EU Constitution AGREED!!

gom

Do you think that now the EU Constitution has been agreed that the Bertie posponed the discussion on who should be the next EU Commission President so that he himself could be nominated by the Dutch Presidency next month???

aidan_walsh

Link to the text, for those interested

Cork

This is indeed a massive diplomatic triumph for the Irish presidency.

Getting agreement from 25 member states was very difficult.

Fair play to all involved. They have done us proud.

mike65

One day I may read the text....

Mike.

arcadegame2004

Let's hope people actually read this document instead of waiting till the last minute and then complaining about "not having enough time for debate etc." when we come to the Irish referendum campaign.

Make up your minds on the basis of the document's contents and not on the basis of prejudicial views in either direction okay?

That's what I will try to do.

On the Bertie question, "No" is my answer. I think that with 25 members reaching decisions was always going to be more difficult. But I am strongly opposed to reappointing the gaff-prone Romano Prodi. Now do I want another Leftie in charge of the Commission for the umpteenth time. The next man should be of the centre-right, because they won a majority in the European Parliament elections. Maybe Wolfgang Schuessel, the Austrian PM would be a good compromise candidate.

Originally posted by doodle_sketch
Link to the text, for those interested

Erm..
Thats the draft from july 2003 isn't it?
It's dated 18 july 2003
Would it be to much of a co-incidence that today is 18th july 2004 and that it is a typo?
Could be very different from what was agreed today

*edit* well it's actually the 19th now-night night

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

aodh_rua

Just a quick word of warning to anyone thinking of reading the entire constitution - it's a whopping 333 pages. While I agree we should all be informed as to its content - I think I'll hang on for the summaries.

dathi1

Make up your minds on the basis of the document's contents and not on the basis of prejudicial views in either direction okay?

ok..but one question...why do we need a European constitution in the first place?

Maybe Wolfgang Schuessel, the Austrian PM would be a good compromise candidate.

I'm probably off the richter scale here but I'd go for Jörg Haider.

Imposter

Originally posted by dathi1
ok..but one question...why do we need a European constitution in the first place?
I'm probably off the richter scale here but I'd go for Jörg Haider.

Haider is busy. He's governer of Karnten. Then again Schüssel and Bertie also should be busy! His sister (Haider not Bertie) is now the new leader of the party too. Schüssel was mentioned in the Austrian media for the last while but I haven't seen anything mentioned about him in Irish, English or German media! I reckon there'll be a problem with whoever they go for as Germany and GB don't seem like they want to agree on anyone.

arcadegame2004

ok..but one question...why do we need a European constitution in the first place?

Some of the reasons:

A: We need an EU Constitution to make the division of powers within the EU easier to understand. At present, if you try reading the Maastricht Treaty, then Amsterdam, then Nice, what frustrates you is how you come across lots of parts that say stuff like "Article blah blah is replaced with this...paragraphy blah blah from this or that previous treaty is replaced by this...etc." Having a single document containing the division of powers would make the whole working of the EU much easier for the citizen to understand. It would also help to avoid EU encroachment in matters of national law that ought to be outside its competency.

B:I understand that new powers are given in the Constitution to national parliaments to block or hold up new EU laws proposed by the EU Commission. This increases the role of national parliaments and therefore enhances the role of the individual nations in the EU legislative process.

C:The European Parliament is apparently given a veto and amending power over all proposed EU laws (rather than 80% of them at present). This means that our elected MEP's get much more of an input into the EU legislative process - a fact which enhances democratic-accountability within the EU/ More stuff that is unpopular with the EU public can be blocked or changed then.

D:Apparently, the Constitution may include a way for a country to leave the EU, if they so wish - provided they give about 2 years notice. While I do not personally want Ireland to leave the EU, I think that it would be nice if the UK wasn't in a permanent position of being able to hold up the rest of us from doing what we want to do.

E:Greater use of enhanced-cooperation, the system that allows some EU states to go ahead on their own if not everyone wants to enter into common policies of a certain kind.

arcadegame2004

Here's the EU Constitution in a reader-friendly format.

http://www.euabc.com/upload/rfConstitution_en.pdf

Have a read.

arcadegame2004

Some positive points I have found reading the 317 page EU Constitution:

Article 1-23(3) (page 21) :

"The Council shall meet in public when it deliberates and votes on a draft legislative act."

I feel that this is welcome. It could help remove and address the suspicion some have of the Council of Ministers meeting privately and horsetrading in a manner that they might feel violates national-interests. Holding the meetings in public should engender more confidence in how the Council makes decisions, especially as, being viewed in public, they are more likely to be more vigorous in protecting national-interests.

Article 1-24(1) (page 22):

"A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them, representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union"

I feel that this Council of Ministers voting system better protects small countries than the system under Nice, especially as 20 of the 25 EU member-states are now small countries. The big countries - assuming they were all voting together - would need to get at least 10 of us to agree with them to win a vote at the Council of Ministers to pass a measure at the Council of Ministers. Good!

Sparks

Yes, but article I-51 is still unchanged.
http://www.irish-humanists.org/HotIssuesSub/eu51.html

arcadegame2004

1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.

2. The Union equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.

---

What's wrong with that? I strongly disagree with the website you linked to implying that this somehow amounts of Churches taking control of Europe.

aidan_walsh

The only problem I can see now is that we have to go to a referendum in order to ratify it. Oh the delicious irony if we have a Nice-a-like...

Sparks

What's wrong with it is that it is giving special protection to religious groups that is not afforded to non-religious groups. And if you read the footnotes on the Association of Irish Humanists' webpages, you'll note that it's not all sweetness and light:

Notes:
1. At the invitation of Dr Michael Weninger, Advisor on Religious Affairs to the President of the Commission, the Conference of European Churches and the Commission of the European Bishops Conferences have, in an exchange of letters, proposed four ways in which the ‘regular dialogue’ can be implemented including (and this is their phrase) ‘pre-legislative’ dialogue with the various advisors to the European Commission, ‘Presidential-level’ meetings, and the creation of a liaison office ‘to facilitate contacts between the various Commission services and the churches and religious communities’. As far as we are aware, Dr Weninger has extended no equivalent invitation to any Secular, Freethought, or Humanist organisation, nor have any such organisations sought special rights of access to the Commission.

In other words, the priests get to have quiet chats with the legislature behind the scenes, but non-religious groups do not enjoy this rather dangerous little luxury. And remember, that while it's the Vatican that gets the meetings, the Vatican does not represent the beliefs of the majority of catholics on many fundamental issues such as contraception, abortion, homosexuality and so on.

Also, 51's not needed - the rights of religious groups are protected elsewhere in the constitution already.

arcadegame2004

Dr Michael Weninger is only an advisor and of course consulting someone doesn't at all mean you're going to do what they say.

Sparks

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Dr Michael Weninger is only an advisor and of course consulting someone doesn't at all mean you're going to do what they say.

Advisors are listened to occasionally, and consulting someone doesn't at all mean you're not going to do what they say.
Point stands that this was a measure put in place for religious groups that is not afforded to nonreligious groups.

article6

Originally posted by Sparks
Point stands that this was a measure put in place for religious groups that is not afforded to nonreligious groups.

Does Irish Humanists not count as a "non-confessional organisation"? Given that the word "organisation" is only used in 2 and 3, you could argue that non-confessionals may have dialogue. If they really have not "sought special rights of access to the Commission", then they should, to defend the interests of their members.

Sparks

Originally posted by article6
Does Irish Humanists not count as a "non-confessional organisation"?

No more so than a bank or a sports club...

Given that the word "organisation" is only used in 2 and 3, you could argue that non-confessionals may have dialogue. If they really have not "sought special rights of access to the Commission", then they should, to defend the interests of their members.

Except that Humanists tend to believe in strict seperation of church and state. So sure, you could pursue special access, but only at the sacrifice of your beliefs - not much of a solution.

They're not asking for a back-door to government anyway, they're saying that we should debate laws in public, not debate on church-approved laws in public.

article6

Originally posted by Sparks
No more so than a bank or a sports club...

Dodging the question. For the purposes of this Article, section 2 is a counter-balance to section 1; that is, giving 'atheist' groups the same rights as 'theist' groups (though this is an oversimplification).

Except that Humanists tend to believe in strict seperation of church and state. So sure, you could pursue special access, but only at the sacrifice of your beliefs - not much of a solution.

Alright. It's still not true to say the Article is "a measure put in place for religious groups that is not afforded to nonreligious groups" if the non-religious groups are afforded the measure, but will not accept it. That is a matter for the group, not the Constitution.

They're not asking for a back-door to government anyway, they're saying that we should debate laws in public, not debate on church-approved laws in public.

Isn't it unrealistic to claim all laws will be "church-approved" given that the Constitution only refers to a "dialogue"? Your complaint should be about Dr Weninger's vague guidelines, not the Constitution document. At least we've rowed back on "quiet chats with the legislature behind the scenes" when "open" and "transparent" are staring at us in the face in section 3...

Sparks

Originally posted by article6
Dodging the question.

Nope, pointing out the problems with the language used.

Alright. It's still not true to say the Article is "a measure put in place for religious groups that is not afforded to nonreligious groups" if the non-religious groups are afforded the measure, but will not accept it. That is a matter for the group, not the Constitution.

Nope. It's a measure not afforded to nonreligious groups because no non-religious group was given the offers that the religious groups were given; the fact that the humanists wouldn't have accepted on philosophical grounds is a seperate fact, not another facet of the same one.
And it is a matter for the constitution - where else do you draw the line between church and state?

Isn't it unrealistic to claim all laws will be "church-approved" given that the Constitution only refers to a "dialogue"? Your complaint should be about Dr Weninger's vague guidelines, not the Constitution document. At least we've rowed back on "quiet chats with the legislature behind the scenes" when "open" and "transparent" are staring at us in the face in section 3...

Actually, there's been no rowing back. Article I-51 has not been altered since the last draft was issued prior to this round of negotiations. And Weninger's guidelines would be mooted by an alteration to the Constitution, and that's where this problem should be handled. It's a fundamental point, not an ancillary one to be handled in side notes.

article6

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope, pointing out the problems with the language used.

Semantics, the death of many a fine debate on the Politics forum

Nope. It's a measure not afforded to nonreligious groups because no non-religious group was given the offers that the religious groups were given;

Whether they are offered the measure or not, it is their right under the Constitution to take it. Your complaint here should be with Dr Weninger, not the Constitution.

And it is a matter for the constitution - where else do you draw the line between church and state?

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I meant that whether the non-confessional group accepts the measure or not is a matter for themselves. Whether measures should be afforded to them is obviously a matter for the Constitution, and has been resolved favourably towards non-confessionals.

Actually, there's been no rowing back. Article I-51 has not been altered since the last draft was issued prior to this round of negotiations. And Weninger's guidelines would be mooted by an alteration to the Constitution, and that's where this problem should be handled. It's a fundamental point, not an ancillary one to be handled in side notes.

Again, my fault. The "rowing back" I referred to was your own, considering that 7 posts ago you said that the dialogue would be a "quiet chat", despite the Constitution saying it would be "open" and "transparent".

Sparks

Originally posted by article6
Semantics, the death of many a fine debate on the Politics forum

True, but this is a piece of written law - the language is rather important, especially as it will be translated into several different languages and be equally authoritative in each of them...

Whether they are offered the measure or not, it is their right under the Constitution to take it.

A constitution that claims to fairly and equally defend the right of all to their religious beliefs. And since humanism is classed as a religious belief (even though it's purely secular), this is an example of one article in the constitution violating that protection.

Your complaint here should be with Dr Weninger, not the Constitution.

But Weninger's offers couldn't take place without Article 51. Fix 51 and Weninger's offers are a moot point. Therefore Weninger is secondary.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I meant that whether the non-confessional group accepts the measure or not is a matter for themselves. Whether measures should be afforded to them is obviously a matter for the Constitution, and has been resolved favourably towards non-confessionals.

But why did it have to be done this way at all? Why not treat churches and state (and don't forget, the EU hosts more religions than just Roman Catholicism, there's Protestantism, Islam, Humanism, and a dozen or more others...)

Again, my fault. The "rowing back" I referred to was your own, considering that 7 posts ago you said that the dialogue would be a "quiet chat", despite the Constitution saying it would be "open" and "transparent".

But Weninger's offer are the "quiet chat" model, rather than open and transparent debate - those "pre-legislative talks" that he's talking about are not public ones.

gaelic cowboy

At least now we can see what this is all about at last with this constitution lark the rocky road to an EU federal state of course. Well I say no way man to hell with there bloody grandiose notions of superpower building stuff them.

Cork

You will have the usual euro skeptics coming out of the wood work. But - replacing the various treatys with a constitution makes sense.


We still will have a veto on social security, taxation and security policy

So, the skeptics will harp on about soveriegnty, neutrality etc.

The very same arguements they put forward, time after time after time.

We still have our veto lads on social security, taxation and security policy

This constitution one of the most important developments effecting this country. It is a triumph for the Irish Presidency and it safegaurds social security, taxation and security policys.

arcadegame2004

Gaelic cowboy, given that the Constitution specifically states that a country may leave the EU, how do you surmise that it creates a "superstate"?

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Gaelic cowboy, given that the Constitution specifically states that a country may leave the EU, how do you surmise that it creates a "superstate"?

Simple the more we intergrate our diplomatic function's involving everything from foreign policy, economics, the millitary etc etc the more the politicians will try to cod us with rubish about how we can't leave or how were being ungrateful etc etc take your pick really. If you do not believe we going to have a superstate one day ask yourself this why did Ireland have to vote yes on the treaty of nice. If we discount all the reason's about how it couldn't be ratified anywhere else in the EU why was a democratic result wrong. Why is it seemingly that we can never be allowed to have a result that is not what is expected. Regardless of wether you supported or rejected the eventual result on any treaty we voted we seem never to be allowed to voice our own opinion a bit like Iraqi election's with Saddam

ewanduffy

It si a pity the treaty wasn't concluded in Dublin as then it would have been the Dublin Treaty and the No campaign could have used the slogan "No to Dublin":)

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Gaelic Cowboy
Simple the more we intergrate our diplomatic function's involving everything from foreign policy, economics, the millitary etc etc the more the politicians will try to cod us with rubish about how we can't leave or how were being ungrateful etc etc take your pick really. If you do not believe we going to have a superstate one day ask yourself this why did Ireland have to vote yes on the treaty of nice. If we discount all the reason's about how it couldn't be ratified anywhere else in the EU why was a democratic result wrong. Why is it seemingly that we can never be allowed to have a result that is not what is expected. Regardless of wether you supported or rejected the eventual result on any treaty we voted we seem never to be allowed to voice our own opinion a bit like Iraqi election's with Saddam

Gaelic Cowboy, that is a rather scaremongering post and in my opinion borders on the hysterical. This is intended to be the final EU treaty that will be negotiated so I don't accept that with all 25 EU states retaining their national-vetos on taxation, and defence, that we are going to see harmonised taxation or conscription into European armies, contrary to the off-the-wall arguments of Anthony Coughlan, SF, and the Greens in all of the other EU-related referendums. I am so sick of them opposing every single EU treaty that gets negotiated. Clearly, the content of these documents alone is not what repulses them. It is the EU itself that they despise. Anyone can tell this is the case from how they warn they will oppose such treaties even before their negotiation had even finished or been released to the public, e.g. Patricia McKenna of the (europhobic) Greens called the Nice Treaty "the death of democracy" when she heard it had been negotiated and called for a "No" vote in December 2000. She could hardly have known of its contents at that stage.

More evidence that emotional europhobia is the real reason for these groups' opposition to EVERY EU treaty this country has ever signed up to can be found from their hatred of the existing system while also opposing ANY changes to it! For example, while the original 2000 Nice negotiations were going on, when it was reported that Ireland would keep its Commissioner, she ranted that it didn't matter because the Commission was only "symbolic". Is it? That's news to me. Then of course when it turned out that upon the growth of the EU to 27 there might be equal rotation of Commissioners she was warning about us "losing our Commissioner". So you really can't win with people like her, and to my mind you come across Gaelic Cowboy as someone like her.

You need to appreciate the fact that a small state can only wield substantial influence over the most important factors affecting it through membership of international-organisations, especially the EU. For example, recall when the US imposed tariffs on imports of European steel. Do you seriously think that Ireland, outside of the EU, would have been able to persuade the US to back down on this alone? Get real if you do. It was because of warnings of sanctions by the EU (which has 21% of world trade) that the US backed down.

There are other issues concerning Ireland too, beyond trade, but which Ireland alone cannot effectively deal with, and these justify the EU being more than just a trading-bloc e.g. environmental policy needs to be coordinated to help deal with global-warming, immigration-policy needs to be coordinated to combat trafficking of illegal-immigrants, etc.

You need to realise that true sovereignty means being able to actually have an influence over things that affect you. In those policy areas where the nation state can do this itself, the veto should remain etc. taxation, social-security, education, health (and indeed they do remain in the Constitution). But in those policy areas where alone Ireland can achieve little, e.g. international-trade, environmental policy, the veto should not remain, as otherwise concrete measures are unlikely to emerge.

monument

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Patricia McKenna of the (europhobic) Greens called the Nice Treaty "the death of democracy" when she heard it had been negotiated and called for a "No" vote in December 2000. She could hardly have known of its contents at that stage.

And, did the Nice Treaty erode even more of the democratic nature of the EU?

arcadegame2004

Originally quoted by Monument
And, did the Nice Treaty erode even more of the democratic nature of the EU?

No it did the opposite. It extended the veto and amendment power of the European Parliament (which is elected in case you've forgotten June 11th so quickly) to 80% of those policy areas in which the EU has the power to legislate, thererby improving democratic control of EU decisions.

gaelic cowboy

Arcadegame2004 You did not give me a reason as too why the democratic result from Nice was wrong the people spoke we said NO that should be the end of it . Do you really want to live in a euro superstate if you do fine but I dont. I believe a federal europe is what is the main engine of any reform we have seen lately. This has been to enable us to efficiently run the EU as a proper state as it plainly can't be run as one now. I never said leave the EU anywhere in my post I just do not wish to live in a federal Europe that is all. I notice you talk of the steel tariff and how we need a big bloc to make a difference interesting what about when Ireland come's out on the wrong side of a majority vote one day how much influence will we have then??????
I never have or will vote green I do not know who Anthony Coughlan SF I take it well I never have or will vote SF either. I am far to wide to there guff I see it for what it is vote getting publicity and just plain scaremongering.
Tax will be and is been attacked every day If we do not watch out it will be eroded away from us. Quote any passage from the constition you like it is an issue at the heart of many EU countries we must resist this.
All I ever hear from various Euro federalisers is guff about "Ballancing US" BLAH BLAH BLAH. This is complete guff and should be treated as such there is no call for or need for such an entity.
Big test is Turkey at the minute for the federalisers they are witholding entrance from them because they fear Turkey and it's growing population of muslims. If many countries like say France want a federal Europe then obviously they must believe that strategically they with Germany can more or less be top dog in such an arrangement. As long as this continues People time and time again will vote for euro sceptic parties why they do is as varied as the people of Europe but there is on common theme alienation from the EU and it's politicians people feel there being dragged down a road they never wanted to travel.

arcadegame2004

As long as this continues People time and time again will vote for euro sceptic parties why they do is as varied as the people of Europe but there is on common theme alienation from the EU and it's politicians people feel there being dragged down a road they never wanted to travel.

Okay well first of all, if the Irish electorate did not want to be "dragged down a road they never wanted to travel" then they wouldn't have voted "Yes" to all of the EU treaties, now would they? And regarding your reference to the "common them" of "alienation" from the EU, how do you square this, in relation to Ireland, with the number of Eurosceptic MEP's representing the 26 counties falling from 3 (all of whom lost their seats good riddance) to 1 (Mary-Lou McDonald of SF)? The Irish electorate voting in favour of European integration does not constitute being "dragged down a road" as far as I am concerned.

In relation to the "No" vote in the first Nice Treaty referendum, I seriously question how representative it was when you consider that the 17% increase in turnout in the second Nice referendum coincided with a 17% increase in the "Yes" vote. Now I know that some people did change their minds and vote "Yes" but the main reason for the "Yes" vote the second time seems to have been this, together with the changes in the referendum question. You seem to be repeating the Eurosceptic mantra that this was the same referendum being held twice just to get "the right answer". I strongly disagree with that.

Remember, the second time around there was the Seville Declarations which most international legal experts believe gives legal force to the protection of Irish neutrality whatever way the EU's common foreign and security policy develops. Also, the second referendum amended the Constitution to include a specific ban on Irish involvement in a common defence policy without the holding of a new referendum on that very issue beforehand. So the second referendum was a very different beast to the first one.

Tax will be and is been attacked every day If we do not watch out it will be eroded away from us. Quote any passage from the constition you like it is an issue at the heart of many EU countries we must resist this.

The veto on taxation remains in the EU Constitution. You are just scaremongering by making assertions without any evidence to back them up. When the EU criticised our economic-policies in 2001, just a few months before the first Nice referendum, they were able to do no more than criticise. They were not able to stop Charlie McCreevy from continuing to cut taxes drastically and increase spending. It has been a good while since Chirac and Schroeder have groaned about our low corporation-taxes and I really think you are being paranoid on this question.

I never said leave the EU anywhere in my post I just do not wish to live in a federal Europe that is all. I notice you talk of the steel tariff and how we need a big bloc to make a difference interesting what about when Ireland come's out on the wrong side of a majority vote one day how much influence will we have then??????

In a federation, power is conferred on the states from the centra authority. In a confederation, power is conferred on the central-authority by the member states, and therefore the EU is confederal, rather than federal. The Constitution makes this clear, e.g.:

"Article I-1(page 9) ......this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common..."

And Anthony Coughlan is a TCD lecturer and not a member of SF btw. Though he reminds me of you in his talent for scaremongering over the EU. If he had been right, our economy would have collapsed after every EU treaty we signed up to in the past 30 years had been ratified.

Regarding your point about how we lose some votes my response is that in net-terms we have benefited enormously economically from EU membership and as such, a few lost votes is worth it as long as we retain the veto in the really important areas like taxation, defence, education etc. You should also realise that most decisions taken at EU Council of Ministers level - in spite of theoretically being decided by a weighted majority of the states plus the %s, are in reality drawn up by consensus most of the time.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It has been a good while since Chirac and Schroeder have groaned about our low corporation-taxes and I really think you are being paranoid on this question.

Somebody tell Charlie McReevy he's barking up the wrong tree, arcadegame2004 says the coast is clear...

http://www.fiannafail.ie/new/site/policy_page.php4?topic=173&id=3288

Note the date.

arcadegame2004

Okay thereckless one. But remember that harmonised taxes can only happen if all 25 countries agree to it. The veto remains in that area. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that ALL 25 EU member-states (especially Britain) would agree to something like that!??!!

May I add that I have not taken a position on the Constitution yet. I have simply pointed out from what I have read so far that it seems a good deal for small countries, and that I strongly object to opposing a treaty based on slogans and fear of the unknown. I have also pointed out that we should realise that small countries like Ireland need large trading-blocs like the EU to wield influence over international-factors that have major effects on the Irish economy, as well as the fact that only by acting in unison with other countries can we adequately address common problems like global-warming, international organised-crime etc.

I strongly feel that whatever way we vote, we should be motivated by the contents of the Constitution itself and not by the latest quote from Chirac or Schroeder etc. Quotes are not laws remember!

gaelic cowboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Okay well first of all, if the Irish electorate did not want to be "dragged down a road they never wanted to travel" then they wouldn't have voted "Yes" to all of the EU treaties, now would they? And regarding your reference to the "common them" of "alienation" from the EU, how do you square this, in relation to Ireland, with the number of Eurosceptic MEP's representing the 26 counties falling from 3 (all of whom lost their seats good riddance) to 1 (Mary-Lou McDonald of SF)? The Irish electorate voting in favour of European integration does not constitute being "dragged down a road" as far as I am concerned.

---

Simple People in ireland voted on local Issues eg Marian Harkin, Kathy Sinnott nice people but I honestly cant remember the last time I saw a politiician campaiging on Euro issues as opposed to homegrown for the MEP election but a quick scan of the results europe wide tells a differant story. And if we vote in favour some time in the future that is okay but we haven't so why is it on the future agenda. We only have to listen to what comes out of Brussels to know it is a slow and gradual process.


quote:

---

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The veto on taxation remains in the EU Constitution. You are just scaremongering by making assertions without any evidence to back them up. When the EU criticised our economic-policies in 2001, just a few months before the first Nice referendum, they were able to do no more than criticise. They were not able to stop Charlie McCreevy from continuing to cut taxes drastically and increase spending. It has been a good while since Chirac and Schroeder have groaned about our low corporation-taxes and I really think you are being paranoid on this question.

---

The negotiations for the last treaty Nice fell through several time as the french several times tried to include stuff on Tax. It is an issue it is not scaremongering there economies are losing business and job's to acession and non EU countries they want to level the field. If i believe there is even an outside chance that any agreement even opens the door a crack I will vote against it.


People in Ireland voted for many treaties cos they thought they would get loads of cash not cos they knew anything about the EU.

arcadegame2004

Gaelic cowboy the EU's primary economic importance to Ireland is in the form of exports (60% of which go to the EU). Exports constitute 70% of our GDP, and consumer spending the remaining 33%. That will continue to far outweigh any net-contributions we make from 2007 when we cease to be a net-receiver.

A scan of the results Europewide certainly shows a strong anti-government trend, but this is not always the same as an anti-EU trend, e.g. the pro-EU Greens in Germany went from 7% last time to 11% this time, and the pro-EU French Socialists pushed ahead of the ruling UMP in France, the pro-EU Italian Socialists beat Berlusconi's Forza Italia, etc. Yes, in Poland and the UK the Eurosceptics made big gains, as well as the "usual suspects" i.e. Denmark and Sweden, which are traditionally Eurosceptic. But in the main what we saw on June 11th was a continent-wide swing against national-governments, some of which involved larged swings to Eurosceptic parties. So your claim that there was a continent-wide swing against the EU is one i reject.

gaelic cowboy

Do you believe there will be a federal EU or not do you believe it is good or not my belief is no it is not good.

thejollyrodger

I hope this EU constiution puts an end to the EU federal state that has often been banded about. A lot of countries have to put this through a referarendum before it becomes law. However fair play to Bertie on getting a deal, I think most E.U leaders were impressed. I hope he doesnt take the commisionsers job because its not very well suited to him

woody

Does anyone notice that the word "God" and "Almighty" has been ommitted from the Constitution.

Now the Majority of Europeans are Chrisitians in some form or manner.

Why I ask myself and it becomes clear.

The EU is now the New Rome and the UK are the only ones objecting to being there anymore.

We have the likes of the French and German's going to be the major players mmm sounds like a Franco-German Foruth Reich to me.

The Advent of Far Right parties in europe is so great that it could be similar to the scale of the rise of fascsim in europe in the 1930's.


Each induviudal state will loose it's national identiity in this new super state.

And from the Torah and the Bible the signs are clear about the Anti-Christ rising out of the New "Bloc" and that seems like europe to me.

I am no relgious freak but the EU Money aside should be dismantled as it has it's dark side and I and many others see it.

A Trans Altlantic Trading Alliance Yes would be good but an Alliance controlling governments and there people is not on.

An we thought the Communist Bloc was bad, well it will be like kindergarten compared to the "New EU".

jackofalltrades

Does anyone notice that the word "God" and "Almighty" has been ommitted from the Constitution.

IMO a good thing.
Religion and politics shouldn't mix.

sceptre

Originally posted by woody
And from the Torah and the Bible the signs are clear about the Anti-Christ rising out of the New "Bloc" and that seems like europe to me.

I am no relgious freak

Apart from the rest of your entirely unsubstantiated post, you can't play the "I'm not religious" card and the "it was foretold by a religion" card in the same post.

You are aware that the relevant Revelations passages have been interpreted in the past as Nazi Germany, France, the Holy Roman Empire, invasion of the Visigoths, Soviet Russia, the Roman Catholic church and given time probably the US and Iraq as well (I've certainly heard a few nutters making reference to the latter)?

It's just as likely to be Fianna Fail, the ICP, the DUP or Jim Henson's muppets.

As for the idea of the EU being worse than the USSR and Soviet satellite states, I'm afraid my wackymeter broke when I read that.

earwicker

Sceptre, I utterly reject your mention of the muppets in the same breath as FF, the DUP.

You can't easily put brown envelopes in your pocket or bang a lambeg with a puppet on your hand.

monument

Originally posted by woody
An we thought the Communist Bloc was bad, well it will be like kindergarten compared to the "New EU".

LOL

arcadegame2004

In answer to your question Gaelic Cowboy, no, I do not believe the EU will ever end up like the US, i.e. a strictly federal structure. All 25 EU countries (and eventually the 2 new members joining in 2007) would all have to agree to set up such a structure, including a central exchequer, common taxes, subordination of national armies to a European army and an EU executive, and a European federal p[olice-force etc. This is far beyond anything in the Constitution so not I don't believe that will happen. Neither do I believe a federation would be a good thing.

arcadegame2004

On balance, I believe that this EU Constitution will never come into force. I just cannot visualise such a Europhobic electorate as the UK possibly passing it, or indeed passing anything with the word "Euro" in it. There exists a strain of xenophobic nationalism in the UK (particularly England) that is embodied by the riotous and violent behaviour of some before and after almost every England football match, and this should give us an idea of how strong such xenophobia is in the UK. But at least, if it does fall, it's likely that they will get the blame, rather than us, and that's better for us.:p

gaelic cowboy

If England even get close to winning the EURO championship in Portugal then there is even less of a snowballs chance in hell of passing it than there was with all this UKIP lark. It will not pass in blighty so the EU will either have to start again on a new one or forget it.

sceptre

Originally posted by earwicker
Sceptre, I utterly reject your mention of the muppets in the same breath as FF, the DUP.

You can't easily put brown envelopes in your pocket or bang a lambeg with a puppet on your hand.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge of muppetdom and lambegs:). I was going to run with the ICA but slotted the ICP in there instead.

... though I'll point out that most of the movement on the show is done with wires. Never missed it when I was a nipper and there's quite a good "making of" special. Same with the Fraggles.

Orion

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

In relation to the "No" vote in the first Nice Treaty referendum, I seriously question how representative it was when you consider that the 17% increase in turnout in the second Nice referendum coincided with a 17% increase in the "Yes" vote. Now I know that some people did change their minds and vote "Yes" but the main reason for the "Yes" vote the second time seems to have been this, together with the changes in the referendum question. You seem to be repeating the Eurosceptic mantra that this was the same referendum being held twice just to get "the right answer". I strongly disagree with that.

I disagree with you. It sets a dangerous precedent. On the day of the count the immediate reaction from our govt. was that the referendum would be reheld. They did not get into why it failed (protest vote againt FF/PD, euroscepticism, genuine opposition to it etc) but just wanted a re-run. That is wrong. the majority of the people who cared enough about it to vote the first time voted no and that result should have stood. Bertie et al should then have held a forum to find out the objections and re-negotiated them.