Sooo...that Lisbon treaty...

[nurizeko]

Ireland have recently voted yes after already having said no, then being asked again (if at first you fail, try try try try keep trying until you can subvert democracy and try again!) to the Lisbon Treaty, which is widely regarded as the failed EU constitution repackaged.

What are your thoughts on this?, do you agree with the direction the EU is going?, are you looking forward to Tony Blair being the EU president?, do you expect the EU to commit to the democratic principles that it's peoples hold dear or are we witnessing the birth of a new Old European empire?.

Will the commission make the EU parliament more than a mere talking shop or has Ireland opened the door completely to our very own "Politburo" to rule with impunity.



And most of all...why do Europhiles call anyone who has reservations about the EU in part or whole a xenophobe, small minded and all that?, why does preference to have some democratic say over a nation state somehow make you ignorant because you don't want no say whatsoever over a federation?.


Most of all...why is it that when a British person has no interest in the utterly wrong direction the EU is going in, they are a "Little Englander" (Scottish BTW) who cant seem to get over the British empire, even though the British empire has been dead for decades, no-one has ever so much as made any such claims to miss it, and the most imperial venture in Europe of late aside from Russian ambitions seems to be a minorities obsession with a federalized European super-state with precious little democratic checks?.




In my opinion the damage is done now, Ireland caved in, Poland and Czech Republic wont hold out until a UK general election, the Tories wont hold a referendum anyway and all this is going on ignoring the fact the French and such already said no to the whole package when it was called a constitution, conveniently ignored.

The best we can hope for is that Tony Blair does get into office, watch how fast the UK scrambles to get out. I suppouse its comforting in a way to know the EU will collapse in on itself anyway, IMO the direction its going is just not maintainable, too unwieldy, too illegitimate, too many competing national and local interests and cultural and political interests.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I'm not actually against the EU or even a theoretical "United States of Europe", but the current incarnation is too bureaucratic, politically correct and undemocratic.

When the British people voted to join the EU, they were voting to join a free trade agreement, not to have Brussels dictate our laws to us.

 

[jverne]

EU bureaucracy can suck my dick...what i wanted form the EU free trade not the bureaucracy that comes in the package. that means harmonization of laws and by laws i mean those that deal with personal liberties. we have relatively low crime but yet we integrate law from other countries that ban certain activities, such as banning of carrying folding knifes (Swiss knifes).

and btw...we (the people) didn't have a say when the EU treaty was on the table, our noble politicians took the liberty of deciding for us, that's what i call democracy.

look at the monkeys we're paying

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdAynVBCsmo&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWiW15pFpjU&feature=related


and i sadly can't find the video where the parliament was voting on issues and they didn't even count the votes, they just skimmed trough the lifted arms and draw a vote.

 

[nurizeko]

Fairly easy to discuss stupid subjects when the European parliament is widely known to be powerless.

It decides nothing.

 

[Eejit]

I don't really see anything to object to in the Lisbon Treaty. Its main changes make the EU more democratic, one of the main criticisms levelled at the EU.

• A European Council President
  with a 2½ year term de facto
  replacing the rotating presidency.
• A single foreign affairs post
  created by merging the External
  Relations Commissioner with the
  CFSP High Representative.
• Charter of Fundamental Rights
  from 2000 made legally binding.
• Pillars merged to 1 legal person
  increasing the EU's competence
  to sign treaties.
• European Council separated
  officially from the EU Council.
• Legislative meetings of the EU
  Council to be held in public.
• More powerful Parliament
  by extending codecision with the
  Councils to more areas of policy.
• Further enlargement facilitated
  since the Nice Treaty complicates decision-making
  if there are too many Member States.
• More double majority voting
  to new areas of policy in the
  European Council and the
  EU Council, from 2014 on.
• National parliaments engaged
  by expanding scrutiny-time of
  legislation and enabling them to
  jointly compel the Commission
  to review or withdraw legislation.
• Mutual solidarity obliged
  if a member state is object of a
  terrorist attack or the victim of a
  natural or man-made disaster.
• Citizens' petitions
  to be considered by the
  Commission if signed by
  1 million citizens.
• Combating climate change
  explicitly stated as an objective.
• An EU Public Prosecutor
• An External Action Service
• Membership withdrawal clause

 

[pomegranate]

I don't see how taking another vote on anything can possibly be undemocratic. It's more democracy. Simples. It would only be undemocratic if people were being unfairly influenced to vote one way other the other the second time round. I am open to your explanation...

And to answer your question, sure there are legitimate issues that people can raise about the EU and it's movement towards greater integration etc, but to be brutally honest I don't think most opponents really understand the political and economic complexities involved, are more likely to be motivated by xenophobia and ignorance, which they try to justify by referring to other people's more informed arguments. I for one don't really understand it that well so refrain from taking a strong position either way, but the way I see it, anything that the tabloids take a hard line against is probably not all that bad.

 

[Eejit]

Honestly I've seen a distinct deficit of logic in euroskepticism.

You realise the second Irish vote was held after the Irish received various extra opt-outs and guarantees Nuri? They weren't voting again on the same thing, they were voting on a renegotiated deal.

 

[Tagaziel]

Ireland have recently voted yes after already having said no, then being asked again (if at first you fail, try try try try keep trying until you can subvert democracy and try again!) to the Lisbon Treaty, which is widely regarded as the failed EU constitution repackaged.

See, this is why eurosceptics are treated as ignorant and small minded. With most European countries accepting (c.a. 90%) the Lisbon treaty, requesting Ireland to once again confirm their opinion instead of strongarming them into accepting it is democratic.

What are your thoughts on this?, do you agree with the direction the EU is going?, are you looking forward to Tony Blair being the EU president?, do you expect the EU to commit to the democratic principles that it's peoples hold dear or are we witnessing the birth of a new Old European empire?.

Yes, I am pleased. Europan Federation FTW.

 

[Eejit]

and btw...we (the people) didn't have a say when 99.9% of all laws were on the table, our noble politicians took the liberty of deciding for us

That IS democracy.
None of us are voting citizens of ancient Athens.

 

[jverne]

That IS democracy.
None of us are voting citizens of ancient Athens.

yeah but i think on important issues like this...we should have a say in a referendum.

and besides my main issue is not with the lisbon treaty, but how bureaucratic and ineffective the EU is and harmonizing laws all across the union. IMO in the US the states are given more leeway.
as i understand it the EU forms directives and these directives are going to eventually become laws. the first to go in my knowledge is the weapons legislature and road laws which have already been changed.

but then again it's not that much the EUs fault as it is of our politicians

 

[Tagaziel]

and besides my main issue is not with the lisbon treaty, but how bureaucratic and ineffective the EU is

Which is what the Lisbon treaty seeks to rectify, thank you very much for actually reading up on the issue.

and harmonizing laws all across the union. IMO in the US the states are given more leeway.

Compare the size of the US and Europe.

Furthermore, have you thought about the benefits unified laws give us? Tax laws ensure that no matter what country you're in, you will pay taxes according to the same rules as in your country of origin. No more having to convert rates. Unified border policy will enable better processing of immigrants, as with the same conditions for entry across the Union entering Britain through, say, Poland will no longer be possible. Unified (at least partially) penal codes will make sentencing easier, especially serving sentences in your country of origin, if the crime was commited in another EU state.

Regardless, claiming that the EU wants to make laws identical in all member states is the perfect example of mindless fear mongering. As indicated by Ireland, concessions can and will be made, simply because it makes cooperation easier.

as i understand it the EU forms directives and these directives are going to eventually become laws. the first to go in my knowledge is the weapons legislature and road laws which have already been changed.

Read up on that. There are two distinct types, directives that are laws that are universally in effect across the Union (not that common) and acts that set certain goals, but leave the means to achieve them at the discretion of the countries (most common).

but then again it's not that much the EUs fault as it is of our politicians

Finally someone realizes that. The EU is what me make it to be.

 

[jverne]

Which is what the Lisbon treaty seeks to rectify, thank you very much for actually reading up on the issue.



Compare the size of the US and Europe.

Furthermore, have you thought about the benefits unified laws give us? Tax laws ensure that no matter what country you're in, you will pay taxes according to the same rules as in your country of origin. No more having to convert rates. Unified border policy will enable better processing of immigrants, as with the same conditions for entry across the Union entering Britain through, say, Poland will no longer be possible. Unified (at least partially) penal codes will make sentencing easier, especially serving sentences in your country of origin, if the crime was commited in another EU state.

Regardless, claiming that the EU wants to make laws identical in all member states is the perfect example of mindless fear mongering. As indicated by Ireland, concessions can and will be made, simply because it makes cooperation easier.



Read up on that. There are two distinct types, directives that are laws that are universally in effect across the Union (not that common) and acts that set certain goals, but leave the means to achieve them at the discretion of the countries (most common).



Finally someone realizes that. The EU is what me make it to be.

hey mate...i hope you're right and it does end up better for us. but considering i've already lost two laws which were better without the interference of the EU "recommendations".
until the effects are proven i won't speak kindly of it.

 

[repiV]

See, this is why eurosceptics are treated as ignorant and small minded. With most European countries accepting (c.a. 90%) the Lisbon treaty, requesting Ireland to once again confirm their opinion instead of strongarming them into accepting it is democratic.

Correction - the rich and powerful of most European countries pushing it forwards whether we want it or not. We weren't given a choice in the matter, and if we were, I can guarantee the situation would be very different. Without even taking any other considerations into account, how anyone can even think about supporting an organisation so arrogant, undemocratic and power-hungry that it will force us all to become a part of it against our wishes is utterly beyond me.

Adding another layer of utterly unaccountable government solves what, exactly?

The EU accounts have not been signed off for 15 years. 70% of our laws come from Brussels already, effectively making our Parliament redundant. Under the EU Constitution...sorry, Lisbon Treaty, EU laws will take precedence over national laws. And while all of this happened over the past 20 years, nobody even realised what was going on until it was already too late.

And why would our national politicians be so desperate to sell out their country to the great machine at all costs, and give away their own power and influence in the process - what could it possibly gain them? Lucrative future employment, perhaps?

What a sick and twisted, corrupt and authoritarian mess. What business does a supranational monstrosity have taking obscene sums of money from us and then governing every little aspect of our lives? The EU disgusts me.

 

[13LACKBISHOP]

Correction - the rich and powerful of most European countries pushing it forwards whether we want it or not. We weren't given a choice in the matter, and if we were, I can guarantee the situation would be very different. Without even taking any other considerations into account, how anyone can even think about supporting an organisation so arrogant, undemocratic and power-hungry that it will force us all to become a part of it against our wishes is utterly beyond me.

Adding another layer of utterly unaccountable government solves what, exactly?

The EU accounts have not been signed off for 15 years. 70% of our laws come from Brussels already, effectively making our Parliament redundant. Under the EU Constitution...sorry, Lisbon Treaty, EU laws will take precedence over national laws. And while all of this happened over the past 20 years, nobody even realised what was going on until it was already too late.

And why would our national politicians be so desperate to sell out their country to the great machine at all costs, and give away their own power and influence in the process - what could it possibly gain them? Lucrative future employment, perhaps?

What a sick and twisted, corrupt and authoritarian mess. What business does a supranational monstrosity have taking obscene sums of money from us and then governing every little aspect of our lives? The EU disgusts me.

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the EU. Blair sold us out. Blair signed everything the EU wanted us to sign so he could get into presidency. And for that he get's hideous amounts of cash.

 

[15357]

EU should go back to the days of the EEC. Or ECC. Or whatever that was. The world should stop trying to get together.

 

[Eejit]

Correction - the rich and powerful of most European countries pushing it forwards whether we want it or not. We weren't given a choice in the matter, and if we were, I can guarantee the situation would be very different. Without even taking any other considerations into account, how anyone can even think about supporting an organisation so arrogant, undemocratic and power-hungry that it will force us all to become a part of it against our wishes is utterly beyond me.

/sigh

The Lisbon Treaty makes the EU more democratic and provides means to withdraw membership from the EU. You are wildly inconsistent in your opposition to it, a common failing among Euroskeptics.

 

[repiV]

/sigh

The Lisbon Treaty makes the EU more democratic and provides means to withdraw membership from the EU. You are wildly inconsistent in your opposition to it, a common failing among Euroskeptics.

There's nothing remotely democratic about doing everything possible to avoid the people having a say on their future. If it's so benign, what are they so afraid of? And why is it not immediately known to all, what this constitution is? Why the deception and obfuscation?

That aside, it lays the foundations for a federal superstate. Not a good place to go.

The EU is fundamentally undemocratic - and corrupt. We should not be a part of it, and if the country were allowed to have its say, we would not be a part of it. An incredibly insiduous bureaucratic machine.

 

[Eejit]

It's barely less democratic than the UK. As I pointed out earlier in the thread the Lisbon Treaty gives more power to the EU Parliament - MEPs directly elected by EU citizens. It also makes it so "Citizens' petitions to be considered by the Commission if signed by 1 million citizens" - by law... if only the UK had that, eh?.
As I said in other threads the other main bodies are appointed by elected governments of the member states already, which isn't really any less democratic than how the Cabinet is formed or the Prime Minister chosen.

I'll repeat this too, the Lisbon Treaty also implements a Membership Withdrawal Clause and for that alone Euroskeptics should be in favour of it.

 

[repiV]

It's barely less democratic than the UK. As I pointed out earlier in the thread the Lisbon Treaty gives more power to the EU Parliament - MEPs directly elected by EU citizens. It also makes it so "Citizens' petitions to be considered by the Commission if signed by 1 million citizens" - by law... if only the UK had that, eh?.

It's less democratic by its very definition, seeing as the government is much further away from the people - and, however way you spin it, the reality is we will have no real power to influence the way we are governed under such a system.

Need I reiterate the folly of trusting a shady, authoritarian organisation that makes every attempt to block its supposed constitutents from having a say on whether they want it or not? That hasn't had its accounts signed off for 15 years? That exists primarily to create jobs for the boys?

As I said in other threads the other main bodies are appointed by elected governments of the member states already, which isn't really any less democratic than how the Cabinet is formed or the Prime Minister chosen.

The British political system isn't very democratic to begin with. Party whips, ministers who also serve as MPs...oh you could have a field day. That's hardly a compelling argument to support that adding another, yet more distant, layer of government, is in any way "democratic".

And if that wasn't enough, nobody can ever find a single convincing reason for the continued existence of the EU in the first place, or what we stand to gain from it. It's only ever vague, idealistic nonsense about "unity" or "peace".

We fought world wars for self-determination, and now we give it away willingly. What a world we live in.

I'll repeat this too, the Lisbon Treaty also implements a Membership Withdrawal Clause and for that alone Euroskeptics should be in favour of it.

We could withdraw membership now, if we so chose. I fail to see how further integrating ourselves with a federal EU in the making is going to expedite that process, just because it has a clause in there which defines a procedure.

Also, see here.

 

[Eejit]

It's less democratic by its very definition, seeing as the government is much further away from the people - and, however way you spin it, the reality is [subjective/assumptions].

Need I reiterate the folly of trusting a [subjective] organisation that makes [baseless / sources please]? That hasn't had its accounts signed off for 15 years? That exists primarily to [baseless / sources please]?

I would disagree about it being less democratic by definition. As you pointed out the UK already has a large democratic deficit. The EU is actually a lot more democratic in several ways.

The EU parliament is voted for by proportional representation - more democratic than the British system.
The EU Council and Council of Ministers is composed of members appointed by the governments of the member states and is more democratic than the UK House of Lords, as peers are for life.
The Commission is a bit more complicated, but since it requires approval by the directly elected parliament it's rather democratic too.
As I pointed out petitions from EU citizens will soon have to be considered by the Commission if they get enough signatures.

 

[The Monkey]

I'm a bit split about this issue. While I generally agree that an expansion of the EU is necessary, I hardly think this is the right way to do it. By going over the head of the European population in this matter, it's only bound to increase resentment toward the whole project.

 

[repiV]

I would disagree about it being less democratic by definition. As you pointed out the UK already has a large democratic deficit. The EU is actually a lot more democratic in several ways.

Like I said, it takes the government further away from the people. Centralising power is never the democratic thing to do. In the days of old, the states of the USA had far more power than they do today, and towns ran themselves to a large degree, but as is always the way with government, the bigger, badder federal government has gradually increased its mandate over the years.

What meaning does a supposedly fair election system have, when you're electing a tiny number of representatives out of the whole and the whole damn lot of them are making autocratic decisions which affect a whole continent in the same way, regardless of individual differences between nations? That is not US electing representation for US, it's US electing a small voice to represent everyone equally badly. At the end of the day, why should some twat in Belgium be able to dictate how many hours a week I'm allowed to work?

It's bad enough that a London-centric government makes decisions for Devon and Cornwall, Yorkshire or Wrexham. A Brussels-based government making decisions for everywhere from France, to Spain, to Poland...it's just beyond absurd.

The EU parliament is voted for by proportional representation - more democratic than the British system.

Yet, on such a large scale, is meaningless to all.

The EU Council and Council of Ministers is composed of members appointed by the governments of the member states and is more democratic than the UK House of Lords, as peers are for life.

On the other hand, the House of Lords seems to be the only voice in British politics that keeps the lunacy at bay. Perhaps because they are already rich and powerful, they're not so driven by self-interest.

The Commission is a bit more complicated, but since it requires approval by the directly elected parliament it's rather democratic too.
As I pointed out petitions from EU citizens will soon have to be considered by the Commission if they get enough signatures.

Yet this is an argument for the EU why?

This should be the case in any democracy. The solution to a failure in ours isn't to sacrifice our national sovreignty to a monstrous super-state for all eternity.

Is that really the best argument for the EU that's out there? That our political system sucks anyway, so why not?

 

[ríomhaire]

As I pointed out petitions from EU citizens will soon have to be considered by the Commission if they get enough signatures.

You keep saying this, but just because they're legally obliged to read a petition doesn't mean that they'll give a shit. It seems like an entirely unnessisary law. Surely they should have the common sense to have a look at such a popular petition in the first place, without being forced to. If the Commission has to be legally forced to listen to people, what hope is there?

 

[Sulkdodds]

On the other hand, the House of Lords seems to be the only voice in British politics that keeps the lunacy at bay. Perhaps because they are already rich and powerful, they're not so driven by self-interest.

I don't feel confident in the larger argument but thought I'd interject here. The rich and powerful very obviously aren't immune from self-interest. What you talk about probably has more to do with their unelected status. Once a peer is in, they cannot be easily removed or coerced, so there's no real way for the party mechanism to assert any control over them. Of course, this advantage would be retained if, say, peers were democratically elected for a set term of twenty years or forever. It's not integral to the HoL.

You keep saying this, but just because they're legally obliged to read a petition doesn't mean that they'll give a shit. It seems like an entirely unnessisary law. Surely they should have the common sense to have a look at such a popular petition in the first place, without being forced to. If the Commission has to be legally forced to listen to people, what hope is there?

Whatever else, this is pretty dumb logic. A body decides to bind itself by rules that enforce its own democratic accountability, and you go "Oh, well, if they need that then we're all in trouble." I guess you say the same about any constitutional limit? I mean, god, what does it say about American politics that they need to be able to impeach their presidents, or that they need to have fixed numbers of terms? Or do you repeat it about any laws? If we need to tell people not to murder... It's obviously better that they are bound by a regulation rather than by 'common sense'. Certainly it's perverse to have enough faith in an institution to believe it will do the right thing without being coerced to do it - and then to lose that faith as soon as said institution ensures it will always be coerced.

 

[Eejit]

Like I said, it takes the government further away from the people. Centralising power is never the democratic thing to do. In the days of old, the states of the USA had far more power than they do today, and towns ran themselves to a large degree, but as is always the way with government, the bigger, badder federal government has gradually increased its mandate over the years.

Yeah and in the 'days of old' it took weeks to travel the length of a country, communication was sketchy and language varied far more from region to region. In the 'days of really old' the largest community was a city-state. Times change, technologies change, populations are highly mobile and mix more freely, cultures relate to each other more easily and merge more often.
The world - and particularly Europe - is becoming more homogenous all the time. Maybe you don't like this, but you can't just cover your ears and yearn for the days of yore. The age has passed where every city needed to rule itself, indeed would that not be a good thing in today's world.

You seem to think that simply because more people are under the same government that creates a democratic deficit. To extrapolate that idea the world will become progressively 'less democratic' as the population continues to grow, and Britain has become 'less democratic' pretty much every decade since Universal Sufferage, simply because more people lived here.
The number of people represented by one government is not a sufficient representation of how democratic the system is. Rather the enfranchisement of citizens, the checks and balances in government and the courts, the length of representatives' terms and such are the important factors.

Is that really the best argument for the EU that's out there? That our political system sucks anyway, so why not?

No, the argument is that our political system sucks, the EU system is better, so let's embrace that.

 

[nurizeko]

Membership withdrawal clause

**** aye, look forward to the referendum.

EU should go back to the days of the EEC. Or ECC. Or whatever that was. The world should stop trying to get together.

This please. People signed up for an economic treaty, we got a European Politburo that seems intent on homogenizing Europe into a federation whether people want it or not.

Even if the EU magically turned into a people friendly organization over night it wouldn't change the fact that for the past lot of decades it never asked anyone if we actually wanted a federated super state stamped down on the flattened carcasses of our national states.

Short of saving the world from immediate destruction, I wouldn't care what the EU could do, even if the new EU president would shit free gold bricks for every European from now until the rapture, no-one asked me if I wanted to give up my nationality and the fact of the matter is I don't.


I'm happy being British, why is that wrong?

 

[Eejit]

Honestly I think Britain should withdraw from the EU, it would be better off without them in the long run imo. Plus the UK doesn't really deserve it given the pathetic choices their electorate make time after time.

 

[jimbo118]

But you're part of Britain too?!?

Don't reave!

 

[Eejit]

I'm an Irish citizen though, no probrem!

 

[Tagaziel]

This please. People signed up for an economic treaty, we got a European Politburo that seems intent on homogenizing Europe into a federation whether people want it or not.

Then start a movement to secede. The clause is there and if people are annoyed by the EU, then you should easily gain support, right?

Even if the EU magically turned into a people friendly organization over night it wouldn't change the fact that for the past lot of decades it never asked anyone if we actually wanted a federated super state stamped down on the flattened carcasses of our national states.

If voluntary cooperation between states, no borders, streamlined economical exchange
and synchronised laws equal flattening of nation states to you, well, keep posting.

Short of saving the world from immediate destruction, I wouldn't care what the EU could do, even if the new EU president would shit free gold bricks for every European from now until the rapture, no-one asked me if I wanted to give up my nationality and the fact of the matter is I don't.

No one is asking you to give up your nationality.

Oh wait, you already gave it away, Scot.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

No one is asking you to give up your nationality.

Oh wait, you already gave it away, Scot.

Hoooooooooly shit. Did you actually just go there?

 

[nurizeko]

Hoooooooooly shit. Did you actually just go there?

Don't mind him, that was just an attempted troll. It was a reasonable effort but failed mostly because it lacked any attempt at subtlety.

 

[Tagaziel]

It wasn't a troll, it was a legitimate argument. You can't claim the EU foces you to abandon your nationality, if for over three centuries your country is a part of a similiar organisation and despite initial protests, didn't turn out that bad.

 

[unozero]

nvm ain't worth the trouble.