome - it creates a path to leaving the EU without all the rancour typically caused by a nation repudiating treaties.
Not that I particularly want the UK to leave the EU but it is (or appears to be!) an honest attempt to make life easier for those EU countries that will eventually hold referenda to determine continued membership of the EU and where the majority of people do decide that is what they actually want their nation to do.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (73):
I disapprove your juxtaposition of Hitler taking power with help of illegal actions and accepting EU treaties. They have no connection what so ever.
What you should remember is that in many countries, especially France, the people have in various times of history rebelled and overthrown their government. France currently has its fifth republic that was formed as recently as 1958.
Government has the power that their citizens have given to it. In some states these powers are sizable out of the necessity that was seen when forming them. If the government doesn't work or be driven by the interests of its citizens, then citizens sooner or later overthrow the government and form another one to replace it. As people in EU countries haven't overthrown their governments I take it as a strong indicator that citizens interests have been served and that they are satisfied to their respective governments.
If you look at the world at large, this is how the world works. In some states, systems where supreme power is concentrated to elected parliament and its elected to lead the country and the nation, work as well as in other states where the situation isn't the same.
---
Look at the results, not to the words of dead people. -Me
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (74):
I didn't say that the Constitutional/Lisbon Treaty wouldn't take EU one or two steps closer to becoming a super-state. I also didn't say that there is any difference between the Constitutional and the Lisbon Treaty. My main point is that these treaties in essence don't differ from previous EU treaties that established EU and its predecessor organizations. Constitutional/Lisbon treaty doesn't establish EU as a sovereign state, it still is a supranational organization consisting of sovereign member states.
I think that the main difference with our views is what we constitute as constitutional. I think that sovereignty as an result is one of the minimum requirements on equating a treaty to become constitutional, if there is no sovereignty then the treaty is just one treaty amongst others guiding an creation and operation of an supranational organization.
Complain about this comment
Jukka (75): Yours is a world of adversarial power blocks each headed by the maximum dictatorship that the people will tolerate before revolution. Do you seriously believe this is desirable? Even if that has been the pattern on the Continent in earlier times it has not been true in the English-speaking world (at least since the Glorious and American revolutions).
Excuse me if I continue to put more faith in Locke than you. But if you don't like his words then maybe you will prefer these (which in my opinion could have been written with you in mind)?
-------------
"Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances; every day, in every part of the world" Umberto Eco ('Fourteen ways to look at a blackshirt').
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (77):
My question to you is what do you consider as an dictatorship? Where do you draw the line? Do you consider US Federal government as dictatorial or democratic?
---
Umberto Eco is overrated. -Me
Complain about this comment
Jukka: Hitler did not take power with illegal actions. He narrowly won an election and then (with the assistance of Hindenburg) passed the Enabling Act to modify the German constitutional order. This is precisely what you have argued in this thread is acceptable and corresponds to your concept of democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (79):
Yes I do know about Hitler and Nazis enough, but what you failed to do was to answer my question. What is a democracy and where does democracy turn into dictatorial state? Is the US Federal Government dictatorial or democratic? Its easy to go back into pages of history or quote famous figures, but where does you stand sit in practice? Whats your position in example regarding the US Federal Government? Leader of the free world or enslaver of the world?
Complain about this comment
Jukka(80): I would say dictatorship is a combination of illegitimate government and excess state power. Legitimate government is (according to Locke) that which exercises power with the 'consent of the governed'. Excess state authority is when the law interferes too much, not just exceeding liberal limits (harm/serious offence to others) but goes beyond authoritarianism into the realm of totalitarianism where the individual even has to be careful with their private thoughts.
I don't want to live on the threshold of dictatorship so don't like your question about where the threshold between democracy and dictatorship lies. I prefer to defend the twin lines of representative government and liberal limits to the law. If these lines are not crossed then dictatorship will remain a distant fear. The EU is mainly an issue of representative government, rather than illiberal government. If it continues on its present course it would be more like a giant pre-1997 Hong Kong where the people have liberty but not the ability to replace their rulers. That is not dictatorship, but I prefer liberal democracy.
(Also the experience is that when representative government is absent the power of the state grows without check).
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila: The user profile page is rendering the euro signs as UTF-8 characters, rather than as the originally entered numeric entities. Thus, they are either storing the entities as-is and converting them to their UTF-8 character equivalents on-the-fly, or they are converting the entities to their UTF-8 equivalents before storing them as such. In either case, it seems to be a software rendering problem on the main blog pages, rather than a database problem.
Regarding the lack of government overthrows within the EU, perhaps the tradition of revolution varies from one state to another ? As you noted, the current French republic is but 50 years old, while the structure of the UK government could reasonably be called 320. Perhaps it is more that government have the power that the citizens don't zealously reserve to themselves, and not so much that citizens are satisified with their governments, but that they are not yet dissatisfied enough with them to bestir themselves to constitutional reconstruction ?
Complain about this comment
The pro-Lisbon drumbeat in the Irish press is becoming very loud now, and is clearly part of a choreography leading up to an announcement at the December EU summit. EU Commission Vice President Margot Wallstrom said last week in Dublin that the Irish NO was an answer but not a solution. Her logic is that even when you live in a country where you are allowed a vote, only one answer is acceptable. Democracy should mean a real choice, and not that a few nations have an opportunity to express an opinion which can be ignored. If the political class is once allowed to get away with this, then a precedent will have been set which will be used time and again, such that the road to despotism lies clear ahead.
People everywhere need to stand up and say that the forced march to EU integration is not acceptable. Even those people in favour of the EU project must see the danger in what is happening. Either politicians are our servants, or we will be theirs, so stand up and fight before it is too late.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS