The Irish have Europe's future in their hands

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Respenus

Yet Skybird, the EU 20 or 30 years ago was different because the world in which it was created is different. Now, we no longer need just a trade union and some trade regulations, we need a unified front during the time of world unrest, be it now or in the future.

That should be a job for NATO, that "no lpomnger being just a trade union". If the EU would be needed for tamiong unrest, it should have been needed back then, too, one would assume. But one could afford to let the EU be what it was back then: an agreement for economical cooperation, not a state in tiself; and for countering the economic challenges and wars for ressources in the future you do not need a suoperstate but economic cooperation for the first, or an army for the second. Why there should be an entitiy taking over the sovereignity from states, accumulating non-legitimated power for itself, and starting to mess around with the cultural identity of nations and local people. the strength of europe is it's diversity, and trying to turn it into a monoculture where everything and everyone more and more needs to run by the rules thought out by Brussel, means to weaken it.

You said the EU today no longer needs to be just a trade union. but I see also no reason why it needs to be anything more. And regarding the non-economial challenges, I see the EU poliy depending on appeasement, and paying protection money here, bribery there. Supremely handling such challenges looks different. In fact the Eu declares a policy of weakness a policy of europpean vurtues, and that is ridiculous.

Yes, I understand what you mean by a "simple" constitution, yet I cannot agree with you that the EU is taking away sovereignty from the states. They will still decide on the important points on how they want to lead their country. Only some things will be regulated by the EU. So what!

that simply is not true. I strongly urge you to find solid information on how many of your nations laws are more or less directly influenced or even demanded by Brussel - already now, and how much in your daily polticis is obeying Brussel demands, or serves these demands in running-ahead obedience. Members of the bundestag admitted frankly that, as I said, roughly 80% of laws in Germany are beyond control of the parliament, but are simply waved through since legal obligations make the acceptance of these laws obligatory. What the constitution has to say on it, often is not even checked.

And I cannot imagine that Germany is the one great exception from the rule, so I expect you to find out some news you do not like.

And don'T assume that it is just little me saying so, I am basing on a very competent opinion on these facts: the criticism I tell is much shared by Roman Herzog, former German Bundespräsident (head of state), and by profession having been the president of the german constitutional high court before he became head of state. He is a very prominent (and knowledge-heavy) critic of what is being debated here. I would assume he knows a bit what he is talking about, and also knows the legal backgrounds ö- it was his job to know them, both as federal president and presidnet of the constituional high court. It is pretty much arguments that he has given time and again that i am repeating when touching the ursupation of legal powers by the EU.

Sometimes it's even better for the common folk like you and me. Maybe some day, Germany will pass a law that would hurt you, but the EU would prevent it. Wouldn't you like support like that?

I never said the Eu is all bad, I say that there has been a massive chnage for worse since 10-15 years, and that now I consider the bads to outweigh the goods. I also said that in the past 10-15 years we have seen a serious distortion of what the Eu orginally was meant to be. The conception by Giscard d'estaing and Helm,ut Schmidt, the EEC of the 6 and the 15 hasn'T been perfect, but nevertheless I carefully supported their general idea: a cooperation between sovereign states. what it all is turning into since some year4s now is something that is so different that I can't do any other than being against it. I see a huge head pumping up, sitting on smaller shoulder, an even smaller body, and all that resting on ridiculously tiny feet made of glass bones. If you do not manage to get the hearst and mionds behind you from European people, the Eu can afford to pump itself up some more, but sooner or later must collapse, lacking support when it needs it in times of crisis, and winning more and more distanc ebetween itself and it's policies, and the people. To clean every resistance off the table by saying people just don't know what is good for them, is maybe the easy option, but the most dangerous one.

[Lurchi]

I fully agree with Respensus,

Taking the next step toward a stronger European Unification is pretty logical: "European Union", the name already tells about this vision. Now i hope some sort of "Core" Europe will develop with countries which are willing to follow this vision by tightening their cooperation thus leaving those behind who see the EU as just a trade agency with a big money pot to suck money from.

A european representative for foreign issues?
A european Army?
A President of the European Union?

sounds all good to me!

"Think Big" is something we can learn from America.
The Chinese, India and Russia already did it seems to me ...

[GlobalExplorer]

The message to the people who are now gloating and hoping that the european union will fall apart: it is not going to happen, neither is it in the interest of any member state.

Political and economic leaders have in principle already agreed that european integration is the way to go, and I trust them more than extremist partys, tabloid newspapers, or vocal activists from subsims GF.

The problem of the irish referendum is going to be handled, they are already working on a solution. Hopefully the Irish will come to their senses and discuss among themselves what they have just voted upon.

Originally Posted by Lurchi

"European Union", the name already tells about this vision.

Of course, but a lot of people are never interested in unity, and the word vision does not exist for them.

Originally Posted by Lurchi

A european Army?

Absolutely necessary. Remember how we could not handle the crisis in Yugoslavia without the help of the United States, which was really embarassing.

Originally Posted by Lurchi

A european representative for foreign issues?

Someone with the responsibility to coordinate foreign policy and not to replace the national ministers. If the nations cannot agree on a common policy he/she will be pretty unable to do anything.

Originally Posted by Lurchi

A President of the European Union?

Same. Will not replace the national leaders, or do you think that Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi, etc are going to let that happen?

[XabbaRus]

But the EU foreign minister will remove the national foreign ministers. Individual countries won't be able to consider their own foreign policy, even if EU policy goes against their interests. You can't compare the USA and the EU. The USA developed in a completely different way with a different mentality. Even with the union there are too many differences of opinion and will never be truely united.

However it has been shown the EU countries will break their own rules if they get a result it doesn't like. UK, Germany and France are looking for a get out so that Irelands non ratification of the treaty can be ignored. It is breaking its own rules. As far as I am concerned the UK government has not spelled out clearly and easily for the masses why this treaty is a good idea. Most people unlike myself and others I know here and friends are going to find out for themselves what the treaty is about. They rely on the government for that (and before Iget any smart assed answers about them being lazy etc I'm sure in Germany, France etc most people are the same) and that in the UK hasn't been done.

Oh I also find it insulting that you mention others (eg UK) who see it as a trade union and something to suck money from..the UK is a net contributer to the EU even after the rebate and contributes more than France who does better out of the CAP than the UK.

Just wait till Brussels starts telling you how to make your German sausages and what can be put in your Beer and what can't. That is already happening. IE daft EU health and safety rules stopping something being made in the traditional way as it could make people ill, even if it has been made a certain way for 100 odd years.

[Skybird]

Another good comment letter I found:

Ireland Punishes the EU for Constitution Trick

By Hans-Jürgen Schlamp in Brussels

The 860,000 Irish voters who rejected the Lisbon Treaty in Friday’s referendum aren’t to blame for the union’s latest crisis. The stalled reforms are the fault of the politicians who for years have been pursuing their own interests at the expense of the European project.

On the day the Irish rejected the Treaty of Lisbon in a referendum, the Eurocrats in Brussels were as mad as hell. This is the last time, they must have been thinking to themselves -- those Irish will never be allowed to vote again. Let’s put an end to these referenda. They’re just too complicated for normal people.


First the French and then the Dutch said “no” to the European constitution in 2005. Then, after endless and painstaking work, the EU member states succeeded in pushing a new version through -- a little snip here, a little change there, a little paint touch-up there. And then, of course, a new name, even though the document essentially contained the substance of the original constitution. It’s fairly certain nobody in Ireland read the document and there are plenty of possible motives for
the “no” vote -- but none could be justified by the treaty itself.
The Treaty of Lisbon appeared to be well on track. Europe’s governments had promised not to put it to a vote before the people. And the only reason Ireland even held a referendum is that the country’s constitution requires it.

The pro-European bureaucrats were totally correct, too. The alliance of treaty opponents in Ireland -- mirroring previous votes in France and the Netherlands -- was bizarre. They came from the far right and the far left, with millionaires and the unemployed criticizing Europe in the most contradictory ways. On the one hand, they argued the Lisbon Treaty would make life difficult for entrepreneurs. But on the other they feared an erosion of workers’ rights. But all were united on one issue: their rejection of the treaty.

But Europe’s real problems began long before these failed referenda on dodgy treaties. For a long time now, the European Union has lacked a political father and mother figure. Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy and their colleagues may pay the EU lip service, but it is little more than that. Britain's Gordon Brown and his Czech counterpart Mirek Topolanek are also fond of talking up Europe. But each of them also ruthlessly haggles for each and every tiny benefit their country can possibly get, no matter how much trouble it causes.

They treat Europe more like a shell game than the political project of the century. What they themselves decide in Brussels is then shamelessly sold to voters back home by the ministers of agriculture, finance, economics, the environment, finance and transportation as something created by “the people in Brussels,” the second it starts to appear unpopular.

On top of this political duplicity, there are also the Eurocrats' tricks. The experts in Brussels, as well as Merkel’s advisers in Berlin, were so proud of their clever idea to rewrite the draft constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters to the point that no normal person could ever read it. They were essentially able to rewrap the constitution in the packaging of the Lisbon Treaty without anyone noticing -- at least not straight away.

The European train had already left the station, and it would get to its destination no matter what -- even if nobody knew what that destination might be. The most important thing was keeping the train running -- that was the motto as far back as when Europe enthusiast Helmut Kohl was still the German chancellor. In the long term, though, that cannot work.
Anyone who truly wants a European Union must clearly state what it is that they want. Do they want a casual trade alliance for the better implementation of globalized capitalism, or do they prefer something along the lines of a “United States of Europe?" Or do they want something else altogether?

Then, one needs to ask the citizens of Europe if they want that thing too -- or not. It is certainly possibly to "Europeanize" this kind of referenda. One could, as the Green Party has suggested, conduct a Europe-wide survey on the same day in each member state and, by doing so, reduce the significance of irrelevant national issues, and see what it is that the people really want.

But in the eyes of Europe’s leaders, that could also go awry. Voters, either because they are badly informed or because they are simply in a bad mood, could say no, just as we’ve just seen in Ireland. There’s a name for that: democracy.

And while people may not understand how the Poles could elect the Kaczynski brothers or how the Italians could choose Silvio Berlusconi, no one has seriously questioned their right to vote. Only when it comes to Europe do they want to ignore the will of the people.

And voters fight back against that. When they get the chance.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...559741,00.html

Quality matters, not just speed or quantity. Accepting to raise the EU by terms of cheating, betraying most basic principles of democracy, and excluding the voice of the people, will claim revenge in the future. and then, politicians and profiteers will complain, and will insist that they had nothing to do with it, and that it all was about stupid people, mislead campaigns, and people simply not understanding what is good for them.

It will never come to these bright people'S minds that the way they have designed the EU both in content and in ways of proceedings - are exactly the valid reasons that caused and nursed the antipathy to it. The problem is not the people, but the leaders dreaming and self-celebrating uncoupled from reality and claiming the right for themselves not top represent their voters anymore, but to enforce their own private will on voters and non-voters alike, no matter what the latter two think. This is the great problem with the EU. The moment when in a socalled democracy an opposition is no longer allowed and votes are only held if the commanded-in-advance outcome is guaranteed, I start to be seriously concerned. There is much talking inside the EU administration of getting closer to the people on the street. If that is meant serious or with any sense of reason, I wonder why one is trying so hard and always harder to distanc eoneself more and more and with accelerating pace from these mentioned nobodies: the people. Euro-parties on the street, letting ballons fly and greeting pedestrians with mini-EU-flags and free pencils, is not the reasonable thing to, it is nothing else than to bribe the considered to be stupid natives with glass pearls and sugar, where solid answers to critical questions and actions reflecting the will of the people would be demanded for sure. The EU is not about democracy and representation of the will of the majority of the people, but avbout eroding these democreatic rights without making them aware. To claim that 480 million people in europe want this, is pathetic at best, and the claiming of a majority one does not have, is a lie. Peop0le may want what the diea of a united europe means in an abstract sense, but I see no majority for wanting that in the form and way the EU is claiming to realise - an unproven claim, one must add. I even can't see 290 million wanting that.

Voters should fight back indeed. But they will not get many more chances, if any.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

But the EU foreign minister will remove the national foreign. Individual countries won't be able to consider their own foreign policy, even if EU policy goes against their interests.

Jeez you are like the Irish lady who voted no because "she was tipped off that it meant the European army was going to conscript her son"

What you have written is nonsense - but it illustrates the problem very well. The EU does not seem able to communicate why it does what it does, and asks people to vote for a treaty that they cannot understand. People just project whatever idiocy on to it that they like

Finally the whole Save the British Sausage thing was something from Yes, Minister!

Besides, in the old days the rubbish that was a British sausage was up to 60% rusk. now they are good again, and usually over 90% meat.

[XabbaRus]

No it's not nonsense. It's all part of the sovreignty argument. How big would a cabinet for the EU have to be? Would each country have a foreign minister per se or would they just be told that the EU govt. has decided this is the policy which will suit Europe benefit most countries but not all, like it or lump it. Europe is too big and too diverse for this to happen.

BTW I can't figure out if you are pro europe or anti? Like I said I am not anti EU as in EEC just anti federal united states of Europe.

[joegrundman]

Every nation will still have it's own complete government including foreign ministers, each of which will represent the nation to which they belong, and for the foreseeable future the real focus of power in Europe will lie in the member nation states and not the EU "federal" structure

AND there will be an EU foreign minister to represent the EU as a whole - in the same way as there is an EU president without it meaning we no longer have a British Queen and Prime Minister.

This is going to happen because the EU is involved in a vast number of international relationships (as is Britain), and it will make things easier for non-EU countries to have a go-to man/woman in dealing with their EU related issues, and vice versa.

It makes sense for in many situations the EU member states are essentially agreed on the policy that should be followed. It is simple cost and time efficiency to have a single agency to handle these sorts of affairs.

And until such a time has come that the EU starts to federalise along US lines, it will ALWAYS be the case that the desires of the nation state will supercede EU decisions. However just as it is the case that sometimes it is in the interest of the USA to allow a WTO decision to go in favour of the other side in a dispute, so it is the case that to continue the overall benefits of the system, occasionally an EU member state will go along with an unfavourable decision.

It's how it works in the real world.

(As an aside - just imagine the outcry if an EU foreign minister really did supercede the national foreign ministers. Think of all those people and their hangers-on and entire ministries that would be out of a job if it did happen!)

[joegrundman]

@Skybird

that post you quoted was quite good, but your following comments were less so

but the leaders dreaming and self-celebrating uncoupled from reality and claiming the right for themselves not top represent their voters anymore, but to enforce their own private will on voters and non-voters alike, no matter what the latter two think.

You all want your own democratically elected governments to represent you, don't you? This is why you should let them do it, and negotiate the treaty on your behalf

You don't need referenda. They are too easily captured by demagogues.

But what i do agree is that the EU commission is guilty of assuming that just because they can see how obviously sensible it is, it is equally obvious to everyone else.

It was deeply, deeply stupid of them to put themselves in a position where so much hung on a handful of Irish politicians saying to their electorate "I don't know what it says exactly, and i couldn't explain it to you clearly even if i did, but please vote for it anyway"

[Skybird]

Joe,

you already got any reply I could give, and i dont see a need to repeat myself again. Needless to say that I reject every point you made, and totally disagree with you, both in detail and on the general issue.

To make that clear, that is no personal hostility by me, but simply the way it is.

Ironically now they start to talk about what just weeks before was impossible to be spoken out: they mention different conceptions of a core-Europe that before was considered to be unsolidaric and subversive to be even mentioned. I talked of a core europe since YEARS. Unfortunately, they want this core europe depending on this same damn nemesis of a constitution - and so again I will totally confront them, no matter if a core europe or Europe of two speeds, or whatever.

P.S. I strictly stick and defend that quote by me that you started with. If the EU has one problem outshining all others, than it's biblic distance to reality, and exaggerated positive self-perception on issue going beyond economics.

[Hakahura]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

Every nation will still have it's own complete government including foreign ministers, each of which will represent the nation to which they belong, and for the foreseeable future the real focus of power in Europe will lie in the member nation states and not the EU "federal" structure

AND there will be an EU foreign minister to represent the EU as a whole - in the same way as there is an EU president without it meaning we no longer have a British Queen and Prime Minister.

This is going to happen because the EU is involved in a vast number of international relationships (as is Britain), and it will make things easier for non-EU countries to have a go-to man/woman in dealing with their EU related issues, and vice versa.

It makes sense for in many situations the EU member states are essentially agreed on the policy that should be followed. It is simple cost and time efficiency to have a single agency to handle these sorts of affairs.

And until such a time has come that the EU starts to federalise along US lines, it will ALWAYS be the case that the desires of the nation state will supercede EU decisions. However just as it is the case that sometimes it is in the interest of the USA to allow a WTO decision to go in favour of the other side in a dispute, so it is the case that to continue the overall benefits of the system, occasionally an EU member state will go along with an unfavourable decision.

It's how it works in the real world.

(As an aside - just imagine the outcry if an EU foreign minister really did supercede the national foreign ministers. Think of all those people and their hangers-on and entire ministries that would be out of a job if it did happen!)

foreseeable

How long is this? Do you know? I have a feeling the brussels interpretation of foreseeable is a-lot shorter than mine.

EU president

At the moment this is an essentially powerless figure head rotated every 6 months.
What the EU wants of it's foreign minister is someone in post for far longer with actual powers.

(Nasty hypothosis for 10 years time under EU rule with a EU foreign minister. Argentina invades and captures the Falkland Islands again. EU decides not to retake Islands but gives them to Argentina and deports the islanders to an EU country of their choice. The UK is forced to accept this as it is an EU member and EU foreign policy has primacy over national interests! Not completely unfeasible after all wars are expensive and a few hundred British citizens are not really of consiquence to the EU)

essentially agreed

Since when have member states all agreed with each other?
Even on trival matters, let alone foreign policy.

supercede EU decisions.

This is already happening. the EU has already managed to give some of it's laws primacy over national ones. In a oversized beaurocrassy the desires of individual nations will soon be steamrollered in the interests of harmonisation.

It's how it works in the real world.

What do you mean by real world?
Is the world not real if it doesn't follow the EU agenda?

[Hakahura]

Joe,

Glad you brought up the one about the proposed EU Army. (Rapid reaction force whatever they want to call it)
If it were to ever happen,
Who are they going to use to man this?

Existing troops that's who.

Well excuse me, but The Queens Crown is the only emblem on my Headress and it's staying that way!

So if I'm unprepaired to serve the EU will I be forced to resign?

[Hakahura]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

@Skybird

that post you quoted was quite good, but your following comments were less so

You all want your own democratically elected governments to represent you, don't you? This is why you should let them do it, and negotiate the treaty on your behalf

You don't need referenda. They are too easily captured by demagogues.

But what i do agree is that the EU commission is guilty of assuming that just because they can see how obviously sensible it is, it is equally obvious to everyone else.

It was deeply, deeply stupid of them to put themselves in a position where so much hung on a handful of Irish politicians saying to their electorate "I don't know what it says exactly, and i couldn't explain it to you clearly even if i did, but please vote for it anyway"

You don't need referenda.

Well actually we do!
Here in the UK we were promised one by New Labour.
Only they've squirmed out of it!

WHERE'S MY REFERENDUM BROWN?

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Hakahura

foreseeable

How long is this? Do you know? I have a feeling the brussels interpretation of foreseeable is a-lot shorter than mine.

EU president

At the moment this is an essentially powerless figure head rotated every 6 months.
What the EU wants of it's foreign minister is someone in post for far longer with actual powers.

(Nasty hypothosis for 10 years time under EU rule with a EU foreign minister. Argentina invades and captures the Falkland Islands again. EU decides not to retake Islands but gives them to Argentina and deports the islanders to an EU country of their choice. The UK is forced to accept this as it is an EU member and EU foreign policy has primacy over national interests! Not completely unfeasible after all wars are expensive and a few hundred British citizens are not really of consiquence to the EU)

essentially agreed

Since when have member states all agreed with each other?
Even on trival matters, let alone foreign policy.

supercede EU decisions.

This is already happening. the EU has already managed to give some of it's laws primacy over national ones. In a oversized beaurocrassy the desires of individual nations will soon be steamrollered in the interests of harmonisation.

It's how it works in the real world.

What do you mean by real world?
Is the world not real if it doesn't follow the EU agenda?

The foreseeable future means as long as can be foreseen. Not more than, and not less than. On this particular question, it means that not a single major European player has federalisation on the agenda, and therefore it won't happen.

EU president - you choose to back up your point with a fantasy of your choosing and then say how Europe will stop you from fighting. Do you in fact know how the EU would react to this sceanrio? If so, how do you know? And how do you know that the EU would be able to veto a British decision to get them back? How, in fact, could they veto it?

The only pressure they can put on Britain in such a situation is in terms of EU membership. This is because within the EU, the member nation state WILL REMAIN THE SOVEREIGN ENTITY.

Essentially agreed is what most EU member nation states are on most matters that do not generally make the news.

Supercede EU decisions - i don't know how to respond to this as I don't think you understood what i said

The real world - is where nations do not lay down the law (except sometimes the US), it is where nations horse-trade and compromise and sometimes have to shift from their top-line positions. Britain lives in the real world, as does the EU.

The army- well as you feel so strongly about it, then yes, maybe you would have to resign. For sure a European defense force would be made of contributions from the member states, and as Britain is one of the strongest, our contribution would be relatively big.

Why is this a problem for you? You would still be fighting for Britain, as part of Europe. You fight under NATO too, don't you? And peacekeep under the UN flag too, don't you? Or have you already resigned to avoid this conflict of loyalty?

As for referendums. I'll say it again for the third time this thread. Your desire is that the nationstate be the sovereign entity. For this to be so, it is necessary that the negotiations be handled by the nation-states, for no senior minister in any nation-state will EVER talk themselves out of a job. You can bet your life on it.

On the other hand if referenda are the way forwards, the EUs obvious way forward is to push for a Europe-wide referendum on a new populist treaty so that it is not prisoner to the negativities of any one country. By doing this, the EU is getting legitmation that has BYPASSED the workings of the nationstates, and this is NOT WHAT YOU WANT!

But anyway, this is unlikely - the EU is getting tired of the whole expensive business of making new treaties.
.
.
There most certainly is serious debate and criticism and discussion to be had about the state of the EU, and the problems with the Lisbon treaty, but the whole debate gets clouded by rantings of the whole "Brussels is stealing my sausages and demagnetising my fridge magnets" crowd.

Fundamentally you don't seem to understand that the EU is MADE of nation states. And Britain is one of the three strongest in the whole structure.

I feel there are parallels with discussing evolution. There are interesting discussions and disagreements to be had about the areas of evolution that are less well understood - but the whole discussion then gets paralysed by IDers and creationists with what amounts to an elaborate fantasy.


@skybird - that's cool, and i agree that there is a massive cognitive dissonance going on with the EU people.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

@skybird - that's cool, and i agree that there is a massive cognitive dissonance going on with the EU people.

Öh eh - yes, on this we agree then.