[Skybird]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

There is valid criticism of the treaty and the constitution and the way it is being challenged, without it meaning that the EU project itself is unwanted

The EU is an overwhelmingly good thing for every member state (and it is not a toy in russia's hands - it is a big player, but there are other big players, and you have to do business with them)

But the rejection of the treaty by France and the Netherlands, even if motivated by other domestic political factors (as is widely believed), should be grounds for rewriting the constitution.

For sure, the constitution of a project like the EU should be something believable and understandable and in someway inspiring, and not some piece of impenetrable legalistic-beaurocratic jargon that as the Irish minister says: no sane person would want to [read], and in general i agree it is time the EU became more directly democratic.

But how does one do that in an organisation that is still less than even a confederacy? If one is to accept the principle that the nation state members of the EU are the supreme entities, rather than the federal structure itself - then what is wrong with saying your elected governments have the right to handle the EU as they agree?

If on the other hand, the European populace was to directly vote for the EU government, then the EU government will be given a mandate and power base that is independent of the governments of the member nation states. By doing this you are creating a stronger european "center" and heading in the direction of a federal structure more like that of the USA.

Good thoughts. It is clear that if it ever is to become a Confederation (but who ever said it should? Just twenty years ago, nobody said so), then chnaged condition necessarily will go at the costs of condtions of today'S status quo. You cant get something new and nevertheless stick with the old in totality. that is clear.

But the question is not wether or not such a thing, or a union, should be tried, the question is about the quality of the effort, and the honesty of intention behind it. The original treaty is not so much my concern. But it is to difficult to understand, and if even many poltiicians do not care to read it (and thus ratify it withiout knowing hwat it is they are ratifying), then the whole operation starts running under a bad starsign already, also, later bad surprises canot be ruled out. and finally, if the EU rerally is for the citizens and not for the corporations only, on something so fundamental like a constitution (and mind you: the Lisbon treaty keeps the key parts of the constitution draft), those for whose benefit it is claimed to be should have been heared and their acceptance should be secured. I think, that acceptance by majority is in no way a given fact throughout Europe. I would even say that you need a 2/3 majority for such a huge thing, you do not want to run it with a majority of just 51:49 - which effectively means to have half the European citizens uninterested, or against you.

that the structures of the EU and the office levels that form the really powerful decisions, that work out new directives and guidelines that then are mandatory to be formed into valid laws in nations without these nations being free anymore to change or refuse them, the growing gap between the power-waging bureaucracy, and the citizens - ironically exactly what the treaty claims to reduce in width, but you take from mywords that I see that different - all this additonally helps to prevent to coinvince me that the way the EU is planned to be in this treaty, is desirable, and "for the people".

However, the tricky things in my opinion lie in the appendices of the treaty (boshe moi, there are even politicians in germany not knowing that the treaty has appendices, can one believe it...), where certain more reality-related issues are getting touched that have more direct implications to our political culture, our freedom to form opinions and to voice criticism, also our freedom to be against something and to reject what is alien. Talking of indirect imp0lications that will have - and already have - massive consequences on the way we form our "Geisteslandschaft". Unlimited, indifferentiating tolerance is hereby declared mandatory, which means you also cannot defend the nature and essence of what you consider to be yourself and your home and culture, since for that the existence of borders that define what is "you" and what is no more you, is a necessary precondition. I see a trend in the EU to neutralize tradiiutonal cultural difefrences between regions and people in europe anyway, and to erazse the differences you see when travelling thropugh europe, and which gives europe it's charm, but people for the most take only note of it when a story like the EU planning to ban for example a French camembert from selling or shepards in the high Alpes needing to desinfect the natural water their sheep are drinking since cneturies jump into newspapers headlines. These stories are curiosities, but the general massive trend underneath that sometimes creates also such stories - that is the underlying current that I see and that I am so bitterly against. This is not becasue my quarrel with Islam alone, although the way the Islam debate is handled by the EU is a most popular symptom.

and finally I am convinced that the EU already is far to big, and has expanded far to fast, and is accepting cnadidates that by all reason at the time they joined should not have been allowed to join. And when yesterday I read in a German online newspaper that a German politician said about the possibility of the irish saying No, that that would be bad because it would not allow the EU to speed up the joining process "of the new EU members", then I can only shake my head about so much incompetence and lacking sense of reality and infantile desire to ride with a neck-breaking speed. The EU runs by the motto bigger is better, and it puts - as to be seen in the ratification procedures that exclude the voice of the european citizens - quantity above quality.

Well, I see that exactly the other way around.

Whatever the rish vote will be, I think that in the future perspective of the next 20-30 years the EU is doomed anyway. It will break by the reason of that itself is how it is. It had a good start, until after the Europe-wide left.-swing in the early nineties other ideologies and other ways of thinking took over from the desogning generation, and messed it up beyond repair. That's how I see it. That this will not be of benefit in the economical confrontations and conflicts over ressources, is self-explanatory. Maybe one thinks that in preparation of those battles one needs to push the EU through today, no matter the cost, but when the cost is that the knight is wqaering his shining armoud, but all the pieces are bound and fixed incompetently, then the first strike at his shield will cause the first plates of armour falling off, and soon he will stand there as prepared as he really is: naked. The EU cannot surviuve even when being exonomically strong, if he has not the support and loyalty of the european people behind it it, and protects their dufferences as well as their similiarities, and does not only try to melt cultuires all into one, but fosters their differences as well. The diversity, the many differences, the plenty of local specialities is what hoistorically formed europe'S strength that for quite some time made in the world'S leading power centre. Farmers know a multiculture always is more resistant and stronger and healthier than a monoculture basing, which in this case is being formed on bureaucratic pseudointellectual and pseudo-humanistic assumptions and blueprint theories.

The EU shines on the outside, and has a nice blue in its flag. But the inside I consider to be rotten. cheating deals in its decision makings and deals being formed, foul compromises, and a lacking understanding what one is, where one begins and where one ends, are all symptoms of this that people in the street perceive and relaize, despite the official desire to cover that by daily propaganda, and governments and parties trying to gain influence over the media so that they can better sell the officially desired versions of the stories. In Germany, this is a battle raging currently - and not many take even note. But what worth has a democracy if the sources of information you need to form your opinion and make your choice get corrupted by party interests and political tendencies? the chains are no longe rmade of iron, but are invisible and mean to manipulated people's mind from within, teaching them not to use their thinking potential to the fuzllest, and be satisfied with colourful blinking pictures instead, and slogans that go down the ear smooth and well. When seeing the collection of daily news in the two german non-privatised TV stations ARD and ZDF, the slogans and phrases that endlessly repeat themselves remind me of the old Aktuelle Kamera the GDR used to have.