NationStates Jolt Archive

Last night the Poles finally stopped their whining and we got a Treaty! It's not called "Constitution" anymore, but it nonetheless promise to streamline EU decision-making.

Of course, I wonder if all the bloody opt-outs and special clauses for different countries make it all that big of an improvement still but I'm sure we'll see that in the coming days. Not to most sexy subject, but nonetheless important:

From the EUobserver: (http://euobserver.com/)
EU leaders scrape treaty deal at 11th hour
23.06.2007 - 07:28 CET | By Honor Mahony
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - After a marathon round of talks, the EU has finally agreed the outline of a new treaty for the bloc with formal intergovernmental negotiations to start on 23 July.

At around 05:00 local time on Saturday morning - following a full day and a half of tense discussion - a triumphant Angela Merkel, German chancellor, announced to press that a deal had been struck and that Europe would be able to move out the "reflection" phase it has been in since the draft EU constitution was rejected two years ago.


Under the plans, member states will use the mandate agreed at the summit as the basis for negotiations on a new treaty, which is to be done and dusted by the end of the year and ratified in all member states by mid-2009, ahead of the next European elections.

At this time, the EU will get a new foreign minister - or High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy as its now less-than-snappy title goes - and a permanent president as two of the most visible innovations click into place.

The negotiating base reflects a stringent political reality: it needs to produce a document that feels different to the constitution that was rejected two years ago in France and the Netherlands, but keeps the subtance of the original text. It also has to be a text that leaders can sell at home as being not worth putting to a referendum.

The result, full of compromises, opt-out opportunities and special texts for certain countries, is not going to give rise to a treaty that wins any beauty contests: easier-to-grasp names such as EU "laws" have been dropped in order to maintain the current "regulations" and "directives" seen as less symbolic of statehood; the flag, anthem, motto and name "constitution" fell by way of the same argument.

"Maybe it was not the most beautiful lyrics we have adopted," said European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, but it is "effcient prose," with the resulting "Reform Treaty" to be attached to two current treaties.

Voting compromise
The headline-stealing issue of the summit was whether to change the EU voting system as demanded by Poland. Germany was steadfastly against the idea, believing the propsed double majority, population-oriented system is just and democratic.

In the end, after threats of launching treaty talks without Polish approval, they finally agreed that the current Nice treaty voting system continues until 2014.

From 2014-2017, a transistion phase kicks in where the new system - based on 55 percent member states and 65 percent population - applies, but the original sysyem under Nice can still be used to take decisions if a member state thinks it necessary. After 2017, only the new system applies. An easier threshold to delay a decision also kicks into place from 2014.

"The one who wins in these kinds of situations is the one with the strongest nerves," said Polish president Lech Kaczynski after the talks.

Elsewhere, the UK secured weaker language on foreign policy, made sure it could opt out of taking part in EU cooperation on police and judicial matters and secured what diplomats say is a "de facto" opt-out of a charter setting out the civil, social and economic rights of citizens.

The other two problem countries were the Netherlands, who managed to get national parliaments a greater say over proposed EU legislation as well as tougher criteria language on future would-be member states, and the Czech Republic which fought for, and got, a clearer division of competencies between the EU and member states.

Meanwhile, France managed to get the phrase "undistorted competition" removed from being one of the objectives of the EU, with French voters thought largely to have voted against the constitution in May 2005 out of a fear that it would open the door to Anglo Saxon neo-liberalism.

Chopped and sliced though the old constitution is, "much of the substance has been maintained" according to chancellor Merkel.

Now EU leaders will return home to sell the result for domestic consumption, with next month's intergovernmental negotiations (IGC) to be stuff for technocrats and lower-level diplomats to deal with.

The next big issue, once the treaty is finally agreed, will be referendums. Both Denmark and Ireland, as the two member states legally obliged to have referendums if their sovereignty is affected, are already deliberating whether a public poll will be strictly necessary or whether they will follow the rest and ratify via their parliaments.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Also, good job Anthony.

Where is our referendum? And such.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Thanks for conveying the true intellectual depth of the "nay' argument.

Also, good job Anthony.

Where is our referendum? And such.

Not a Constitution. Just a Reform Treaty. Therefore no referendum.

*nodnodnod*

Not a Constitution. Just a Reform Treaty. Therefore no referendum.

"The people voted against this? How dare they! We'll rename it a "treaty" and ignore the people. Aren't we clever, we unelected eurocrats? Democratic deficit? Who gives a fuck!"

Thanks for conveying the true intellectual depth of the "nay' argument.


You know, I was going to say something about tiny countries and them just having to suck it up 'cos they are tiny, so any form of EU would be a promotion for them. But now I think about it, didn't the Dutch vote down this type of crap in a referendum?

Really, a lot of people are cool with the idea of open borders and trade, but they don't want some form of German dominated superstate either. I'm in that category.

The french don't want it either, and it's not because of anglo neo-liberalism.

I agree without the sarcasm. It's pretty clever.

Your average-sized country approves dozens of treaties every year. None of them are put to referendum. The new treaty has none of the trappings of "statehood" that the British and some others balked at. It gives the Dutch a bit of what they wanted, by empowering national parliaments. (I am Dutch and I think it is stupid, but hey, I'm just part of the sizeable minority who approved the original Constitution.)

If you really think this creates a German dominated superstate I advise you to buy a single-fare ticket to reality from whatever fantasy land you're posting from right now.

I agree without the sarcasm. It's pretty clever.

Of course you do, because becoming of the eurocrat in spe that you are, you loathe democracy and look for any way to undermine it... unless of course you're sure that the irrelevant citizens will vote like you want them to, then you're all for the democratic process - the show must go on before the galleries.

Fuck.

Hell must be a little bit chillier today.

We're talking here about an organisation that guarantees peace and economic prosperity in the entirety of Europe, for less than a quarter of our (small) national budget.

We're talking about an organisation that employs less people than the municipality of Amsterdam.

We're talking about an organisation that has to get 27 vastly different national governments and their respective elected national parliaments to agree that this is the best way to proceed in organising Europe. This will be approved as well by the vast majority of directly elected European MPs.

So drop the conspiracy theories. Redneck pitchfork-waving opposition to international cooperation really doesn't become you well. ;)

The french don't want it either, and it's not because of anglo neo-liberalism.

Yes it is. Well, it was one of the main reasons.

Fass is quite correct: the logic here has been that democracy hasn't given our dear leaders what they wanted, so they're going to dispense with it. Sarkozy actually admitted in an interview on TV just a few days ago that he doesn't want another referendum because he's worried about the consequences should people vote no. Democracy seems to have become something that gets support only if it rubber-stamps what leaders have already decided they want to do.

Having said that, kudos to our government nonetheless for this:

Meanwhile, France managed to get the phrase "undistorted competition" removed from being one of the objectives of the EU, with French voters thought largely to have voted against the constitution in May 2005 out of a fear that it would open the door to Anglo Saxon neo-liberalism.


It was done mostly so that Sarkozy wouldn't face hostile reactions back home, and it's mostly symbolic, but still. (Sarkozy has always been the champion of anglo-saxon style neoliberalism, so now this is going to enable him to appear as a man of compromise.)

We're talking here about an organisation that guarantees peace and economic prosperity in the entirety of Europe, for less than a quarter of our (small) national budget.

I actually "LOLed" at that. Such detachment from reality is sure to be of use in the Benelux sphere.

Any chance an actual constitution will be put to a vote again anytime soon, or has it been mothballed? Just curious.

Any chance an actual constitution will be put to a vote again anytime soon, or has it been mothballed? Just curious.

Mothballed. Though I personally see no problem with adopting a slightly adapted version of the declaration of human rights as a constitution.

Any chance an actual constitution will be put to a vote again anytime soon, or has it been mothballed? Just curious.

It won't be called a constitution, because those pesky citizens didn't like that. And it won't be voted on, because that might mean they lose again.

Bust rest assured that something similar will be working its way onto a law book near you soon.

Ariddia: and Sarkozy is quite right. Polls consistently show big European majorities (though not always individual country majorities) in favour of a new EU treaty deal and in favour of the EU in general. After the referendums, EU leaders have listened and made adaptations that should satisfy some of the knee-jerk naysayers.

The Dutch and French referendums unfortunately show that the voters often completely ignore the issue at hand to express their dissatisfaction with other issues. Sizeable elements of the Dutch "no" vote, for example, was to express dissatisfaction with recent national budget cuts by the right-wing government. Others voted no because they disliked the EU in general, even when they felt the Constitution would improve it. There was even a much-ignored "No" campaign here by European Federalists who felt the Constitutional Treaty did not go far enough.

This conference last night shows how hard it is to get governments to agree on the text of a treaty. I really don't loathe democracy, but if you hold referendums on this in lots of different countries then it is simply impossible to agree on anything, ever.

There is a reason why advanced western countries use a system of representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)rather than direct voting.

Doing away with the constitution and adopting a Reform Treaty is therefore a good, if not very elegant solution.

-snip-

I believe that this is always one of the most alarming things about Europhiles; there is a complete lack of respect for the democratic system.

Yes, it's a completely flawed system, but anyone who can stand up with a straight face and say that we should bypass it in the name of their aims is a person who should not be trusted with power.

The Dutch and French referendums unfortunately show that the voters often completely ignore the issue at hand to express their dissatisfaction with other issues.

Yes, that's true, unfortunately. Although you can't shrug off the No vote for that reason and pretend that there was not genuine opposition to the Constitution itself, either.

I believe that this is always one of the most alarming things about Europhiles; there is a complete lack of respect for the democratic system.

Yes, it's a completely flawed system, but anyone who can stand up with a straight face and say that we should bypass it in the name of their aims is a person who should not be trusted with power.

The thing being that the EU itself is nothing but an elaborate exercise in such bypassing... so, the Europhiles are just being honest in their contempt for accountability.

Yes it is. Well, it was one of the main reasons.


Or maybe people didn't just want it foist upon them, and that was the pretext they used. I tend to think had anglo neo liberalism not existed there would have been some other reason to reject it.

I believe that this is always one of the most alarming things about Europhiles; there is a complete lack of respect for the democratic system.

Yes, it's a completely flawed system, but anyone who can stand up with a straight face and say that we should bypass it in the name of their aims is a person who should not be trusted with power.

(Admitting vast ignorance here :p) Where does that come from? I mean, we've all heard about the sort of aristocracy that still reigns over there to some extent and that whole divide, but the campaign of consolidation of power that seems to be going on sounds a bit strange to my ears as an outsider. Not that desire for power doesn't follow human beings everywhere, but it always seemed to me that Europe worked well enough as a conglomeration of independent states, and that there was little desire to break from that. :confused:

I believe that this is always one of the most alarming things about Europhiles; there is a complete lack of respect for the democratic system.

Yes, it's a completely flawed system, but anyone who can stand up with a straight face and say that we should bypass it in the name of their aims is a person who should not be trusted with power.

What part of "the treaty is approved by the 27 member governments and ratified by their parliaments in accordance with their national constitutions" bypasses democracy, exactly?

Yes, that's true, unfortunately. Although you can't shrug off the No vote for that reason and pretend that there was not genuine opposition to the Constitution itself, either.

Agreed. That is why there has been a long period of timid reflection in the EU. That is why changes have been made. I don't think the French and Dutch "no" to the Constitutional Treaty was a shining endorsement for maintaining the current system forever.

The thing being that the EU itself is nothing but an elaborate exercise in such bypassing... so, the Europhiles are just being honest in their contempt of accountability.

Yes. The Conspiracies are true, and Fass has discovered the fiendish plans of his own elected Swedish government.

Cross-border cooperation on trade, pollution management and justice is nothing more than an elaborate attempt to bypass democracy on the issue of what constitutes Vodka. For shame!

(Admitting vast ignorance here :p) Where does that come from? I mean, we've all heard about the sort of aristocracy that still reigns over there to some extent and that whole divide, but the campaign of consolidation of power that seems to be going on sounds a bit strange to my ears as an outsider. Not that desire for power doesn't follow human beings everywhere, but it always seemed to me that Europe worked well enough as a conglomeration of independent states, and that there was little desire to break from that. :confused:

From the EU website:

The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries, committed to working together for peace and prosperity. It is not a State intended to replace existing States, nor is it just an organisation for international cooperation. The EU is, in fact, unique. Its member states have set up common institutions to which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at European level.

The historical roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War. The idea was born because Europeans were determined to prevent such killing and destruction ever happening again. In the early years, the cooperation was between six countries and mainly about trade and the economy. Now the EU embraces 27 countries and 490 million people, and it deals with a wide range of issues of direct importance for our everyday life.

Europe is a continent with many different traditions and languages, but also with shared values such as democracy, freedom and social justice. The EU defends these values. It fosters cooperation among the peoples of Europe, promoting unity while preserving diversity and ensuring that decisions are taken as close as possible to the citizens.

In the increasingly interdependent world of the 21st century, it is more necessary than ever for every European citizen to work together with people from other countries in a spirit of curiosity, openness and solidarity.

Or maybe people didn't just want it foist upon them, and that was the pretext they used. I tend to think had anglo neo liberalism not existed there would have been some other reason to reject it.

Erm... I was here, remember. There were various reasons, but a lot of people voted against it for that specific reason. More than enough to tilt the balance. It was a major element in the debate (and the Constitution was debated in depth for a very long time).

(Admitting vast ignorance here :p) Where does that come from? I mean, we've all heard about the sort of aristocracy that still reigns over there to some extent and that whole divide, but the campaign of consolidation of power that seems to be going on sounds a bit strange to my ears as an outsider. Not that desire for power doesn't follow human beings everywhere, but it always seemed to me that Europe worked well enough as a conglomeration of independent states, and that there was little desire to break from that. :confused:

There is virtually no democracy in the European institutions, and a desire among the Europhiles to give more and more power to those unaccountable institutions. Those in favour of greater European integration have decided on the outcome that they wish to achieve, and then go about bringing that into effect, regardless of whether the people of Europe actually agree.

Then, when they're called on it, they say things such as "well, the people of Europe are so different they would never all agree anyway". To the Europhile, that makes perfect sense. To anyone who believes in democracy, however, it suggests that perhaps you should take the hint, and do something different.

The constitution is a perfect example of that.

Aim: further European integration, and more power to Brussels.
Setback: The people actually voted against it.
Europhile explanation: democracy doesn't work in European elections, because people don't like Europe.
Europhile solution: ignore the fact that people don't want this, and the underlying reasons as to why people don't like Europe, change the name of the failed constitution, and reintroduce it. And this time, guys, let's not give those pesky people a vote on it, ok?

What part of "the treaty is approved by the 27 member governments and ratified by their parliaments in accordance with their national constitutions" bypasses democracy, exactly?

The fact that the people have already said no to this, but people like you ignoring it and pushing it through anyway.

Yes. The Conspiracies are true, and Fass has discovered the fiendish plans of his own elected Swedish government.

And Knoot yet again shows his failure at defending the EU. It's OK, honey, 'cause it really is indefensible... I must say that seeing you give up even the pretense of an attempt at it, though, is refreshing and saves us quite a few posts that would have ended with your failure anyway.

There is virtually no democracy in the European institutions, and a desire among the Europhiles to give more and more power to those unaccountable institutions. Those in favour of greater European integration have decided on the outcome that they wish to achieve, and then go about bringing that into effect, regardless of whether the people of Europe actually agree.

Then, when they're called on it, they say things such as "well, the people of Europe are so different they would never all agree anyway". To the Europhile, that makes perfect sense. To anyone who believes in democracy, however, it suggests that perhaps you should take the hint, and do something different.

The constitution is a perfect example of that.

Aim: further European integration, and more power to Brussels.
Setback: The people actually voted against it.
Europhile explanation: democracy doesn't work in European elections, because people don't like Europe.
Europhile solution: ignore the fact that people don't want this, and the underlying reasons as to why people don't like Europe, change the name of the failed constitution, and reintroduce it. And this time, guys, let's not give those pesky people a vote on it, ok?


Well, hopefully people are figuring this out, if that's the case. Sounds underhanded to say the least.

I don't think the French and Dutch "no" to the Constitutional Treaty was a shining endorsement for maintaining the current system forever.


No, indeed. And many (most) opponents of the Constitution in France were actually saying that a Constitution was a jolly good idea, if the content were different.

The Constitution would have failed anyway even if the French had voted in favour. The British referendum would have blocked it. So (and this was never mentioned) we weren't voting as to whether or not the Constitution should be applied, we were voting (even if hardly anyone realised it) to see whether we were going to block it before the Brits. The Constitution was dead from the moment Blair promised a referendum in the UK; I remember polls showed the Brits would throw it out by a significant margin. And had the Brits been the ones to reject it, its failure would have been blamed on not enough neoliberalism.

From the politburo:

Fixed that for you.

Well, hopefully people are figuring this out, if that's the case. Sounds underhanded to say the least.

People figured it out a long time ago. Almost as soon as the French rejected the Constitution, those at the top of the EU spoke to the media saying they planned on going ahead with it anyway, and actually getting angry at French voters for trying to stop that-which-should-not-be-stopped. There were serious talks about actually implemented the Constitution, without modification, despite the French and Dutch votes.

People figured it out a long time ago. Almost as soon as the French rejected the Constitution, those at the top of the EU spoke to the media saying they planned on going ahead with it anyway, and actually getting angry at French voters for trying to stop that-which-should-not-be-stopped. There were serious talks about actually implemented the Constitution, without modification, despite the French and Dutch votes.

Any reaction from the then-current leaders of France or the Netherlands? Sounds odd that the EU would be so quickly grabbing power without fierce opposition from elected leaders, unless there's some kind of graft at work.

Then, when they're called on it, they say things such as "well, the people of Europe are so different they would never all agree anyway". To the Europhile, that makes perfect sense. To anyone who believes in democracy, however, it suggests that perhaps you should take the hint, and do something different.

Let me try and be constructive here. Of your sneery statement, I find this bit the most interesting. It is all fine and well to critique the way the EU is run. Heck, I personally have lots of issues with how it is run. 40% of its spending (Common Agricultural Policy) in in my opinion a waste of money for example.

However, it is a bit easy to say "no" to whatever deal the 27 leaders will come up with. They've come up with something now. It's ugly, but it satisfies everyone. Something else isn't going to come around easily.

You seem to have at least some intelligence, so I challenge you to step out of the easy role of the sideline sniper and into the role of "builder" by proposing a superior way of organising international European cooperation.

Bear in mind:

If you get a veto, everyone gets a veto. So nothing ever happens if you make the EU completely intergovernmental. That's the reason for this Reform Treaty in the first place. You need a solution for years of deadlock.
Most nations do want an "ever closer union" whilst preserving the principle that decisions must be taken as close to the EU citizens as possible. This is already in existing treaties. Your national capital likely employs more people than the EU does, and this will stay the same.
You can't just take the Polish Kaczynski road and stamp your foot until you get what you want. Last night showed that you won't. Be realistic.


So, how would you organise international cooperation a democratic Europe? (Even if you're one of those people who wants to leave the EU - the problems of globalisation and cross-border issues still exist even if you do that.)

Don't disappoint me ;)

Fixed that for you.

Communism eh? Too bad the EU doesn't send gay swedes to labour camps in Siberia. ;)

Any reaction from the then-current leaders of France or the Netherlands? Sounds odd that the EU would be so quickly grabbing power without fierce opposition from elected leaders, unless there's some kind of graft at work.

This deal was agreed at a conference of these same elected leaders. :rolleyes:

"The people voted against this? How dare they! We'll rename it a "treaty" and ignore the people. Aren't we clever, we unelected eurocrats? Democratic deficit? Who gives a fuck!"I've never understood the term democratic deficit in reference to the EU. One out of the three main bodies of the EU is directly elected - the Parliament. The other two being the Council and the Comission.

The Council is comprised of the executive of members states. So if you're arguing about the make up the Council, you might as well be arguing about the make up of your own government.

The Commission is made up of a President, who elected by the Parliament, who then picks a cabinet of Commissioners who must be approved by the Parliament as well. So if you don't like the Commission then write to your MEP.

The Commission was set up to be removed from national politics. But it still doesn't have much power without the cooperation of the other two bodies

The EU has as much of a democratic deficit as does national governments. You elect a tyranny every 4 years for 4 years and they'll be buggered if they're going to bother listen to you the small guy until about a year before they need your vote. Perhaps not even then. Perhaps they'll just demonise the opposition and point to the fact that at least the economy is running well.

So if you want to bitch about the EU, bitch about your own government first as they will be the ones ratifying this treaty without consulting you, not the EU.

-snip-

You start by outlining a couple of the problems of the EU, then continue by completely ignoring them. When the CAP is such a waste, and the institutions are so undemocratic, why should we continue to give them ever greater power and responsibility?

The EU seriously needs to get its house in order before its competency is expanded any further. There needs to be a major reform that removes the widespread corruption (can you believe that 35% of EU spending (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4438888.stm) is the most that auditors have ever been prepared to verify?), and addresses the major and serious complaints regarding the democratic deficit; only when these fundamental issues have been properly addressed should we consider whether to give the EU even greater powers.

I do genuinely believe that the major problem with the EU is that Europhiles have decided on the outcome they wish to achieve, that is to say a European Super State, and simply try to bulldoze their way to that objective. It is time to properly assess where we are actually going; if the aim of 'ever closer union' is finally dropped, in favour of a more realistic 'ever closer co-operation', then the EU might be something the people of Europe are interested in being a part of. Until then, it will remain the irrelevant dream of an elite body of bureaucrats.

This deal was agreed at a conference of these same elected leaders. :rolleyes:

All of them? Still sounds like they couldn't seal the deal with their electorate. Odd situation.

I've never understood the term democratic deficit in reference to the EU. One out of the three main bodies of the EU is directly elected - the Parliament. The other two being the Council and the Comission.

Oh, nonsense. The Commission is a body of appointed bureaucrats. The Council is, at best, indirectly elected, where the wishes of one 'democratic' minister can be overridden by the other member states. The Parliament is a joke of democracy; a closed list system where the political make up is such that you might as well put your vote in the dustbin, for all the good it does.

If I were you, I'd also read up on how EU legislation becomes law. The Parliament is basically a glorified rubber stamp; its power to influence legislation or hold the other institutions to account is laughably limited.

Communism eh?

Shameless propaganda, eh?

Too bad the EU doesn't send gay swedes to labour camps in Siberia. ;)

Give your new buddies in Poland time.

If I were you, I'd also read up on how EU legislation becomes law. The Parliament is basically a glorified rubber stamp; its power to influence legislation or hold the other institutions to account is laughably limited.

Exactly, and that they even have the gall to refer to it as a parliament is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who actually knows what a proper parliament is and does.

You start by outlining a couple of the problems of the EU, then continue by completely ignoring them. When the CAP is such a waste, and the institutions are so undemocratic, why should we continue to give them ever greater power and responsibility?

The EU seriously needs to get its house in order before its competency is expanded any further. There needs to be a major reform that removes the widespread corruption (can you believe that 35% of EU spending (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4438888.stm) is the most that auditors have ever been prepared to verify?), and addresses the major and serious complaints regarding the democratic deficit; only when these serious and fundamental issues have been properly addressed should we consider whether to give the EU even greater powers.

If you're arguing for EU internal reform, you'll find me a better ally than you'd perhaps expect.

Qualified Majority Voting and direct citizen input can help to make the EU more democratic as well as working better. If, for example, France alone cannot veto how the EU budget is spent then they will have to compromise on the issue of farming subsidies. Right now, radical special interest groups such as the Kaczynski's (with their demand to count Polish WWII dead to calculate their number of EU state votes) and the French Farming Unions can simply hold out to get their way. And, eventually, more moderate countries will give in just to make some progress. ANY progress.

What is interesting about the Reform Treaty is that it will actually address the democratic deficit. (Though not outright solve it.) The new system of voting is fairer than the old one and the democratic decision-making process will be streamlined.

It is part of the solution to the problems you signalled.

I do genuinely believe that the major problem with the EU is that Europhiles have decided on the outcome they wish to achieve, that is to say a European Super State, and simply try to bulldoze their way to that objective. It is time to properly assess where we are actually going; if the aim of 'ever closer union' is finally dropped, in favour of a more realistic 'ever closer co-operation', then the EU might be something the people of Europe are interested in being a part of. Until then, it will remain the irrelevant dream of an elite body of bureaucrats.

"Ever closer union" isn't a dream, but a reality in present-day Europe. The present generation has grown up in a world where war between European Union nations is simply unthinkable. Sadly, everyone seems to take that for granted nowadays and feels free to fulminate against international cooperation. The original European Community of Coal and Steel managed to build the basic trust between France and Germany that formed the basis of continental peace.

That doesn't mean we should be centralising policies for the sake of centralising them. Wherever the EU expands its competencies, there usually is a good reason for it. To effectively fight terrorism, for example, there should be an exchange of intelligence between different countries. An internal market, and freer trade can help to generate prosperity and help Europe whether the rising tides of a globalising world. Addressing these problems together is preferable to the "every man for himself" method of the past.

Give your new buddies in Poland time.Why are you still in Sweden? Run! RUN! Flee before the secret police gets you!

They're watching you, you know... Watching you and your... filthy... filthy practices. Preparing for the day when they can finally erase you... your... Disease...

Flee now, before it's too late! The dogs of the EU are after you, and they'll not let go!

Why are you still in Sweden? Run! RUN! Flee before the secret police gets you!

They're watching you, you know... Watching you and your... filthy... filthy practices. Preparing or the day when they can finally erase you... your... Disease...

Flee now, before it's too late! The dogs of the EU are after you, and they'll not let go!

That's going to be helpful. :rolleyes:

That's going to be helpful. :rolleyes:What? This is the reality, man! This is what the EU stands for! A filthy morass of human rights abuses, a dictatorship that makes Orwellian excesses look like paradise! Can't you see it? Fass is in Sweden. He's in an EU memberstate. Don't doubt his words, for he tells the truth!

Have you not heard, have you not seen the endless abuse he's suffering from because the EU is out to get him and all those who are like him? Fass is the last defender of democracy in this morass of terror and abuse! A true hero of the masses! A freedom fighter! He has seen the horror of the EU first hand!

Do not doubt the Fass, for he tells no lies.

Linker Niederrhein is right. I just defend the EU because I am afraid to be arrested for thoughtcrime if I don't. :(

Linker Niederrhein is right. I just defend the EU because I am afraid to be arrested for thoughtcrime if I don't. :(

No, you defend the EU because you're from one of the Benelux countries, and thus because you don't know any better or of anything better.

No, you defend the EU because you're from one of the Benelux countries, and thus because you don't know any better or of anything better.

Ah yes. Sorry. People in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg do have one single opinion that is entirely pro-European. Fortunately I have you to tell me what this much-talked-about Outside World is like. So what is happening outside our borders? I heard something about pot not being legal in other places but that just sounds a bit strange.

No, you defend the EU because you're from one of the Benelux countries, and thus because you don't know any better or of anything better.*Nodnods*

The Benelux Hivemind (tm) was established in late WW2, when strange Nazi scientists on methamphetamine thought up a method to re-establish Germany as Europe's great power.

They infected all three countries with the HMX Agent (tm), causing millions of people to think exactly alike for generations to come, thereby cementing Germany's powerbase and doing the first step towards the EU.

Any rumours about the Dutch actually voting down the original constitution/ treaty are of curse filthy nazi-communist lies made by trained monkeys. Do not listen to the lies. Listen to the truth.

Oh, nonsense. The Commission is a body of appointed bureaucrats. The Council is, at best, indirectly elected, where the wishes of one 'democratic' minister can be overridden by the other member states. The Parliament is a joke of democracy; a closed list system where the political make up is such that you might as well put your vote in the dustbin, for all the good it does.

If I were you, I'd also read up on how EU legislation becomes law. The Parliament is basically a glorified rubber stamp; its power to influence legislation or hold the other institutions to account is laughably limited.Executives are normally appointed instead of elected. The US is a prime example, even the UK is a good example, with only tradition meaning that more often that not ministers are drawn from the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords. And nearly all prospective Cabinet members are given safe seats so that there is little prospect of them losing their seat at election. So all in all the executive of the UK is appointed instead of elected. I could even point out that Blair isn't democratically elected. The only people who voted for Blair are the people of Sedgefield and members of the Labour party.

I don't understand your complaint about the Council. If you are complaining about its makeup then are you not also lamenting the make up of all EU member states national governments? If you are complaining about how the Council makes decisions, then, well... that's how democracy works. All it's members are, as you say, 'democratically' elected. So are you proposing that the wishes of one Council member should be able to supercede the wishes of the rest of the Council?

I don't understand your problem with Parliament either. People already vote for the party rather than the candidate as it is. Why make a fuss about the difference between de jure and de facto.

You make have noticed that I don't defend the EU by saying how good it is, but rather by saying it's not worse than national governments. I'm feeling very cynical at the moment and am not exactly entralled by democracy.

Ah yes. Sorry. People in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg do have one single opinion that is entirely pro-European.

They do like themselves the benefits they reap from it. Would they even have economies if they didn't push for more creations of "international bodies" to oh, so conveniently be placed there?

Fortunately I have you to tell me what this much-talked-about Outside World is like.

Fortunately you have me to tell you about what the "Inside World" is like as well...

So what is happening outside our borders? I heard something about pot not being legal in other places but that just sounds a bit strange.

... because perhaps you should be paying attention to what is happening inside your own borders, as pot isn't legal there either. De facto decriminalisation of mere low-quantity posession through non-enforcement != legalisation. That's just... what's the word - "gedoogbeleid"?

The Benelux Hivemind (tm) was established in late WW2, when strange Nazi scientists on methamphetamine thought up a method to re-establish Germany as Europe's great power.

They infected all three countries with the HMX Agent (tm), causing millions of people to think exactly alike for generations to come, thereby cementing Germany's powerbase and doing the first step towards the EU.

Any rumours about the Dutch actually voting down the original constitution/ treaty are of curse filthy nazi-communist lies made by trained monkeys. Do not listen to the lies. Listen to the truth.

So far, only the eurocrats are linked together through the Hivemind, but they are busy working to assimilate each and every EU citizen and merge into a collective consciousness.

The Poles will just opt out when the EU tells them and other states to get in line over social policy and poverty, as countries like Finland are already well ahead.

So basically, the logic is that if it isn't called the constitution, it isn't, regardless of whether the same provisions of that constitution are included in the 'reform' treaty. Likewise with the EU Foreign Minister becoming 'High Representative.' How stupid do these people think we are? This treaty doesn't reform anything - making a few cosmetic changes to the EU is not what it needs.

So basically, the logic is that if it isn't called the constitution, it isn't, regardless of whether the same provisions of that constitution are included in the 'reform' treaty. Likewise with the EU Foreign Minister becoming 'High Representative.' How stupid do these people think we are? This treaty doesn't reform anything - making a few cosmetic changes to the EU is not what it needs.

http://www.tomjanssen.net/prenten/1_juni_07/nieuwe_eugrondwet210607.jpg

It works for me.

we get to vote on it, and it will be a tough sell.

Blair is a traitor to this country. He's sold us out to the EU as a parting gift, just to further his own career. He's given up Britain's veto, making it so that we'll no longer be able to resist being forced to do what the EU tells us to. Do any of these EU cunts really think people are fooled when they just change the word to 'treaty' from 'constitution'?

However, it is a bit easy to say "no" to whatever deal the 27 leaders will come up with. They've come up with something now. It's ugly, but it satisfies everyone.

If it satisfies everyone then why are our Dear Leaders so desparate to avoid a referendum on the subject? Oh, that's right, it doesn't satisfy everyone. This kind of anti-democratic wrangling is one of the reasons I'm so hostile to the EU.

If it satisfies everyone then why are our Dear Leaders so desparate to avoid a referendum on the subject? Oh, that's right, it doesn't satisfy everyone. This kind of anti-democratic wrangling is one of the reasons I'm so hostile to the EU.

Do you apply the same hatred to your own government? I'm sure they have lots of laws that you disagree with, and none of them have been put to a referendum.

Do you apply the same hatred to your own government?

Certainly.

I'm sure they have lots of laws that you disagree with, and none of them have been put to a referendum.

There's a difference between passing laws which I personally disagree with and passing laws which a majority of people in the UK disagree with. Ideally I'd like a system similar to that in Switzerland where the government is forced to hold a referendum if enough signatures can be collected.

EDIT: This completely irrelevant anyway. You made the assertion that everyone was satisfied by the Constitution, I pointed out that a majority aren't. Criticising my country isn't going to make you any less wrong.

You've all missed a clause in the bottom of the treaty written in very small print:

"EU nations will only be able to opt out of the EU subject to the usual military formalities" :eek:

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;12803562']Blair is a traitor to this country. He's sold us out to the EU as a parting gift, just to further his own career. He's given up Britain's veto, making it so that we'll no longer be able to resist being forced to do what the EU tells us to. Do any of these EU cunts really think people are fooled when they just change the word to 'treaty' from 'constitution'?
It's that kind of vitriol that gives anyone who doesn't support the EU a bad name. Is the UK the only country to have lost a veto? No. Does the veto remain in areas like taxation, foreign policy, social security and legal systems? Yes. I'm strongly opposed to this proposed treaty and the EU in its current form, but if we are to improve it, only constructive criticism will get us anywhere.

It works for me.
Why should it? Do you honestly think that this 'reform' is going to allow for greater consensus among EU member states? Do you think that it might get an EU budget free of corruption that the court of auditors is prepared to sign? DO you think it is going to protect member states from the increasing bureaucracy and centralisation of the EU? Is it going to lead to reform of the CAP? Are we going to have fewer overpaid bureaucrats hopping between Brussels and Strasbourg?

Let me answer that: NO. This isn't 'reform' - it's just more of the same. The EU needs a radical rethink of how it works if it going to continue to exist as a successful and efficient entity, not just tinkering at the edges. I'd suggest something along the lines of the Commonwealth of Nations as a starting point, as an international and intergovernmental organisation, as opposed to a federal one.

Do you apply the same hatred to your own government? I'm sure they have lots of laws that you disagree with, and none of them have been put to a referendum.
I think you'll find it's our business which laws and treaties are put to a referendum. There are plenty of laws, passed by this government and previous governments, that both myself and RLI Rides Again oppose, but that doesn't matter so long as public opinion has not been in favour of a referendum, which in many cases, it hasn't. Referendums are rare in the UK, and people rely on elections and a new government to repeal unpopular laws. In the UK, public opinion as a whole - not just among one or two individuals who are in a minority - is strongly in favour of a referendum.

If this stands as the legacy bequethed to Britain by Blair, it is entirely fitting. A wholly mediocre, craven acceptance of a revenential constitution cloaked in the mantle of a "reform treaty", which will serve to delude as to the full effect of what Blair has achieved.

Not only has Blair permitted an unrestricted, and now uncounted, tranche of Eastern European immigrants into Britain, and relinquished the subsidy so fought for by Thatcher, but he now reduces our influence as a pre-potent European power.

I do hope Cameron loses in 2009, and, by 2014, we have a Tory party that sees us withdraw from this shambolic arrangement, under the command of either Davis or Hague.

If this stands as the legacy bequethed to Britain by Blair, it is entirely fitting. A wholly mediocre, craven acceptance of a revenential constitution cloaked in the mantle of a "reform treaty", which will serve to delude as to the full effect of what Blair has achieved.
You when it's bad when I agree with you. The unfortunate thing is, Brown will be too busy Brown-nosing (no pun intended) in Europe 'cause he's just been appointed PM to give a damn about what the public think and offer a referendum.

Bow before your new German masters, Europe! Grovel fools! Avoid the rush!

:) :) :P :D ;)

If you really think this creates a German dominated superstate I advise you to buy a single-fare ticket to reality from whatever fantasy land you're posting from right now.
I wish I could afford to buy all you Eurofanatics one, I really do.

This is very interesting. I however believe that the people should decide this issue and not the politicians.

No, you defend the EU because you're from one of the Benelux countries, and thus because you don't know any better or of anything better.Weren't you Swedes still living in the Dark Ages?

Okay, I think that the new treaty will be nice to have :) However, I also think that the countries that had a referendum on the 'constitution' also should have one on this new treaty *nod*