Lisbon: A Pandora's box
The latest anguished wrangling - it would be wrong to call it a row - over the Lisbon Treaty sounds obscure and legalistic, about the strength of a protocol versus a legally binding international agreement. Dull, huh? But at heart it is about the raw stuff of politics: fear and failure.
The Irish Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, is frightened he will fail by losing a second referendum. So he wants strong guarantees about what Lisbon does and does not mean to reassure Irish voters.
The other leaders are viscerally fearful about anything, anything at all, that will give people the slightest excuse to reopen the debate on Lisbon. Their fear of failure is heartfelt. They believe a new treaty is needed to run the European Union and they are fed up with the immense difficulty in getting it past the people.
Remember, first there was the European Constitution. That was killed off by voters in France and the Netherlands. Painfully, slowly, a new treaty, Lisbon, emerged: the Constitution stripped of some of its pretensions and fine words, but with most of the rule changes intact. Then the Irish people voted that down.
In their wisdom the Irish government decided this was down to various (in their view false) fears about what Lisbon would mean, for Irish neutrality, for abortion law, for workers rights. So they want guarantees setting out that Lisbon doesn't mean any of that.
Most observers think they will win the second referendum, more because of the economic crisis than these guarantees. Perhaps. I would just observe that the Irish government are very, very fixed on this one solution, and are meticulously hammering gold-plated, reinforced, tungsten-tipped nails into one particular stable door which they have identified as the exit route of that fine filly "Lisbon Treaty". If another stable door, perhaps marked "I don't like the EU's current direction" was the real route of "Lisbon Treaty's" disappearance they could be in very great trouble.
What the other leaders are worried about is that this whole kerfuffle will open the door for others to demand this, that and the other.
You see a protocol, making an agreement part of an EU treaty, is stronger than a mere agreement in international law, which is what today's form of words would amount to on their own.
The Irish prime minister put the cat among the pigeons by demanding this in a letter to the others, without apparently squaring them or doing any advanced diplomatic work. He wrote to "provide maximum possible legal reassurance to the Irish people... I need to be able to come out of our meeting and state, without fear of contradiction, that the legal guarantee... will, in time, acquire full treaty status by way of a protocol." This would have to be attached to a new treaty and new treaties need ratification, by parliament or a referendum.
So what gives pro-Lisbon leaders the heebie-jeebies is that there will be a campaign in Britain for a referendum on this, or someone will pop up and ask for their own reassurances, or the Czech or Polish president will find a new reason for not signing off Lisbon, or there'll be some other democratic diversions.
It slightly puzzles me why Gordon Brown is worried about this. The new bit would be tagged onto the next treaty allowing a new country to join the EU. That would probably be Croatia or Iceland. Perhaps Mr Brown is optimistic enough to believe that he will be prime minister when this happens. But it is more likely it will land on the plate of a Conservative government.
Those in Mr Cameron's party who hate Lisbon may see this as an ideal opportunity to deliver a retrospective blow to the hated treaty by demanding a referendum and voting down the assurances. It would be poetic, rather than practical, but symbols are important in politics.
But then the guts of this new treaty would be about a new country joining the EU. It has always been Conservative policy to encourage the expansion of the EU: could Mr Cameron happily encourage people to deal a blow to this longstanding approach?
But there's another consideration. Mr Cameron wants to wring new opt-outs, even a new relationship from the EU. The word is that the fruits of any such negotiation would be made law by attaching yet another protocol to this new treaty. So could the Conservatives end up holding a referendum on the EU and urging people to vote "Yes"?
Or would Mr Cameron be just as keen as current leaders to tiptoe around the whole awkward subject?
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This whole thing from an Irish perspective is very easy really. If these guarantees are agreed to then a yes vote will convincingly win.
If they are not, and another referendum is held, the no vote will win again.
To not agree to these guarantees after the reaction some quarters of the EU put forward to Ireland after the no vote would be just another example how the EU is only democratic when it suits them.
As much as I was pro EU before last summer I am quickly losing respect for the whole thing.
Complain about this comment
Surely a protocol is not necessary - a simple decision under international law of the signatories to the treaty is enough. It was good enough for Denmark, when it alone did not ratify the Maastricht treaty and wanted reassurances Why should it not be good enough for Ireland, whose concerns are actually easier to meet?
Complain about this comment
The fact we have been witnessed for years is there has been no guts among EU rulers to move a little bit further towards better. We can clearly see their effectiveness. EU is even today, after many years of hard work, still not more than a common market. All those wishes, for being a respectable competitor among the forces that rule our planet, for securing the future, etc., have disappeared before the necessity of constituting, to move a logical step forward.
The only problem of EU is, apparently, of intelectual nature. We could only hope the basic reasons for getting united are not forgotten by it's rulers.
Complain about this comment
"The Irish Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, is frightened he will fail by losing a second referendum. So he wants strong guarantees about what Lisbon does and does not mean to reassure Irish voters."
Actually, having lost the first time which should have been the last time, he finds that the only treaty the Irish people will accept in a vote, as opposed to the Irish government which feels it has the right to dictate to them would accept, is to renegotiate a treaty which is agreeable to their unconditional demands protecting what they see as their inalienable rights to govern themselves. Now there's a strange idea for Europe, laws which reflect the will of the people instead of the will of government politicians. If this dangerous notion of democracy catches on and spreads, there's no telling where it will stop. It could wreck the entire EU. Who knows, the people of the UK might demand their own right to speak out about whether or not more of their sovereignty is to be handed over to Brussels...and under what terms. Just who do these people think they are, Americans? Small wonder European governments have been bashing America and inciting their populations against it for 233 years. The notion of freedom, independence, and democracy are a very dangerous infection, potentially fatal to tyrannical despots posing as democrats. After all, who would hire the likes of Neal Kinnock if he didn't have a cushy job at taxpayer expense at the EU?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6493969.ece
Small wonder he's a Socialist. For that kind of money at taxpayer expense, I would be too.
Complain about this comment
It seems they are not fed up enough yet. They are going to have to get more and more fed up until they finally give up this treaty. We are going to have to make them sick to death they ever listened to Joscka Fischer at the Humboldt University, that he was even born, sick to the bottom of the stomachs.
One more push and Lisbon will be dead and European federalism broken as a political movement. The survival of democracy in Europe depends on it.
--------------------
When boyhood's fire was in my blood
I read of ancient freemen,
For Greece and Rome who bravely stood,
Three hundred men and three men;
And then I prayed I yet might see
Our fetters rent in twain,
And Ireland, long a province, be.
A Nation once again!
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I find a sentence in your piece absolutely illuminating. You wrote, "They believe a new treaty is needed to run the European Union and they are fed up with the immense difficulty in getting it past the people."
By "they" I know you mean the Great and the Good that comprise the Council of Ministers and the EU Bureaucrats. I am sure you mean that "they" think they know what is right for all citizens of the EU but the fact is that "they" have bulldozed the Lisbon Treaty through various parliamentrary debates, skilfully negated any real discussion and artificially foisted this Europe-wide Treaty upon the bulk of the EU nations without referral to their constituents. "They" only came unstuck - to the relief of many Europeans - when the Irish realised they needed a referendum in order to rewrite the Irish Constitution as required by the Lisbon Treaty ... many of those that comprise the "they" of which you write having deliberately avoided providing any such opportunity to the "them" that are the People who should have the right to decided their future in or out of the EU or, indeed, the future of the EU which the "Great and the Good are designing despite rather than with the the People that the "they" represent.
Fundametally, in one sentence, you pinpoint and highlight the reason why so many Europeans hate the EU and all it stands for. It stands as a monument to the desire of "they" who must be obeyed determing the shape of all our futures without the consent of the people for whom it should be a credible and worthy future. The EU does not have any credible mandate from the People to exist and is designed, maintained and expands despite rather because of the majority consent of the People of Europe who,as individual citizens, have the right to vote but truly do not have any say in these matters.
I wish the EU to be successul, grow and develop but as long as "they" seek to foist the EU upon their electorates without absolute majority consent, freely given and voted, then the EU will continue to exude lack of democratic value and be an albatross around the necks of the Great and the Good who evade their Peoples' wishes with such zeal.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps Ireland's problem with the treaty can be sorted out in the British-Irish Council. Ireland and the UK both have similar worries about achieving energy security; in fact future energy is one subject now being investigated by the BIC, maybe leading to a common policy.
Agreeing a common EU policy on energy security is one of the aims of the Lisbon Treaty. Plans are already being made for European grids for electricity.
Complain about this comment
When the constitution was up for ratification, its proponents said that without it, the EU would be "ungovernable." Well not only did the Constitution fail quite a few years ago now but the Son of Constitution, the Lisbon Treaty has also failed. Has it been ungovernable since that time? If it was so important to get a governing document enacted, you'd think they'd just have left it at that and not loaded it down with a million other things. Well, they almost got it passed. So if it was governable after all, one might conclude that the million other things they wanted to do was the real point and that the governance was just a hook to scare people into voting for it.
Complain about this comment
One of the worst changes that Lisbon would introduce is to extend the general empowering clause of Article 308 TEC from just common market issues to all EU policy areas. The new so-called 'flexibility clause' (or 'passerelle clause') of Article 352 TFEU allows one-time votes of the heads of government in the EU Council to permanently create new powers that are not mentioned in any treaty. This is an open-door to unchecked centralisation of political power in Brussels.
The Lisbon treaty article reads: "If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, AND THE TREATIES HAVE NOT PROVIDED THE NECESSARY POWERS, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures . . ."
This change under Lisbon would quickly deprive the national parliaments of any control over the exercise of any EU power, which could be removed following a one-time agreement in the EU Council. The equivalent article in earlier treaties (which only related to the common market) has been used very frequently, more than thirty times per year, and we could only expect similar under Lisbon in the general matters of politics. The result would be that the EU would become as integrated politically as it has been economically with disastrous consequences for the power of your vote to shape the policies that you live under.
Complain about this comment
As I commented to Mr. Mardell's blog entry on Dec., 9th-2008 ("Irish seek new EU deal"), quite likely there will be no need to wait for the Accession Treaties of Croatia or Iceland: the Kingdom of Spain will be probably trying to have its Accession Treaty modified this year (2009), regarding the statutes of Ceuta and Melilla (the Spanish cities in the South coast of the Mediterranean), so any protocol could be added to the Treaties as early as that... Putting it together with the accession of a new member State could involve the risk of not letting that new country in, if any current member State was calling a referendum on it, but I am afraid that adding it to that modification of the Treaty with Spain could be a more inconspicuous way of letting the Lisbon Treaty in through the back door...
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Ceuta/Melilla/pediran/2009/ingreso/Union/Aduanera/elpepiesp/20081201elpepinac_8/Tes
Complain about this comment
#6. Menedemus
I do indeed understand why you pounce on the expression "the people". An invitation in gold to all kind of populism. Let us have some more vox pop.
I shall not repeat what representative democracy is, how the citizens in a democracy are committed to be informed and how the media can be helpful in this process.
I will just mention one word in capitals so that Mr. Mardell also can catch sight of it and he gets a chance to consider how people and not the people are taking care of their:
INTERESTS.
Complain about this comment
"The other leaders are viscerally fearful about anything, anything at all, that will give people the slightest excuse to reopen the debate on Lisbon".
In this one phrase, you sum up the whole problem. The EU leadership is in the position it now is precisely because of this fear. The accusation that the EU is undemocratic and unaccountable was questionable up to the point of the 'rebranding' exercise when the 'constitution' morphed into a treaty'. From then on, it became a credible argument. They should not have used this devious mechanism to get out of a democratic consultation process, they did, and they have ended up with egg all over their collective faces. Now it appears that they have to bow to new pressure from Dublin to ensure the result they want. I see Cowan's problem but actually, he is in a win/win situation. If it passes the test this time, he - not the Commission - is vindicated for going back on substantive points and winning the day. If it fails, he can blame the Commission for failing to address the legitimate concerns of the Irish voters.
In the meantime, Brown, Cameron, Klaus et al are laughing all the way to the finish line. Brown doesn't care because he will be out of office in a year's time, Klaus will welcome any excuse to prevaracate until it is resolved and, in the meantime, Cameron picks up the baton and runs for whichever finish line suits his domestic agenda.
In the meantime, there is an awful irony in all of this. The very people who wished to get Lisbon through are the ones who have messed it up. Merkell and Brown are up for re-election. Brown, one suspects is dead in the water. Who should be carrying the can? Why Barosso, of course. And where is he? Almost certain of re-election because of the shift to the right in the EU parliament.
There really are only two credible alternatives. Either the Commission admits it was wrong, takes Lisbon to the people - all the people - and tries to sell it to them. Or they tear it up and start all over. Of course they won't do either because they are "viscerally fearful" - which brings us full circle.
Complain about this comment
threnodious;
"The accusation that the EU is undemocratic and unaccountable was questionable up to the point of the 'rebranding' exercise when the 'constitution' morphed into a treaty'."
No, it was clearly undemocratic from the moment it assumed powers not granted to it in the original trade agreement, powers never agreed to by another plebicite of the UK citizens. It was on a clear path to ultimate domination and control over all of Europe. That was the plan all along and a lot of flunkie politicians have found new life and wealth from positions where they draw large salaries, excellent benefits and pensions, and other perks at taxpayer expense all for merely advocating its continued grab for ultimate power. Were it ever to truly open its books for inspection, I have no doubt that it would create a scandal that would make the current abuse of expense accounts by British MPs look like small potatoes.
Complain about this comment
The Irish Government's reasons for the NO vote are fake. The one concerning "military conscription" was fabricated by the YES camp during the last campaign. Government ministers and others supporting YES were the only ones who ever mentioned it.
These reasons are being fed to us by the YES gang on why they think people voted NO.They still don't get it ? They just have no understanding of why people voted NO and will vote NO once again. They cannot still comprehend that Lisbon was defeated last year.
My own reasons for voting NO have nothing to do with this pointless list. Our government is attempting to fool us with a web of deceit and lies.
Complain about this comment
"They believe a new treaty is needed to run the European Union and they are fed up with the immense difficulty in getting it past the people."
Yes, these people are a damned nuisance. Sometimes they have to be asked three times before they give the correct answer.
Complain about this comment
If you say so, Mucus.
Complain about this comment
The Irish foreign minister made up this list about neutrality, abortion, etc. on the day the referendum result came out knowing full well that he could get some meaningless declaration from his masters in Brussels to present to the Irish people as a reason why they should vote a second time on something they have already turned down. They are red herrings, but there are plenty of real issues for why this treaty should fail, for example:
The Lisbon treaty will lead to an unchecked centralisation of power not just in the new policy fields where it gives the EU competence for the first time (e.g. coordination of employment, social and health policies (Articles 156, para. 2 and 168, no. 2), sport (Article 165, Section 2), research and technology (Article 181, Section 2), space policy (Article 189), energy (Article 194), tourism (Article 195), civil protection (Article 196) and administrative cooperation (Article 197)) but also in the policy fields beyond the common market where it first acquired powers under the treaties on Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice.
We have seen in the past that the EU does not stick to cross-border issues (e.g. its power over environmental policy were justified with talk about global warming, but have not been used to solve global warming but rather to set the rules on how local councils collect waste). The same can be expected in these policy fields like Energy.
Lisbon gives the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal status as a treaty, i.e. ranking above national laws and being equivalent to national constitutions in the legal hierarchy. This Charter grants not just negative rights that protect the liberty of a citizen from abuse of state power, but also so-called positive rights, e.g. right to housing, fair and just working conditions etc. which will allow European institutions like the ECJ to impose spending priorities on national governments that they not be able to refuse to fund, thus removing some of the essential 'guns-versus-butter' spending decisions from democratic politics.
The Lisbon treaty also lowers the blocking threshold required for qualified majority votes from 73.9 to 65 per cent, which will accelerate the production of new EU regulations. Since the EU has expanded in numbers the blocking threshold should have been RAISED because each state now has a smaller percentage of the overall votes with which to defend its interests. The Lisbon treaty also replaces unanimity with qualified majority votes in dozens of fields which will allow protectionist minded countries to raise the cost of their rivals by imposing the high-cost Rhineland regulatory burden onto them. Lisbon also gives the European Court of justice new jurisdiction over the European Central Bank, and a new body of EU criminal law which will allow that institution to do what it has always done in economic matters, re-interpret European treaties in a far more federalist way than they were originally presented at the time of ratification in order to drive forward a cause (European federalism) that is not desired by voters. Lisbon is an awful treaty that has very many real things in it that warrant its demise without falling for the red herrings that the Irish foreign minister is trying to fool you with. It should never be allowed to come into force.
Complain about this comment
It should also be remembered that European Monetary Union is the main reason that Ireland is having the most severe downturn in the developed world. The Monetary Union of the Maastricht treaty has not made the irish economy more stable. It gave Ireland a decade of interest rates that were too low for its circumstances and which led directly to the over-borrowing that financed the run-away construction boom and bust. Lisbon is to politics what Maastricht was to economics. Negative equity for your vote.
Complain about this comment
If these EUpayrolls are so sure that there was a shift to the right in EU parlament, because there was a shift to the right in the people.. then let them put this Lisbon 'horse' to the people of Europe in a referendum.. sure they must get a YES.
After all they will elect the same Barroso from that 20% parlament.. with pro-EU MEPs who are ilegitimate, and illigal in there.
If these pro-EU payrolls are so sure that they didnt manipulate the EU election results, as well as polluted them with unelected unrepresentative MEPs who got elected with 20% turnout, then put this Lisbon Horse to the people in the whole of EU. You cannot because the whole EU project is supported and controlled by fraud people who call themselves elites, who have falsified even their personal details.
It is not about left or right, but it is about democracy/freedom on one side and EUpayrolls/corruption in the other.
It is your choice, everybody choice.
But EUpayrolls dont care, they know the people can't do anything about it.
Complain about this comment
#17 - Freeborn-John
What you post represents a perfectly respectable argument against Lisbon from a pan-EU perspective. What it does not do is specifically address why Lisbon might be bad for Ireland as opposed to the rest of us. Is it your contention that the Irish offer the last line of defence against the Lisbon Treaty and that they have a duty to take into account what may or may not be good for the other 26?
I am not being deliberately contrary - it is a serious question - because what the Irish are voting on is a change to their constitution. In view of what you have said elsewhere about sovereignty and self determination, one wonders why the Irish should suddenly be called on to be so altruistic.
Complain about this comment
Further to #7.
The British-Irish Council discussed the importance of energy security at its meeting in April.
discussions were held on the key issue of having a grid infrastructure that could link up the various renewable energy projects tidal projects in Scotland or wind-power projects off the coast of England and Wales or, eventually, that of Northern Ireland so that we could have better opportunities to use renewable energy.
one of my concerns about the reliance on wind energy has been and continues to be its requirement for a considerable back-up of conventional energy. That is because the wind may be blowing in one place but not where the energy is needed. Therefore, a strong grid infrastructure is required so that we can tap into renewable energy that might have been generated in other parts of the United Kingdom, including offshore in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Complain about this comment
#21 - euroscot
Why can the power so generated not simply go into the national grid?
Complain about this comment
The key question is: Come the re-run of the referendum, will the Irish be so naive as to be bought off by 'assurances' from a bunch of manifestly corrupt politicians?
Complain about this comment
One way or another, the antidemocratic EU will get its antidemocratic treaty and the BBC will be celebrating the death of parliamentary democracy because the BBC does not want to tell the truth about the EU, nor does the rest of the main stream media who keep lying about the real nature of the EU and hiding it from the public.
The EU is not, never has been and was never intended to be democratic.
Complain about this comment
If one of the first hurdles - Lisbon - looks like Pandoras Box, one can only imagine when much more contentious and divisive issues confront the EU. Unnatural constructs like the EUSSR indeed only postpone the eventual meltdown. And leave millions trying to escape penury looking for greener pastures. Previous attempts at creating EUSSRs have been futile - from 1815 when Monseignor Bonaparte tried, to 1945 when Herr Adolph tried and 1989 when Comrade Vladimir bit the dust. All it does is open floodgates for millions to seek refuge in Planet English - UK, USA, Canada, Australia. Unfortunately, the only sanctuary they can escape to in this new EUSSR will be UK, as the other three are happily distanced. How does UK firewall itself ?
Complain about this comment
odious threnodious,
Can you name even one benefit the UK has derived from being a member of the EU that it could not have equally obtained through bilateral treaties? Free travel for instance between the US and Canada was possible for a very long time before NAFTA and the war on terror with nothing more than a valid drivers license. I'm not even sure if a birth cirtificate was required, I don't think so. Bilateral free trade agreements between countries is also not uncommon. What has the benefit to the people of the UK for being members of the EU been exactly?
Complain about this comment
Those who support the EU and its antidemocratic Lisbon Treaty will be held responsible for their treason to sovereignty and democracy. Count on it.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, absolutely superbly said and I could not put it better so I will not attempt to.
Complain about this comment
What a lot of blather from non-Irish contributors about the rights of the Irish in respect of a second referendum.
If the Irish voters are convinced they'll vote "yes" and if they aren't they'll vote "no". Pretty simple really.
As for not accepting that "no" means "no", I can only suppose that this forum is made up of a bunch of quitters who just pack up their bags and walk quietly into the night when initially rejected by the love of their life or an employer of whom a promotion or a pay rise is requested.
I always thought that persistence was fairly generally appreciated and valued, as in "if at first you don't succeed try, try and try again".
What would be undemocratic would be to say "stick your 'no' vote where the sun doesn't shine, we're going to impose this treaty even if you do vote 'no' ". Personally, I don't think that that is what asking again says. Asking is just that, "asking". Full stop.
Complain about this comment
According to press reports the Irish referendum will be on October, 2nd. Polls are apparently showing a majority in Ireland for the treaty.
Complain about this comment
#25 - PlanetEnglish
Well a Monsignor is a priest which, as far as I know, Bonaparte never was, Gorbachev's given name was Mikhail, not Vladimir, and he did not 'bite the dust' until 1991, and 1815 and 1945 are the dates when 'Monsignor Bonaparte and Herr Adolph's' plans were finally foiled, not when they were attempted.
Congratulations. You have elevated disinformation to a new level of absurdity. With opposition like this, who needs supporters?
Complain about this comment
#26 - MarcusAureliusII
"Can you name even one benefit the UK has derived from being a member of the EU that it could not have equally obtained through bilateral treaties?"
Yes.
Complain about this comment
@Freeborn John post #9
"If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, AND THE TREATIES HAVE NOT PROVIDED THE NECESSARY POWERS, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures . . ."
So the national parliaments have absolutely no say when the EU asks to 'increase its powers'? If so that is quite worrying.
Complain about this comment
". . . the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures . . .".
So unanimity of the Council, who represent the elected sovereign governments first need a proposal from the Commission, which is appointed by the elected sovereign governments and the consent of the EP, which is elected by those of us who can be bothered to vote. What, pray, is so undemocratic about that?
Complain about this comment
Ireland is perfectly entitled to another vote on Lisbon. Ultimately Lisbon will make the EU a bit more democratic and help it work better. This is better than nothing. However the reason the no side won the arguement was that they ran a better campaign and the yes side didn't explain the treaty and its effects both positive and negative very well. The provisions will help but its up to the yes side to better explain their position this time round.
Complain about this comment
#22 - threnodio
National grids? The aim in the BIC and in Europe is the same: they both want international grids.
You may be interested in the US, for comparison. The energy secretary was interviewed recently and talked of how local transmission there would have to be broadened. Here's a rough transcript - against the background of the stimulus package.
A. We used to produce our energy locally and use it locally. But now when we want to go towards renewable energy, great wind resources in the northern mid-west for example where there aren't that many people - so you want to be pouring that energy over to population centres.
Q: how far off are we to catching wind and solar power and transmitting it to urban centres, east and west?
A: Wind power is close to being competitive today. All the renewable energy, excluding hydro is less than 3% of the energy we use. The president has said we want to double this in the next three years. Wind is becoming cost competitive with fossil fuels. Now the trouble is a lot of wind resources are not in densely populated areas and if it becomes more than 10-20 percent we have another issue, which is the storage of this energy - because it is variable, it can turn off. If you don't have a wide distribution network - if we could port energy around the world, somewhere in the world the sun is shining and the wind is blowing - elsewhere no.
Q: is the stimulus package going to address that?
A: the stimulus program will start us on a smart grid and transmission in areas - for example I know of one area where we have wind resources but no transmission lines.
Q: what's a smart grid?
A: If you consider tomorrow's energy where you have variable sources, but the cloud rolls over and also there's a decrease in the power from solar and the wind stops blowing or diminishes, you need to be able to port that energy into areas - very quickly use stand-by generation and other things. And at night when electricity is not in great use you want to encourage running dryers at night, we want to be charging our electrical cars at night, and we want energy being generated locally can go back onto the grid - this all requires a system of sensing the electrical needs, the ups and downs - you can step up or down your coal or natural gas plants.
Complain about this comment
threnodio (20): The treaties on European Union are constitutional in nature in that they define the rules (primary EU law) under which the EU institutions operate and decide secondary EU legislation such as EU regulations, etc. It is impossible to be specific as to all the downstream implications of such rule changes. In the long term, looking ahead say two to three decades, it is safe to say that they would result in political integration of a level similar to the economic integration seen since the late 1980s which followed on from the Single European Act and Maastricht treaties. In my opinion this means close to a single European state (in the sense of a state as a set of political institutions that govern an area) even if it is not a Westphalian state recognised as such in international law. In the very short-term there may be one of two blocked Commission proposals that cannot get trough under the Nice rules that would get through under the Lisbon rules.
Several academic studies point to the most common division in EU Council of Minsisters votes being along a rough north / south line with a southern coalition of countries being more protectionist and redistributive and the northern coalition more inclined towards free-trade, liberalisation and a lower cost EU bureaucracy. The reduction in blocking thresholds (from 73.9 to 65 per cent) will make the centralisation of policy easier and because the new weights are based on population they will reduce the voting share of the typical anti-regulation coalition (the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries) because, with the exception of the UK, these countries are small countries. Therefore the most predictable short-term consequence for Ireland of Lisbon coming into force would be to experience being outvoted more often and having to accept greater levels of regulation (including of the type designed to 'raise the costs of rivals' upwards to Franco-German levels) that would be contrary to the 'Celtic Tiger' spirit.
Of course these changed voting rules would also become the norm when deciding political issues. However there is less of a track record of past votes that might predict future outcomes, except to say that the blocking threshold under Lisbon is approximately that of the 'old Europe' coalition of France and Germany plus Belgium, Luxembourg and one other with a population about that of the Netherlands so it is unlikely much is adopted not to the taste of this coalition. Coalitions involving the redistribution of money are likely to be between net contributors to the budget and beneficiaries of the particular spending program. Ireland has about one per cent of the voting weight so is unlikely to influence outcomes significantly.
Complain about this comment
threnodio (34): You must understand that both the EU Commission and the EU parliament always act primarily in their own self-interest in increasing the power of the European Union. The idea that they would object to the use of the passerelle clause to extent EU power is purely theoretical.
Experience also shows that it is very hard for a single government leader to stand alone in EU Council meetings against the rest, even to support the result of his own nation's referendum result! And only a one-time agreement is necessary for a permanent transfer of power. So it is no scare-story to predict that the Lisbon rules means an unchecked centralization of power in Europe. This is a truth that must surely be staring everyone in the face. Lisbon just has to be stopped.
These leaders have shown they are capable of ignoring
If all these leaders can agree together to ignore national referendums
Complain about this comment
Oh well, it was nice while it lasted: A few months of optimism that the tyrannical, undemocratic, unaccountable EU would be finally dealt a blow and its ever advancing authority and powers would be stymied!
Farewell Eire: You few million independent-minded free-thinking Citizens gave it good go, but, believe me the Referendum will now say "Yes" whatever the actual outcome of the Vote.
Your Taoiseach has done for you! He will return to Dublin and offer any blandishment you care to hear. In the meantime the 'yes' to Lisbon votes are already being counted up in preparation for announcing the result. All hail President Barroso - - political ruler of Europe - - unelected, unsupported, unassailable primacy in 27 Capital Cities!
Farewell UK/England: You many millions of independent-minded free-thinking Citizens who like me thought some part of the recent scandals would oblige the Government to consult its people on fundamental changes to their way of life.
PM Brown has done for us! The EU Banking system guarantees on the Pound are as valuable as, well, the pound in your pocket or the word of a New Labour Prime Minister.
All hail the European Central Bank - - fiscal dominatrix of Europe - - 27 Economies inc. those outside the EUro-zone under Frankfurt's overall supervision!
In the future Historians will mark this Mid-Summer's Day meetings as the defining moment in the abolition of independent, free Nations across mainland Europe and the British Isles.
The veil of tears ahead of our children and possibly grandchildren is truly of tragically epic proportions. It will fall to them to right the wrong done to 450,000,000 Citizens who just 10 days ago showed by their non-vote no support for this European Union.
In my opinion it is not any stretch of the imagination to compare and label all 27 EU Leaders at today's meetings QUIZLINGS.
How ironic, Norway's leadership has had the inestimable good political sense and historical perception to avoid the fate of its 27 neighbours!
Complain about this comment
It is not that the people of Europe do not want a new treaty but that they do not want this treaty. One that will reduce the gross bureaucracy,corruption and cost and get back to being a free market group is what one hears in the cafes and bistros. The politicos and bureaucrats know this, but are too fearful and dishonest to face up to it. The Conservatives have a terrific opportunity here,but I doubt whether 'Boy' Cameron and the timid Tories have the cajones for the fight. That is why they are losing votes to UKIP.
JUdging from my French neighbours and Belgian wife , I doubt whether Lisbon would win any referendum in France or Belgium today either.
Complain about this comment
#39. ikamaskeip
You have apparently missed the point: Norway's leadership has NOT had the inestimable good political sense and historical perception to avoid the fate of its 27 neighbours.
The Norwegian parliament, which in these years are making photocopy legislation of the EU legislation, has two times recommend a membership, but the voters have turned it down.
Complain about this comment
#35 Meath_:
"Ireland is perfectly entitled to another vote on Lisbon."
Extending your argument: would Irelad be perfectly entitled to have another vote after the second one, say, next year? And would its right for another vote depend on the outcome of the second one? Finally, do you regard the multiple voting on the Lisbon Treaty as an exceptionally Irish privilege, or other EU members may possibly be entitled to exercise this interesting form of political activity?
Complain about this comment
The new common (EU) financial oversight of the financial sector has two key elements, the Danish PM declares: It is watching the area where the countries are managing common rules, and it must react when authorities in two (or more) member countries, in which a bank is making business, are in conflict. That is a kind of chief referee function.
The liberal Danish PM in favour of regulations considers the reform a strong tool. He also says the concerns of the UK have been overcome.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and #41.
I have "..missed the point.."!
Frankly, that is all I would expect from someone as personally, blindly, undemocratically EU-centric as yourself!
Norway's Citizens twice reject your beloved EU but it is me that has missed the point!
Denmark, Netherlands, France, Eire in Referenda reject extensions to the EU powers but it is me that has missed the point!?
Less than 44% of eligible Citizens participate in EU Elections but it is me that has missed the point!?
Only 1 Member Nation holds a Referendum on Lisbon (because it is constitutionally obliged) and rejects Lisbon (and is forced to hold a 2nd) and it is me that has missed the point!?
26 Member's Leadership dare not put Lisbon to a Public Vote but it is me that has missed the point!?
450,000,000 Citizens have not had the key issues of 'expansion', 'military force', 'fiscal regulation', EU Parliament accountability', 'federalised powers' put to them by their Governments but it is me that has missed the point!?
The EU barely 10 days after its own Citizens overwhelmingly rejected even contributing to its only partially democratic institution announces extensions to its authority and power and it is me that has missed the point!?
Democracy? I grieve for its demise.
I do not know your personal circumstances but I do know the next generation will curse this EU and it will cost them so dearly in blood, toil, sweat and tears to be rid of it.
I cannot understand what possesses anyone to think as you do and feel no shame at supporting that terrible loss to 450,000,000 Citizens?
Complain about this comment
#44. ikamaskeip
It is completely misleading to call the Norwegian voters "the Norwegian leadership" as you did in #39. According to the constitution in Norway the government is the leadership, and I have already accounted for the recommendations it has made twice.
You raise a lot of new themes with no relevance to the Norwegian process, but concerning the analysis of voters: I must admit I had expected a more advanced analysis in this blog. The numbers are actually speaking a very clear and loud language, but those who believe they transport the voice of the people are apparently equipped with a hearing protection, which allows only for a selective hearing of one of the voices. It is populism.
Re your last question: The Lisbon treaty will give you a new right to leave the EU. You just need a majority for it in the UK. I think it will be difficult though, and one day this blog will have to deal in a more advanced way with voters and their behaviour.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip wrote:
"Democracy? I grieve for its demise."
Don't. It was never a reality anyway.
The EU is built upon the foundations of the member states. The model of government the EU employs is directly derived from that of the member states. It is wholly undemocratic, BECAUSE that is precisely how the member states operate.
The EU has not been created by political parties in order to take power away from the demos. It has been created to combine the power of the regional political parties. Understanding that there was never any democracy in the member states anyway is crucial to understanding why those in charge of the EU have such contempt for those who complain about the democratic deficit.
Barroso and Brown and Merkel..... they are all socialists. Or at least, this is what they call themselves when they look in the mirror. Politically, they do whatever furthers their career. But to themselves, they are socialists.
Now what do socialists do?
They fight class war. They save the poor mass of idiot commoners from the evil aristocracy. That is what socialists do, in their own minds. That is the game, it is why they got into the whole business of public life. Remember, the ideological bedrock of socialism is marxism, and marxism is catholicism dressed up in material terms. Dialectical materialism is what happens when people who love being priests begin to doubt the existence of god. They still stand around in groups and chatter about the redemptive power of suffering, and they still love the thrill of the jesus christ pose. They still like the idea of "saving" the masses.
Now this isn't some abstract theory. Look at Marx. His father did what? Theology, right? He preached.
Now Merkel. She is a physicist. But her dad? Yep. Theology. Same with the latvian guy.
A socialist is a second generation catholic, one with a scientific bent. Marx, Merkel, Brown, Captain Latvia.. they are all essentially playing the same game. Save the masses from themselves, then ascend to heaven as a christly figure.
These people do not care about democratic ideals because they are fighting a class war. They are blessed with divine understanding, and their role is to save the suffering sinners from the evil of those who dispute the power of the priestly class. And that class war, between the priests and the kings, has been going on since Pope Gregory the tenth first incorporated (his word) the various european institutions of the church. So for more than a thousand years.
If you understand how these people, and their institutions, have developed, you can begin to understand the emotional rewards that fall to the players on the stage.
Democracy is irrelevant in Europe, when we are talking about political institutions. Democracy is for the lower class, the chattering people.
It doesn't exist at the level of the member state, and it can;t be expected to exist at the EU level. What does exist is representation. You have the king representing the aristocrats (ie the bankers), and the priests(now socialists) representing the unwashed sinners.
Europe has had this form of representation for more than a thousand years. Democracy in Europe means choosing whether the bankers or the priests are running the army at the present time. It does not mean the unwashed commoners are having any sort of thinking decision about anything of importance. If that is what you are talking about, then you are talking about direct democracy, and the sovereignty of the people to make their laws.
But don;t demand of the EU what is not present in the member state. The priests and the aristocract would laugh, if they had the time to consider the issue.
Complain about this comment
What one can deduct from M.M. comments seems, at first sight, to be the only way to renegotiate the Lisbon treaty by voting /at home and in Brussels/ and by attaching to it numerous amendments in the form of protocols. It could be so difficult and as slow as procedure to be implemented that at the end any good idea will be doomed to failure.
In this particular case M.M. seems to be right by saying that *What the other leaders are worried about is that this whole kerfuffle will open the door for others to demand this, that and the other*.
I would call it a vicious circle instead of Pandoras box which is less dangerous for the mere existence of our union.
Complain about this comment
26. At 4:16pm on 19 Jun 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
odious threnodious,
"Can you name even one benefit the UK has derived from being a member of the EU?"
Yes, being able to buy tax subsidised Kiwi fruit from Spain and Italy for the same price, or perhaps a fraction less than, 100% organic, non-subsidised, less C02 producing Kiwi fruit grown and imported from New Zealand.
Whether the cost at times of having to import Hoki from same said country, because of the Cod stocks in the North Atlantic being decimated by the CFP, is a net benefit I'll leave to you.
The UK, England could do much better, not by looking to Europe, but by looking to some of it's former friends in the Commonwealth.
Complain about this comment
odious threnodious #32;
I'm glad you're keeping it a well guarded secret. I wouldn't want it to get out, it might actually be convincing to some who aren't already convinced.
Greypolywog #29;
Why only two votes? Why not make the Irish vote every year until they vote yes? It could become an annual ritual. Or every six months. Or every day. If they vote yes and decide they've made a mistake, do they get to vote again and say no? Can they change their minds? No, I suppose not, once they've voted yes, that's it forever. There should be a sign over the front gate of the EUSSR reading "All Ye Who Enter Here Abandon Hope."
Complain about this comment
On your feet soldiers. There is no need to be despondent about the future of democracy. Mark Mardell can smell the fear from the opposition and his stomach will be churning at the odours emanating from the next EU Council if the Irish do what all the peoples of Europe want and shoot down this monstrous treaty.
Complain about this comment
The LISBON HORSE, inside it there are Ali Barroso and 40 thieves.
If the pro-EU payrolls dont respect a democratic civilized vote, then the only option to the people is ANARCHY.
Either the EU elites learn to respect the different opinion 'NO' or EU will end up in a social break down.
They are unelected, that's a fact, they are corrupt that's a fact, they have monopolized power for themselves, and not bring it to the people.
Who decides here? is it the people or the elites?
thats the question?
therefore we dont live in a democracy, but in a EUSSR power/elite monopol.
According to EU elites, people are a bunch of fools who dont understand EU.
Only EU elites can understand EU.
Vote YES, and they will never again come to hear what you want.. they will forget about you..
Vote NO and they will come and kiss your shoes till you vote YES, so they will go and never see you again.. or at least till they need something from you again.. or they can just skip you like the previous time..
the EU elites depend on the authority, financial power and the tax money you give them in your name.
Complain about this comment
37 - Freeborn-John
I accept absolutely what you say. It still remains unclear to me why the Irish should be interested in anything which extends beyond their national interest.
And at 38
Yes I understand that but I still fail to grasp how much further you wish to push the borders of democratic accountability. It really could not be simpler. Unanimity of the Council, refered the Commission, confiremed by the Parliament. What more do you want?
Complain about this comment
If the choice the EU elites are giving to the people is choosing between 'YES,live like a dog/slave' and 'NO, i want to live free'
then there is no much to think about..
We want freedom. NO to EU
once they put you the chains...you are finished :)
Complain about this comment
Publish EU corruption.. publish everything.. who gives them the right to hide and abuse their positions.. why they justice system, police are not independent and do their jobs, since because of security reasons public is kept at a distance in dark.
EU is obscure.
Do we need more do-nothing people just imprisoning our lives.. if YES, lets create more of these EUseless institutions.
Complain about this comment
When old Erin says no, just ask again...
An Irish Bedtime Story for all Nice Children and not so Maastricht Adults
http://ceolas.net/#eu7x
The Happy Family
Once upon a time there was a family treaty-ing themselves to a visit in Lisbon.
On the sunny day that it was they decided to go out together.
Everyone had to agree on what they would do.
"So", said Daddy Brusselsprout "Let's all go for a picnic!"
"No", said Aunt Erin, "I don't want to".
Did they then think of something else, that they might indeed agree on?
Oh yes they did?
Oh no they didn't!
Daddy Brusselsprout asked all the others anyway, isolating Erin, and then asked her if instead, she would like to go with them to the park and eat out of a lunch basket....
Kids, we'll finish this story tomorrow, and remember, in the EU yes means yes and no means yes as well!
Complain about this comment
"#49.MarcusHorribilis:
Why not make the Irish vote every year until they vote yes? ..... Can they change their minds? No, I suppose not, once they've voted yes, that's it forever."
Just carry on displaying your ignorance. It's good for a laugh. Try reading the Lisbon Treaty - you'll discover that it provides an exit mechanism. I suppose that if a state wanted to secede from the good ole USA you'd have to rerun your Civil War?
Complain about this comment
#56 greypolyglot:
Thanks for informing about the liberal aspects of the Lisbon Treaty. It's a relief to know that a country can secede without a military reprisals. However, with all due respect, you fail to answer the question clearly and unambiguously formulated by Marcus in #49. Let me ask again. Why the process of voting on the Treaty should be terminated after the first "yes" vote and not after the first "no"?
Complain about this comment
Try reading the Lisbon Treaty - you'll discover that it provides an exit mechanism.
//////////////
i think you are ignorant here. Irish voted to stay out. and they used this so/called exit mechansim in the first referendum.
why it is necesary to agree and then use the so called exit mechanism?
it is just a dirty trick as EU is.
Complain about this comment
Mathiassen and #45.
re: ".. I must admit I expected a more advanced analysis in this Blog.. the numbers are actually speaking a very clear and loud language.. but those who believe they transport the voice of the people are apparently equipped with a hearing protection which allows for a selective hearing of only one of the voices.. populism.."
'more advanced analysis'!?
Sorry, we mere lowly Citizenry always struggle with those finer points that allow you 'pro-EU' to interpret the true voice of the people when every statistic suggests the opposite of your interpretation. I guess we just do not understand the arguments as well as you do.
'Selective hearing'!?
43.5% of European Citizens voted in the last MEP Elections: That's 56.5% that 'selected' not to vote. Yet, the EU heard that it as an endorsement of it increasing its authority and continuing with federalisation.
Of those Eire Citizens who voted in the 1st Referenda on Lisbon a majority 'selected' the 'No' Ballot slip: Apparently, this 'selective' approach by the Eire Citizens was not the 'selection' the EU approved of, so they must vote again.
'Populism'!?
The 'populist' electoral expression of the Citizens would appear to be negative on the EU, so, it is not to be accepted as the legitimate 'voice of the people'.
Only 1 in 5 Citizens vote but that is 'populism' whereas forcing a 2nd Referenda after agreeing 'protocols' that will only apply to 1 EU Nation is not Brussels' 'populism'.
However, there is the EU 'selection' that avoids all 'populism': A Commission that has no 'popular' electoral base whatsoever, but, apparently, we must accept its members do reflect the 'voice of the people'!?
'..only one of the voices..'!?
Obviously not the clear Majority vote of Eire Citizens or the decisively unsupportive low turnout of the Citizens for a European Parliament.
I repeat, how is it you feel no shame?
Complain about this comment
The Labour Government in the UK ratified the Lisbon (Constitution) Treaty some time ago, in the knowledge that the majority of UK citizens would have voted NO if asked in a referendum on the Treaty.
This is criminally undemocratic.
Public representatives are elected to carry out the will of the people. Tony Blair promised a referendum on the Lisbon (Constitution) Treaty)to the UK electorate and then reneged on his promise.
The fear is that our delay here in Ireland in presenting a 'forced' YES to Brussels might not come in time before the collapse of this Labour Government in the UK. The future Tory Government would then bury this godforsaken Treaty for good.
Wouldn't they?
Ah, they would.
AH, go on, go on, go on...!
Complain about this comment
Greypolywog;
"Try reading the Lisbon Treaty - you'll discover that it provides an exit mechanism."
"The treaty comprises 270 pages of complex legal language - its not light reading even for those of us paid to study it."
http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html
The only exit mechanism reading the treay provides is an exit for insomnia. Have you read it grey? Has your Prime Minister who signed it or will sign on behalf of your entire plessed blot?
Complain about this comment
I have read the comments here with considerable interest. As an Irish citizen who voted against the Lisbon treaty, I find it refreshing that there are no "experts" trying to tell me why I (and many others) voted no.
Whereas I am broadly in favour of trade agreements, I have viewed the destruction of our fishing fleet, and agricultural industry with considerable dismay.
I make this point to clarify that I am neither:
1: Utterly anti- European, as stated by "yes" campaigners
2: Concerned only with neutrality/family law/workers rights - though they are an issue
3: "Ungrateful" for EU handouts,(hence the reference to the decimation of our native industries) or "arrogant". Both accusations have been made by EU ministers, and frankly, both are equally offensive, as indeed was the comment attributed to a certain German minister that the Irish only care about "Euros".
That public representatives should dare to make such comments publicly speaks volumes about their utter contempt for the democratic rights of a sovereign people.
That the Irish government allowed such comments to go unchallenged is almost beyond comprehension, and is positively disgusting!
My main reasons for rejecting the Lisbon treaty, contrary to what the spin doctors would have you believe, are quite simply - Democracy, and Sovereignty..... and an absolute determination that I will neither be bullied nor threatened into giving the "right" answer in the next referendum.
Neither will I betray the wishes of my fellow EU citizens, who were denied their democratic right to decide on such an important issue.
Please do not not place too much emphasis on the predictions for a "yes" vote. The pollsters got it seriously wrong the last time - and that was while the current government was still reasonably popular/trusted.
The fact that this coalition has managed to cling to office, despite the efforts of the electorate to oust them, has done nothing to placate the justifiable anger of the Irish people.
Finally, since absolutely no effort was made to address my concerns over the Lisbon treaty, my vote remains unchanged. I will vote "No".
I strongly suspect that I am not alone.
Irishandfree
Complain about this comment
#59 ikamaskeip,
Actually the remarks of mine and not least for the word populism you quoted were not levelled at you, but someone who has a professional duty to read and be aware of the full picture. It was my intention to bring the debate another step forward
You are not reading the full picture, which is your right, but then you will have to realise it is making any debate or analysis difficult not to say futile.
I do not mind to repeat the one magic word, which in a split second lead us to a completely different level in our effort to understand the pattern of voters in the EU (you can start with Ireland), and this time every voter and not only the ill-informed. A pattern, which is far more complex than it appears from these discussions, driven by:
INTERESTS.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and #63.
Re, "..it was my intention to bring the debate another step forward.." and "..you are not reading the full picture, which is your right, but then you will have to realise it is making any debate or analysis difficult not to say futile.."
Sometimes the colossal arrogance of the 'pro-EU' supporter is so clear that it alone confirms to everyone who is opposed or has doubt about the value and purpose of the EU.
Re, "..I do not mind to repeat the one magic word, which in a split second lead us to a completely different level in our effort to understand the pattern of voters in the EU.."
We, who have these petty notions about the Voting process are humbled and grateful for your limitless understanding of the subject and can only stand back in awe of your particular interpratation.
You see, there we 'anti-EU' were thinking/believing all along that a local Council, a District, a region, a Nation and even a supra-National body announced an Election was to be held; the Citizens entitled to Vote would do so in relative anonymity; first those Citizens would hear, see, read and discuss the relative merits or otherwise of whatever Candidate/s or Proposal/s were seeking the Citizens' Votes; on a given day/period the Citizens would if they chose go to a Polling centre and cast their Vote according to their conscience/beliefs/ideas and the compatability with the Candidate/Proposal: At the end of this simple process the Votes would be counted and apportioned according to already pre-arranged method to determine an Election Result.
Re, ".. (you can start with Ireland), and this time every voter and not only the ill-informed.."
How gracious of you to consider the 'ill-informed' Eire Citizens: They, I presume from your magnaminous pro-EU LIsbon Treaty position would be the ones that Voted 'No' to Lisbon. Afterall, one could hardly claim those who Voted 'Yes' were 'ill-informed', could one? Oh! Just a moment! Which group of Eire Voters is it exactly that were ill-informed?
It cannot have been the 'yes' for they were in favour of Lisbon - - but wait - - the ill-informed 'no' have just had 3 guarantees as Protocols added to the Lisbon Treaty!?
So, the EU has granted 3 Protocols to Eire for protection of the Eire Constitution, but, they were not needed in the first place (only the 'no' did not understand that) and the whole EU has been negotiating for months and its 27 Leadership finally met for hours to approve 3 Protocols that were never needed (and only the 'yes' will understand that) in the first place.
I am so glad you are able to understand and explain why such an august body as the EU Commission and 27 Elected Leaders would take such an enormous amount of time considering something that is so illusory! It is really reassuring to know the EU has so much time on its hands it can debate and propose guarantees to 1 Member Nation to satisfy a few 'ill-informed' Citizen Voters - - caring for the little people, so refreshing an attitude - - when all the big people know that the 3 protocols are not really needed as Lisbon would not affect any of those 3 things!
Re, "INTERESTS": It is in the 'interest' of the EU to promise anything at all to the Eire Citizens to ensure the next Referenda returns a 'Yes' to Lisbon Vote.
If those 3 promises are so innocuous why is it not in the 'interest' of the EU to allow the Protocols to be added to any of the other 26 member Nation's Constitution if they should choose to do so?
The answer is that the Protocols will be subverted/circumvented by the EU whenever it is in its 'interest' to do that to Eire's Citizens, but, that a number of Nations with such guarantees would make it far more difficult.
Thus, in true corruptéd-democratic EU style there is to be a Lisbon Treaty.
Thankfully, the Voting patterns will be explained by clever people such as you to us common folk.
To save you time: Eire Voting Patterns in October Referenda
1) Low turnout and Majority 'Yes' vote - Pres Barroso hails triumph of EU and democracy - - little Eire Citizens grateful nobody is angry with them anymore.
2) High turnout and Majority 'Yes' vote - - Pres Barroso hails triumph of his genius, the EU and democracy - - little Eire Citizens relieved they appear to have done what they were supposed to do the first time around.
3) and 4) Low/High turnout and Majority 'No' vote - - Pres Barroso hails triumph of EU and democracy and announces Lisbon will be ratified by 26 and Eire will hold another Referendum as soon as possible to ensure it joins its fellow members.
Voting patterns show the confused, weary little Eire Citizens just want it over with as it is definitely not in their 'interest' to keep having Referendums on the Capital City of Portugal as many of them do not want Dublin twinned with Lisbon.
Oh yes! ".. far more complex than it appears.." is the only part you have right.
Complain about this comment
" #57. fragility:
Why the process of voting on the Treaty should be terminated after the first "yes" vote and not after the first "no"? "
Please read 29 and then 56.
If the Irish really thought that "no" meant "no" forever and for all time they'd still be part of the United Kingdom. There's no exit mechanism in the British Constitution.
Complain about this comment
#34. threnodio wrote:
". . . the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures . . .".
So unanimity of the Council, who represent the elected sovereign governments first need a proposal from the Commission, which is appointed by the elected sovereign governments and the consent of the EP, which is elected by those of us who can be bothered to vote. What, pray, is so undemocratic about that?
Actually Freeborn John hasn't been entirely truthful about the entire process.
When Article 308 is invoked the commission must point out to the national parliaments that the legislative draft is from article 308. "the Commission shall draw national Parliaments' attention to proposals based on this Article."
Now why is this important? Because under the Lisbon treaty every national parliament gets two votes (one for each chamber under a bicameral parliament), the parliaments can use these votes to vote against EU legislative proposals, including those from article 308. If 1/3 of the votes, which is 18 votes at the moment, a total of 9 parliaments (I'm assuming here both chambers vote the same way) the legislative proposal must go back to the commission (in this case) which can either be amended, dropped or maintained. While it can't be blocked by the national parliaments if a national parliament is against the proposal it also means that the leader of that parliament (the prime minister) is against it and unanimity can not be reached in the council.
So article 308 has not two but three checks:
- Approval of all 27 democratically elected leaders.
- Consent from the democratically elected European parliament
- And at least 19 democratically elected parliaments* must agree to it. *Yes I'm fully aware that there are chambers that aren't democratically elected such as the, by the party and Church of England (lol!) appointed, House of Lords.
I am curious to know Freeborn John why have you decided not to inform us of this?
For those who want to know more about national parliaments having voting right. The threshold is lower (14 votes) if the legislative proposal is from judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation and higher with normal legislative proposals (24 votes). With the higher threshold a proposal can be dropped if the threshold is met and the EU council or EP are against the proposal.
#17.
The Lisbon treaty will lead to an unchecked centralisation of power not just in the new policy fields where it gives the EU competence for the first time (e.g. coordination of employment, social and health policies (Articles 156, para. 2 and 168, no. 2), sport (Article 165, Section 2), research and technology (Article 181, Section 2), space policy (Article 189), energy (Article 194), tourism (Article 195), civil protection (Article 196) and administrative cooperation (Article 197)) but also in the policy fields beyond the common market where it first acquired powers under the treaties on Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice.
Actually the EU has already acted on all of these competences except for space policy, administrative cooperation and sport (which are new) Furthermore besides sport and energy, all of these competences fall under the "supportive" area of the EU. For example tourism, civil protection and administration cooperation falls under article 6 of the TFEU which states: The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. Which basically means a member state can ask for aid under these competences. What you also haven't mentioned that this treaty has the least amount of new competences for the EU (besides the Single European Act). It's not as scary as you make it out to be.
#57Why the process of voting on the Treaty should be terminated after the first "yes" vote and not after the first "no"?
I find this a fascinating concept, don't forget though that this doesn't just happen with "'big bad EU' forcing down their treaty on the innocent Irish, Danish and what not for the second time." The US banking bail out plan didn't go through the U.S. senate the first time, yet less then a week later they voted on it again and 'they got it right'. A similar thing has happened with the French three strikes internet law, fairly recently. Yet they didn't vote for a third time after the laws got through. Are these two examples acceptable conduct in a democracy?
Complain about this comment
"#61. At 02:54am on 20 Jun 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Why am I not surprised that your knowledge of the Lisbon Treaty derives from "the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies" ?
Remind us all please what exit mechanism there is in the British Constitution. Oh no, there isn't one that's why you and the Irish both had to fight your wars of independence.
Remind us all please what exit mechanism there is in the American Constitution. Oh no, there isn't one that's why you had to fight your Civil War.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#64.
Hallo ikamaskeip,
I am actually amazed by your interpretation of the word interests. I thought it would be impossible to misunderstand.
My remarks are not levelled at your contributions, but instead at professionals, which cannot ignore neither interests nor the political structures, which take care of them, like for instance journalists at the BBC.
Also I have not made any characterization of the Irish voters and you will of course nowhere in my contributions find the claim that dislike of the Lisbon treaty is a consequence of ignorance. It is your own fantasy.
Also I do not dictate the result of the Irish referendum. I believe such procedures are connected to regimes like the one in Iran.
We are actually using a lot of superfluous energy here on correcting completely wrong accounts, or claims about EU law, which have nothing to do with realities, or the Schengen cooperation etc etc. That is why I never entered into politics.
Like the rest of the member states Eire will get a new possibility to leave the EU with the Lisbon treaty. It just takes a majority in Ireland. Should the Irish reject the Lisbon treaty, I suppose we will get a discussion with a very different agenda.
Complain about this comment
#66 Ticape:
Could you please remind us a clause in the US Constitution forbidding the Congress voting to change (anneal) a previously approved law?
Concerning the French model of democracy my opinion is confused. In fact, I need to do a thorough investigation as regarding the number of republics (and respective constitutions) they had.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot and #67.
Re, "..remind us all what exit mechanism there is.."
The 'wars' you refer to are the precedent for what may well follow in the decade ahead within the British Isles and mainland Europe unless this EU juggernaut is halted.
As in my #44, 'I do not know your personal circumstances but I do know the next generation will curse this EU and it will cost them so dearly in blood, toil, sweat and tears to be rid of it'.
Mathiasen and #69.
Re, "..remarks levelled at professionals.. BBC journalists.."
Oh really! So, you are not writing to us contributors, only to Mark Mardell?
From time to time we all address comments directly to Mr Mardell etc. re their Blog articles and of course their initial Articles are the primary instigators of any discussion, however, that is a very loose thread. Please, consider writing to the BBC if you wish to contact them about its Editorial policies and content. When using these Blog Articles perhaps you could consider the views of other contributors if it is not too much trouble.
Re, ".. not made any characterisations of Irish voters.. ignorance.."
Oh really! So, the "..start with the Irish.. the ill-informed.." was just your unintentional aside and not in any way referring to those Eire Citizens who had the temerity to Vote 'No' to your EU and the Lisbon Treaty?
Your support of the 2nd Referendum does not in any way imply the EIre Citizens must have misunderstood, much as you have now written in your last 3 contributions that I somehow have not 'understood' you!
"..we are actually using a lot of superfluous energy on here correcting completely wrong/misleading accounts about EU Law.."
Unfortunately, it is because EU Law has total primacy in many areas of National lifestyles and that primacy will be extended by Lisbon and again in the future that the 'correcting' will ultimately be very costly indeed: I refer you to my comment in #44 and at the top of this piece.
However, I note you signally failed to address the issues of EU 'populism' EU 'selectivity' and EU 'interests' with regard to Eire and the Lisbon Treaty.
Instead, typically of a 'pro-EU' lobbyists, once you found the going tough you atempt to move the debate to other matters whilst all the time implying the 'anti-EU' lobbyists such as myself have somehow misunderstood.
Well alright, I refer you back to your "..voting patterns.." and "..loud and clear.." Go ahead. Reply to this comment with what you meant in those phrases and I promise my response will stick directly to any matter you care to raise (subject to my being able to access data, if needed).
Complain about this comment
Re: 69 Also I have not made any characterization of the Irish voters and you will of course nowhere in my contributions find the claim that dislike of the Lisbon treaty is a consequence of ignorance. It is your own fantasy.
Also I do not dictate the result of the Irish referendum. I believe such procedures are connected to regimes like the one in Iran.
I am relieved to hear your "clarification" of your views on the "ill-informed" Irish electorate.
Re: 63
I do not mind to repeat the one magic word, which in a split second lead us to a completely different level in our effort to understand the pattern of voters in the EU (you can start with Ireland), and this time every voter and not only the ill-informed. A pattern, which is far more complex than it appears from these discussions, driven by:
INTERESTS.
As a matter of interest, which section of the Irish electorate do you consider to be ill-informed?
Is it perhaps those of us who dare to acknowledge that the Irish constitution has long been admired by human rights groups throughout the world? The rights and freedoms for Irish citizens, enshrined in that constitution have ensured that we are the only EU country to have been given a democratic mandate on the issue. That is a damning indication of the current state of democracy in the EU.
I would suggest that a desire to protect that constitution is entirely justified, and even admirable.
Further, you refer to "our" efforts to understand the voting patterns - may I enquire why you wish to understand the voting patterns?
Is it perhaps to influence the vote of a particular group?
That certainly appears to be the strategy of our illustrious Taoiseach - the one who clearly has neither the confidence nor trust of the Irish electorate. Yet another example of "Democracy"?
Er, no... I think not!
Irishandfree
Complain about this comment
"71. ikamaskeip wrote:
greypolyglot and #67.
Re, "..remind us all what exit mechanism there is.."
The 'wars' you refer to are the precedent for what may well follow in the decade ahead within the British Isles and mainland Europe unless this EU juggernaut is halted.
As in my #44, 'I do not know your personal circumstances but I do know the next generation will curse this EU and it will cost them so dearly in blood, toil, sweat and tears to be rid of it'."
You do not "know" that, you believe it.
WITH the Lisbon Treaty your forecast cannot come true because, if as you believe, enough people are against the EU that view will prevail in their national governments and country after country will secede from the EU, peacefully.
WITHOUT the Lisbon Treaty your forecast could conceivably come true because, if as you believe, enough people are against the EU and their view, even though prevailing in their national governments, still cannot bring about peaceful secession then they might well feel that violence is the only solution.
You appear, perhaps mistakenly on my part, to revel in the latter prospect. I do not. Therefore I wish to see the Lisbon Treaty enter in to force so that those who wish to leave peacefully may do so. Of course I see other benefits but I would have thought that this one point alone could unite both pro and anti-EU factions in support of the Treaty.
Complain about this comment
# 71 ikamaskeip and #72 Irishandfree
Everybody can read what I wrote in #63, which is not that Irish voters are ill informed. There are probably some who are, however. Please notice the differences between the two groups, so I do not have to explain it again.
Why are ill informed voters not equivalent with voters, who reject the Lisbon treaty? The EU cooperation implies transfer of sovereignty, here on BBC called pooling of sovereignty. If you think that any kind of transfer to the transnational level is wrong, it is a possible position in a philosophical sense but an unwise in a political.
If a voter none the less says, he cannot accept the transfer, we reply, that it would be wise to take a couple of other things into consideration.
To voter behaviour: I dont know what your experience in life is. One of mine is that it is unbelievable how inconsistent human beings can be. No problem to vote for a party in favour of the Maastricht treaty at the parliament election and vote in the opposite direction against the treaty at the referendum. There is a majority against the opt-outs in the Danish parliament, in some cases a vast majority, but not so among the voters.
In Norway the voters have time and again elected parliaments in favour of a EU membership, and twice voted against in referenda.
Merkel and Sarkozy have a mandate, Brown and Zapatero have too, and let me remind you that millions, MANY MILLIONS, of voters have voted for parties in favour of the Lisbon treaty. This morning one of the café guests said to me, he could not understand how a small group of Irish voters can overturn a treaty many other millions are in favour of. The discussion in this blog on democracy is way behind these complexities. Instead we plough in banalities.
To voter researcher there is nothing new in the phenomenon inconsistent voter behaviour. Is there to journalists? When Mr. Mardell is using the expression getting it past the people in his article, it is on the brink of demagogy and a couple of other things, which I do not think the house rules allow me to write. I have great, very great, difficulties in believing, he does not know better.
Have you ever heard a journalist in the BBC inform you with this remark: Against the people PM Gordon Brown has today made a decision to give up some of his power and instead transfer it to Bruxelles? I cannot even think of all the consequences in the UK of such journalism, but I supposed the journalist would be sacked on the spot.
I shall not go into any further analysis of what the consequence of inconsistent voter behaviour is for a government or a parliament. Actually I have already seen and heard much too much of it. Nor shall I write, why I think journalists pretend they do not know what voter inconsistency and to govern is.
Ask people to be clear about their interest. And consequent. It would be a great start.
Complain about this comment
greypollywog;
"Why am I not surprised that your knowledge of the Lisbon Treaty derives from "the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies" ?"
In studying a complex issue, it is often valuable to look first at the simplest explanations to gain a baisic understanding before plunging into a complex analysis that contains many nuances, twists and turns that would be otherwise incomprehensible. You still didn't answer my question of whether or not you read it yourself, we haven't even gotten to the point of discussing whether or not you understood it. So if you didn't do one or both, you appear to support legislation that will profoundly affect your life and that of nearly half a billion other people not having understood what it says, what it means, what it implies, and not having even tried. Yet you would insist that everyone does as you do or better yet, just leave it to their representatives in their Parliaments who likely haven't read it or understood it either.
This brings us to Irishandfree's point. You are not required to defend your vote one way or another unless you are in Parliament explaining your position to a constituency you have been given the privilege to represent with your vote on issues affecting them. It doesn't matter whether you are a legal scholar or just flipped a coin to decide, that is your right. Personally, under comparable circumstances, I'd vote no merely because it was constructed in a way deliberately making it difficult or impossible for ordinary non legal experts like me to understand. I'd instinctively think its authors had something they wanted to hide in it and where trying to trick me into allowing them to shove it down my throat.
Complain about this comment
They, the elites, beleieve that this Lisbon horse is what EU needs, they beleive that they are the right people for the job, and that they are what we need. These elites are just selfish, greedy and liers.
There are many other people out there who are silenced by the monopol of power-elites and the system they have created on sharing the spoils of EU fraud.
These elites know nothing better than self-serving, since they beleive that they are the only ones who can run EU and the spoiled army of bureaucrats.
The Lisbon horse is just a wooden structure, in the end it will get burned.
We have lunatics runing the EU today, crazy people dreaming of immense powers, people who are never happy with themselves in their lives, they only want our lifes become like their lives, which are artifically constructed lives and personal details.
EU is a nightmare to the dreams of millions of free people, who now dont have a place to live free, and live their lives as they want, because all territory of Europe where these millions of free people live is being incorporated and controlled by EU elites. This is an expansionist agenda for power, and control. They cannot accept, neither resign to the fact that out there there is a country like Ireland giving them such problems, undermining their authority, only soon to be followed by UK with a referendum.
There is no race against the time, since the time is on our side, the young people of Europe dont want EU of the old elites, a project for the unabled EU-lovers.
Complain about this comment
Re: ikamaskeip and #73
Quote: WITH the Lisbon Treaty your forecast cannot come true because, if as you believe, enough people are against the EU that view will prevail in their national governments and country after country will secede from the EU, peacefully.
The people of France and the Netherlands were quite clear that they did not want to ratify the European constitution. The Irish made it clear that they did not wish to ratify the Lisbon treaty.
Not one of these countries seceded. It is indeed very debatable whether the voters in these countries wanted secession.
Since when have the Lisbon supporters had the right to even suggest that any country should secede because they don't support the Lisbon treaty?
Such a suggestion, in itself, merely proves that many Lisbon supporters have little regard for the Democratic rights of their fellow citizens.
Irishandfree
Complain about this comment
I think it's because it's very easy to group up, like it was done before, USSR-like, whatever. And very difficult to group up in any new manner, so the wheels invariably slide down to the known rut.
You should be awful inventive and break-through-ish and keep it up, on-going, as the moment. you relax - hop the wheels slide down to the old tracks.
Complain about this comment
"Oh! That's a very un-easy business,
To be dragging a behemot out from the swamp." :o)
Complain about this comment
BTW judging by the latest internet jokes, we are about to get the same problem.
"Year 2022; Putin has made Russia a unitary state instead of the Federation. Journalists interview a man from the crowd of mass protests across the country.
So, why do you protest, why do you want back the Federation?
-Well, I don't know who is that Fedya (Feodor/Theodor) and who deprived him of his "ration", but until they return back to the poor guy his ration I am going to protest!
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and #74.
As I and many others suspected all along! You actually had nothing new to say at all!
It was just so much of personal views, opinions, perspectives, like all the rest of us!
Re, "..do not have to explain it again.." Explain anything you like but please do not try in future to dress it up as some superior understanding and calculation of what these debates are about.
For your information the following have all been discussed at length on these Blog Articles:
'transfer of sovereignty'/'pooling of sovereignty' is a constant theme - - it would be - - that is the whole basis of the European Union and therefore for those 'anti' and 'pro' its development.
'philosophical' versus 'political' perspective is another ever present in comments - - it would be as no interaction would be feasible without those 2 human faculties taken into consideration.
'voter behaviour' - - yes, I agree it is enormously diverse - - unlike you I do not presume to read into it other peoples' intentions: It would seem to me that when I Voted 'Yes' in a Referendum in 1975 to the EEC I was indicating my willingness for the UK/England to be a Member of the EEC. Equally, it would seem to me I have not been asked/consulted/afforded the opportunity to cast my Vote for 'Yes' or 'No' to a Federalised EU - - the fact that I like millions have cast my Vote in National Elections for Political Parties/Candidates that may or may not support membership of the EU cannot be taken as indicative of my Voter Intention in a Referendum specific to EU Membership - - you, on the other hand may feel clever enough to do so or willing enough to go along with Pres Barroso who certainly believes any Vote is an EU Vote, or it will be 2nd, 3rd, 4th time around!
'Eire voters overurning a Treaty many millions are in favour of': What a classic 'pro-EU' slant!
To which many millions are you or your cafe guest referring? Those millions of Voters who participated in the MEP Election a week ago? Well, let us suppose those were all cast in favour of Lisbon it would still not account for the many additional millions who did not vote and more especially for that "inconsistency" of voting - - you know, the Netherlands and France Referenda defeated the Constitution, but many still voted for MEPs just 2 or so years later - - strange how no one at the EU suggested founder Members the French and Dutch should hold a 2nd referenda!? Even more strange their own National Governments decided against Referenda on Lisbon - - too much democracy is bad for Paris and the Hague it would seem!
'Banalities': You really like to let us little people know where we are going wrong, don't you?
How you have the nerve to write such stuff about the Content on these Blog Articles whilst offering nothing new at all to the debate only you can explain? E.g. "..I shall not go into any further analysis of what the consequence of inconsistent voter behaviour is.."
No, I would steer well clear if I were you - - there's been enough embarrassment - - stick to the topics you know about: So, how much is the fare from Helsingor to Helsingborg these days?
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot and #73.
Re "..revel.."
Amazing! I use a subverted quote from a WW2 Churchill speech and I may be revelling in the idea of civil strife.
No, my intention, like yours, is to caution that such a calamitous episode is not beyond the bounds of possibility given the implacable march of the EU's authority and powers.
Just days after almost 57% of the eligible electorate refused to express any degree of support at all and some 18% of those who did cast votes expressed support for Parties/Candidates either sceptical or hostile to the EU it is granted even more superiority over National infra-structures.
How can the Political leadership of the British Isles and mainland Europe and the representatives of the EU continue to act in such a blind and unresponsive manner towards their Citizens?
It is a cause for real alarm and in years to come I believe (yes, obviously 'know' was inadavertent) Historians will write copiously on the demise of 'democratic accountability' as one of the main components to explain the breakdown of social order and the divorce of the body politic from its public roots.
Complain about this comment
#82 -ikamaskeip
". . . almost 57% of the eligible electorate refused to express any degree of support at all . . .".
You could equally say "could not be bothered to express . . ". Lethargy and disinterest is just as plausible explanation as hostility - and 18% of 43% is just 7.7% of people who are sceptical or hostile.
Amazing what you can do with semantics and statistics.
Complain about this comment
Re, "..remind us all what exit mechanism there is.."
The Treaty can be downloaded as a PDF in English HERE
The exit clause is in Article 49 A.
Complain about this comment
threonodio and #83.
I don't mind which word you care to use about the 56+% of eligible electorate who did not vote for any MEP - - each word amounts to the same thing - - the European Union failed to win any sort of Mandate to go forward with its Federalisation project, but, has completely snubbed the Citizens and gone ahead anyway.
I don't mind it being 7.7 or 6.0 or 5% of 43% - - you dismiss those Voters if you will - - that is symptomatic of the EU response to any and every negative from the European Citizenry: Afterall, Eire's 'No' vote to Lisbon amounts to less than 2% of the eligible voters, so, let's just discount them altogether and just accept what Paris-Berlin-Brussels decides is best for all us little people.
The Referendum was afterall only a statistic and was never going to be taken seriously by the great, all-powerful OZ, sorry EU, as it barrels down the Federalised road! Ooh look Citizen Toto, there's President Barroso immediately after the MEP Election declaring, "..the EU will respond to peoples' concerns.."!
This may be a little semantic sophistry but if you get less than 44% of the Electoral Vote turning out and not even all of those vote in your favour, but you still take more power into your office, isn't that like the good old carpet-bagger of post civil-war USA!? You know the type - - we are going to free the slaves - - of course first we are going to take everything we can for ourselves!
From that it does not need semantics to deduce the EU and the Political Leadership across the 27 are risking in the not too distant future a severe Civil backlash.
Complain about this comment
Energy security is a priority for the European Union.
The BBC reported this month that the giant Russian energy company, Gazprom, which controls the world's largest reserves of natural gas, has issued a stark warning to the European Union saying it must decide if it wants to continue receiving supplies of Russian gas.
"Only three countries can be suppliers of pipeline gas in the long-term - Russia, Iran and Qatar. So there is no other choice than to deal with these suppliers", Gazprom's deputy chairman threatened.
The EU is highly susceptible to blackmail by gas supplier Russia - and indeed gas transit countries, such as Ukraine. In fact not so long ago Russia suggested to the EU that it settle with Moscow some bills owed by Ukraine, if it wanted to continue receiving gas.
"The overall happiness of Ukraine, Russia and the EU must be financed by somebody", said the prime minister of Ukraine. EUObserver.
And last week a commission delegation went to Kiev and Moscow and stressed that the EU will not offer public money to solve the problem. But it did float the possibility of private EU gas companies buying excess Russian volumes and stockpiling them in Ukraine's storage facilities to help ease tension, according to one EU official familiar with the talks.
Complain about this comment
#81. ikamaskeip
Well, the idea that I should meet your standard is as I have already suggested a couple of times pretty curious.
Those, who do not understand what a mandate is, are in for a couple of surprises.
Complain about this comment
#74 Mathiasen:
"To voter behaviour: I dont know what your experience in life is. One of mine is that it is unbelievable how inconsistent human beings can be. No problem to vote for a party in favour of the Maastricht treaty at the parliament election and vote in the opposite direction against the treaty at the referendum."
I am not aware of your life experience. But let me tell you something about elementary arithmetics which may help you to understand what you consider as inconsistency in human beings. In a system of proportional representation, a voter, when deciding the party to support, has to take into account a list of issues like taxation, immigration policy, etc. Now, assuming that this list includes 10 issues, try to calculate how many parties one needs to make an uncompromising vote. Having done that simple exercise, report the result, and compare it with the available number of parties.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and 387.
No, it is not that we are in for a surprise about a 'Mandate' - - typically, you again suggest others don't 'understand' so well as you do - - it is that we are old fashioned or long-lived or plain cantankerous enough so as to expect the word 'Mandate' in it strue political concensus meaning to still be operative.
I.e. the 'Mandate' as meant in "support for a policy or course of action, regarded by a victorious party, candidate etc. as derived from the wishes of the people in an election".
Now President Barroso may claim he has the 'victorious party' and may further claim he has the 'wishes of the people in an election,' but, we both know Barroso is lying through his teeth on both counts and so is any MEP who claims similar Public approbation.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and 387.
No, it is not that we are in for a surprise about a 'Mandate' - - typically, you again suggest others don't 'understand' so well as you do - - it is that we are old fashioned or long-lived or plain cantankerous enough so as to expect the word 'Mandate' in it strue political concensus meaning to still be operative.
I.e. the 'Mandate' as meant in "support for a policy or course of action, regarded by a victorious party, candidate etc. as derived from the wishes of the people in an election".
Now President Barroso may claim he has the 'victorious party' and may further claim he has the 'wishes of the people in an election,' but, we both know Barroso is l#ing through his teeth on both counts and so is any MEP who claims similar Public approbation.
Complain about this comment
#88. fragility
I had expected someone would write this. Here is the solution:
Stop drinking bear, leave the pub and the sofa: Make a new party. Be a candidate and get elected. That is how you get a mandate.
Complain about this comment
odious threnodious, I'm sure you read the entire treaty and understand it perfectly, right? That is why you are happy to let your Prime Rib vote for it without even a discussion or debate in his rubber stamp gaggle of sMashed Potatoes. (They sound pretty smashed to me during PMQT.) At least you benefit directly from Britain's membership in the EU. I'll bet some of those roads and bridges you travel over in Hungary were bought and paid for at least in part by British taxpayers. But then so was a lot of alcohol drunk by a lot of those MPs along with many other "perks" of having those taxpayer expense accounts that have only just started receiving any public scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
Your idea is wrong. The system of proportional representation effectively kills such an option. To comprehend this you have to do your home exercise and figure out the number of parties corresponding to all possible combinations of 10 issues, assuming a binary (yes/no) answer to each issue.
Complain about this comment
"#77. Irishandfree:
Re: #73
Quote: WITH the Lisbon Treaty your forecast cannot come true because, if as you believe, enough people are against the EU that view will prevail in their national governments and country after country will secede from the EU, peacefully.
.....
Since when have the Lisbon supporters had the right to even suggest that any country should secede because they don't support the Lisbon treaty?"
Irishandfree: You misunderstood. The first paragraph above was mine in response to ikamaskeip.
The second paragraph above is yours and I have not suggested any such thing. I don't know if anyone else has. My response to your comment is that I was merely pointing out that the Lisbon treaty has a clause enabling the peaceful withdrawal from the EU of a Member State unhappy with the way that the EU is developing. My argument is simply that as there is no such mechanism at the moment I would have thought that that alone would be sufficient to unite both pro and anti-EU lobbies in support of the Lisbon Treaty.
Complain about this comment
euroscot @86, yes, it's important. what we're told at this end is that Ukraine does not have money to buy Russian gas, it's summer time, when they traditionally stock up their underground reservouirs, from where they pull out gas in winter to send on to Europe.
Somehow it's all tricky system there, they don't transit to Europe in winter what they get from Russia direct, but use it themselves, and shift out gas from underground own stocks to Europe.
I don't know what's in reality but the sure thing is Ukraine does want to stock up gas NOW, for itself, for Europe - mirky business.
They want to buy and cannot pay, can offer us zero money. Simply busted no money left in Ukraine (they say).
Russia suggested the EU to lend or give away money to Ukraine 50/50.
The EU refused, kind of, what for we'll be financing Russia, at the end, Russia will get this money from Ukraine for the gas (true).
So it's a dead end situation at the mom., no solution.
I understand the EU concerns "what for to pay for Ukraine?" but Russia has the same concerns "What for to pay for Ukraine?"
At the end it will end up as usual, I'm afraid - nobody wants "to pay for Ukraine", so the EU will stay without gas and Russia without money.
All clever heads around.
Complain about this comment
In my #93 I responded to #91 by Mathiassen.
Complain about this comment
Finally, I don't understand why Ukraine simply wouldn't borrow money elsewhere, neither from Russia nor from the EU, there is an IMF, after all, for all to borrow from.
Either they don't want to borrow, or it's IMF doesn't lend them, no idea. It is also a strange position, sitting in the middle, "others sort out our problems for us, or else".
Complain about this comment
#92 - MarcusAureliusII
Yes I have read it and yes I understand it.
Complain about this comment
" #75. MarcusHorribilis wrote:
You still didn't answer my question of whether or not you read it yourself, we haven't even gotten to the point of discussing whether or not you understood it."
My answers are "yes" and "yes". The ability to read and understand complex texts is fundamental to functioning as a translator.
Do I presume too much in supposing your answers to be "no" and "no"?
Complain about this comment
#99 greypolyglot:
"The ability to read and understand complex texts is fundamental to functioning as a translator."
Let us consider the problem of understanding the logical connectivity of simple texts. Haven't you noticed that your #65 actually fails to answer my #57?
Complain about this comment
Ticape (66): I did not mention it for two reasons. The procedure you highlight (i) applies to something else, i.e. EU Commission legislative proposals to the Council of Ministers (which is not the EU Council that consists of heads of government that would decide using the 'passerelle clause') and EU Parliament, and (ii) it has no teeth anyway.
Lisbon will lead to an unchecked centralisation of political power in Brussels and the 'passerelle clause' is intended to facilitate that.
Complain about this comment
" #100. fragility:
Haven't you noticed that your #65 actually fails to answer my #57?"
I thought that the third and fourth paragraphs of my 29 and the last paragraph of Ticape's 66 were sufficient and I still do.
Complain about this comment
The Irish Times International Edition of Saturday and Sunday, June 20 and 21 certainly gives the impression that the Irish will vote YES next time. I hope they don't.
What will it be like if Lisbon does get passed by every country?
I certainly will not consider it legitimate. I am a very insignificant little man. However I do find that I usually agree with over sixty percent of the UK population or they with me. I will regard the "EU" as a lousy dictatorship that has no right to exist. Will people who agree with me on that point be prepared to defend it in time of war? Will they feel obliged to pay taxes? Will they not be looking for ways to sabotage it? Is there not going to be continual trouble such that we will eventually leave or be thrown out and that there will subsequently be a hate-filled relationship with the "EU" when I genuinely want cooperation and friendship?
Complain about this comment
An issue as important as this should be aired by the media and press. They should be pushing for a referendum to be held for the rest of Britain. Why are you not doing so? Why are you - as a journalist, and along with other journalists not openly discussing the consequences to Britain of joining the Euro-dictat?
If you truly believed in the democratic process, you would be miffed that Brown & Co. are taking us all into a corporate dictatorship, and not even allowing the people their voice about it! You would be shouting it from every newspaper and TV station, but all we get is obsfucation and misdirections.
I can tell you now, I will never accept the Euro-state or Euro-law, in place of my British history, British self-soverignty, or British law, and there are hundreds of thousands of others who won't also. We are an island self-soverign state, and I will fight to keep it that way!
Complain about this comment
I have not read the whole of the Lisbon Treaty. I found the bit I tried to tread to be unnecessarily confusing and I am generally good at that sort of thing. I further note that in the Irish Times some time ago it became apparent that Irish academics specialising in that sort of thing could not agree as to its interpreataion. It has also been claimed that the "European Court of Justice" quite simply makes it up as it goes along. If Merkel wants it, it can't be good.
Complain about this comment
Please remember that although British "Eurosceptics" did well in the "EU" elections, UKIP and the BNP needed more votes to get an M"EP" than did the Conservatives and that some anti-"EU" parties did not get any M"EP"s.
We need referenda!
Complain about this comment
84. At 4:47pm on 20 Jun 2009, threnodio wrote:
'Re, "..remind us all what exit mechanism there is.."
The Treaty can be downloaded as a PDF in English HERE
The exit clause is in Article 49 A. '
Given that they have not stuck to their promise to give us a referendum, there is no reason to believe that they will stick to any promise to allow us to leave peacefully.
Given what they have done to us already, they might promise to let us leave on Monday and then abolish Monday.
Complain about this comment
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes today that Great Britain and Germany at the summit together have insisted that the new financial oversight institutions within the EU should not be allowed to make instructions, which would have consequences for the national budget and taxation competence of the member states.
Complain about this comment
#29 greypolyglot:
"I always thought that persistence was fairly generally appreciated and valued, as in "if at first you don't succeed try, try and try again".
Persistence is indeed commendable. But, to answer my question, you have to explain the apparent asymmetry in your argument. Why shouldn't the Irish government be equally persistent in enquiring the opinion of the Irish people concerning the L Treaty after getting "yes" vote?
Complain about this comment
#97
What is to stop Europe being blackmailed endlessly by Russia and energy transit countries? Unfortunately, European governments seem to consider their taxpayers fair game.
Incidentally the G20 said the financial collapse worldwide was largely the result of the failure of local politics also. Almost half the world's wealth was destroyed then.
Complain about this comment
# 94 Greypolyglot,
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
To clarify my personal position on this:
When the concept of a European constitution was introduced, European citizens were assured that should any country fail to ratify, said constitution would not come into effect.
France and The Netherlands both rejected said constitution - and were presented with Lisbon, minus the opportunity to reject it.
Again, assurances were given that should any country fail to ratify the treaty, that effectively would be the end of the matter.
Erm, not so! Mr Sarkozy had the temerity to issue thinly veiled threats before the referendum, as indeed did the German Chancellor. (Motives, anyone??)
Now Ireland has rejected the treaty, been slapped on the wrist, and suddenly "What gives Ireland the right to dictate to other countries?"
The fact that two other countries also rejected essentially the same treaty is conveniently forgotten - even by their own governments!!!
The anti-Lisbon members of the Irish electorate have little real representation in the Dail, since the three main political parties are pro-Lisbon, despite the wishes of the majority of voters.
So can anyone who is pro-Lisbon explain to me why so many governments are willing to go against the express wishes of their own electorate?
Irishandfree
Complain about this comment
@50 Freeborn-Jonh
*On your feet soldiers. if the Irish do what all the peoples of Europe want and shoot down this monstrous treaty*
It sounds like an execution. We know how it looks like. Is it really what you expect to see? I have carefully read the *Irish treaty guarantees in brief* and I think that if they are really what the Irish want as preliminary conditions for joining the Lisbon treaty there is a hope that this time the treaty will enter into force.
I take the opportunity to ask you some questions concerning your post @356 /Marsh of the right/. Sorry for the delay, I was absent for several days.
1. If *the free movement of workers between countries that are approximately equivalent in terms of economic development is realistic*, and, if we take into consideration that at least nine out of twelve new member states have living standards that are between 50 and 80 per cent lower than those of the remaining 18 countries, that means that not only the British workers are the loosing party of our union. This said, how does it happen that only the Britons /I mean the British Euro sceptics of course/ seem to be the most organized group who consider seriously the perspective for the UK to leave the EU?
2. If *the EU is ..a much greater danger to democracy than /the ultra nationalist parties/*, and, if the EU *indeed draws its support using similar arguments about the need for collective power to counter the USA*,
a) how can we explain the evident truth that each one of the member states is by all standards a real democracy /some of them of more than 200 years old/, and, how can we accept that all these democracies have established by their own will a non democratic union? Who is the looser? Who is to blame?
b) how can all these democracies rely on the extreme right (or left) parties arguments in order to win their nations support for the needs of a collective counter action against the US? Luckily enough all those extremist parties, groups and movements have insufficient political influence within the EU.
Complain about this comment
Irishandfree;
"When the concept of a European constitution was introduced, European citizens were assured that should any country fail to ratify, said constitution would not come into effect.
France and The Netherlands both rejected said constitution - and were presented with Lisbon, minus the opportunity to reject it."
On the strength of that alone, it seems to me that the myth of democracy in Europe is every bit as false as the myth of democracy is in Iran. They were also denied a right to vote for how they would be ruled. However, at least many of the citizens of Iran had the courage to go out into the streets and protest, even at the risk of their lives. They want freedom and democracy badly. Europeans on the other hand don't really seem very interested in either. It's of no value to them at all. Perhaps that's one more of the reasons they opposed the invasion of Iraq. The notion that people have an inalienable right to decide for themselves who is to rule them and how they are to be ruled is not part of their culture. It never was.
greypolyglot and threnodious, it's nice to know that at last two citizens of the EU can say that they read and understood all 270 pages of the Lisbon Treaty, complex legalese technojargon that it is. I presume neither of you got to vote on it though. You have to wonder if those who voted on your behalf also read it and understood it or were swayed by demagogues who tried to sell it on emotion along. I think most politicians admitted they hadn't read the constitution including most who voted for it. BTW, I read neither. It was all I could do to plow through the forty odd pages of the red line opt outs which proved not to be opt outs at all, merely delaying tactics. One more lie.
Complain about this comment
I have to admit complete admiration for greypolyglot, mathiasen and threnodio.
All 3 have read the Lisbon Treaty and claim to understand it and all 3 as a result are in favour of its ratification.
They have the advantage on me and I suspect many other Citizens.
I have only read a few passages here and there and some of that has been paraphrased versions various broadsheet newspapers from England, Finland, Ireland and the USA.
My attempts to read the Lisbon Treaty text have all failed - - I found it tedious, contradictory, but also unintelligible in aspects, partly as it does indirectly refer to other text not in the proposed Treaty and I have not read all of them either!
I mean Lisbon Treaty Articles 1 through 60+ with constant referrals to those other Treaties which you need to access to see where the 'new wording' will go is just awesome.
So, you 3 reading all that whilst checking the other treaties for the appropriate 'insertions' is the sort of task the highest paid legal minds and civil servants get to do, and, you 3 did all that for the sake of knowing about the Lisbon Treaty! Remarkable, truly remarkable, and if I haven't already mentioned it, I believe it is something more of us should do.
An impressive intellectual and academic achievement - - even when I've been 4 days and 3 nights out on the lake with my fishing rod and lap-top on the Europeana web-site I still haven't been able to manage to read and interpret much of it.
It is humbling to know there are commentators on here who made the effort to read over 300 pages dealing with the Amendments to the 'Treaty on European Union' and the 'Treaty Establishing the European Community' plus all those 'Protocols' and the 65 'Declarations' attached to Lisbon Treaty.
Did you need extra large office space to put the relevant 74 other EU Documents that Lisbon Treaty refers to or were you able to pull it all up on your computers as and when you needed it? There's another area I'm not so hot on - - Information Technology - - honestly you 3 really put us all to shame.
Oh, by the way, you know that bit of the Lisbon Treaty that refers to Part 9 Article 7, part (b), and reads, "at the end of the first sentence of the first subparagraph of paragrpah 1, the words ' and address appropriate recommendations to that State' shall be deleted; at the end of the last sentence the words ' and, acting in accordance with the same procedure, may call on independent persons to submit within a reasonable time limit a report on the situation in the Member State in question' shall be replaced by ' and mmay address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure.'"
Well, I was just wondering if you would agree with me that surely they should have had a comma after the 'and' in the second amendment to the deletion and prior to 'may'?
What do you 3 think?
Complain about this comment
- Interruption -
I don't know who can catch St. Petersburg TV , 5th channel of Russia right now, but it is on satellite WW theoretically. Do it now if you can, there is a maddening beauty - White Nights on the Neva river main event of the year, with large symphony orchestra playing on the top of St. Basil islands, broadcasted to the whole area, fireworks on embankments and from water, and the "Scarlet Sails" large ship going along the river, silk scarlet sails. Incredible beauty the whole night
Complain about this comment
euroscot, @110
From the transit countries' blackmail - direct tubes Russia-the EU will save you.
From Russia's blackmail - nothing will.
Except, as a Russian, I of course object that we have so far ever blackmailed the EU, on record. When you blackmail, you usually want something. And what did we want from the EU, but money for the gas?
The EU always pays on schedule, an ideal buyer, all Russians know. Was never a problem that we were not able to negotiate the prices or have them actually paid, no monetary troubles, seems to me.
The previous conflicts always included Ukraine - A./
and were never about the price of the gas to the EU - B./
It's not that Russia ever stopped gas supply negotiating higher pay from European countries for its gas.
But in future, technically speaking, we can. Anyone who sells you something can say "I won't sell unless you double the pay" or something like that. But on the other hand countries in big contracts don't do such things, if they are not totally mad.
Russia's sales of oil and gas make up our 33 per cent of the country's budget. That's 1/3 at risk, enough to collapse any country, and nearly all of it is dependent on a single buyer , well, not single (18 separate energy companies, from various European countries) but single in terms of the delivery route - Europe.
Unless we get suicidal we won't like to quarrel.
And if we get suicidal, I think it'll be noticed through other ways first, LOL!
______________
Mavrelius, yes we are also jealous with Iranians here. We thought it's far more dangerous for them to go to the streets, and hop - it's not.
Live and learn. Incredible. Sad slow recognition of the reality :o(
:o)
"Strange people are these Iranians. Falsified elections - is it really a reason to go out to the streets?" :o)
Complain about this comment
#114 - ikamaskeip
No, not really but commas between submit and within and again between limit and a might not go amiss. On the more general question, you can always open two browser windows and place them side by side but actually the best bet is to print the treaty off, then call up the cross refered documents in the browser.
When did I ever post that I was in favour of its ratification? I am not. I have often said I am an EU enthusiast but not a big fan of Lisbon.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip wrote:
"I have to admit complete admiration for greypolyglot, mathiasen and threnodio."
Yes, it is curious that folks who claim to have read the treaty never comment on the way it is written. Listening to them, the treaty is a carefully constructed story, with a plot, character development and simple language.
For myself, I am at a loss to know how these intellectual worthies reconcile their integrity with the fact that one cannot read the treaty without understanding the terminology specific to the EU institutions, and further that one cannot understand the terminology without having read a huge amount of case law.
I suppose it is possible that these three have read a good deal of ECJ case law. I have never heard a mention of a single case from any of them, but that is not conclusive proof of anything.
Perhaps they read a good deal of case law, in order to understand what they have read in the treaty, and then they decide to keep this knowledge to themselves?
In short, the Lisbon treaty is a purely legal document that has been built upon the trial and error process we know as the European Court of Justice, or the ECJ.
And lawyers don't "read" it. They refer to it. They "look" at it, and then they go to the case law to try and gauge what the hell it might mean, if translated into coherent prose. Then they see how much money is at stake, and they set off to court to try and convince a judge that their prosaic interpretation of the rules is more convincing than the other chaps.
But, yeah, these guys who are in favour of it have read it. An everyone who can't read it is stupid.
Humbling, isn't it? On the brighter side of the issue, you must admit it is fantastic that we have such honest and intelligent folks to lecture us on what is contained within the great document.
The character of politicians and their party stooges never fails to restore my faith in faith itself. When i see the Americans who are reluctant to give up their weapons, I just think to myself "Those poor souls, they need to LISTEN to their politicians. They need to understand what is good for them. They need to understand that politicians are put on earth to help the stupid, and not themselves.
But what can you tell americans, hey?
Complain about this comment
Alice, nevermind the widespread european russo-phobia about gas. It is a classic case of denial.
European politicians MUST deny their energy situation. At least, in public. To admit even well known and verifiable facts about energy supply on this earth is to understand the sheer futility of the EU experiment.
Consider, Russia has enough coal reserves to last more than 500 years, at current production levels. It has vast reserves of gas, and huge oil deposits.
Now the UK and Norway, they have some gas and a little oil. And Germany, that great industrial power built on seams of rich coal and iron ore, well it has sufficient coal to last 40 years. And Germany is a major player, in terms of european coal reserves.
Uranium deposits in Europe do not count for very much, either. And Russia has loads of Uranium, too.
Now when we look at the practice of establishing colonies, the wisdom in the English speaking world, and the Russian, is to make sure that you colonize somewhere with stuff you NEED, or WANT. Preferably, stuff you need. So in Europe's case, that means oil and gas and coal. "Stuff" that burns and generates heat, with which to generate steam, with which to generate electricity, with which to generate all manner of civilized embellishments to a continent.
But Europe has a different plan for it's new colonies. It want to colonize eastern europe, which has no coal, oil or gas to speak of. Indeed, it has numerous folks who need these products, placing further strain on the energy deficit of europe.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that this makes Europe a laughable prospect, in global economic terms.
I mean, in 40 years, Germany is going to have NO COAL.
I say again, IN YOUR LIFETIME (in mine, I hope), GERMANY WILL HAVE NO COAL.
Nix. Nada. Nuffink. NO COAL. And guess what else? China is going to run out about the same time. Which means that nations like the USA and Australia, who please a very cynical god, are going to be selling their treasures to China and Europe. And Europe and China will COMPETE. Together with all the other energy deficient countries that lost their empires in the great war, such as Japan.
Oh yeah, back to Russia.
Did I mention Russia has lots of coal?
So, you know, listen to all this EU talk about energy and economic growth with a smile on your face, and make sure your kids learn English and Russian.
Those are the two languages that will count in this world, unless you want to freeze to death waiting for the man from Brussels to come fix your windmill.
Complain about this comment
#118 - democracythreat
Nothing short of identifying myself is going to satisfy you that I do know of what I write and I have no intention of doing that so you are simply going to have to take my word for it. Of course I didn't read it like a novel. This is for the most part, a lay readership and I can see no point in attemting to 'blind people with science'. I would like to think it is still possible to pursuade without condescending.
Complain about this comment
ikea
"I have to admit complete admiration for greypolyglot, mathiasen and threnodio."
"All 3 have read the Lisbon Treaty and claim to understand it and all 3 as a result are in favour of its ratification."
"I found it tedious, contradictory, but also unintelligible in aspects, partly as it does indirectly refer to other text not in the proposed Treaty and I have not read all of them either!"
And you believe they are telling the truth? Why not quiz them on a few pointers you didn't understand referring to other treaties and see if they can explain it to you? Anyone want to give odds they can't? Not unless they are laywers.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat, @119
Heaps of stocks here alright for all occasions, fr coal to uranium indeed, but will it be helpful for anyone "in 30 yrs"?
Just saw a great programme (esp. for me because normal people are asleep). It said on Aug 11 1999 instruments recorded the first shift of the magnetic poles of the dear old planet having moved and that they move since that what is nasty at a growing rate. Northern Pole since that shifted 200 km and is in Canada of all places. What follows the change of magnetic poles of the earth nobody knows and how far they have to shift before water and earth follow them nobody knows either.
Other chaps in the prog. remembered of course that once upon a time there was Atlantis that plunged and Great Britain emerged instead, they are sort of antipodes, that things can move and plunge and emerge, and that the last time things moved in very un-lovely manner was 11.5 - 12 thousand yrs ago. For unknown reason.
But when land and oceans shifted it was at once, not much preparation, in days. Our Siberain mammoths (hairy elephants found frozen) got frozen 12 thousand yrs ago alive on the spot, with excellent green grass in their bellies found. And mammoths are found in an awful mix torn away to pieces like by a mighty hand, mixed with trees also torn away to pieces, it's a mammoth-trees mix, something swept tumbling all down very quickly and then they got frozen immediately after.
Then they nicely explained that 30 per cent of people have strangely chosen to live along the shores, and 14 capitals out of the world's 20 are also on the sea-side (incl. St. Petersburg). Whereas recommended places to be are great Siberian plateau and other great "plates" may be the Middle-Russian one will be alright as well. If there will be an alright place at all. From all this I concluded there is no point in fixing dacha on the shore of the Gulf of Finland.
Mavrelius - it was also mentioned that only 3 countries decided it's no use to try to slow the process down in the part of "what little depends on the humanity" - that is the USA, China and India. All the rest are properly worried and gathered for the first UN security counicil meeting on climate in 2007 initiated by Britain. Which reflects the degree of concern because normally the Security council sits down on the issues of wars.
A chap spoke who said all modern conflicts over which countries quarrel seem extraordinary weird because it's time to hold the hands and try to figure out together an action plan or something sensible. For the slow development scenario when there will be time to re-locate to safer places.
? May be one should start building a dacha in the middle of the Siberian plateau? Nobody there at the moment, as I understand.
Complain about this comment
On the other hand, if the Siberian mammoths are in such pityful condition, what's the point to build a dacha in the great Siberian plateau?
Complain about this comment
threnodio wrote:
#118 - democracythreat
"Nothing short of identifying myself is going to satisfy you that I do know of what I write and I have no intention of doing that so you are simply going to have to take my word for it. Of course I didn't read it like a novel. This is for the most part, a lay readership and I can see no point in attemting to 'blind people with science'. I would like to think it is still possible to pursuade without condescending."
I never said you were not to be taken at your word, Threnodio. If you read it, you read it. Fine.
But if you expect me to believe you UNDERSTAND it..... well, I am sorry, I doubt anyone can say that.
The problem is not that you may not be bright enough. The problem is that parts of the Lisbon treaty refer to things that are, axiomatically, either not defined yet, or secret, or ambiguous.... or a combination of all of the above.
Hence, to understand what is in the Lisbon treaty, you have to know a vast amount of the case law, which is where lawyers debate the many possible meanings of the treaty provisions. And you'd also have to know secret party policy, if you really claim to understand how the European central Bank operates.
Are you going to write to this "lay audience", including me, that you understand the provisions on how the ECB operates?
You dare not. For a start, it is written in VERY opaque language that the ECB is self regulating. The parliament, the "expert committees" and even the commission, none of them have any power to influence the ECB.
So how can you claim to "understand" what the ECB does, or what the extent of the provisions pertaining to the ECB really mean?
The only way you could possibly know is if you read AND UNDERSTOOD the huge body of case law.
Problem 1: NOT ALL CASE LAW IS REPORTED!
Problem 2: You'd need to have one masters degrees specializing in competition law, another in financial law, another in inter-governmental practice (public international law) and yet another in PRIVATE international law.
See, I am a pretty clever guy. A lot of folks tell me so, anyways. But I can't pretend to understand the treaty, anymore than I can pretend to understand the top science journals in biochemistry, particle physics, astronomy AND pure mathematics.
Do you know why?
The same reason one person cannot possibly invent something as complex as the helicopter, or video graphics chip. It is the manifestation of TOO MANY fields of expertise. One person can't do it.
That is the point. The lisbon treaty covers EVERYTHING. Everything from the police to human rights to defense to banking to competition law....... and it does all this in language that is specifically intended to refer power to the various institutions of the EU.
In other words, what the lisbon document does is set out BY WHOM power is to be administered under the new regime. It doesn't say how, and it certainly doesn't bother to explain who really controls these institutions. It is really not much more than a statement that says:
"THE LAW PERTAINING TO XXXXX WILL BE MADE BY YYYYY", and it says that over and over again.
Each time, the treaty takes a field of law and hands it over to another institution that has been created and staffed by the political parties who created the initial treaty document, and to whom EVERY commission president has belonged.
But the problem is that one cannot know what XXXXX field of law really means. That is to be defined by the ECJ, as it chooses from time to time. And you can't possibly know how the institution YYYYY will operate, because that could change at any time, by fiat of the commission.
I will give you an example, to demonstrate precisely what I mean.
Human rights. Right? Cool. We all like our human rights.
Well, the ECJ originally, and for more than 20 years, resolutely maintained that the original treaty creating the EEA did not mean to convey the power to adjudicate on human rights to the ECJ.
BUT... the ECJ held that it could make precedent with respect to any laws in Europe that involved tariffs and trade.
Then the German constitutional court questioned whether it was possible to be the highest authority in Europe with regards trade matters if you did not have the authority to take into account human rights law.
And that was a very fair point to make.
The ECJ got the point. They then decided that human rights WERE part of their jurisdiction. They interpreted the treaty to mean that human rights were exactly the business of the ECJ. So here you see the substance of the original treaty change.
And then.... the commission re-drafted the treaty to include more explicit references to humans rights. OK? So what you see here is one of the institutions of the EU increasing the terms of reference of power for another institution.
Do you see what I mean?
The treaty can't be understood because it is not solid. It is a liquid document. It is purposefully written as a liquid document. The words shift and move on the page as you read it. A certain provision could mean this, or it could mean that. This institution might do this, or maybe it might decide to do that.
The only thing that is certain is that each time the institutions act, they act to acquire more and more power unto themselves. The whole treaty operates like that. It is designed to transfer power, and the overriding purpose of the institutions of the EU is simply to transfer power.
Now I concede, the people in the EU think that if they have more power, that will be better for everybody. And who knows, maybe they are right.
But do not insult the intelligence of everybody here by calling them "laymen", and pretending to understand the lisbon treaty. It was not written to be read, and it certainly was not written to be understood. It was written as a means of transferring more power to brussels. It is one more revision of a trade treaty that was never ever intended to be "just a trade treaty".
In essence, that is the crowning fault of the EU: it is a deception. It started out as a simple free trade treaty, but it was never intended to be just a trade agreement. It has always had a secret agenda of transferring more and more power to the people who wrote the original trade treaty, and that process has always been underhand and secret. It has always been intended to deceive the people of europe, because the people cannot be trusted.
Only party members can be trusted, threnodio, and even some of those are not to be trusted with the whole story. Don't you know how the party operates? The people cannot be trusted to understand, you see, who are the real ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.
Only the people who control the parties know that.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII wrote:
ikea
"I have to admit complete admiration for greypolyglot, mathiasen and threnodio. ...... All 3 have read the Lisbon Treaty and claim to understand it and all 3 as a result are in favour of its ratification."
And you believe they are telling the truth?"
Marcus, your mind snaps shut like a steel trap, pinning down the essence of the idea with brutal, inescapable speed and precision.
Complain about this comment
I dont see the big deal about lisbon. Its good for the Eurohaters: it provides an exit-clause.
Complain about this comment
126. At 03:39am on 21 Jun 2009, Gheryando wrote:
"I dont see the big deal about lisbon. Its good for the Eurohaters: it provides an exit-clause."
We can leave now - any time we like. All the judges in Europe can form a choir and sing in chorus that we may not leave. The parrots in the zoo can sing along, the sea-lions can clap and Helmut Kohl can accompany it all on the Minoan butt-flute and we will still be able to leave.
Complain about this comment
If the iRISH CAN GET A GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL BE NO CONSCRIPTION OF THEIR YONG ME
If the Irish can get a guarantee that there will be no conscription of their young men into a "European Army" can we have a similar one for the UK?
Complain about this comment
@115 AliceInWonderLand
I thank you for the invitation to switch on the said TVs. Unfortunately I missed this opportunity. What remains as consolation is to go back to my souvenirs where Alexander Grin novels /and the film *Scarlet sails* with Anastassia Vertinskaya starring/ were in vogue in my country.
This said, I still admire all those Alexander Grins imaginary and paradisiacal worlds where science fiction and reality were mixed up in a very poetic, very Russian and sensitive way. /Zolotaya tzep, Blistayushtij mir, Scarlet sails, Begutchaya po volnam, etc. are all excellent examples of the Russian genius literature works/. What a pity that Grin is virtually unknown in the West. And who will have the courage to translate in English or in French his magnificent and poetic stories?
In 1994 I visited Grins grave in the midway between Sympheropol and Feodossya, and I knelt for a couple of minutes before the little silver monument representing a young girl running on the sea waves
Thank you, dear Alice. Whatever is going to happen, you will have always at least one blogger here who will adequately respond to your posts, no matter how they would seem to others strange and out of the context.
Vladimir, or Volodia, or Volodotshka, as you like it
Complain about this comment
Since MM has mentioned expansion of EU membership...
It doesn't look like Greenland would be interested. :-)
Complain about this comment
#116
Yes, there is little at present to stop the European Union being blackmailed enormously by Russia or the gas transit countries.
The Energy Charter treaty is proving ineffective, perhaps the Lisbon Treaty will do better.
Complain about this comment
"#114. ikamaskeip:
I have to admit complete admiration for greypolyglot, mathiasen and threnodio."
Would I be wrong to suppose that this statement is sarcastic?
The Lisbon Treaty is easier if you read the consolidated version. Nonetheless, I have to agree with its detractors that it was not written in a style that helps understanding by the general reader. Sadly, the style overshadows the content for all but the most persistent lay-reader and those poor souls who have the misfortune to be used to that sort of thing.
Before any of you ask, no, since I am not a spokesman for the EU I'm not.going to give explanations or interpretations. If you don't understand something try googling "europa treaty of lisbon".
Complain about this comment
threnodio #117 and greyployglot 132.
LOL!
I'm sorry, but, LOL again!
Complain about this comment
#124 - democracythreat
You points are perfectly valid. Of course there are vast areas which are open to interpretation and the multitude of cross references to other legislation, regulations, treaties and case law are numerous. A document such as this is a living thing, not as some would have us believe an arid statement of complex facts. Like all law, it will move in a liguid way to take up the shape of the circumstances which prevail in any given set of circumstances or at any particular time. Some will find this sinister, others that it is the essence of well written law.
So I will bow to you in this one respect. To post that "I have read it and understood it" is possibly a touch arrogant but I was responding to a post from someone who has arrogance, prejudice and self-importance down to fine art. Like you, I get angry.
Perhaps I should have posted that I have studied it in great detail with an informed and critical eye including following the external references where I believe them to be important and consider that I have arrived at a clear understanding of what it is, what it sets out to do, how it intends to achieve this. It would not be an exaggeration to say that this results in a fairly sophisticated understanding of the whole. I hope this satisfies you - if not, I am sorry but it is as far as I am prepared to go.
One thing does confuse me. Along with ikamaskeip, you have picked up on MAII's quote that ". . . all 3 as a result are in favour of its ratification." That makes three of you now. I repeat, where and when have I ever posted that I am in favour of it?
Complain about this comment
euroscot [#116] wrote:
Yes, there is little at present to stop the European Union being blackmailed enormously by Russia or the gas transit countries.
It's worth pointing out that Kremlin has forced Turkmenistan - whose gas it sells to EU as its own after doubling or tripling its purchase price
- to abandon plans to hook up to Baku-Erzurum pipeline, which bypasses Russia, going through Georgia to Turkey.
The same goes for Kazakhstan's plans (now also willy nilly abandoned by Astana) to transport its oil directly to EU market by connecting to Baku-Ceyhan pipeline ( bypassing Russia's territory as well).
Moreover, Moscow objects strongly to building of Nabucco pipeline (Southern Stream), which it also couldn't control.
Guess why.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and others: It is clearly possible for a country to leave the EU without Lisbon. Greenland did it already. All that Lisbon does is to codify conditions on those who might leave in future, which are actually tough conditions that exclude them from decisions in a two-year period leading up to exit.
Lisbon has no redeeming features. Everything in it is negative. It is about centralising political power in Brussels in institutions that your vote cannot reach. A vote on Lisbon is a vote about your vote; whether to make it weaker or not. If you vote for Lisbon your vote will get weaker and weaker over time, until it only decides which party sends ministers to Europe and return to tell you that you have to live under new European laws you never wanted and cannot change no matter how you vote in future. If you vote for Lisbon you are voting to turn those that you elect from your representative into the representative of Brussels to you.
----------------------
"Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." (Thomas Jefferson)
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip et al.
Just so that I can be clear. Have you read the Treaty and disagree with it or do you disagree with it without reading it?
Complain about this comment
democracythreat #118 and #124.
It is heartbreakingly touching really! Isn't it?
You take 3 chaps at their word day-on-day, week-on-week, month-by-month, but all the time you just instinctively know someone is going to coming up with reality in clear terms.
I knew it was time when I first clapped eyes on Mr Mardell's Article Headline: 'LISBON: A PANDORA'S BOX'.
I did resist for awhile, honest I did, but as I repeatedly read on this Blog how I again 'misunderstood' and they 'understood' and how most of us, if we would only access that simple little thing, Lisbon, then we would come to the EU debate table replete with knowledge and our empty minds requited, I knew it was pointless to resist any longer.
Now, I've even got them advising me how to use IT and the consolidated version of Lisbon is so much more user-friendly!
Amongst all that intellectuality no one got my fishy tale!?
Thank goodness, no one was hooked completely; none is going to actually attempt explanations or interpretations of Lisbon as that would be just too singularly and signally provocative bait to allow unchallenged.
Well, must go on - - other fish to fry...
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot and #137.
Give it up mate!
If it's any comfort - - You are now honorary member of the Lake Inari chuckle n charm club - - it's 24 hour sunlight, mid-summer's day, but in the deep, dark winter we shall fondly gather around the camp fire and remember our times with you in Lisbon!
Complain about this comment
# 137 greypolyglot:
"Just so that I can be clear. Have you read the Treaty and disagree with it or do you disagree with it without reading it?"
As an exercise in logic: how much of a text one needs to read to disagree with it? Would you regard it as a sufficient condition for "no" vote if one disagrees with a single article of the treaty? And, if so, what is the point in reading the rest of it?
Complain about this comment
#140 - fragility
Finally someone hits the nail on the head! Some others are so busy trying to set traps for people who do have specialist knowledge in the field that they entirly neglect the core question. Most voters out there do not have a sophisticated understanding of the law. How can you expect them to come to a judgment as to whether or not they are in favour?
Catch 22. Give the people the referendum they want then whine that you got the wrong result because they did not understand it or don't give them a referendum and stand accused of being undemocratic. This is where the EU has failed spectacularly. They need a clear and unambiguous statement of their constitutional intentions on which reasonable voters can form an informed opinion and offer it to all the people.
Unfortunately, some posters here have become so obsessed with trying to belittle those of us who have studied it that they have not addressed my very simple question -
Where and when did I ever say I was in favour of Lisbon?
Maybe it's not such an easy question because I never have said it.
Complain about this comment
#135
Thanks for the comments powermeerkat.
The Energy Charter Treaty was drawn up to prevent the instability we are seeing just now. Moreover events are showing that the European Union is becoming even more vulnerable to energy blackmail. And Russia wants to ditch the Energy Charter Treaty.
So it's time for a new approach - the Lisbon Treaty?
EUObserver
Complain about this comment
The logical step forward, in the process of EU unification, is to agree the constitution. What is EU without constitution? The same as any country before the constitution, unconstituted. The same as WTO, UN, etc. Just a common market, not enough that one could say in satisfaction of it's ordinary people.
It is true the EU has been functioning also well without constitution. But that is exactly the situation, which some would have liked to see as a fortress against the danger of constitution, which moves the politicians closer to being out of hands. On the basis of which document, or unwritten agreement, is EU functioning today? That is the former USSR situation, to keep functioning, until it last, on the basis of some superfluous protocols, with plenty of room for various misinterpretations.
The constitution is the only mean which would secure the democracy in the EU, freedom of each particular individuum in the EU. The problem is only of intelectual nature, of finding and recognizing the reason, also right people.
Complain about this comment
#143 bonybbony:
"The constitution is the only mean which would secure the democracy in the EU, freedom of each particular individuum in the EU."
Many european individuals are currently quite satisfied with the level of freedom and democracy that they enjoy within the perimeter of their national border without interference of the EU superdemocrats.
Complain about this comment
" #140. fragility:
Would you regard it as a sufficient condition for "no" vote if one disagrees with a single article of the treaty? And, if so, what is the point in reading the rest of it?"
Agreed. So how far did you get and what's your sticking point?
Complain about this comment
" #139. ikamaskeip:
greypolyglot and #137.
Give it up mate!
If it's any comfort - - You are now honorary member of the Lake Inari chuckle n charm club"
Crikey, that's a long way from Pieksamaki!
Complain about this comment
#143 - bonybbony
This is, of course, the problem with a constitution - any constitution. This is a massive generalisation I know but, by and large, nations, peoples, governments - whatever - create and enact constitutions for the best possible reasons. At the time, they honestly believe that they are establishing a framework for the lawful and ligitimate governance 'by the people, of the people, for the people'. They can be simple, elegant documents such as the US Constitution which anyone would sign up for on a good day. But in it's clarity and simplicity, it has sometimes seemed naive requiring no fewer than 27 amendments in its short history.
The other side of the coin is that all the vested interests come to the table and have their concerns taken into account and the outcome is something so complex that it becomes meaningless to many a normal voter and therefore irrelevant. I have been suprised since coming to Eastern Europe to note how some countries thought to start again only to discover that their original constitution were actually pretty good.
A constitution is only as good as the people who operate it at the time. Politicians are all too willing to adjust, amend and sometimes to pervert. Lawyers commonly connive in this process but that is, after all, their job.
Ultimately, the only legitimate limits to what can be done with a constitution rests with the requirement to constantly to refer back to the only body which can give it legitimacy on an ongoing basis - the people. This is why, despite our recent spats, I agree whole heartedly with democracythreat about the value of direct democracy and why I continue to endorse oldnat's view about vesting sovereignty in the people, not their elected representatives. It is also the basis of my disagreement with the Lisbon process. My problem is not that it is necessarily profoundly bad but that it has been arrived at by a process of horse trading during the course of which the original thinking has become totally obscured by the sheer volume of words. Could any reasonable person be expected to pu their hand on a holy book and swear an oath of allegiance to it with a clear concience?
Lisbon is a constitution by another name and that, in itself, is dishonest. I would like to see Lisbon fall not because of the intent, which was honourable, but because of the way in which it has been allowed to morph into something it was never intended to be by people who put their political objectives ahead of principle. It is entirely possible to be pro-EU and opposed to Lisbon - something which some contributors here seem to find hard to grasp.
Sadly, this all plays very neatly into the hands of EU opponents who cite these ongoing problems as symptomatic of a systemic malaise but fail to accept that you can address it by wholesale reform. It is the equivalent of ruling out major surgery because you do not want the patient to survive at all.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat @135 "Guess why". Because Nabukko is competitor to our South Stream, easy. Both pipes, for part of their gas "source", would rely on the same Middle Asia quarters.
With all respect, the EU will never have the same "handles" that Russia does have, that can be applied to Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, to make them decide to what pipe to sell their gas to.
The "handle" is their citizens on visa-free travel, work, FOC study in all types of educ. establishments in Russia. In Russian, which they know.
When the EU decides it can accommodate 4-5 million extra people arriving as gasterbeiters from Middle Asia, and gives them double citizenship in 2 months' time - then you will be able to compete with Russia, for Kazakh and Turkmen gas.
It's competition. Any EU country can decide to pick up the cost on Middle Asia arrivals on your social and educ. system, and then be able to convince these countries to sell the gas to Nabukko. On one thing you lose, on another you gain.
Complain about this comment
threnodio and #141.
Re, "..where and when did I ever say I was in favour of Lisbon.."
Well, you came fairly close a few times, especially 3.57pm 26 May '09 in point 4 of your comment on 'In the Bag for Barroso'.
That said, I concede you have always predicated your 'EU enthusiast' contributions with cautions/admonishments of the EU and the Heads of National Governments failing to provide a clear Treaty and lack of affording Citizens' opportunity (i.e. your 'referenda') to express their support or otherwise.
All that said, you and the other 'pros' really do set yourselves up at times for a debunking!
I'm sorry, but, to be ad infinitum told because I, others and anyone whoever Voted 'no' or wrote negatively on the EU that as 'anti-EU/Lisbon' we do not 'understand' something from the 'pro' lobby perspective gets more than a little tiresome after the umpteenth time!
Frankly, you and others may or may not have read Lisbon, but, it is a farce to imply as some of your 'pro-EU' do that as we do not read it all then much like we do not Vote we must be simpletons.
Reading all EU Documentation from cover to cover will not make any difference.
It is my considered opinion supported by the copious evidence of the European Union's conduct in its affairs that is a dangerously undemocratic instrument of pan-European power:
1) I do not support a supra-national institution whose Constitution is as 'unwritten' as the UK one (it is changing with every passing moment) yet with minimal checks or balances that even so can be over-ridden by a superior Court entirely outside Executive or Citizen control.
2) I do not support a supra-national body with least of all Public accountability and those that do are dangerously deluded.
3) I do not support those that think/believe the EU can be altered from within its own regulatory/validatory processes and systems; they are even more dangerously out of touch with reality. In only its 40 to 50 year history the EU has demonstrated time and again complete and utter disregard for the Citizens it purports to represent.
4) I do not support those who actively work within the EU as there is clearly no agenda but the Federalised project. For which they willingly subvert the common will, importune the rights and responsibilities of Citizens won over centuries, and negate at every and all opportunity legitimate opposition.
"..Catch 22.." Is to the power of 10 within the EU: Big business reigns supreme backed by Political interests and a Legal system that has reverted at every stage to the Feudal era.
Too much license you say!
Well, if you are indeed a Villein with a legal claim for redress and somehow manage to get beyond your Reeve (Councillor), your Knight (MP), your Lords (National Court of Appeal), to the Royal Court (European Parliament), to Clergy (Commission) and thence to the Monarch (European Court of Justice) what do you find?
A decision will be made by a body who have absolutely no idea, concern, interest, understanding, mental or physical appreciation of your Status as a Villein: Indeed they are so far removed from your lifestyle that they will pronounce judgement in a foreign language to which you have no access and no way of responding.
Poor, lowly mortal, off you go - - there are weighty matters of globalised business needing our attention - - far better you apply to the ducking stool or ordeal by fire for you have as much chance of a fair hearing and result!
Complain about this comment
#149 - ikamaskeip
Now I really must protest -
". . . you and others may or may not have read Lisbon, but, it is a farce to imply . . . that as we do not read it all then much like we do not Vote we must be simpletons".
If I was ever reduced to the level of "some of your 'pro-EU'", I would simply give up. I do not insult either the opinions or the intelligence of those who disagree with me and I have generally treated you and your views with the utmost respect.
Weel OK, maybe Marcus but, since we are no longar allowed to be unspeakable in the pursuit of the uneatable, it is the closest I get to field sports these days.
Complain about this comment
#145 greypolyglot:
"Agreed. So how far did you get and what's your sticking point?"
Isn't there a clause that abandons the unanimity principle in deciding further changes in EU legislation? If this is the case, the the rest of the treaty is entirely meaningless, at least for the Irish people since any article can be changed over night without them having any opportunity to veto the change.
Complain about this comment
" #139. ikamaskeip:
Give it up mate!"
That's hardly a straight answer.
Do you disagree with the Treaty without having read it or do you disagree with it because you have read it?
If it's the former I don't really need to comment. If it's the latter may I ask which was the sticking point for you?
Complain about this comment
#147. threnodio
The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung had (yesterday) two direct remarks to Lisbon process: The paper writes that the procedure of asking the Irish for a second time is dubious, but then adds that is the way things are in the EU.
At least the second observation is correct. We can imagine a handful of other procedures e.g. such where a little fraction of voters in one country would not have more influence than 100 times the number of voters in another country, but it remains ideas.
More European newspapers expect the matter to be settled in the autumn. The alternative to Lisbon will be a major crisis, and an acceleration of the development of a Union in increasingly different tempos, I suppose.
I doubt this will benefit Ireland. FAZ writes that the crisis has learned more to cherish the value of the EU. [Some are diehards of course :-) ] We will know within some months.
Complain about this comment
#152. greypolyglot wrote:
" #139. ikamaskeip:
Give it up mate!"
That's hardly a straight answer.
Do you disagree with the Treaty without having read it or do you disagree with it because you have read it?
If it's the former I don't really need to comment. If it's the latter may I ask which was the sticking point for you?
______________________
I have to remind you that in #145 you agreed that there is no need to read the entire Treaty text to disagree with it.
Complain about this comment
#153 - Mathiasen
What worries more that anything is that the longer this carries on, the more polarised the debate becomes. Attitudes have hardened on both sides and people who were arguing 12 months ago for a radical retreat back to a free trade organisation now want to leave altogether while people like me, who natuarally dislike Lisbon and the way they arrived at it will accept it rather than watch the whole project disintegrate. In the middle are the great number of people who simply do not know or do not care and therefore did not vote. This is being seized on by both sides - the sceptics interpreting it as hostility and the enthusiatsts as a licence to go ahead. More compromises, more horse trading, more chance that nobody will end up with what they want.
Barosso may have his second term but in a few months, he could have a very different commission to deal with. The EU needs a severe shock. The elections did not deliver it. Maybe Ireland will.
FAZ is, I would say, the German answer to The Telegraph, which is noticably more stridently eurosceptic of late. The Times (Die Welt?) is cooler. I know the media tend to follow the readership rather than lead but this, too is worrying. I think those who fear that the EU project will end with 'blood on the streets' are very wrong but it could simply wither through lack of interest. That, of course, would play straight into the hands of the bureaucracy.
Complain about this comment
#148, WebAliceinwonderland
Russia has all the cards, therefore forget the Lisbon Treaty.
Up to a point.
For example last years behaviour in Georgia provoked wide condemnation. And in April, Russia floated plans for a new global treaty on trade in energy in an attempt to consign to history an earlier pact, the 1991 Energy Charter Treaty. Not many takers though.
Gazprom has had to cancel proposals for infrastructure spending because of the economic downturn. This decline was aggravated recently when Moscow was outmanoeuvred by Beijing securing supplies from gas-rich Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. China is therefore less dependent on Russia for gas, leaving Europe as a key customer.
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland wrote re #135:
With all respect, the EU will never have the same "handles" that Russia does have, that can be applied to Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, to make them decide to what pipe to sell their gas to.
That is exactly the point I'm making. If there had been any solidarity within EUSRR, its energy sources would have been diversified long time ago and its dependence on shipments from and through Russia would have been greately diminished.
And no offence, but nobody in Central and Eastern Europe believes that Moscow is huggling with Ukraine and Belarus because Russian Federation desperately needs money; most people I've talked to think that in the absence of former military power, Kremlin is simply using oil&gas weapon
to bully those former Soviet Republics into rejoing Mother Russia.
Which may well happen since EU v. likely won't do anything to prevent it being a paper tiger it is.
Complain about this comment
@fragility (144)
So your's saying is let's go back to the basic level of unification. All those wishes for having a competitive and powerful umbrella were just dreams. Who the hell wants the EU!
I don't see what could be better for organizing a large number of individuals, even larger than it is now in their national borders, but the democratic constitution. All else, like the present situation with EU, is worse, undemocratic. - Whether or no having democracy within particular national or rural borders.
Complain about this comment
threnodio:
" One thing does confuse me. Along with ikamaskeip, you have picked up on MAII's quote that ". . . all 3 as a result are in favour of its ratification." That makes three of you now. I repeat, where and when have I ever posted that I am in favour of it?"
Fair call. To my knowledge, you never did. I was only quoting the whole thing because iamskeptic made a point I wanted to second: It is outrageous that people in favour of the EU claim to understand the lisbon treaty when they can't articulate what it contains.
I even thought, at the time of reading it, that it was a bit odd for him to lump you into that company. I am aware that you have more complex views on the matter. So I probably should have said something to make that clear. Sorry.
By the way, surely the better word is "inedible", rather than "uneatable"?
Have you been hanging out with marcus offline?
Complain about this comment
@70 fragility
In my example the congress wouldn't be voting to change the law but, to possibly, undo it. Are they allowed to do that? And still my example stands, why is it okay for the US congress to vote twice on the same law in a short amount of time but not okay for the Irish to vote twice on the same treaty?
@101 Freeborn John
I did not mention it for two reasons. The procedure you highlight (i) applies to something else, i.e. EU Commission legislative proposals to the Council of Ministers (which is not the EU Council that consists of heads of government that would decide using the 'passerelle clause')
First off we weren't talking about the passerelle clause (which is article 48) but we were talking about article 308. Second the article clearly states that the commission must follow the procedure I described in my previous post.
But hey now that we're talking about the 'passerelle clause' let's a take a closer look at it.
The passerelle clause has multiple procedures, the first procedure is no different then the procedure used to ratify any of the treaties so far.
The second procedure is the 'simplified procedure', the simplified procedure is not to be used to increases (or decrease) the competences of the EU, but only to change the internal workings of the EU institutions. For example changing the voting in the Council from unanimity to QMV. Now fragility doesn't like this clause (see #151) I can understand why he doesn't like it but I'm guessing he doesn't know the procedure required to get rid unanimity. Not only does it require unanimity in the Council to change the voting to QMV, every national parliament has a veto on the issue. So it requires unanimity in the council AND amongst the national parliaments.
Eh, it's not as scary as you make it out to be... far from it.
Complain about this comment
@trenodio (147)
"no fewer than 27 amendments in its short history"
In the former USSR the answer for all the headaches would be: let's put this matter to discussion. It has been the important prejudice of the system. Solutions could allegedly emerge at the meetings, in the environments of shared or, better to say, nobody's responsibility. That is also the picture, in my opinion, of today's situation with the EU.
I don't think the constitution and any amendment should be a collective work. At least the history of democracy, begining with Solon's constitution of Athens, has proven the opposite. (Worth of mention is the lack of one Peisistratos in EU, which usually comes in pair with Solon.)
If there has been no intelectual capacity in EU for stating a simple and acceptable constitution, then it would have been better to abandon further supporting and maintaning that sluggish and, as far as democracy is concerned, potentially dangerous mastodon.
Complain about this comment
euroscot wrote:
" This decline was aggravated recently when Moscow was outmanoeuvred by Beijing securing supplies from gas-rich Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. China is therefore less dependent on Russia for gas, leaving Europe as a key customer."
Yeah, that is a curious situation. But remember, we are talking about a market, not a birthday party. Nobody is being offered a free lunch by either Russia, the various Stahns, or China. They are all buying and selling, at the end of the day. They need to turn up to the table, and trade what they have to offer.
And China is going to run out of coal within 50 years. That is probably the biggest story in the energy world. Germany running out of coal is curious, as this will cripple the EU's ability to power itself even partially, but China running out of coal is even bigger news. That simply because China produces and uses about 2500 million tons of coal every year, compared to germany's 200 million tonnes.
Now poland has some coal, but they only produce about 150 million tonnes, and they export only 20 million tonnes a year, with reserves to last about 90 years. So if they increase their production to supply germany as well as themelves, they cut their reserve life to roughly 30 years. And to put China into perspective, if Poland were to supply china, their reserves would last 6 years.( ie: (150*90)/2500)
So Russia can afford to watch the market and watch the chinese run out of coal, and they can afford to let the various stahns have a share of the marketplace. After all, remember how cartels operate. Nobody makes money by having a price war and fighting with the competition. the customer saves money in a price war. Cartels form (think OPEC) when producers group together to protect their mutual interests.
So I doubt that Russia is worried about losing influence in central Asia. They are the only power who doesn;t need what those countries have, and therefore they are the only power who can be trusted not to colonize them in order to take it from them. Furthermore, Russia has the military industrial capacity to protect those countries from colonization.
So, ask youself the basic questions. Put yourself in the shoes of a man from one of the stahns. Do want to do a deal with Europe and China, both of whom need what you can sell to them at a huge profit, or do you want to do a deal with mother russia, who understands your situation and who can assist you to get top dollar in the market, and who can protect you from desperate neighbours?
Germany is building a pipeline to russia because Germany understands why Germany has been the industrial powerhouse of Europe for two hundred years: coal. Fossil fuels. Energy supply to factories.
France cannot protect its remaining colonies in Africa, and Germany knows that. Russia doesn't care what France does, because as long as Germany and China are running out of coal, the future is secure.
The grave problem for Europe is that a bunch of ignorant losers want to keep expanding the empire without expanding the energy supply potential. They are trying to rewrite history, and to win the battle of stalingrad, and take control of the caucus oil reserves. But Hitler lost that battle, and no amount of fancy language from Brussels is going to turn back the clock.
It follows that the UK is well served to stay in touch with continental Europe, but to stay OUT of the economic predicament it faces. As part of the US empire, continental europe remains a marketplace that needs energy and supplies, just like China. And as that reality becomes more and more obvious to Europeans, the farce of European trade tariffs is going to be laid bare.
The EU has been dictating trade terms to the world, and protecting the internal markets of Europe at the expense of external regions such as Russia. They have been threatening the UK, Switzerland and other small european states with their size and economic clout. But that is all going to unravel, and pretty soon the EU will break apart, as the small state realize that they need to cut a deal for power or face life as part of a large, economically prostrate french empire.
The germans have been the first to blink, and they are cutting and running from the field. It is called the Nord Stream.
Complain about this comment
According to Wikipedia "The Treaty of Lisbon adds explicit sentences stating that combating climate change and global warming are targets of the Union."
I wonder if that implies that those of us who do not believe in the popular and politically correct cimat models should vote "no"?
Complain about this comment
#155 - Threnodio
I only read the Frankfurter Allgemeine occasionally, but I believe we can rely on one thing: FAZ is not Euro sceptic. The paper writes in its leader:
Since the Tories in the UK are not governing yet, it must not be feared that the entire theatre with a British referendum will start over again.
The Czech president is retarding his signature, he probably hopes Gordon Brown will fail. The friendship among conservatives is something for advanced students.
Complain about this comment
151. fragility:
Isn't there a clause that abandons the unanimity principle in deciding further changes in EU legislation? If this is the case, the the rest of the treaty is entirely meaningless, at least for the Irish people since any article can be changed over night without them having any opportunity to veto the change."
Although there is no "unanimity principle in deciding further changes in EU legislation" there some areas where Member States do exercise a veto. However, many issues are already decided by Qualified Majority Voting.
Qualified majority voting, as opposed to unanimity, has long been the way that decisions are taken at the European level. Lisbon increases the number of areas for QMV. The counter to QMV is the "blocking minority" which requires the agreement of several States. QMV exists because the more participants there are to a debate or vote the more unlikely it is that unanimity can or will be achieved.
National Parliaments don't require unanimity before taking decisions. In many places e.g. the UK a simple majority is all that's needed. National elections don't require the unanimity of the electorate is deciding which party or coalition gets to run a country.
If you don't like or trust EU texts on the subject try one from the Irish. Google "EU Reform Treaty/pdf08-white-paper_english.pdf" to find it
Complain about this comment
To greypolyglot and all and sundry.
Actually, I did mention before I had not read all of Lisbon, but, in truth I have been through its pages: As I also said earlier, I found it tedious, contradictory, and the constant referrals to other EU documents/Treaties etc. made it impossibly complex.
If you and sundry others are seriously telling us you have allocated each 'new wording' to the 'deletions' of the 74 or so other EU legislation that Lisbon mentions then I seriously wonder what makes you tick!?
As the Lisbon Treaty has its genesis in Maastricht and the defunct EU Constitution I fundamentally disagree with the Lisbon Treaty from Article 1 through to Article 64 plus its Declarations and Protocols.
The only qualification to the above is that within its content are parts of Articles referring to the dim and distant past whereby I and the rest of the UK/England Citizens were invited to vote to join a reciprocal pan-European Duty/Trade Tariff, Travel and Transport Union which would reduce international tension and thereby the likelihood of a 3rd general European Civil War.
I would happily have the UK/England revert to only those areas of Union and happily encourage/allow the rest of Europe's Citizens to do whatever pleases them in the political theatre of life.
Furthermore, given the right atmosphere I would easily encourage/agree to referenda allowing Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish to remain/rejoin that EU so favoured by the mainland.
What I will never encourage/accept/allow is that England should become a cog in the corrupt, venal, undemocratic institution that presently calls itself the European Union, but, in point of fact is the de facto EUrocratic dictatorship of self-serving big business and self-aggrandizing petty-Politicians.
I note that neither you nor any of the other 'pro-EU' have answered my previous query: Why, if as alleged in comments over recent months, the Irish 'No' Voters were misled about the content of Lisbon those same Irish have been awarded 3 Protocols on the areas they apparently had misunderstood? Surely not even the irremediable EU Commission and 27 National leaders would waste weeks and months of their time negotiating non-existent issues to satisfy a few thousand 'misled' punters from Eire!?
Complain about this comment
" #154. fragility:
I have to remind you that in #145 you agreed that there is no need to read the entire Treaty text to disagree with it."
Yes. But I'd expect any reasonable person to get so far and then, at some point, say "I can't agree with this point so there's no need to read further."
So far no one here has said "I got to Art whatever, found that I couldn't agree with it and stopped there." It all seems to be a sort of generalised "I don't like the EU", "the EU is undemocratic", etc. without anyone citing any particular Article of anything and saying "this isn't for me".
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8111662.stm
EU is paying for gas with debt and printed money out of thin air.. Ukraine too is paying with printed money out of thin air..
will Russia sell its resources for nothing, like the sell Alaska?
gas is a future's generations resource that russia is selling to EU in exchange of some paper which will be worthless few years from now, and now IMF bonds are a mockery..
in the end russia will end up buying IMF by giving West its gas.. since IMF bonds are worthless..
a safe investment is develop own country, own people, not invest in paper and debt, which is worthless...
if all russians dont live a good life today, and have gas in own homes.. then EU cannot have gas..
someone must pay for the overall happiness.
Complain about this comment
" #166. At 7:33pm on 21 Jun 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
What I will never encourage/accept/allow is that England should become a cog in the corrupt, venal, undemocratic institution that presently calls itself the European Union, but, in point of fact is the de facto EUrocratic dictatorship of self-serving big business and self-aggrandizing petty-Politicians."
Ah me. Really this says all that you have to say on the subject. Why post anything else? Just keep repeating this mantra time after time.
Complain about this comment
167,
why? 'I dont like EU because of its corruption', it is enough to say 'NO'
i dont need to read a piece of this treaty, when i see EU corruption in everyday life.. therefore i trust what i see, not what they tell me in this treaty.
a corrupt elite cannot convince anyone about fighting it with this treaty. deal with it.. and accept the truth.
telling dreams is easy for liers, not for people who work hard everyday, and see their savings robbed off by the elites, see their tax-money missused, and their vote a democratic right abused.
Complain about this comment
if the elites and their spoiled bureaucrats are not corrupt and fearful of public why they dont go out there in the middle of the people and take lectures on the Lisbon treaty, and how good EU is.
they will see first hand public anger, and we will see how deattached they are from the public. they never meet people and media is their only friend.
go to the people and you will see first hand how much they like EU.
hiding in Brussels and living a big brother life with security all time around have done these elites fearful.
how many of them have manipulated personal careers, and inflated with someone else merits?
run a scan on them all and you will find out they are not clean.
how many private deals abusing their positions they have in and outside EU?
Complain about this comment
The Lisbon Treaty/EUSSR project is an attempt to create a Club based on geography and race, to challenge a very successful club - Planet English - that was not based on geography (Obama is proving that it was neither based on race). With globalization rampant like never before in human history, the EUSSR is defying a defining megatrend of the times. Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool, and Chelsea have become the most successful Clubs in Europe not by defining themselves by geography or race. Capitals and Clubs that succeed do so by allowing the numbers who believe in them to grow. The moment they attempt to prevent entry, based on reasons like the EUSSR is defining itself with, is a telltale sign of the end of growth. And if Lisbon is a proxy for Latin Europe to control the agenda, it sure will end like the USSR did, with millions flocking to Planet English - as all previous failed attempts to create EUSSRs over the last 233 years. We need a perfect plan to capitalise on that moment to build an even greater/larger Planet English.
Complain about this comment
Yep!
There it is again!
Feeling that superiority surge again!?
Do tell us all: When did you ever contribute to the debate about the EU something other than positive views of how wonderful it all is? Of course you stand up for your side and rightly so.
Look, you are entitled to your view but please do not presume to tell anyone else how they must contribute.
For someone who claims to 'understand' so much try to understand that yours is only 1 among many viewpoints expressed on these Blog Articles: It is not my fault that you didn't get the Lisbon Treaty 'fishing' exercise I indulged last evening and just thought of 'sarcasm'.
I have often used the terminology of my #166 alongside many other comments explaining, validating, describing how I have reached my conclusions on the EU inc. in the #166 from which you choose the piece to suit yourself.
Go on, do give us the quotes that mark out your contribution as being so much more worthy: You are 'pro-EU' and we who are 'anti-EU' accept that fact, but, do not agree with you and try to explain our viewpoint.
You, on the other hand, are so intellectually gifted that on numerous occasions you are unable to stop yourself from commenting on how much more you understand than us mere mortal Citizens.
Honestly, it is funny!
We write about Lisbon Treaty and you demand if we have read all of it: We honestly reply 'no', and enquire have you? And, if you have how was that possible when you need to have numerous other documents to hand?
The silence is deafening.
You ask if we have specific points we do not agree with about Lisbon and we give examples: You then claim, yet again, we have misunderstood those bits!
We reply if you understand it so well how come you are able to do so without the links to previous EU Legislation and apparently such is your intellectual capacity you can recall infinite detail whenever and wherever required!
I repeat, it is funny - - do you not get it at all - - of course I write the basic words venal, corrupt, undemocratic because that is what the explanations of my viewpoint are about.
You just keep to your 4 May mantra how the EU is the subject of 'scurrilous' allegations by 'anti-EU' people like me: Despite your inability to quote how Article 1 through 60 does anything other than create an EU Constitution for which there is no Public mandate at all. Really you should worry that you are unable to actually offer any evidence of how the Lisbon Treaty will materially improve the lives of any European Citizen whilst page after page of it demonstrably increases the authority and power of the EU.
Complain about this comment
#162
Thanks for the comments, democracy threat.
I think they boil down to essential points such as energy drives economies and the government of Britain should do what's best for the country.
On energy security 'WebAliceinwonderland' thought that Russia had all the cards. However through the Lisbon Treaty the EU might be able to act together and counter that perceived advantage.
Complain about this comment
#159 - democracythreat
"By the way, surely the better word is "inedible", rather than "uneatable"?
Have you been hanging out with marcus offline?"
You would have thought so wouldn't you but it is actually a direct quote from Oscar Wilde and he knew a thing or two about English. Interesting you should connect MAII with that line of thought though. The original MA and Oscar had something else in common didn't they? I wonder.
Complain about this comment
#166 - ikamaskeip
"Surely not even the irremediable EU Commission and 27 National leaders would waste weeks and months of their time negotiating non-existent issues to satisfy a few thousand 'misled' punters from Eire!?"
No they wouldn't and if a few more nations had not rolled over to have their tummies tickled, Lisbon could have been a very different animal. But it is what it is and if you want to put the skids under it, someone is going to have to engineer the downfall of the Brown gpvernment before October.
Complain about this comment
euroscot wrote:
"I think they boil down to essential points such as energy drives economies and the government of Britain should do what's best for the country."
I wouldn't use a word like "should" with a concept such as "the government of Britain". The government of britain is run by political parties. If the quid pro quo is that the members of these parties will inherit more power unto themselves and their party by selling the long term interests of both the people of the UK and the people of Europe down the drain, I fully expect these people to do just that.
To understand my perspective, you must understand that I view political parties as interchangeable mechanisms for the management of tribal power. The political party is a distinct and extremely curious evolution of the religious organization. Where the religious organization had god, the political party had the nation state. Both are convenient fictions, rallying points and guests lists for the privileged members of the flock.
Now it may be that the corporate wealth of the UK is not inclined to follow the tribal congregation of continental conservative parties. If so, then perhaps the conservative tribe in the UK will put their own interests in a separate category to the interests of the continental conservatives. And it may well be that, as a result, the people of the UK are well served. But in my view that would be a happy accident, because no tribe acts for the benefit of anybody except the leaders of that tribe.
To believe otherwise is to have faith in the words of people whom experience has taught me, to my great personal cost, are pathological liars and cheats. To believe the fine words of party members is to ignore every sensible maxim concerning power itself, and to be utterly ignorant of the historical reality of human society.
I will believe in vengeful and yet loving god before I will believe in a truthful and yet selfless politician. If you are going to make a sucker bet, at least you ought demand a large payout should you win.
euroscot then wrote:
"On energy security 'WebAliceinwonderland' thought that Russia had all the cards. However through the Lisbon Treaty the EU might be able to act together and counter that perceived advantage."
How? Sounds great. But how does it work?
See, you have all these western european states with no energy reserves. You claim that they are all better off by grouping together and negotiating with Russia. But how does that work? Grouping together only really works for the SELLOR. I just don't see how it works for the buyers. If anything, it makes things better for the sellor when the buyers group together. there are less sales to manage, and the buyer has more problems to manage.
I mean, what are the collective nations of the EU going to do? Demand that russia sells energy or the EU will go somewhere else to buy it? OK. So then Russia says "Sure." then what?
Then the EU has to go buy the energy from someone who needs to ship it further, and who already sells to someone else. So the EU pays a higher price. And someone else goes without. So they pay a higher price to Russia, because their supplies have gone to the EU, who outbid them. And then the guys who were outbid by the EU say to the original supplier "Look, this is ridiculous. Everyone is shipping all this fuel eveywhere, why don;t we just pay the same as the EU and you can pocket the shipping costs? We'll get the advantage of quicker supply and better service."
So then the EU has to pay even more if it wants to keep punishing Russia. A price war, in other words, that hurts the buyers whilst rewarding the sellors. Think about it. THINK. Buyer grouping together to make threats about who the buy from can't work when demand is exceeding supply.
And you forget or ignore another crucial part of the puzzle. This isn't a computer simulation. The EU is not at liberty to mess Russia around and pay no economic penalty in the market place. Understand, if European industry does not have energy TODAY, then European industry is losing market share TODAY. If Russian industry can't sell a single cubic meter of gas...... well, at least russian industry still has cheap gas. Even cheaper, in fact. Supply and demand, you see. If Europe doesn't want it, ....... you get the picture?
In other words, Russia and the USA are going to have more competitive industry because they have cheaper energy. If Europe starts to mess around, they are just going to be hurting an already vulnerable industrial sector. Brussels may run indefinitely on wafts of hot air, but factories cannot. They need very hot air, in turbines. they need fuel, real fuel, TODAY. And tomorrow. And the next day. You can't bargain your way out of that situation.
So the situation for the members of the EU is really quite simple. Do they gather together and simplify the energy business for the sellors, or do they cut and run, and form bi-lateral treaties with energy rich states from outside the EU?
And the clock is ticking. Fast. As the coal runs out, the balance of economic power is going to shift further and further towards the energy suppliers, and away from Brussels.
In 2000, coal traded at 30 dollars a short tonne. In 2007, it was up to 150 dollars a short tonne. China uses 2500 million tonnes a year, and will run out in 50 years. Germany uses 200 million tonnes, and will run out in 35 years.
You think the wise men in Brussels can talk their way out of that situation?
How?
Complain about this comment
euroscot, @ 174. And 156. "Russia has all the cards, therefore forget the Lisbon Treaty".
I never wrote "all the cards", neither mentioned the "Lisbon Treaty."
We don't understand nil about your Lisbon treaty, and don't watch how will it end up. Kremlin and political circles know what it is (I hope) but no normal Russian never heard the name. I understand it sounds strange LOL, that not the whole world knows ab the thing that worries you most, but beyond this blog I wouldn't know either. What has Treaty to do with gas even I don't understand having read these posts for half a year. Do you mean if you will unite into one state there will be a single bid from the EU, instead of 18 contracts that Gazprom signs now?
I think it is unlikely that you will unite through any treaty even the Lisbon one to that degree. There are 18 companies in Europe and unless some kind of government holds them by the throat - they would like to keep on separate contracts with Gazprom. They play on the difference, have own customers, and sub-customers, also buy and sell, and compete btw each other, it's a very tangled up system of who covers transit costs to what point within Europe, who charges what from their customers, selling and re-selling. They wouldn't like to be the same one big energy company, one for the whole 27 countries, unless at the point of a gun. It is not, remember, that "goverenments" buy for "the citizens" from Gazprom. It is energy companies, who buy from Gazprom and sell it further and re-sell. And your governments may be can put some limits on how much is the end price for the home users, or for industrial users, don't know, or set the "from" "till", but not tell them how to run their business. I think.
Either way, gets Europe united into 1 country under Lisbon - will it be one big customer (unlikely) or not - Russia can live with either option. Provided there is someone to buy - and buy a lot - we will agree
somehow.
As you rightly mentioned, Europe is the key customer. China has never been so far not only "key" but anything at all. All our tubes go in your direction, and with China only investigations and first trying of the ground, how will it be - possible, impossible, nobody knows. Granted we are looking East, you won't belive it LOL, but Russia would love to diversify as well!
Two customers better than to depend on 1 Europe, 3 even better than 2 - same concerns. You feel nervous depending on us - even that Russian' gas is only a guarter or 40 per cent it is for Europe? Anyway, not all.
Now, imagine, we would also love not to depend on you! and in our case it is 60 per cent a single Europe, if not 70. The rest buy ex-USSR countries, only unlike Europe they tend not to pay, LOL!
Try to charge Ukraine or Belarus for the gas, they are the tubes simultaneously, the transit. Try to charge Georgia. Well, Georgia, we now insist they pay, with pleasure :o) US money and fond memoirs of last August. Armenia we also charge but they are friends, and poor - try to charge them. In other words, there isn't a wide choice LOL of neutral buyers - all either happen to be transit countries able to blackmail or dirt poor friends, only Europe is neither transit nor dirt poor, so Russia can collect payment.
Don't be so aggressive. We don't view it as "all cards with Russia" at all. But why, reasonably, can't we earn money, explain me? Is it not ours, don't you want to buy, why should we I don't know? what do you want from us?
powermeerkat @ 157 "Russia huggling with Ukraine and Belarus" "not because Russian Fed. desperately needs money" but "bullying them to re-join Mother Russia."
Have you heard of the CIS? The Commonwealth? Created a la mode alas not so successfully as the British Commonwealth. There is a flock of countries, called "The CIS". The Commonwealth of Independent States. Ex-USSR, to explain it straight. Created by these countries post Peresteroyka.
It is written in big letters on all corners, I understand it is a surprise for you, but it is like your EU "the aim is to reach greater unity all on fronts". As simple as that. There is "CIS TV channel", heaps of structures, crowds of meetings and a government. Just imagine.
Now, inside the CIS all quarrel for 20 years , leave, return back, unite on customs tariffs, dis-unite, unite pension systems, dis-unite, you never know on any single day LOL who is in who is out, and on which terms of co-operation! We lost all the track. For 2 years they are taking Russian rouble as local currency, for the next three years they return back to own money, then take rouble again, then leave. It is an extremely loose and un-stable organisation of the ex-USSR of which, I would say, in reality exist only huge posters and speeches type "Granted we will unite fully. One day."
Plus inter-country deals on this and that. Example Belarus is under nuclear Russia's umbrella and with pensions guaranteed the same to anyone who re-settles, same system, plus I can use health services FOC in Belarus when there, or if I'd like to re-locate permanenetly, and the other way around. With each ex-USSR country Russia has different deals (except for the ones that joined the EU, the three Baltics), and between them the 11 countries also have various deals, on FOC education and travel and work permits or double citizenships. Various swaps, I'd say, based on the old things in common.
So nobody hides here the idea to "join them back to Mother Russia". Only it is said differently - it is CIS and within it they join really as they please whoever they please. And on what they please.
Do you really think nobody knows own interests and is easy to bargain with? Try to bargain with Belorussian Lukashenko. Russia has sponsored Belorussia exactly 50 bln dollars in the past 15 years. You know what Lukashenko says when we delay the next portion of the tranche?
"You owe me by life, there are 10 million Belorussians standing a live shield between you and Europe, this costs money, and far more than your lousy 50 bln." When Kremlin says "but nobody so far has noticed many armies that the glorious Belorussians will stand against, when they move onto us from Europe, get lost with your "live shield" payments - Lukashenko immediately exists out of customs' tariffs, and there forms a 50 km line of trucks from Europe and to Europe on the border, while Belorussian Customs' officers slowly "take their time". 1 month of scandal - and Kremlin transits the next portion for the famous "live shield" that we got tired to hear about.
Of Ukraine I personally would like Crimea back because it is ours. The whole of it - for no money. I would pay extra NOT to have them back.
I think all share this opinion, from bottom up to Kremlin, but we will not be fighting them for Crimea at any rate. Either it falls into Russia back itself as a ripe apple, when Ukraine gets split internally into Russians and Ukrainians, or it will never. May be they will make peace internally and won't split up. In this case we will simply continue negotiating rental for the Navy base, Sebastopol. Ukarine, unlike other crazy parties - mind it - can live a next thousand years with the Russian fleet in Sebastopol rented from them. Without a wink of the eye -Ukrainians and Russians on the ground alike. Provided we pay well - not a worry for them. The problem is artificial and incurred exclusiveley "by the West". Ukrainians, unlike I don't know who? USA? western Europe? know perfectly well that there isn't a single danger for them from the Russian fleet in Sebastopol. It's a toy fleet, for cadets' training, summer base in the pond locked up, of which we have no exit and never had. Entertainment I'd say, not a fleet, and sponsors the whole Sebastopol city, who runs the fleet infrustructure.
Belorussia as far as I am concerend can stay on their own, without joining back Mother Russia. They do well (on our money), make excellent diary products and meat products, by old Soviet standards, all strict and acc to the recepies. No chemistry, no GM modified, and their sugar is the best. We all buy their food, and would like to continue. Our own is not controlled, private companies do whatever they want, all housekeepers serach in shops for Belorussian food stuffs. Because their Lukashenko LOL kills them on the spot or fires or I don't know what, if any deviations from the standards. And in Russia it's Wild West, all companies do whatever they like. They don't even have oligarchs in Belorussia, nobody steals, all scared of Lukashenko. An extraordinary organised place. And good, at least we have something normal to eat from them. If they will become wild like us, with no control after companies, then it will be bad. Now the situations suits all.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice
The EU is 27 cats in a bag. All the EU Constitution or Lisbon treaty would do is make the bag smaller and the knot on the rope holding it closed tighter. The less room they have to move in that bag, the more they will fight and scratch each other. They haven't gotten along in over a thousand years and they're not about to start now. Irish kicking Roumanians, Roumanians kicking Hungarians and Roma, Serbians kicking Albanians, Spanish kicking Basques, Germans kicking Turks. After 400 years of unhappy marriage, many Scots want a divorce from England. The Czechs got a divorce from the Slovaks. The Flemish and French want out of their union in Belgium. One guy who imports Italian food here in the US told me the Italians and French don't particularly get along (didn't know that myself.) If the EU is a union, I'd like to see what a dis-union looks like. To someone outside the bag like me, it seems ludicrous to take sides. One hissy cat is pretty much like another. Good thing they're only just cats and not something more dangerous.
Complain about this comment
143. At 11:37am on 21 Jun 2009, bonybbony wrote:
"The logical step forward, in the process of EU unification, is to agree the constitution."
SB2:
1. The British people never have wanted unification. They wanted cooperation. I find the idea that I could wish to be in a political union with the continentals to be one of the most stupid ideas I could imagine.
2. You may well not be aware that the British do not have a constitution like other countries. That is not just an oversight. Many of us reject the idea of a written constitution as say the Germans or the Americans have. We are much more different thant he continentals realise.
" What is EU without constitution? The same as any country before the constitution, unconstituted. The same as WTO, UN, etc. Just a common market, not enough that one could say in satisfaction of it's ordinary people."
SB2: We were promised a MARKET not a Greater European Reich.
"It is true the EU has been functioning also well without constitution."
SB2: Have you got any more good jokes?
"The constitution is the only mean which would secure the democracy in the EU, freedom of each particular individuum in the EU. The problem is only of intelectual nature, of finding and recognizing the reason, also right people."
SB2: Not true. There cannot be any democracy in the "EU" since its very existence is undemocratic. The only way to have a democracy in the UK is to leave.
Complain about this comment
MAII - If you call the Belgian French speakers French you should just go ahead and call the Flemish Dutch.
Complain about this comment
Of Ukraine I personally would like Crimea back because it is ours. [#178]
With all due respect, if anybody can say that Crimea is theirs its Crimean Tatars.
And I'm sure you know what happened to them "back in the USSR".
BTW. Finns, in turn, want to get Southern Karelia back, while Japanese..:-)
Complain about this comment
#178. WebAliceinwonderland
There are some remarks about solidarity in the energy politics in connection with the Lisbon treaty. The word itself suggest a declaration of intent, and proves the thesis, EU is about transnational issues between the member states. Before anything else. In the second place it is about the relation of the member states to other global players.
NATO has a remark about solidarity known as the musketeer oath, and it has been followed up by the build-up of a capable military organisation. So far the energy supply in the EU countries has mainly been a matter for the nation state, however the electricity systems are integrated, and the political effort is to make a single market out of it.
As I have mentioned before it is not so, that EU has nothing to offer Russia. To put it short EU has a know-how Russia does not have, a know-how you need if you are going to produce anything else but raw materials. The current negotiations on GM Europe (Opel) are an example of this.
It seems not to be the case but for all of us I hope the permanent ice will stay. It is pretty worrying to think of the carbon resources tied to it.
EU will develop an energy system based on renewable energy sources. As I have also mentioned before, there is a project with a time scale of forty (40) years, which is supposed to build a system of huge windmills in the North Sea from Norway to France (and yes the UK is also on board). Instead of national systems on shore the idea is to build a system with border-crossing (nation-shared) distribution in order to build less distribution plants. There you have the structure analogous to NATO.
Another project (idea) is to build a sun energy system in Sahara. Hold on tight: It can deliver the full electricity requirement of the present EU. Tests show the transportation of electricity from Sahara to Franfurt am Main only means a loss of 10% of the energy.
It is much to early to say what the future energy system will look like.
Russia knows and I would not call threats the wisest politics you can think of.
Complain about this comment
@172 PlanetEnlish
Your wording: *And if Lisbon is a proxy for Latin Europe to control the agenda, it sure will end like the USSR did, with millions flocking to Planet English*.
As far as I understand the banner you rise in order to collect more sympathy among us, the humble M.M. bloggers, is nothing else than what we accept as *universal democratic values* which are duly interpreted by many English and their political ally Uncle Sam?
The Lisbon treaty and the aborted EU constitution like all previous documents down to the Roman treaty have been based on the mutual understanding that old Europe, being the nest and the beginning of our civilization should protect itself by establishing a convention of working economic (not political) rules that would guarantee the prosperity of the member states.
This said, I do not object against any amendment to the Lisbon treaty that would improve its democratic character. To that matter, we can consider each protocol /like that for Ireland/ just as the next attempt to re-negotiate the conditions of the mere existence of the EU.
What also impress me much is the evident fact that, with a few exceptions, nobody refers to the EU by calling it *our union*, as if all of us have been involved in it by force. Shall we go back to the controversial and trivial discussion about who is playing the partition of the first fiddle within the EU philharmonic band? It will not improve at all our existence.
And last but not least, the English has won definitely the language battle in Eastern Europe. What a pity that you can not understand that the English is just a tool of communication that has nothing to do with the national traditions, the culture and the mentalities all of those civilized Christian nations that inhabit Europe from Berlin via Budapest down to Sofia.
Complain about this comment
threnodio:
Re #176.
Well, according to many 'pro-EU' on previous Blogs and this one Lisbon is not a 'Constitution' by subterfuge/other name and many of the Eire Citizens who voted 'no' did so because the 'antis' had argued it was just that, as well as, and this has a familiar ring too for any 'anti', they "did not understand the Treaty" or were "misled".
Infact some, not a million miles from this Article, have previously argued Eire Citizens were voting against 'Nice' or 'abortion'.
Now it appears the Eire Citizens who voted 'no' were correct all along.
The Lisbon Treaty could have materially affected Eire's Constitution: To the extent Eire has now been given 3 Protocols guaranteeing its Constitution will not be affected - - the EU Commission specifically stating these 3 Protocol will not apply to the other 26 - - which is a curious thing for a Treaty that is not a 'constitution'!
As for PM Brown and his miscreants - - well, careful what you wish for - - personally (and I have to be careful here, my only ever rejected comment used the racial epithet/term 'j##k', no, not jerk, although now I think of...) I believe Dave "whats my policy today" Cameron is equally unedifying and as for Clegg's lot ("UK give up Nuclear weapons", silly, fellow).
So, between devil and the deep lay no appealing choices for me: That said, Cameron's Tories would get my vote for the first time in 40+ years if he insisted a Referendum on Lisbon would be held irrespective of Eire's decision this October.
Yes, I do mean the UK/England should renege on ratification - - if as many 'pro-EU' claim National Governments can still make decisions - - then Parliament can rescind Lisbon. Our Constitution is unwritten and if "Lisbon is not a constitution" where's the harm!?
Of course, in reality, that would probably mean instigating negotiations for total withdrawal from the EU which I would regret as the original EEC agreement was very reasonable, but better no devil on our English back if we are indeed to go off to the deep entirely unfettered. Snorkelling is an individual as well as a team pursuit and these Island peoples are particularly suited to a mix of the two.
The idea that UK/England would somehow fall apart without the EU is simply ludicrous economic-fiscal gibberish. A State of 60,000,000 or 49,000,000 Citizens is a market place - - every aspect of those people's lives will continue to require servicing - - minus Lisbon/EU the British Isles will thrive and almost certainly prosper far more without the dead-hand of 'one-size-fits-all'/'strength through unity' of the mainland.
The supranational EU over the last decade (during the 'boom') was/is already beginning to show significant economic/enterprise/trade stagnation that the expansion eastwards has merely covered up: EU figures look healthy when the 'poor' east still recovering from 'communism' is put into the statistics - - when the western 12 figures are set alone it is clear the EU growth barely gets to 2% pa - - that rises as Warsaw, Prague etc. have begun rebuilding their National infrastructures. Beware the EU Trade with the World figures! As a retired economist I can assure you there is nothing so deceptive as a balance sheet of the traditional double-bookkeeping in which assets and liabilities are only there at one particular moment - - I state with assurance that any genuine examination of the EU Accounts will show the longterm trend of the EU has been downward in terms of World Trade and Investment outside the 27 - - and this has been offset by the internal development of the spread to the east.
I would liken the EU to the old quip about the Great Wall of China: It was not built to keep the world out but to keep the people in and that is the most basic, fundamental error of the 'pro-EU' lobby and the EU itself.
Whereas, the UK/England by a thousand years of tradition and one has only to look at its multi-cultural strength to confirm this today was/is open to the world (interestingly the old instincts came to the fore just a few years ago when Blair's UK was 1 of only 3 EU nations to allow open access to employees from the east - - that did lead to issues - - social/benefit culture immigration as opposed to economic aspiration are very different things) whilst using its 'island' geography to the very best advantage. Membership of the EU is an aberration and one the UK/England will bitterly regret unless it breaks those ties in the very near future. The EU by its blanket-nature cannot stop itself interfering in every single aspect of National life and that is a recipe for stifling enterprise and initiative resulting in slow, gradual stagnation. Better to use Lisbon as the agent/catalyst for the decisive move and suffer the pain of break-up now to ensure the recovery coincides with the upturn in the World Economy from the mid-2010 onward.
Complain about this comment
Europe is unlikely to pool its numerous resources when facing an energy crisis, suggest both 'Democracy threat' and 'WebAliceinwonderland'. Therefore forget about further European integration.
It's an intriguing point. Whether the British-Irish Council can make headway on advancing common interests is an important test-case for Europe. See #36 above.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen (183): Please stop lying for Brussels! I already pointed out to you three areas where the EU creates regulations when there is no transnational issue:
1. In the construction industry where there are EU regulations on the construction of housing even though there are clearly no transnational houses.
2. In so-called environmental policy, where the rules that local councils must follow when collecting refuse are set by the EU even though there is no transnational rubbish bin outside anyones house.
3. I also showed that EU is attempting to ban smoking in public cross Europe even though cigarettes smoking in one country cannot effect somebody in another country.
As a fourth example i would point to the EU minimum rate of VAT which affects every transaction you make. This EU law is also an example of how government ministers like to use the EU to bypass democratic checks on their power at home. The German government lacked a domestic parliamentary majority to raise its own VAT rate, so instead got its way in 1992 by proposing a EU minimum rate that was higher than the prevailing German rate. In this way it bypassed domestic opposition and forced three other EU states to raise their VAT at the same time.
And because this became an EU law it could not undone by future governments remaining in force 17 years later, preventing two French presidents from fulfilling their election promises to lower VAT on restaurant meals, and Gordon Brown from lowering VAT on environmentally friendly products.
You have said you expect a higher standard of debate on this forum, but it seems to me that you are the only one who is repeating claims that you no to be false about the EU only being concerned with transnational issues.
Complain about this comment
#187 F-John:
I cannot believe this: You cannot read. It is amazing. We have already corrected most of what you are writing plus a couple of other things. You cannot find the word only in my thesis. How blind can a person be? But I supposed it makes no difference to you.
If you cannot see how the energy issue in the examples I mentioned are transnational nobody can help you.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen: If i see you making an argument worth rebutting i will do it, but i have not seen any such argument from you to date. I would describe your posts as 70 per-cent arrogance and 30 per cent false claims that the EU only concerns itself with transnational issues. My replies to you have been to correct the latter.
Most UK gas imports come from Norway, with whom we have long-term supply contracts and pipelines direct to their fields in the North Sea. We also import some Gas from the Gulf that comes in ships. We have no need for Brussels interference in these contracts, nor any interest in getting involved in contractual disputes between Russia and 3rd countries (whether they be EU members or not).
Complain about this comment
I saw now on BBC that Dagestan president Evkanurov has been attacked and in critical state in the hospital. Switched on BBC blogs ahead of Russian TV, by habit now. Oh God, this is very bad. He is a very decent man, we even wondered where they got such a decent man! for Dagestan, I thought none such are left around, for politics, or for ruling, for anything. Esp. that he was local, was a much hope, I mean a lot of hope was laid on him, that he will a singlewarrior in the field , will manage there somehow. Well, "a single warrior" didn't manage.
I only pray that he recovers, and is taken far away from those quarters, it was really a shot-up job, walking the tight rope there, Dagestan becoming our new Chechnya. I deeply sympathise with the man, he took a suicidal job.
Local he was to a degree, as much as one can in Dagestan. When they formed a republic within Russia in Perestroyka collapse, they counted up 34 nations in Dagestan, the worst case around. Then they sat down, quarreled and fought and decreased the amount to "14 title nations of Dagestan". 14 the key nationalities. Wanted to have it 12, as a better number, but couldn't. Then they wrote in their local constitution that their presidency will be on a turn around basis, wrote the law, that each one year their president will be from each of the 14 "title nations", 14 official LOL! laqnguages still in Dagestan, a rep of every clan, to put it short, to rule, one after another. First 6 years they minded the order, rotated the "presidency". Then one elderly chap of one clan said I am old things go more or less well, let me rule a couple of years and we will skip our cueue the next time, I will retire entirely. And stuck for 5 years, grabatising power! That's when things began and then half Chechnya re-located ther after the wars and they forgot about their roatation principle entirely and now all want presidency at once! The skipped years' clans, the one whose order it is by years' count, and like, simply - all. Evkanurov is not from the cueue, Moscow parachuted him there out of order, their nation cueue is not now and hasn't been.
But basically as things are there it doesn't matter. I saw taxi drivers interviewed in Dagestan they all said - either from the line or totally non-clan man Moscow should have appointed, who has no connections on the ground, is no nationality local.
Anyway. Personally, I feel like saving Evkanurov and revenging, believe it or not. My first thought would be to give over Dagestan to Ramzan Kadurov, and let him make the place organised, if the soft gloves the republic does not understand. I think many would feel that way and will be with much effort to hold yourself on that burning desire and solution to the problem.
Complain about this comment
@suffolkboy2 (180)
The Continentals are surely in the same mood, as you are, if someone mention the idea of being united with the British.
I was only trying to put together some facts about present situation with EU, and your's not mine taking out of the context is a matter for a joke (or even deeper phychological analysis?).
Isn't it true that EU is a product of 27 wishes to be united? The name speaks for itself - European Union. Not simply the organisation of europeans, or the united europeans. If so, the best possible form of such an union is constitution. Constitution is the best possible mean of protecting the democratic rights of ordinary people, from such an organisation. If you don't want a constitution, please don't wish the union!
Regarding your's mentioning that the British historically "reject the idea of a written constitution", I can only laugh to your naivety. Constitutions, as well as laws and other necessities, become "unwritten" when the people get used to them. Various and many Peisistratos from the history would have certanly wandered around without their mazes, among so many naturally-born with the constitution.
Complain about this comment
Presidency in the big Federation republics looks like this, as far as I understand: local parliament (no direct democracy) quarrels and fights internally under the carpet, the strongest party wins the vote, and comes up with a candidature to be approved by Kremlin (The Russian Federation president /Medvedev. When the candidature man says "I am for staying within the Russian Federation" he is automatically "stamped" as alright, nobody looks into particulars how they decided or who do they want, and then do what you like.
In theory a republic can come up with 3 candidatures at once, but one after another, if the first one and then the second one are turned down by Kremlin. So far I don't remember that happening, because if all are for staying in - what's the difference for Kremlin, the first one the republic comes up with is approved. Now, Evkanurov was not appointed normally, Medvedev used his right to administratively replace the ruling republic's president in force major circumstances (way too many murders of administration members on the grounds). Municipal bodies killed, police bodies killed, an internal clan war. This is a one off in our recent history, because even the other one-off, Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov first won locally and was formally offered as a Chechen candidature, from Chechens, and Putin "stamped" him for power. From which moment Ramzan Kadyrov's star went up shining, but make no mistake, their clan first won over local clans on the ground, in quite fierce - literally - battle. No "praliament" under-carpet, schemeing, power trading, like in other republics, but in the direct meaning of the "battle" !
Complain about this comment
Ticape (160): I am talking about the article I referred to in my post (9) on the topic, i.e. Article 352 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) which replaces the earlier article 308 of the existing Nice treaty. This is the general empowerment or 'passaerelle' clause which in Lisbon applies not just to common market issues as before but to all the issues where the EU has competence under that treaty.
The amended clause contains two further changes: the EU Parliament has to assent, and the national parliaments have to be informed (they do not have a veto as you claim, either individually or collectively). These amendments will not make any difference, because the EU Parliament would always assent because it has a vested interest in increasing the power of EU institutions (including itself) and the national parliaments have no use for such information because they lack the power to stop abuses of the general empowering clause.
Indeed the changed article is one of the key ways in which the EU would become a state in all but name under Lisbon. One key difference between a state and an international organisation is that a state has the power to decide the limits of its own power (so-called Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle) where as an international organisation only has the powers conferred upon it. Under the current Nice treaty, the so-called 'Kompetenz Kompetenz' is limited to operation of the common market, but under Lisbon it would apply to all actions within the framework of EU policies. Therefore the EU Council would assume state-like power under Lisbon to decide the limits of EU competence (powers) in political fields without the need for further treaty changes.
Complain about this comment
191. At 1:11pm on 22 Jun 2009, bonybbony wrote:
"@suffolkboy2 (180)
The Continentals are surely in the same mood, as you are, if someone mention the idea of being united with the British."
SB2: In that case, could you please try top get the UK thrown out of the "EU" before there is blood on the streets. I am not threatening anything. I am concerned.
"Isn't it true that EU is a product of 27 wishes to be united? The name speaks for itself - European Union."
SB2: NO! It is not true. the British were promised a Common MARKET!
Complain about this comment
Ticape (160): Just to clarify, the Lisbon treaty text is as follows. It is easy to see that clause 352.1 TFEU details those institutions that must consent (i.e. can refuse) to the increase in EU power (which will always be forthcoming from EU Commission and EU Parliament because they have a vested interest) and article 352.2 which details those institutions that only have to be informed.
As i mentioned before, the corresponding article of the current treaty of Nice (which was limited to only common market issues) has been used about 30 times a year. This ammended version applies to political issues and would open the floodgates to political integration.
------------------------------------
Article 352 TFEU reads as follows:
1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, AND THE TREATIES HAVE NOT PROVIDED THE NECESSARY POWERS, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures . . .
2. . . . The Commission shall draw national Parliaments attention to proposals based on this article . . .
Complain about this comment
Re #190
After witnessing combat in the Caucasus Lermontov wrote a poem which began with words:
TERRIBLE ARE CAUCASUS' PEOPLES
AND TERRIBLE IS THEIR ANGER
I think that Russia's ruler made a grave mistake trying to conquer and reconquer Caucasus. Dagestan means Land of the Mountains, in Turkish.
And mountaineers never roll over and play dead, be that in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Georgia, wherever.
Do you think this conquista was worth its price, both in blood and treasure, considering the amount of anti-Russian resentment or even hatred it generated?
Complain about this comment
#185 - ikamaskeip
I don't want to appear trite as your post contains many interesting points which deserve a considered reply but I have other obligations today so just two quick points.
Firstly there should be no question of whether or not Lisbon materially affects the Irish constitution. Plainly it does otherwise there would be no requirement for a referendum. Given that there is a requirement, I am bound to say that the question of whether or not their original 'no' vote was right or wrong is academic. It is a democratic process and whatever the people decide becomes de facto right. Some may not like it but that cannot make it wrong. Cowan has made the point by demanding new protocols that he can offer something materially different from the last time in order to go again. This appears to be what has happened.
As to whether Lisbon is or is not the old constitution rewritten, it depends who you believe. Giscard say it is, Barosso say it isn't. My humble view is that Giscard is right that the constitutional provisions are almost identical but that it is wrapped up in something much bigger. Oddly enogh, I could have lived the the original. It is all the add-ons and plug-ins, to use PC jargon, that have obscured it and turned me completely against it. That and the devious way in which it was not offered more widely to the people.
The point remains that Cowan's protocols are not Ireland specific because the structure of the Commission will be different from that originally proposed. I think that gives Dave a loophole if he gets the opportunity before it takes effect. If he has to wait until afterwards, it will have become law and it is not simply an Act but a legally binding international treaty. I suppose he could point to an overwhelming victory as a mandate to renegotiate Lisbon after the event but there now appears to be a commitment to renogtiate the whole relationship.
I strongly suspect that, if it goes through before the election, the Tories will shrug and accept. there will be a long period of navel gazing and a lot of prevarification which will give the appearence of a reassesment but I think appearence is the key word because, to be honest, I don't thing the Tories have a policy.
Complain about this comment
Ticape (160): Compare the wording above from the Lisbon treaty article 352.1 with those they replace in Article 308 of the Nice Treaty. Compare the new text i posted in comment 195 with this old text and you can see that the old wording limiting this general empowerment clause to the Common Market has been dropped.
------------------------------
Nice Treaty Article 308:
'If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, IN THE COURSE OF THE OPERATION OF THE COMMON MARKET, one of the objectives of the Community and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers . . . '
Complain about this comment
@190 WebAlice wrote:*a singlewarrior in the field* /Odin v pole voin/?
I share your opinion of he high moral and abnegation of Mr.Evkanurov. But what are the chances that he will succeed in bringing peace and prosperity to his people? This is the question.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat @196
That's all nice words but what do you suggest. Imagine the best democratic scenario - referendum in Dagestan with 2 questions: Do you want to stay in the Federation; in either case who do you want to be ruled by of locals, suggest your name.
I'll tell you without referendum: To stay in the Fed - 80%. Who the head - 5-6 strongest clans' names. If not whole 34. And?
There is no win-win scenario. It's not Polish Solidarity movement conditions or anything, like there is a single or three "single" clans saying "we want peace and all good for people of Dagestan, we know better how to make it well and are willing to have a try Moscow get lost."
They are not democracythreat or you. They won't cheer up with the offer of a referendum and mentally say "wow, we are finally respected, Moscow means business, let's make an effort come to peace with each other, use our chance to rule own future, select somebody and stop killing others, we shall respect the choice of the majority of our people."
All "business" is own "business" in mind there, no "national heroes", but striving after own aims.
My mum has 2 graduation students from Makhachkala, capital of Dagestan. They were to present their Diplomas to the commission last week, here in St. Petersburg, university graduation. Both girls phoned us home (mum supervisers their Diplomas, their tutor) and said they are not coming, asked the Diploma-s and state exams to be "transferred for the autumn" and said hell knows what happens in Makhachkala, they are afraid to leave families, whole republic a mess. Now after 6 yrs of study and diplomas at risk this is something, there are no "state exams in the autumn", they will have to skip a year. Were supposed to be meteorologists, for Makhachkala airport.
Personally, like yesterday's snow I need either Chechnya or Dagestan. Yeltsin had made huge mistake not letting Chechnya go and building a 10 metre fence on the border. Any physical border in the mountain type Chinese wall, for hundreds of kilometers would come cheaper than keeping Chechnya on Russian expense 100%. With wire and full size army on the border - and nothing less it would take them not to cross over.
Because Chenchnya's single business post perestroyka became narcotics trade from Afghanistan and their market is Russia.
Dagestan though was a quiet place, until Chechens spilled over to them. It's the chemistry industry centre in the South of Russia, lots of factories making boring but useful chemicals, still now. Dagestan has a good young chap for the trade minister, full of foreign MBA-s, who honestly tried to make money trading with the nearby republics, poor chap was on TV non-stop trying to convince other republics to invest in Dagestan, various round tables where he desperately showed their samples of sodium or potash or whatever, agriculture chemicals and construction industry chemicals. Collected like precious stones single contracts with companies from other regions, dreamed of "foreign investment" :o) was buying lots of modern equipment for their old Soviet factories, and overall was quite successful with pulling money from the Federal budget for modernisation and loans, they say wrote such excellent business plans and justifications LOL after his MBA-s that the Finance Minsitry was practically helpless to refuse :o)
And now all goes to hell. Medvedev put stakes in Dagestan with his appointees on softer folk, and more modern folks, and what we see Putin was more successful with his old-fashioned let's say appointee for Chechnya.
Some people are impossible to please. There won't be a win-win. Some will have to lose and not get what they want and be killed. And pretty many.
There is a joke, old time, but looks modern again now. A fairy tale here exists, of a "Golden Fish" that you catch in the sea, she speaks in the "human voice" and performs your 3 named wishes/desires. Builds golden palaces, makes you young and marry-able stuff LOL again, makes you a tsar and performs all desires. You only have to formulate well and to remember you've got 3 chances, no turning back, if you don't like the results. Well "a Chechen catches the Golden Fish, takes a knife and begins to gut her, at which moment the Fish says in a "human voice" don't fry me, good man, I will perform your three most heart-felt desires. I am the Golden Fish. To which the Chechen chap says:
I! Want! to Kill! You! This! Is! My ! Desire!
Complain about this comment
Gheryando wrote:
"MAII - If you call the Belgian French speakers French you should just go ahead and call the Flemish Dutch."
Well, yes. A lot of folks would suggest that makes sense.
The flemish do speak dutch. They call it flemish, but that is just the european habit of calling slang and accent a different language.
It would make a huge amount of sense for the flemish part of belgium to become holland, and for the lazy part to become french. Everyone would get what they deserve. And frankly Belgium is a ridiculous concept.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"So far the energy supply in the EU countries has mainly been a matter for the nation state, however the electricity systems are integrated, and the political effort is to make a single market out of it."
Yes. We have witnessed this political effort as the Nord Stream. Mathiasen, you know and I know and everybody else knows that Germany fought long and hard and secretly to get the nord stream project going. BECAUSE..... if the gas in flowing into germany, then germany has first cut at the gas. And all the other "Musketeers" are going to face a germany that can turn off the tap.
That situation if going to do what for EU internal relations, do you think?
The logic behind the claim that the EU states are musketeers is SO CRAZY. It pretends that the EU member states do not compete for market share, for industrial efficiency, and for political influence. When Germany gets the Nord stream online, it will be just like Ukraine. It will have what it needs, and everyone else will be a customer. If the other EU states are going to have a share of the energy without a mark up in price, there will be a quid pro quo in political influence.
What you are suggesting is that the states of the EU will all sit down and agree to trust Germany, because Germany is such a nice country.
Mathiasen also wrote:
"As I have mentioned before it is not so, that EU has nothing to offer Russia. To put it short EU has a know-how Russia does not have, a know-how you need if you are going to produce anything else but raw materials. The current negotiations on GM Europe (Opel) are an example of this."
GM is a US company, and Russia is not a third world state. This idea that Russia needs technology from Europe is farcical in the extreme. It is pure wishful thinking. It is extremely significant that you point to a US company when noting the technology Russia would like to have from Europe.
Mathiasen, Europeans walk around listening to their IPODS. not their EUpods. Guess why?
"EU will develop an energy system based on renewable energy sources."
Yeah. Sure. Europe will invent free power. SURE. So the message to all the small EU states who are going to beg berlin for some russian gas is..... "Wait a bit. We are inventing FREE POWER."
It would be a more convincing argument if Germany was not building the nord stream.
Mathiasen then wrote:
"As I have also mentioned before, there is a project with a time scale of forty (40) years, which is supposed to build a system of huge windmills in the North Sea from Norway to France (and yes the UK is also on board). Instead of national systems on shore the idea is to build a system with border-crossing (nation-shared) distribution in order to build less distribution plants. There you have the structure analogous to NATO.
Another project (idea) is to build a sun energy system in Sahara. Hold on tight: It can deliver the full electricity requirement of the present EU. Tests show the transportation of electricity from Sahara to Franfurt am Main only means a loss of 10% of the energy. "
OK. Windmills in the sea and solar plants in Africa. That sounds like a sensible and secure plan. It would be nice if Europe had the lithium resources to make all the batteries they will need. I see it now: that battery powered Panzer! The ruskis must be shaking in their boots with the fear of god in their bones.
Mathiasen, I don't think you understand how energy politics works. You seem to think that if Europe can make enough renewable energy to keep the lights on in brussels, then everything will be cool and groovy.
Understand, the world will never run out of oil. Never. The reason is that as soon as oil is so scarce that the price is higher than nuclear power, all the remaining oil will stay in the ground.
The issue with energy is not available energy, but rather CHEAP energy.
The reason is competition. If factory A has cheaper power than factory B, then factory A will make a greater profit and be able to undercut factory B, all other things being equal. And if factory A can undercut factory B and drive them out of business, or steal their markets, they will do so. We call this competition.
Now the way states get around this problem is to subsidize factory output. They do this by increasing taxes on the workers.
That is what is really going to happen in the glorious new EU. The gas and the wind energy is going to enter europe via germany and Holland, then the rest of Europe will pay a premium to Germany for their power. This will mean higher taxes in eastern Europe (the colonies) in order to subsidize german industry, so that germany can compete internationally.
And as soon as the east works out that they have been colonized by an industrial power that is desperate to stay in business, there will be a concerted political push to leave the EU.
As Alice points out, Russia doesn't need or want the eastern europeans. Russia is happy to sell gas to germany and to let germany colonize the rest of Europe. It is one big customer, and you need someone to buy the gas.
But this farcical vision you promote, whereby the EU states hold hands and sing "We shall overcome" as they share all the energy they can scrape from fantasy technologies.... like i say, it would be more credible if they were not building the nord stream to secure russian gas for themselves.
Complain about this comment
Mardell is correct that these Irish protocols will open the door for other countries to get their specific protocols.
Playing with a nation's sovereignty is a tricky thing, and that is why the EU is having a hard time with this treaty and others.
Complain about this comment
we voted no what part of no do the eec not understand.democracy is a joke in euro .eec do wathever they want regardless of how the people vote.iran gov would not try a stunt like this.
Complain about this comment
Correction, re-read what I wrote, what did I write!! Must have not woken up properly and was shocked with teh news. It's not Dagestan thank God (yet), he's Ingushetia's president, another republic.
So neglect all I wrote in relation to Ingushetia - because it all concerns Dagestan. Dagestan has 14 clans rotating power theoretically, in Dagestan one clan stayed in power for 5 years, Dagestan is the chemical industry centre being modernised, Makhachkala is the Dagestan's capital and my mum's students are from Dagestan, where things go un-well as well.
Well, I never mentioned Ingushetia in fact, so all I wrote ab Dagestan is correct.
Except that it's not Dagestan's president attacked and in reanimation ward, but Medvedev's appointee to Ingushetia. But the same nice man I wrote about.
The only thing that unites Dagestan and Ingushetia is both got Chechens running away from the wars in huge quantities. Ingushetia is much smaller than Dagestan, does not have industries, and basically - it's the same as Chechnya. Chechens and Ingush are two "brotherly" nations, were since 1770 one place, divorced into 2 in 1992 after perestroyka.
In USSR collapse they first separated as one, then fought each other for a year and split into 2 parts - Chechnya and Ingushetia.
I am sorry to confuse you was too impressed. It's not every day we have Republics' heads assasination attempts, the first time. One good news is it's not large Dagestan.
Complain about this comment
"Understand, the world will never run out of oil. Never."
Breathtaking naivety...
Complain about this comment
democracythreat and 202.
Your analytical, logical put-down of Mathiasen was highly impressive.
Have said it before and will agreeably say it again: Keep it coming, mate, keep it coming.
Complain about this comment
dual
"we voted no what part of no do the eec not understand.democracy is a joke in euro .eec"
The EU is not about democracy any more than Europe or its constituents are (Europeans don't know what real democracy is actually about while the US goes along with a pretense to pay lip service in the name of good relations with Europe.)
The creation of the EU is about the construction of a single continental sized political power (not merely an economic power) that will be of comparable size to other major powers such as the US, China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. To do that requires a subordination of individual nation state powers and cultures to a central authority and a uniform culture and their withering and eventual die off of those distinctions. This is the only way to fully integrate what are now impossibly diverse elements. Some judge that the individuality of nations like Turkey are so far from the ultimate goal and their population so attached to their own culture that they could never achieve this level of integration which is why they must be excluded.
The process is incremental and to the degree possible it is insidious, that is hidden from the populations of these nations. Where that is not possible, it must be beyond their control to stop it. Ireland is merely temporarily problematic just as France and Holland were. That problem will eventually be solved one way or another.
The success of the process relies on the nearly universal cynicism of those in national governments regardless of what parties they are in who have no real interest in individual national identity, the prospect of their own personal fortunes as beneficiaries of the new superstate far outweighing any implied or direct promises to their local constituents to protect and defend their direct interests. It also relies on the propensity of all European cultures to value central power and authority over local autonomy. This is where the antidemocratic nature of Europe surfaces most obviously although it has many other facets.
The current problem for the individual governments is that there are sporadic protests from local populations who were never consulted and are becoming increasingly aware of what giving up their sovereignty and cultural identity means to them. One fatal flaw in the concept which tries to mimic the United States of America is that America started out as a relatively homogenious society of mostly English settlers. Those who were of Dutch or other European origin were not so different from those whose ancestry was English and were already assimilated for the most part into the mainstream American colonial culture. America's diversity came after its independence and with new citizens from other more diverse cultures arriving usually voluntarily (except in the case of African slaves) were prepared to accept the new American cultural values, at least to a degree. By contrast, Europeans are being told they must involuntarily and immediately accept the new cultural norms on their own home turf whether they like it or not. They have nothing to say about it. The sudden adoption of these norms which in many cases are incompatible with their existing cultures is creating open revolt. Many Europeans don't know why they are angry, they just have some vague hostility to a nebulous notion of globalization, Europeanization, and outsider influence and presence to an unprecedented degree. How far can the process go before it stops or falls apart by its own self contradictions? Nobody knows but it appears to be happening. The cracks in the ediface are becoming increasingly obvious.
Complain about this comment
Ford Mondeo wrote:
""Understand, the world will never run out of oil. Never."
Breathtaking naivety..."
Don't be cretinous, ford. Read what i written, and do try harder to comprehend the argument.
The point is not that oil resources will be exploited until almost none is left. The point is that we do not use oil for oil's sake. We use it because it is a cheap form of ENERGY. And as soon as other forms of ENERGY become cheaper to extract from the material world than the last remaining oil reserves, that oil will stay in the ground.
The point of trying to explain to people like you that the debate is about energy, and not hydrocarbons per se, is to move the debate away from fantasy technology and onto the economic reality of who has the cheapest power, and why that matters.
It doesn't matter how you get your energy, it only matters how much it costs.
This is why the EU is so vulnerable to disintegration. The USA and Russia can pick off EU states one by one, offering them cheap energy supplies in return for access to markets. Now the job for the french and germans is to convince the smaller states that they are better off staying inside the energy poor collective called the EU. The EU is going to close its markets and try to negotiate a group price for energy in return for access to those markets.
It is a nice plan, if it works.
But my argument is that it cannot work, because cartels of buyers do not work. If demand outstrips supply, cartels of buyers start price wars that eventually favour the sellor.
Just so, basic economic theory (and historical evidence) suggests that sellors cartels do not work when supply exceeds demand. In the 70's, OPEC got together to punish the great satan the USA by charging an arm and a leg for each barrel of oil.
There was one big problem with this strategy: The USA was the only economy in the world that was capable of consuming the oil the sellors needed to sell. In effect, the cartel was demanding that demand would exceed supply when they destroyed the demand by interfering in the market. Of course, it did not. The americans started drilling for their own oil reserves, they expanded oil exploration into Venezuela, and they stopped driving cars that drank 100 liters of juice for every kilometer travelled.
This hurt opec badly. OPEC would have been fine had the chinese and the indians and the Europeans been able and willing to buy their oil. But they were not, because their economies were not as large and productive as the USA. So the supply for a very small demand increased massively, with predictable consequences.
But understand, this was a lesson about what happens when cartels form to dictate to the market. Supply and demand are the underlying reality, and cartels risk a great deal when they try to dictate to the reality of supply and demand.
Anyway, there is a wonderful irony in this debate. Mathiasen will agree, I think. Here we have the EU, ostensibly created to reduce the evil effect of market controls within the EU. The whole philosophical basis for the creation and continuation of the EU is that market controls are bad, and that free trade is good.
And yet, we now see that the justification for the continuation of the EU as a trade block is that if the EU does not close its markets as use them as a trade weapon, everyone inside will suffer.
I have said for years now that the EU is a giant market control strategy designed to reduce the evil consequences of many small market control strategies. We see this most clearly in the energy debate, and it is my view that as supply and demand continue to change to the detriment of Germany and france, the smaller states are going to be more starkly confronted with the bitter reality of this irony.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip wrote:
democracythreat and 202.
Your analytical, logical put-down of Mathiasen was highly impressive.
Have said it before and will agreeably say it again: Keep it coming, mate, keep it coming."
it is not my intention to "put down" Mathiasen. I like reading his arguments, and I respect his intellect and point of view. He is a smart guy. He understands the issues, and makes the best case for the EU of anyone here. He deserves respect, not to be "put down". If you put people down, the value of the debate is lost, because nobody is willing to concede a rational, reasoned position. Nobody can learn anything from anyone else, and the debate is no more productive than name calling.
Complain about this comment
#186
Here is the website of the British-Irish Council. But it hasn't been updated for some time.
Should much be expected from the Council?
Complain about this comment
democracythreat and #210.
Hmm, interesting that you choose to lecture me on the 'put down' as I just used the expression to endorse that yet again Mathiasen had been exposed for lack of valid argument and understanding of the issues.
Obviously we will have to disagree on this put-down of my #202.
That said, I do enjoy your lucid and usually pertinent use of detail and information.
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for most of Mathiasen's contribution which I find remarkably lacking in substance whilst having a glaze of erudition.
Perhaps you prefer to 'debate' with Mathiasen and on reflection, I can understand that.
Complain about this comment
193. Freeborn-John wrote:
This is the general empowerment or 'passaerelle' clause.
Passerelle clause is article 49 NOT article 308 (or article 352 in the new numbering, for the sake of post I will keep referring it as article 308)
Article 308 is nicknamed the "flexibility clause".
but to all the issues where the EU has competence under that treaty.
Except for CFSP of course.
(they do not have a veto as you claim, either individually or collectively)
Now you are twisting my words on purpose. You and I both know that I wasn't talking about article 308 when I mentioned the veto powers. I was referring to the procedure under article 48.
And in post #195
2. . . . The Commission shall draw national Parliaments attention to proposals based on this article . . .
Actually you should quote the entire section 2, let me do it for you:
Using the procedure for monitoring the subsidiarity principle referred to in Article 3b(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission shall draw national Parliaments' attention to proposals based on this Article.
What is the procedure for monitoring the subsidiarity principle? I'll give you an hint, it's basically the process I described in post #66.
So yes the national parliaments do have a say about it.
Complain about this comment
One would think that the Brits have enough on their hands sorting out the democratic black hole of Westminster. But I forgot, of course, the essence of British europhobia: The europhobes just do not accept the other Europeans as equals and do not want to take decisions jointly. Fine by me. Just leave! (if you need guidance: Vote UKIP at the next general elections.)
Complain about this comment
MAII does make me giggle a bit. What is this 'American' culture you talk about. This fabled democracy you boost of? The coke-pepsi particracy that exemplifies the political system in the United States?
As for 'European cultures', none of you can give anything close to a coherent definition of what you are talking about. Culture is at best a word that obscures more than it clarifies. The EU has some interesting experiments going on with it, but it's only a sum of its parts. The fact that people would whine about its 'democratic' aspirations when none of their governments come close to being anything more than glorified particratic or oligarchic systems is quite hilarious.
Before any of you try to use phrases like 'culture' again, I would advise that you keep in mind that it's definition is anything but coherent or closed. What sort of talking points do you propose to move forward out of a collection of competing narratives?
Oh, and can I please urge some of you to stop pretending to be the 'voice of the people'. You're not, don't try to aggrandize yourself to an absurd measure. You are not the voice of a generation, get your ego under control. Talking in such an obscurantist tone is just sad. 'Elites' are not caricature depictions out of a Batman comic, neither is 'the' media, nor is it useful to talk about 'politicians' in such a way. You get the government you deserve.
Run comrade, the old world is behind you! Hah!
Complain about this comment
Ticape (213): Please read article 352 of the treaty for yourself to read the article for yourself.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0001:01:EN:HTML
What you say about national parliaments 'having a say' on use of this general emopowerment procedure is totally meaningless when they have no power to block. You too can have a say, as can I and anybody else and the EU Commission can ignore us all as it can national parliaments.
This i am afraid is the truth. You can endlessly repeat that it ain't so, or that the article is number 308 (which is about the ECB) but no matter how many times you say it you will still be wrong.
I am afraid you are typical of a pro-European, trying to minise the significance of a treaty before it is ratified and then later you will say, 'sorry only boy, you should have understood what you were signing up to at the time'. Lisbon means the unchecked centralisation of political power in Brussels where it will be exercised by people that your vote cannot influence.
Complain about this comment
Clearly the EU mandarins have failed to engage the citizens of Europe, yet these same officials have continued to push for greater expansion of the EUs powers without understanding how profoundly worried many EU citizens are of the influence that the EU seems to have over National traditions/policies/legal frameworks.
I have lived in the Netherlands since 2000, I have experienced the good, the bad and the downright bizzare nature of EU legislation. The positives of a Federal europe are clear, the negatives are also clear, I personally think that the EU is a good thing, however, until the EU becomes more transparent, democratic and accountable it will be viewed by many EU citizens as a dictatorship waiting to be unleashed.
Clearly this is not the case, yet the EU and national governments ignoring the clear messages of the Netherlands, France and Ireland about further expansion of its power (notwithstanding that many countries refused to allow their citizens the chance to even vote on Lisbon treaty) will fuel more anti-Europe rhetoric.
When you also consider that more and more people across europe cannot even bother to vote in european elections, then the EU needs to take a step back and try and find a way of engaging with its citizens rather than dictating to them.
Complain about this comment
#215 - Leo_Naphta
I am facinated.
If you have finished your lecture, you might take note that 'culture' is a word, not a phrase.
Before 'any of us' try to use the 'phrase' again?
Who the hell do you think you are to lecture any of us about what thoughts we may or may not share?
You are right about one thing - we get the governments we deserve. The same cannot be said of the contributors. Do you suggest that we are collectively engaged in an 'obscurantist' conspiracy or are you posting brown steamy stuff of dubious worth?
Complain about this comment
RGruenebaum wrote:
"One would think that the Brits have enough on their hands sorting out the democratic black hole of Westminster. But I forgot, of course, the essence of British europhobia: The europhobes just do not accept the other Europeans as equals and do not want to take decisions jointly. Fine by me. Just leave!"
This is a fair point combined with a piece of hypocrisy. It is absolutely true that the British have a democratic black hole, and also that they tend to follow a feverish nationalism that promotes a superiority complex about pretty much all things.
All good points, and in fact these are the reasons I can't be getting into a debate about why the Uk ought not be further integrated into the EU. That is why I like debating the Mathiasens of this world.
But to then make the point that the UK should "leave"...... what? Why would they leave?
See, the implication is that "If you are not into the glorious EU, you should leave". That is totally false, and hypocritical. The reality is that the Germans are into the EU because it suits their foreign policy. Why should the British not also use the EU to further their own selfish foreign policy?
The great falsehood of the EU is perpetuated by the Germans: that they want the EU because it is good for everyone. I mean, the Brits also say that lie when they must, but they have not made an art out of it, like the Germans.
The truth is that the french are in the EU because they can't afford not to be, and that the smaller states are in the EU because their political systems can't withstand the corrupting influence of the German, French and British foreign policy machines.
But this idea that the EU is all for one and one for all.... Please! Don't make me puke!
The British are perfectly entitled to make what use they can of the EU, just as the other bigger states are doing.
In fact, the more the germans posture that the EU is some kind of musketeeers club, the more obvious it will be that it has come to embody purely German foreign policy aims. Sooner or later the french are going to have something to say about that, and so Germany ought be very careful how much they provoke the UK into leaving.
I doubt the EU could survive an economically hostile UK and a crippled French economy as the result of that policy.
Nevertheless, I suspect that is where the EU is headed.
Complain about this comment
#215 - Leo_Naphta:
" Oh, and can I please urge some of you to stop pretending to be the 'voice of the people'. You're not, don't try to aggrandize yourself to an absurd measure."
For your information, some of us live in Switzerland or California, which have systems of direct democracy that we dearly love and respect. Hence, we like to advocate for that system, which can reasonably be described as the sovereignty of the people.
Secondly, it is hardly aggrandizement to advocate for direct democracy and the sovereignty of the people. There is nothing grand about ordinary people. No political party or prince of the blood is ever going to reach down and give you a job or shower you with publicity because you advocate for the sovereignty of the people. Quite the opposite, in fact. Advocating for direct democracy is advocating for all the people who don't have money and who do not matter in society. Nothing could be less grand.
What is grand is belonging to a political party that represents vested interests. That is so very grand that one can look down upon the unwashed mass and lecture them, just because you belong to the party.
Let me give you a concrete example:
"The fact that people would whine about its 'democratic' aspirations when none of their governments come close to being anything more than glorified particratic or oligarchic systems is quite hilarious. "
To me, this phenomenon is very sad. I find it tragic that the debate about the future of europe is between one set of party based systems and another pan european party based system. It seems a hopeless situation to me, because it makes me feel the general human condition is not progressing towards a worthy goal.
Now, to someone like you, the situation is hilarious. You laugh at the deception that pervades the society of which you speak. The reason for that feeling of joy and hilarity is your grand perception of yourself. You laugh at the ignorant people because you are above them. If you were one of them, you would not laugh at yourself.
But because you are very grand and a higher class of intellect and human being, you feel fit to laugh at the misfortune and ignorance of common people.
Please, continue your lecture on grandiose delusions.
As long as you don't use words like "obscurantist", I have no further objections.
Complain about this comment
# 218, threnodio,
Thank you for clarifying that, that sentence shoulD have read 'Before any of you try to use phrases 'with words in it' like 'culture' again [...]. Slight mistake on my part, possibly due to re-writing it. It's interesting (or fascinating) to note that you are focusing on the 'grammar' instead of the 'contents' of my message thought. We all know that does show intellectual rigor.
In response to your second question, I probably should note that my message wasn't meant to be taken as 'you can't write x' but as 'before you write anything containing thought x, please consider that thus far you have been misrepresenting the issue in my eyes.' I do feel authorized to 'lecture' you on certain issues, if we are going to be defining it as such, since that's basically all that people do on these 'discussion' boards. You might have noted such as well? Or are you going to assert that these boards are genuinely organized around the principle of 'comprise'.
As far as the last tidbit goes, I don't think I used the word 'conspiracy' nor was I trying to imply anything of the sort. I was merely suggesting that it's a misrepresentation of reality to talk in such terms, and that it makes your message sound like rhetorical exercising.
I'm not sure if it's the way that I 'phrased' the argument that mislead you there - although I would like to note that English is not my first or second language - or if it was the fact that you seemed to be more preoccupied at getting a grammatical 'zing' in, than actually addressing the contents.
Complain about this comment
#221 - Leo_Naphta
If my initial response was aggressive, it was because you appeared to combine a plethora of criticisms into a single post and simply dismiss all of us as simpletons. Now that you explain, you deserve an answer.
Obviously one of the elements on these discussion boards is that our true identities are seldom obvious. That may or may not be a good thing but it does provide a forum in which people with genuinely held views can express them without fear of having their personal lives disrupted. It may also be that people use that anonymity to express thoughts which they might keep to themselves in other circumstances.
Where I think you run into difficulty is when you post the kind of comment which appeared earlier, in which you seem to be saying that posting at all is some sort of propaganda exercise. The distinction between fact and opinion may sometimes be blurred but I hope that most of us can figure out when that is happening and adjust accordingly. More to the point, when someone reads what is posted and responds a dialogue occurs. If you do not like what you see, feel free to argue but don't just put it down. It may, in a small way, be part of the democratic process.
Complain about this comment
Leo_Naphta wrote:
# 218, threnodio,
"Thank you for clarifying that, that sentence shoulD have read 'Before any of you try to use phrases 'with words in it' like 'culture' again [...]. Slight mistake on my part, possibly due to re-writing it. It's interesting (or fascinating) to note that you are focusing on the 'grammar' instead of the 'contents' of my message thought. We all know that does show intellectual rigor. "
You then go on to fill the contents of your post with expositions on grammar.
Come on, Leo. I addressed the contents of your post. You find the lack of real democracy in Europe hilarious. You then took issue with those who suffer grandiose delusions of belonging to the unwashed masses, and advocating for them.
So explain how you do not have grandiose perceptions of yourself, when you laugh at the ignorance of those who have been denied a dignified share of political liberty by those who inherit power from a age when the divine right of kings was the most sensible thing an educated person could believe in?
You can call a desire for more democracy foolish, and you may call it hopeless. Both cases can be made with vigour and sincerity.
But to sneer at those who want more political liberties, to laugh at them and find them hilarious, and to then call them "grandiose"......
What was the content of your post, again?
Complain about this comment
# 220, Exactly at what point during my argument did you get the feeling I was directing that comment at the fact that you're advocating 'direct democracy'? It was directed at the various comments I've read along the lines of 'The people are fed up ... '. Which is blatant self-aggrandizing by linking their argument to the so-called 'silent majority' of which the person can obviously flawlessly interpret every whim and desire.
Aside from that, I probably would point out that neither Switzerland nor California are completely run by direct democratic measures. Besides, I would argue that the first problem lies at the very root of the societal model that is prevalent in most 'western' countries. Unless there is a structural change, that model can't actually work. You seem to be advocating an equivalent of deliberative democracy, which is certainly an idealistic system. It is quite flawed in my view, in the assumption that such a democratic system can work in a society where the public dialogue is not open to every participant nor every view. To make it so would require structural change in the economical basis-structure of the society to begin with.
I would, by the way, be grateful if we could dispense with the (hilarious) Freudian readings of the intents behind my comments. Of course, it is in a 'Freudian' (hah!) sense striking that you would at once equate yourself ironically with 'the ignorant commoner'. A little bit underhanded maybe though, to at once dialectically throw me in with the 'elite'?
Lastly, would you really agree that humanity or the 'human condition' has a 'goal' ? Doesn't that sort of denote a denigrating attitude towards past generations? ;)
Complain about this comment
Leo_Naphta (#215), I find your coinage of the word "particracy" amusing, but don't think the cleverness of the term makes up for lack of analysis to support your use of it. Evidently, you object to the political power enjoyed by a few major political parties. In the United States (and similarly in other places) a political party is nothing more in essence than free people choosing to associate in order to strengthen their influence in the political arena. Freedom of association is one of our (US) core First Amendment freedoms. Do you say that people should not have the freedom to associate with whom they please, and to join forces in political causes to increase their liklihood of success? I think if you do not allow people to associate openly, then they will do it secretely.
People can always choose to act as individuals instead, but it is much more difficult to achieve political success. In the US at least, and a few other places, it is possible to run for office as an independent, associated with no political party. Occasionally, an independent gets elected to the Congress. It is my understanding that an independent cannot get elected to a parliament which elected by a proportional system, since it is parties that are apportioned a share of the vote. Is this not true?
That only two parties tend to dominate in the US (although we have many others) is a mere artifact of the system of election of our president. It is very difficult for a third party to have influence in the choice of president. We have more than two factions, but they are contained within the two dominant parties. Systems which also elect their legislative body by single-member seats, but which elect their head of government within that body, tend to have more than two, but generally a few, important parties. Systems which elect their legislative body proportionally tend to have more parties.
If you don't like political parties, what form of government would you choose which avoids them? Totalitarian?
Complain about this comment
# 223,
I'm sorry if I bruised your ego by not directly responding to your message, hadn't passed the censors yet when I posted the first reply. I certainly didn't mean to ignore you.
Is it really necessary to go off like that though?
#1.
'You then go on to fill the contents of your post with expositions on grammar.'
I was trying to clarify what I felt was being misinterpreted in my post, if you could post where I actually went on a 'grammar exposé' I'd be grateful.
I'm almost afraid to add that I meant 'compromise' instead of 'comprise' in one of the previous posts. I am aware that there are several other grammatical errors in there as well, should it be necessary to point that out. No edit function that I can find, sorry.
#2 The rest of the content was directed at something else than you seem to believe it to be, I'm afraid my world doesn't revolve around your viewpoints. I tried to clarify above. I'm afraid that you're not going to achieve much 'dialogue' by willfully misinterpreting opinions though. I hope you don't suffer delusions of representing 'the people'. You represent yourself, nobody more I'm afraid. You're free to argue your own opinions, but don't claim legitimacy that you can't grant.
Cordially yours,
Leo.
Complain about this comment
#224 - Leo_Naphta
Oh dear! Throw in a few 'deliberatives', 'Freudians' and 'dialectics' plus several 'grandioses' and confidently expect the mere mortals to run for the hills. It does not work!
Time for a massive generalisation but one I defy you to gainsay. The western model of democracy is severely flawed, no more so than in Europe where it is rapidly becoming cloaked in legalese, swamped by media bias and overwhelmed by the sheer volume of beaurocracy. Nevertheless, it more or less functions and will continue to do so for as long as ordinary people have a voice.
I am familiar with the argument that California's cash crisis can be linked to single issue politics but remind us what that has in common with the Swiss experience.
It is one thing for people to have a voice, quite another to know what the hell they are talking about.
Complain about this comment
#225 - Gary_A_Hill
Words of wisdom from our American friend but I would caution about 'freedom of association' without pausing to think about the law of conspiracy. This is the kind of doubled edged sword which gives comfort to the libertarian but strike power to his opponent. Like any weapon, it is only as effective as the hand which wields it.
Political parties - well yes - but there has been a tendency in Britain for them to profess to represent 'broad churches' and a counter reaction which encourages folk to return to their political roots. Collective political action clearly has a place but bi-patisanism is not ideal. The best I can say for bipartisan politics is that it focuses sentiment away from the inherent dangers of single issue politics but that is about all.
At which point, I should stand back before my judgment like my typing, becomes compromised by the side effects of the evening's hospitality.
Complain about this comment
Having mixed up Dagestan and Ingushetia first thing in the morn., I took time off, to re-fresh my view of the world :o)
democracythreat, on your understanding of Germany's intentions re N.Stream; you may wish to add a historical perspective.
Namely, that Germany participated in Gazprom from its very beginning, when it was Soviet "Gazprom", when Germany was "Western Germany", and when there was no nothing yet, no gas discovered and no tubes to Europe. Post war, after a while, when Western Germany came back to senses, they developed interest for the gas possible reserves in Russia. There was a joint venture kind of, their engineers, digging for gas together with Sov. engineers, everywhere where possible here. Nevermind Cold War, there are various pictures retired now Chernomyrdin (back then USSR first "Gazprom" director) likes to boast of: some taiga, total wilderness, he in high boots with German chaps around wander in search of gas, lay the first pipe, sit in a tent, cut the ribbon on the first pipe to Europe. You never wondered LOL why nothing in Russia works but Gazprom does :o)))))) Surely modern Germany is not aware of Gazprom plans and things and papers, but one thing they know by heart is the hardwear - where, what and how much, tubes, shafts, stocks. Because it's not a new thing, same gas reserves found back then, same tubes well re-placed but along the same routes, Gazprom under another name pumped same gas to same Europe since 1972. Only nobody worried before, of interruptions, "energy security" (same dependent on Russia) because USSR LOL was considered a reliable business partner!
Complain about this comment
Even, remarkable, to think now, how Russia and Western Germany found a common language back then post war, 1956 I think the digging around for gas began, the first joint venture. Must be because neither side was scared of each other in terms of "Cold War" (as was supposed to be proper behaviour theoretically :o))) Compared to the hot war we had, what "cold", peanuts.
Complain about this comment
Leo writes:
"Aside from that, I probably would point out that neither Switzerland nor California are completely run by direct democratic measures. Besides, I would argue that the first problem lies at the very root of the societal model that is prevalent in most 'western' countries. Unless there is a structural change, that model can't actually work. You seem to be advocating an equivalent of deliberative democracy, which is certainly an idealistic system. It is quite flawed in my view, in the assumption that such a democratic system can work in a society where the public dialogue is not open to every participant nor every view. To make it so would require structural change in the economical basis-structure of the society to begin with."
All very worthy comments. I think your conclusion is correct, but I would qualify the description of the Swiss system. I can't really speak for the Californian system, because I don't live there. The thing is, the Swiss system is structurally different to the western system. And not just because of the direct democracy, it is structurally different in the way you imply a society must be different: it devolves the power of communication to the demos. It does not just ask for the token vote of the populace on the large issues.
Part of this structural difference is the way taxation and local government operate. Local governments really do have a lot of autonomy in Switzerland. They have complete control over fully one third of tax revenues. They can change their tax rate in each village. When local people vote on local laws, these affect their lives. Indeed, local politics in Switzerland is far more important the federal or cantonal politics. You can even see this structural difference, in the villages. In a Swiss village, they love their flags. But the village flag (every village has a flag) is always in the centre, with the cantonal flag and the federal flag always on either side. This symbolism of the structural difference between Swiss politics and western centralised politics is profound, and it is real. People are more interested in what goes on locally than on the state level. Local people turn up, they vote, and they TALK. The local talk matters, because it will affect your taxes, for sure. Therefore, because local talk matters, individuals talking matters. And so people take talking more seriously. You end up with a far more civil society. Voter apathy is not common, especially in small villages.
So, yeah, I agree with your points. We do need structural change in the west. We can't just turn up and vote for the "freedom party". That can't work.
But at the same time, I think you are wrong to talk of what is idealistic and what is real. This is the distinction of the cynic, and the know all. We are both going to be dead a long time, so forgive me for having a bit of faith in our species.
We'll get there. It is real, it just hasn't happened yet. You ask me:
"Lastly, would you really agree that humanity or the 'human condition' has a 'goal' ? Doesn't that sort of denote a denigrating attitude towards past generations? ;)"
Well, we might not have a "goal", in terms of an endpoint. But we do have a direction. I have often said history only moves in one direction, and by that I suppose I do denigrate part generations. Past generations thought the earth was flat and that capital punishment was a legitimate form of ritual offering. People are getting better.
Except Marcus.
Complain about this comment
Alice, I think you make a good point about German policy towards Russia. I agree that Germany and Russia are probably a lot closer to each other after the misunderstanding of the 1940's. I guess they really got to know each other in those times. The ruskis got a close look at german engineering, and loads of germans got to to take in the sights in Siberia. Good for everybody, in the longer term. Brought the cultures closer together.
I suggest a toast! Vodka and sausages for everybody.
Anyway, Ramstein concerts in moscow seem to go down very well.
The thing is, how do the French, Polish and English feel about Germany being best friends with russia? Or the Baltic states?
For sure, German foreign policy right now is the most interesting thing in Europe. Merkel is an Ossie, after all. She totally takes vodka with her sausage.
So to speak.
Complain about this comment
A paraphrased "quote" that I like:
"While innocence is sweet, it is impotant. Guilt has power. Therefore, only the damned can be saved." (S. Donaldson)
Perhaps the EU CAN be saved :)
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell: In your article you used the expression 'getting it past the people ' about the Lisbon treaty process. I suppose you acknowledge the democratic legitimacy of the British government as well as the other governments in the EU. The question is therefore: who are the people?
Among the many issues the member states of the EU have not made a subject for transnational standards in the EU system is education, and if you as a student change from a one federal state in Germany to another it is actually just as difficult as if you cross the national borders between two member states.
However, you could easily get the idea that it would be a great advantage to firms if it was possible to compare the competence of two or more applicants, and quite a few occupational groups have reached the same conclusion: Academics of course, people in television and film (you must know such people), the advertising trade, creative people of many kinds, tradesmen as well as doctors, dentists, and nurses. You probably already know that the health care people are very inclined to cross borders, and perhaps you have also noticed that the countries are competing for these professionals. It is something the German health care minister knows a lot about. She is loosing staff members.
Because of this interest on both sides of the labour market the brightest educational ministers in the EU have started their own harmonisation. Right behind the back of the people, which of course does not comprise the occupational groups I just mentioned, or should we not stop the intellectual swindle and say the back of those with little idea of what is going on. The ministers have identified two aspects, which counteract a harmonisation, and they are now changing both as quickly as possible.
The marks have not been comparable. Therefore the systems are changed to achieve commensurability. Also the titles, which should tell about the qualifications, have not (always) been comparable, and we are now getting bachelors and masters in every member state of the EU. Thus the Prussian standards most of the universities in Europe adopted a couple of centuries ago are replaced with an Anglo-American standard.
You know the case with the polish plumber. The non-regulated harmonisation of education will inevitable increase the mobility of the work force, that is a part of it, namely those who can speak a foreign language and adopt to the culture in another country.
Maybe it would be a lot more democratic if this harmonisation took place in an open public room subject to a democratic decision, that is in a complex of directives by the council of the EU, instead of getting past ' the people' to the benefit of the educational elite only.
Complain about this comment
Gary_A_Hill wrote:
"Freedom of association is one of our (US) core First Amendment freedoms. Do you say that people should not have the freedom to associate with whom they please, and to join forces in political causes to increase their liklihood of success? I think if you do not allow people to associate openly, then they will do it secretely."
I'm not Leo, but I would like a shot at this.
The freedom to associate must be distinct from the freedom to dominate. You suggest that unless two major parties can dominate the political spectrum of life in the USA, people are not free to associate.
This is very dubious analyses. Just because a constitution prevents large political parties from dominating every aspect of life, this doesn't mean people must be prohibited from association. If this were to hold, your case would be that human beings are incapable of operating a society without devolving into two major political factions. You would be arguing that if people are free to do as they wish, they must always choose to establish the American two party system.
With respect, you can only suggest such a thing if you accept the premis that the US constitution and rules of political engagement are the god given embodiment of freedom on earth.
If you concede that the US two party system is just another form of the westminster two party system, and that there is nothing inherently perfect about the US constitution, then it follows that another structure can be created that may allow both the freedom of association AND which will prevent the banal tyranny of the two party system.
gary then wrote:"If you don't like political parties, what form of government would you choose which avoids them? Totalitarian?"
Gary, you would probably agree that both the USSR and NAZI germany were totalitarian regimes.
You would also agree that both these regimes were characterized by the absolute rule of political parties.
Yes?
So how do totalitarian regimes avoid political parties? Or, put another way, how can you avoid a totalitarian regime if you DO have political parties?
People from outside the USA often make fun of the "Pepsi-Coke" two party system in the US. I hope you get the point. At the same time, it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between any of the major political parties in the UK, Germany, Australia or anywhere else that adopts the westminster system.
So it is possible that a person could look at the interchangeability of political parties in the west and say "They are all effectively the same party! My vote means absolutely nothing! I live under TOTALITARIANISM."
Now, as an American i expect that you will deny you live under totalitarian rule. But then, I would expect from the average citizen during soviet rule in Russia, and it is well documented that a huge majority of people living under the NAZI regime felt they did not live under totalitarian rule.
Remember, just because all the different factions of the communist party looked more or less the same to you, that doesn't mean that they were the same to people who got excited about the internal party elections in the USSR.
Complain about this comment
Surely Ireland disagreeing in a referendum then getting special treatment so they agree to it shows what a joke this all is
No other country has been given a referendum, mainly because they'll vote no - EU-philes here like to say the Brits are the only ones not playing along but it simply isn't true, we didn't even need to scupper the constitution, and now we're all being rail-roaded into this
If it does pass I wonder how the British people will react
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"Maybe it would be a lot more democratic if this harmonisation took place in an open public room subject to a democratic decision, that is in a complex of directives by the council of the EU,..."
Mathiasen, do you really believe the council operates according to "democratic" practice?
Yes, the people on the council are elected representatives. True.
But so was Stalin. He was elected every year, without fail.
And don't you dare laugh, because he was. And so too was Gordon Brown elected to a safe seat. And Sarko, and Merkel. All elected to safe seats, all given safe seats to be elected to.
And Stalin, Brown, Merkel and Sarko all belonged to political parties which were destined to hold power in their respective nations. The only difference is that Brown, Merkel and Sarko might have been replaced by a member of THE OTHER major political party on offer.
But that is all. That is the only difference.
If you are honest, you will admit that the council is a construction that is fundamentally guaranteed to represent only the major parties in Europe. It is obvious to even a child that only the major parties can ever send representatives to the council. That is rather the point of the council, surely?
You know, and we all know, that when coalitions form in member state governments, the dominant parties get to select their front man or woman as leader of the coalition. Therefore, it is the party who effectively select the leader of the coalition. Therefore it is the party who effectively dictate the make up of the council.
Just like the USSR. There is no difference, if we are to be honest about the process and the outcomes.
OK, I admit, the EU is a subtle ruse. Maybe the system would fool a child.
But we are not children, and I would appreciate it if you could speak about the democratic characteristics of the council and the commission it appoints with more intellectual honesty. You know the dominant parties created the EU structure, and you know that the structure they created destroyed the influence of minority parties in EU affairs.
Please do not insult us and embarrass yourself by calling this exercise "democratic".
Complain about this comment
@201 Democracythread
With all my respect, referring to your post @201 *And frankly Belgium is a ridiculous concept.*, I think that what M.M. has chosen as a title of the present article meets perfectly the hot, sometimes irresponsible tone of many posts here. It would please certainly to gentlemen like MMII who characterized the EU as a bag full of cats.
What strikes me much is the evident tendency in your comments, as well as in Free-John comments, /both of you enjoy the esteem of many bloggers here/ to present the EU as being the most ridiculous and unfair European convention which is doomed to disappear very soon just like the USSR did in 1991.
And if that really happens to the full satisfaction of Wall Street, can you predict how things will go in the Old continent? Have you read carefully the history of all those European empires that vanished one after another because of the unrealistic desire of their governors to rule the whole planet at the expense of all of us?
I certainly shall not defend any bad decision that would come from Brussels, but I shall be in favour of all its good decisions that would bring peace and prosperity to all those continental, Christian European nations that have joined by their own will the Convention called EU.
Complain about this comment
I only want to comment on this useless energysupply side topic as the rest more or less seems to be the so often celebrated "ANTI vs PRO EU talk" that leads nowhere as neither party is even seriously considering the points of the other as it would be way too harmful to their own pride.
Since every ton of coal mined in Germany costs far more than any ton bought on the free trade market, I don't consider Germany to be a economic powerhouse due to it's coal reserves. The amount of oil it has is even far more ridicolous and far from worth even being mentioned.
Secondly when I went to school I was told that by the year 2010 all oil reserves in the world would be depleted. Now it is 2009 and I don't think we will get that far until next year. With advancing techniques and raising prices it will be possible to discover now unknown sources and to use them economically, so that I don't trust in any estimation which tells me now how the world will look like in 40 or 90 years.
Thirdly even if those estimations were correct who knows what kinds of energy forms we will use in 90 years? Even now winds and the sun are becoming more and more competitive to fossil sources. In 90 years we might even have understood how to efficiently use fusion reactors for unlimited power supply or other technologies that are completely unknown from the viewpoint we have now.
Complain about this comment
Seraphim85 (239): The pro-EU side have not made any point in support of the EU that stands up to analysis in the last two years on these pages. If you see anything from them that you think is convincing then please point it out, and i will be happy to demonstrate that it is bogus.
Complain about this comment
#239
Energy security. Is it immaterial or fundamental to EU integration?
Some think it's fundamental. Energy fuels new 'Great Game' in Europe.
But maybe not the British-Irish Council.
Complain about this comment
ironfranco and #238.
It is interesting your reference to "..read carefully the history of all those empires that vanished one after another.." appears to miss the key point that they did indeed all 'vanish'.
From Romans to Stalin it tragically took the enormous effort and sacrifice of Citizens to enforce the banishment.
The 'genocidal' nature of the Spanish conquest of central and south America and the Nazis in Europe is not the norm for Imperial policy: All Imperial powers did/do (re China in Tibet) at times use force but this is discouraged as it is an economic loss, not an economic gain which is the economic imperative of rule over many millions of peoples.
Revolt - rebellion - revolution are all within the peoples remit, but again, that's the stuff of cinema - - reality is the vast majority of Citizens drift into powerless acquiescence - - resistance is for those minority who will brave the streets and loss of privilege, rank, rights, comfort (re Ang Syu Chi supporters or Iranians today). It is why we can all name our human rights heroes - - they are few and far between - - Violette Zsabo, Pastor Bonhoffer, Ghandhi, Mandela do not come along that often.
So, it alas appears to be the case with the relatively 'new' pan-european imperial power the European Union.
It is the sound-bite history of the hollywood film or television programme to imply Empire is a Military affair when nothing of the sort is actually the longterm reality: The purpose of Imperialism is the control of Citizens-Trade-Business for the exploitation and aquisition of Financial and Material rewards for an elite Governing group. E.g. the British in India ruled hundreds of millions in various racial/tribal territories with barely 75,000 'white' armed forces and the same number 'white' civil servants - - the actual management of India was undertaken by hundreds of thousands of Indians in the employ of the British - - with the proviso the British had the final word/decision-making authority/power. It lasted from roughly the 1780s to 1947!
Translate that situation to the European Union: With a European Court of Justice and a Commission both unelected and supported by a European Parliament (who like turkeys are hardly likely to vote for christmas and abolish the EU gravy-train) countless minions scurrying cross-border to check the various racial/tribal groupings are doing as the EU has instructed via Directives! It's lasted 40+ years already!
The EU cannot really be judged in any other light: For what are the qualifications of 'empire'?
To have supreme Political-Judicial authority and power over more than 1 Nation/Peoples and to exercise that authority and power over those Nations/Peoples without limit or check upon the right to do so. A more obvious example could not be found than the EU which has succeeded in exporting/expanding its authority and power beyond all recognition from the Trade-Tariff-Transport body of the EEC in 1975.
I note that you are careful to represent the EU as those 'C'hristian nations which may be just your respect for that faith, or, you may indeed be inclining toward believing a mainland Europe and British Isles with some 25 million Muslims and Chinese, plus all the other groupings that add up to another 25 million do not actually count?
To be fair you may also just have been reflecting on the Judeo-Christian cultural heritage of the past millennia - - in which case your reference to "..nations that have joined by their own will the Convention called the EU.." is a very disingenuous closing remark - - for surely the history of Judeo-Christian pan-National alliances is that like the European Union the Citizens found that once they were in they had no choice but to cooperate with a centralising, unresponsive and largely undemocratic authority/power who exercised such control the Citizens eventually, every time, threw off the yoke of servitude (albeit with timely assistance from the 'new world' and 'new commonwealth' in the 20th century).
Unfortunately for you and many other 'pro-EU' simply stating you will not "..defend any bad decision that comes from Brussels.." is rather like a British Raj official distressed by 'caste system' but not minding the 'wallah' standing 16 hours a day waving a fan over him, or, a Vichy Government official distressed about the very unpleasant arrangements for 'transports' train schedule, but, well, he has a job to do, doesn't he!?
Complain about this comment
Just to make one thing clear: When the matter in EU is about traffic the ministers of traffic meet in the council. When the matter is about education the council consists of ministers of education.
It reveals nothing but lack of knowledge about the building of governments within the circle of member states to say only the major parties can ever send representatives to the council. We are wasting our time completely with the correction of such rubbish. Use Google to find out what the rules are, if you have doubt about it.
It is not to believe that the notion of what interests are and how they are handled can be so distorted and lead to such mistaken accounts.
Complain about this comment
@242 Ikamaskeip
I see you are trying to present your interpetation of history in a way to make me believe that there is little differance between the nature say of the British, the French, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Russian, the Prussian, the Hungary-Austrian and other big empires and the decisions that come from Brussels. I shall try to make my paralel ASAP. However, there is one point to clarify: all those big empires came to life initially by the force of the arms, while the EU is nothing else than a further development of the Commun Market and the Roman Treaty conventions which were established by the commun will and decision of the european democracies.
Complain about this comment
#216. Freeborn-John wrote:
is totally meaningless when they have no power to block.
Not quite, as I described in post #66 if a national parliament is against the proposal then the leader of the parliament (the prime minister) is also against it and then unanimity can't be reached in the EU council.
You too can have a say, as can I and anybody else and the EU Commission can ignore us all as it can national parliaments.
The EU commission can't ignore the national parliament, simply because it's not allowed to.
You can endlessly repeat that it ain't so, or that the article is number 308 (which is about the ECB) but no matter how many times you say it you will still be wrong.
We're both correct about the numbering, you know that. You simply use the numbering under the new TFEU and I use the numbering under the Lisbon treaty; it's still the same article. I have no idea why you're so obsessed with the numbering, it's almost as if you're trying to discredit me...
oh wait you are:
I am afraid you are typical of a pro-European, trying to minise the significance of a treaty before it is ratified and then later you will say, 'sorry only boy, you should have understood what you were signing up to at the time'.
And now you're trying to discredit me by saying "Look guys Ticape belongs to a group of people who are known to be liars and deceivers, his words can't be trusted!". But no John, it's not me who's lying and deceiving, it's you.
First you made a "mistake" by confusing the passerelle clause with the flexibility clause An honest mistake perhaps but the realist in me knows you're way too intelligent for that. You're on purposely confusing the two because the 'flexibility clause' has more lenient checks.
Second you're minimizing the checks in the Lisbon treaty, not only by downplaying the unanimity in the Council but also by not mentioning the role of the national parliaments.
Thirdly when I mentioned the role of the national parliaments you first pretended they were not there and when I talked about the checks of the real 'passerelle clause' you pretended I was talking about the 'flexibility clause'. Every one who read my post #160 knows I was talking about a different article but not you though.
And last when all of that didn't work you tried the most effective debating technique of them all: discrediting the person directly. Heck even I'm doing that. ;)
But you know what you're lying and deceiving do show the problem of the entire EU debate: it's not honest.
Complain about this comment
Ironfranco and #244.
Regrettably our interpretations as to the cause/reason for the emergence of the imperial EU must differ as much as they do on so many of these issues.
You choose to believe the EU came from nowhere but the mind of the body-politic and that is to a degree correct: Of course the reason why those Political Leadership were so-minded was World War Two or at least the European catastrophe 1939-45 and partly the resultant emergence of a 'soviet communist empire' in the east of Europe.
This development was much like the formation of Rome's early imperial period when it (as per Brussels) expanded its controls of border regions in order to fill the void left by other declining 'tribal powers', to control border territories affected by 'warring tribes' and as a bulwark support of its threatened trade-business routes.
Nothing really changes in the history of humans because the human being is a creature of habit like any other species.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"Just to make one thing clear: When the matter in EU is about traffic the ministers of traffic meet in the council. When the matter is about education the council consists of ministers of education."
Yes. I know. And when the council votes on the treaty to expand more power for the EU, it is the leader of the ruling coalition who votes. And when the council votes to appoint the commission, which initiates the vast majority of all EU legislation (outside the judicial legislation of the ECJ), it is the leaders of the ruling coalitions who vote.
In other words, when the traffic ministers meet, they meet to discuss legislation that has already been written by the commission. They can say yes or no, and if they say no they are going against their national leader's party.
And the commission president has been from one of the two dominant European parties since the creation of that erstwhile "democratic" body.
My point still stands. The structure of the EU concentrates power with the dominant members of the dominant parties in Europe. It operates in precisely the opposite direction of the separation of powers doctrine.
Mathiasen:
"It reveals nothing but lack of knowledge about the building of governments within the circle of member states to say only the major parties can ever send representatives to the council. We are wasting our time completely with the correction of such rubbish. Use Google to find out what the rules are, if you have doubt about it."
Mathiasen, I take back what I said about you being a smart guy. You are a spluttering fool to dare tell me to use google and that you are wasting your time "correcting" me. I would roll you up and smoke you in a court room dispute on EU law, so do not put on your superman clothes and patronize me.
If you think that proffering your opinion on this forum is waste of time, keep that to yourself. Advertising your lack of decency and your superiority complex is not called for, and does not endear anyone to the EU you serve with such desperate servility.
I never argued about only the major parties were permitted to send their people to the council. I argued that the practical effect of the way the EU council has been set up is that, IN FACT, it is only the dominant parties who ever send their dominant members to the council.
I am not talking about the fine print of the rules. I am talking about the result, the actual result of what has happened in Europe as a result of all those fine rules.
Mathiasen then wrote:
"It is not to believe that the notion of what interests are and how they are handled can be so distorted and lead to such mistaken accounts."
That is gibberish, and it betrays a complete lack of intellectual honesty. You are spluttering about other peoples "mistakes" and your own "corrections" with no reference to the content of the debate or the law itself. Who do you think you are?
It is precisely this sort of deceitful arrogance that makes people fear the EU. It is precisely this sort of deceitful arrogance that has led me to theorize that the EU is a creation of dominant party members for the sake of increasing power for dominant party members.
As you dare to use such arrogant language in this debate, let me give you a harsh opinion of yourself.
You do not understand the doctrine of the separation of powers that serves the common law constitutions of the English speaking world. You do not understand the philosophical basis of this law, and it shows in the way you discuss the process of political institutions. Yes, you can write English tolerably well. But you do not display a grasp of the dangers that befall a society when power becomes ever more concentrated in one party.
For a German, that is intolerable legal ignorance. Have you learned nothing from the past?
Do not talk to me about "corrections" and google until you can demonstrate that you understand how to assess whether a legal system concentrates power or disperses it, and why that might or might not be a good thing. That is what the debate is about, and it would be useful if you turned up and paid attention.
Complain about this comment
On both sides of the EU debate you see the type of nationalist that i have no sympathy for; the 'bent twig' who harbours deep resentment that they have been held back or denied their place in the sun by some other country, and who seeks to lash back at the perceived source of this resentment. 'Bent twigs' in the UK might harbour resentment against France or Germany and oppose the EU for this reason. There are 'bent twigs' who harbour resentment against the USA or Russia who support the EU as a collective lash with which to whip the source of their resentments. There are 'bent twigs' on the Continent (RGruenebaum) or Scotland (euroscot) who feel humiliated by the UK (or England) and support qualified majority votes in the EU to bring Britain (or England) to heel. Nothing of value can be learnt by such 'bent twigs' on either side of the EU debate.
I am in favour of global free trade and as much free movement of workers as possible because it makes everyone richer on average. I used to support the EEC for that reason, but globalisation has increasingly overtaken the former advantages of a limited European market and the EEC has morphed into an undemocratic top-down political union that is hollowing out our democracies from above with a growing body of supranational law (much of it motivated by the desire to hobble thy neighbour) that obliges national parliaments to remove conflicting legislation and which will eventually result in national parliaments not being able to legislate at all.
The pursuit of influence over foreign governments whose policy you disagree with is a legitimate goal of politics, but only the 'bent twig' nationalist makes this the ultimate goal to which he is prepared to subordinate more laudable ends such as his own democracy or liberty. Unfortunately Europe is world champion when it comes to producing 'bent twig' nationalists who have created the EU to give institutional form to both their grievances and their priorities. These euro-nationalists are prepared to accept a degraded democracy where the people keep voting until they return the 'right' answer not because they think this is right, but because democracy simply ranks lower in their priorities than the pursuit of collective power. Europe has experienced this prioritisation of collective power over democracy several times before and it has always led to disaster. The political classes must be taught that liberal democracy is more important than EU collective power exercised beyond the reach of our votes and that when the people speak (as the French, Dutch and Irish have) then it is the obligation of politicians to accept their answer.
Complain about this comment
Ironfranco:
"Have you read carefully the history of all those European empires that vanished one after another because of the unrealistic desire of their governors to rule the whole planet at the expense of all of us?"
I am tolerably well acquainted with European history.
I would suggest that it doesn't matter too much. The world has changed a lot, and Europe exists in a global context that makes Europe much smaller and more intertwined with the great powers in the rest of the world.
But we are agreed, anything that comes from Brussels that is good for the people of Europe is welcome. However, this cannot legitimize or excuse fundamental problems with the structure of brussels as it now stands.
My concern, and it is a real concern, about the current EU is simply that it is headed in a very bad direction for the people of Europe. I like the idea of a united Europe, but I deplore the idea of a europe united under concentrated power. Any concentration of power is a dangerous and unwelcome development. I say that with reference to member states as well as with reference to the EU.
Concentrated power, especially concentrated power within a political party, leads to less consultation and more abuse of power by those who hold more power. If the history of Europe can tell us anything, it must be that.
So I would love to join hands and sing songs of a free and happy and wealthy Europe, but I am not going to do so under the current structure of the EU. To my understanding, dominant political parties in Europe have hijacked the mechanisms of political power, and power becomes ever more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. This has lead to the disenchantment of the common people, and the growing arrogance of party members with nice jobs in Brussels.
In the UK now, Lord Mandelson is the king maker. He is the most powerful man in the country, and he is despised by everyone outside the inner circles of the far left of the labour party. He is widely hated, yet he hold an unprecedented concentration of power.
In Russia, we see another example of the arrogance and harm that emanates when a party has increased concentrations of power.
So I fear the same thing in Europe, and therefore I must object to this manifestation of the EU, and everything it does. I have been watching it for years now, and like a cancer it grows ever larger. Hoarding concentrated power to itself, and the parties who created it, is really the only thing the EU can be relied upon to do. It is difficult to say it exists for any other purpose.
Complain about this comment
What did Freeborn-John say in #248 in response to the EU's need for energy security?
We got a huge tantrum.
Clearly Energy fuels new 'Great Game' in Europe" was too much of a shock for him.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat and #247.
Re, ".. Mathiasen.. spluttering fool.. do not put on your superman clothes and patronize me.. as you dare to use such arrogant language.. do not talk to me about 'corrections' and google.."
Chickens, roost, home, coming, to
LOL!
I told you what he was like.
Anyway, other fish to fry.
Complain about this comment
Euroscot (250): Unfortunately the SNP are a prime-example of 'bent-twigs' motivated by hostility towards England and driven by the logic of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' into supporting the political oxymoron of 'Independence in Europe'.
Scotland is one of the most beautiful places on Earth with a charismatic and educated people who deserve much better than to be blinded by hatred and then led into an undemocratic EU where they would find (like the Irish) that they are only popular so long as they know their place. Scotland could be a Norway but the SNP prefer to lend their resources to Barroso to squander in a Great Game of power with Putin that would impoverish Scots as surely as it does the typical Russian. Scottish nationalists serve only as an example to avoid in an EU debate that will be won by those who stand for something positive; greater control by citizens over their own lives.
Complain about this comment
Freedom-John continues his tantrums. And still nothing about the need of the EU for energy security.
Let's try again: Energy fuels new 'Great Game' in Europe".
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John and #252.
Fiercesomely accurate assessment of the grudge-match politics the likes of Barroso rely on amongst European Nations.
Some 'pro-EU' will argue that is why the EU is a 'positive' thing: It dampens internecine squabbles and old times scores to settle.
Truth is it is probably the most dangerous aberration of all: It is storing up a whelter of 'bent twig' hostility against it and amongst the Nationalities.
If anyone could explain how it is the perfectly reasonably functioning Trade-Tariffs-Transport EEC could possibly need to be replaced by the Federalised syndrome of a European Union I have yet to read/hear of it. As democracythreat remarked in #249, "..concentrated power, especially concentrated power within a political party.." and I would extend that to 'political entities' such as the EU, then, "..leads to less consultation and more abuse of power by those who hold more power..".
That said, we cannot exclude nor ignore SNP, BNP, UKIP, Lib-Dem, Plaid Cymru etc. or anyone from the debate: We can argue our point and ensure their misguided views are at least given a going over by those who hold different ones.
That way we may (crossed everything) win the argument longterm and the wretched EU will be vanquished without resort to old fashioned blood-on-the-streets!
Complain about this comment
Leo (the Lion) @ 226:
Easily one of the best posts I have read on this board. Sweet, subtle sarcasm coupled with the necessary pin-prick to deflate an EU-sized ego. A healthy dose of insight to plough a straight path through the piles of BS that fill this board. Well done!
Complain about this comment
Don't gloat, ikam. It isn't seemly.
Complain about this comment
threat to democracy;
"Past generations thought the earth was flat and that capital punishment was a legitimate form of ritual offering. People are getting better.
Except Marcus."
Living the hellish existance that you imagine my lot to be, is far preferable to me than existing in your notion of heaven. Just the thought having to listen to you for all eternity makes the idea unbearable.
stellarBeloved;
"only the damned can be saved"
Happy day, my chances of avoiding the fate of existing near dt forever have improved already.
Complain about this comment
Well said on the bent twig nationalists, freeborn.
I still think we could argue endlessly about : "I am in favour of global free trade and as much free movement of workers as possible because it makes everyone richer on average."
As much free movement as possible?
What can that mean?
I guess I'm with Leo on the issue of structural change in the methods of political discourse that are acceptable in society. If we don't stop listening to the economic priests of the global village and start listening to common sense, I fear any solution is illusionary.
Trying to explain how much free movement is possible whilst we witness environmental annihilation in the name of sacred profits for multinational corporations...... it just seems to me that we are inside a burning house, wondering how to fix the toilet that wont flush.
I don't think people will be able to tolerate the faith of economic theory for much longer. Even if we want to, global borders are going to be forced shut by the pressures on the natural world, created by over consumption of resources.
For example, China is currently demanding vast swathes of forest from Brazil, South east asia and africa. At present, this demand is being met by supply. But when these forests get so small that the people of those regions begin to starve in the street because floods and erosion have crippled their ability to feed even themselves.... what can china do then?
Appeal to economic doctrine?
Complain about this comment
Pray for my sinful soul, Carlos.
Complain about this comment
The thing is, how do the French, Polish and English feel about Germany being best friends with russia? Or the Baltic states? [#232]
Don't know 'bout them French, but when I visited the region roughly a year ago, Balts and Poles were saying that German-Russian closeness reminded them of Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact (with its then secret clause) which led to them having been invaded jointly by those two then allies in September 1939.
BTW. France is importing more and more gas from Algeria and is involved in a construction of a 2nd under-sea pipeline to that country
If you add, that roughly 70% of France's power needs are supplied by its own, v. well designed and built atomic plants it seems that it is much less vulnerable to a potential Russian blackmail than other countries of 'Old Europe', to use Donald R.'s parlance.
Complain about this comment
The new EP-group ECR, which is formed by former members of the conservative EPP group and comprising the Polish PiS, the Czech ODS, and the Tories from the UK among other, has denied the admission in the group of the right wing nationalists from Denmark. It would give Cameron tactical problems in the UK to be seen in this company, European papers write among them also the Financial Times. ECR consider (correctly) the Danish party racist.
That is no problem for another British party, UKIP, who shares the anti-EU viewpoints of the Danes. UKIP and Morten Messerschmidt from the Danish party are negotiating in order to form a group in the EP, the Danish paper Politiken writes.
Complain about this comment
#7 referred to some of the plans for energy security already being made by the EU. EUObserver.
Wider grids is also the plan of Washington.
The British-Irish Council?
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat (258): I meant as much free movement of workers as is politically acceptable in a democracy.
However i do not wish to get sidetracked by discussion on migration because in about 15 weeks there will be a referendum in Ireland which may come to be seen by future generations as decisive to the survival of democracy in Europe. There are plenty of battles in history that we look back upon in history as having consequences that were unclear at the time, but which rippled through time and proved decisive in shaping the world we and future generations will live in. The Battle of Marston Moor in 1641 was decisive to the supremacy of the mother of parliaments over the divine right of kings, the Battle of Quebec in 1759 to the pre-eminence of the English in North America with importance consequences for the political culture that still prevails on that Continent and the preponderance of the English language in the world today.
The result of this upcoming 2nd referendum in Ireland may decide if an undemocratic political union takes off in Europe run by a cartel of politicians on the established precedent that votes that this cartel do not like can be bypassed or re-run until the politicians get the answer they want. The long-term consequences for the future of democracy in Europe (and perhaps even the world should the EU continue to widen into some form of world government) would be serious. Almost the entire political class in Europe, 2.4 billion euros a year of EU 'communications' (propaganda) budget and much of the media is one side with precious little to oppose them.
Complain about this comment
#252 Freeborn-John
"Scotland is one of the most beautiful places on Earth with a charismatic and educated people who deserve much better than to be blinded by hatred"
You have clearly never been in Motherwell! Scotland is a country like any other. We have beautiful places (and ugly), educated people (and drop-outs), charismatic people (and me). Such over-praise smacks of your being patronising. We are just a country - no less no more. We never stopped being a country with its own institutions and political system. We are currently in a close political union with other parts of the UK. If we choose to dissolve that Union, it won't be out of hatred - blind or otherwise.
Complain about this comment
olnat (264): I've never been to Motherwell, but Rannoch Moor, anywhere north of the Great Glenn, or along the coast from the Isle of Skye to Cape Wrath is paradise on Earth, at least when the sun is shining (which is about 21 hours a day this time of year). And you can always head for a distillery tour if its raining.
Complain about this comment
Carlossanchezguerra and #255.
You are either Leo's clone or suffering delusions of erudite grandeur that are way, way beyond the reality!
I appreciate that most of us on here do have the advantage of English as our 'native language', however, for you to consider #226 as 'sarcasm' or that the anyone other than Leo was suffering from the condition known as 'inflated' ego is a remarkably undistinguished intellectual judgement that in English we would term delicious 'irony'!
Complain about this comment
I share your sense of the moment, but only to a certain extent. For sure, if the Irish vote "Yes" then things will be interesting, but stable. I mean, that wont be a decisive victory for the pro EU partocrats. (new word! I dedicate it to leo)
But if the Irish vote no..... well then the debate is going to get ugly. That is going to be a big middle finger to the party, and I sense a backlash. I think if the Irish vote no, the EU will panic, and there will be a huge outpouring of anti Irish and English sentiment from Russia's good friend, Germany.
Effectively the centre of Europe will shift to the east by several hundred kilometers, the sudden jolt of which will send the citizens of Calais, Antwerp and Rotterdam tumbling into the channel.
Sarko will do his burka, and Merkel will be getting the vodka glasses down from the high shelf in the back room.
So, yeah, it all hangs in the balance. You can cut the air with a knife.
Trust Mark Mardell to go awol at the crucial moment. He is off somewhere practicing his American accent, and trying on alligator skin cowboy boots and a ten gallon hat.
Mark doesn't care about us no more, and that means he doesn't care about THE COMMON PEOPLE OF EUROPE.
I speak for you also, Leo.
Complain about this comment
#265 Freeborn-John
Thanks for the boost to our tourist industry! Doesn't counteract the political point I was making, however.
I can understand why the largest countries in Europe might think they could be better off outwith the EU (though only England/UK seems to take that view).
For smaller countries, like mine, a wider association with other European countries makes more sense. I'd like to see a reformed - less centralised - EU structure, but our current structure whereby England (massively dominant due to its population) dominates the UK and controls our international relations (including the EU) gives us the worst of both worlds. We are the same size as Denmark - a similar constitutional status would seem reasonable. Of course, they could join the UK as well, and re-establish the Danelaw, but I haven't seen any demand for that yet.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat (#235), your reply to my post is somewhat long and complicated, but I take it seriously and think it deserves a comprehensive response, so I will try (your statements in italics):
"The freedom to associate must be distinct from the freedom to dominate."
Certainly. The former does not imply the latter.
"You suggest that unless two major parties can dominate the political spectrum of life in the USA, people are not free to associate."
I don't know where you get this. I suggest nothing of the kind. In the US, people may associate with whom they please and form political associations freely.
"This is very dubious analyses. Just because a constitution prevents large political parties from dominating every aspect of life, this doesn't mean people must be prohibited from association. If this were to hold, your case would be that human beings are incapable of operating a society without devolving into two major political factions. You would be arguing that if people are free to do as they wish, they must always choose to establish the American two party system."
I'm not following you at all here. I can't relate it to anything I wrote. And by the way, the dominance of US politics by two parties is not a "system," it is a mere consequence of the system of rules by which we elect our president. That is my main point.
"With respect, you can only suggest such a thing if you accept the premis that the US constitution and rules of political engagement are the god given embodiment of freedom on earth."
Whatever I suggest, the US Constitution was given by our founding fathers, particularly James Madison, and (for the Bill of Rights) Thomas Jefferson, but many others. Based on many ideas contributed by European philosophers, of course.
"If you concede that the US two party system is just another form of the westminster two party system, and that there is nothing inherently perfect about the US constitution, then it follows that another structure can be created that may allow both the freedom of association AND which will prevent the banal tyranny of the two party system."
I do not concede that. I was trying to explain how politics in the US differs from a Westminster-type system, for the benefit of Europeans who might be interested. The most important difference is the manner in which the head of government is selected, independent of the legislative branch in the US case, and how this affects the development of parties. And I certainly did not (and do not) say that the US Constitution is "inherently perfect." And once again, the US does not have a "two party system." We have lots of parties. As for tyranny, that's a pretty strong word. In the US, one need not belong to any party at all in order to get elected to public office.
"gary then wrote:"If you don't like political parties, what form of government would you choose which avoids them? Totalitarian?""
"Gary, you would probably agree that both the USSR and NAZI germany were totalitarian regimes."
Sure.
"You would also agree that both these regimes were characterized by the absolute rule of political parties.
Yes?"
They were each ruled by a single political party, so it is not a party system in the sense we are considering. It is a degenerate case. When the dominant party succeeds in crushing all opposition parties, then you have something else besides party politics. The "party" becomes simply an organization for carrying out the policies of the ruling class.
"So how do totalitarian regimes avoid political parties?"
Finally an easy question. They just prohibit them and murder people who organize political opposition to the regime.
"Or, put another way, how can you avoid a totalitarian regime if you DO have political parties?"
Well, in the US we have lots of political parties and do not have a totalitarian regime, so I don't get your drift here.
"People from outside the USA often make fun of the "Pepsi-Coke" two party system in the US. I hope you get the point. At the same time, it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between any of the major political parties in the UK, Germany, Australia or anywhere else that adopts the westminster system."
Making fun of the US is allowed under our system. It is considered good sport in many other countries, as well. As for your being unable to distinguish between political parties, do you suppose that any of them are obligated to change their appearance for your benefit? If you don't like the looks of any of them, you can start your own.
"So it is possible that a person could look at the interchangeability of political parties in the west and say "They are all effectively the same party! My vote means absolutely nothing! I live under TOTALITARIANISM.""
Not a rational conclusion. Totalitarianism has to do with exerting control over what people may believe, or say, or write. In the US, I am under no pressure to belong to the Republican or Democratic Party in order to participate in electoral politics, and in fact I belong to neither, nor to any other political party. I am free to believe what I like, and to express my thoughts.
As for whether one's vote means anything: we have 300 million people in the US. Naturally, there are many points of view, and an individual cannot expect always to get his or her way. Some of us seldom get our way on the important questions of the day. C'est la vie.
"Now, as an American i expect that you will deny you live under totalitarian rule."
I certainly do deny that.
"But then, I would expect from the average citizen during soviet rule in Russia, and it is well documented that a huge majority of people living under the NAZI regime felt they did not live under totalitarian rule."
My son-in-law was born in the Soviet Union, and I defer to him for analysis of that system. As for the Nazi regime, I expect that certain minority groups would have had a different opinion. I don't think proper resolution of the question of the nature of the regime is subject to majority vote. History will decide, and I think the historians have rendered their judgment of the Nazis.
"Remember, just because all the different factions of the communist party looked more or less the same to you, that doesn't mean that they were the same to people who got excited about the internal party elections in the USSR."
Although I'm no expert on the subject, I'm sure that there were factions within the Soviet Communist Party.
To summarize, this seems like a lot of micro-analysis of what I thought was a relatively limited and straightforward proposition: that the number of political parties in any system is merely a consequence of how the rules for electing government operate. I see no intrinsic value in claiming that there should be one, or two, or a few, or many political parties. Or none, for that matter. The intrinsic value is freedom, that is, the freedom to choose to associate with other like-minded individuals and organize for political purposes. If people have that freedom, then they will organize, and however it turns out under any particular electoral system is just the way it is, neither good nor bad.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat (267): This issue must come to head no matter what the Germans think. There will be indignation at first but flirting with Russia is not a serious policy.
Mark Mardell's predecessor in this Europe role (Stephen Sakur) was on the BBC last night interviewing Wolfgang Schauble (the German interior minister) for the Hardtalk show. Schauble was in complete denial about what is coming putting on a fine demonstration of the traditional German skill of tunnel vision where they exclude from mind any possibilty other than that option which is their preferred one. For Schauble there was simply no possible alternative to European federalism and David Cameron would simply have to change his EU policies after becoming prime minister. I was left with the conclusion that there will soon be an repeat in the Berlin Chancellery of an earlier conversation there at an 'unexpected' turn of events.
-----------------
"What do we do now?" A. Hitler to Ribbentrop (September 3, 1939)
Complain about this comment
Gary wrote:
"They were each ruled by a single political party, so it is not a party system in the sense we are considering. It is a degenerate case. When the dominant party succeeds in crushing all opposition parties, then you have something else besides party politics. The "party" becomes simply an organization for carrying out the policies of the ruling class."
That is a delightful summary of where many of us believe the EU is headed. You see, whether you say the EU has many parties or one party with many factions is largely semantics.
But more interesting is your claim that minorities in NAZI germany and the USSR were not free, whereas in the USA they have been. You suggest that as long as people are free to associate, then everyone, even the poor, can start their own political party.
However, consider the time we are discussing. NAZI germany and the soviet union, prior to and during the cold war.
If you were a black man in the USA at this time, how free would you feel? If you were prevented from voting and threatened if you went to the wrong bar, and made to sit on segregated buses? What about if you were a member of the communist party, being accused by McCarthy of treason, or being beaten up by the police, losing your job, perhaps executed for being a spy?
Even today, what if you were a devout muslim, whose family was from Iraq and had suffered casualties, who believed the USA was an evil empire hell that made war for the profit of the ruling class?
If the FBI were tapping our phone and you felt in danger of being whisked off to gitmo, or renditioned to Egypt for torture?
What if you family were mexicans who smoked cannabis for generations and now you were in privatized jail for ten years and being brutalized by alcoholic guards because you were using the traditional recreational drug your family had always used?
Everyone who sings the praise of the system is free to do so, Gary.
I do not pretend that the USA is now as brutal as the soviet union was in the past, nor do I wish to make an equivalence argument between conditions in the USA and the third reich. But the USA executes children, and it has 2'300'000 plus folks in prison, with another 1'500'000 sentenced prisoners out on bail or parole. That is 5% of the adult male population.
Are you sure the USA is as objectively "free" as it seems to you?
I started thinking this way after I kept meeting ordinary folks from the former soviet union who got along pretty much OK in the soviet system. They had jobs, they had tv's, they loved their flag and anthem. They said they were free, if they were patriots. If asked about the USA, they said terrible things about the propaganda and the millions of black folks and hispanics who were effectively slaves for the ruling whites.
After all, there are 4770 black men per 100 thousand men in prison, compared to 727 per 100 thousand for whites. If you want to make a case about a injustice and class for a country that is far away "over there", that is pretty useful ammunition for the task.
Anyway, I am not saying this word freedom has no meaning, or that the pepsi-coke choice is not a valid way to express democratic participation.
But I don't think I'd want to go to war for freedom like that.
Complain about this comment
ikam, Carlos hates me because he thinks I kicked Jesus in the nuts.
I didn't, of course, but what can you tell folks with three spanish names?
Complain about this comment
democracythreat (#267) " ... trying on alligator skin cowboy boots and a ten gallon hat."
That may have worked under the previous (George W. Bush) administration, but now Chicago style is in. I suggest he get an Optimo hat.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat (#271) "If you were a black man in the USA at this time, how free would you feel?"
I have not said the the US is free of oppression, and will certainly not defend the historical maltreatment of blacks in this country. You are barking up the wrong tree.
I was, and still am, only making an observation about a detail of political science. I am not interested in getting into an extended debate about what is right and wrong with the US.
I will, however, respond to one statistic you have provided which gets bandied about a lot:
"After all, there are 4770 black men per 100 thousand men in prison, compared to 727 per 100 thousand for whites."
The more important statistic is: what percentage of violent criminals who happen to be black are in prison, compared to what percentage of violent criminals who happen not to be black are in prison?
We do not put innocent men in prison, or release criminals from prison, in order to achieve some theoretical race-neutral goal.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and one more thing:
"But the USA executes children."
This is false. Minors are not eligible for the death penalty anywhere in the US.
Complain about this comment
#275 Gary_A_Hill
Depends what you mean by "children" I suppose. does keeping juveniles in prison until they are old enough to be executed count as an exemption?
http://www.constitution-and-rights.com/rights-4.html
Complain about this comment
oldnat (#276), persons who commit capital crimes when under the age of 18 are not subject to the death penalty in the US. No convicted criminal becomes eligible for a sentence by means of aging in prison.
The death penalty for minors was abolished by the US Supreme Court fairly recently (2005). Prior to that, several states allowed the death penalty for persons who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crime. Calling these juveniles "children" is putting a bit of spin on it, I think.
In the quarter century prior to the abolition of the penalty, an average of one juvenile per year received the death penalty. Many of these escaped being put to death when the penalty was abolished.
I am not here taking sides one way or the other; I am only reporting the facts.
Complain about this comment
Correction: Approximately one juvenile per year was put to death in the quarter century before 2005. Many others were on death row, but escaped the death penalty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62584-2005Mar1.html
Complain about this comment
How safe and wonderful it is in the virtual world! Cheer up everybody.
Here in wonderland I just sold an antique carpet. May be for 0 dollars, may be for 7 hundred, may be for 8. (If the dollars are not all false). May be the right carpet, may be the wrong. One is "below 100 pounds" and the other is "1,000 BP". Only I had to chose one to sell today and which is which will know tomorrow. LOL!
Complain about this comment
#277 Gary_A_Hill
Thanks for the response. Any movement towards civilized behaviour on the part of the judicial system (2005 - I didn't know that, thanks) in the USA is welcome.
I don't know what the definition of "children" is in democracythreat's area. In Scotland, one is a "child" up to 16, a "young person" from 16-18, and an adult after that. Presumably different jurisdictions have different definitions. I'm more than happy that we don't execute anyone.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John
#265
"And you can always head for a distillery tour if its raining"..
#270
"the traditional German skill of tunnel vision"
You bring condescension and prejudice to a level of fine art.
Complain about this comment
#278 - Gary_A_Hill
I am not ofetn dogmatic but this discussion is sterile.
Any society that puts anyone to death as a result of a judicial procedure regardless of age or status has absolutely no right - no right - to describe itself as civilised. Full stop. Period. Whatever.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat @182, "Crimea is Crimean Tatars".
If it were these peoples' they would once rule themselves, but they were Osman's empire province, Crimean khanaate. In modern parlance, they were Turkey's folk. Being not Turkey's folk, but sunnit religion was imposed on them.
Russia fought Crimea to itself from the Osman's Empire, our victory of 1783, and Turkey's surrender condition. And thus acquired Crimean peninsula, together with Crimean tatars.
Technically speaking, Crimean tatars are not Tatars and not 1 people but 3. The name is Russian, who grouped three nations under one title, using "tatars". To Russians, LOL, every invader from the South looked "them, tatars", after Chinghiz khan. "tatar" in Russian meant smth close to a "viking". Our dear neighbours we called "Azerbajan tatars", "Chechen tatars", etc. Now, Crimean tatars also call themselves "Crimean tatars", but gradually switch to "Crimeans" to stress the locality ownership and get rid of "tatars".
The three people are: Southern shores, highlanders and steppe-men.
Southern shore-ians are Greek, Italians (Genua) and Gothians? Gotts? Guthans, Gothones? That old Scandinavian tribe that relocated into Poland and then el