Charlie McCreevy claims today that most EU countries would reject Lisbon

the_dark_side

In the Irish Independant 26th June

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/mccreevy-admits-most-eu-voters-would-reject-lisbon-1792297.html

Scofflaw

And Charlie McCreevy's evidence for this is?

dismissively,
Scofflaw

getz

a pat on the back to ireland,it just shows that the EU is un democratic if we would have had a chance in the UK i am sure we would have rejected it as well

conchubhar1

EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy says Irish people shouldn't be ashamed about their rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.

Speaking in Dublin this morning, McCreevy admitted that the treaty would have been rejected in most member states if it had been put to a public vote.

He said many EU leaders were glad they had no legal obligation to hold referenda on the treaty in their own countries.

---
not that i agree or disagree - but the fact he is an eu commissioner and stated that most eu leaders are glad they dont have to hold it to a vote seems to indicate that he has talked to them...

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy says Irish people shouldn't be ashamed about their rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.

Speaking in Dublin this morning, McCreevy admitted that the treaty would have been rejected in most member states if it had been put to a public vote.

He said many EU leaders were glad they had no legal obligation to hold referenda on the treaty in their own countries.

---
not that i agree or disagree - but the fact he is an eu commissioner and stated that most eu leaders are glad they dont have to hold it to a vote seems to indicate that he has talked to them...

Again, though, we're in "argument from convenience" territory - "Charlie McCreevy should know, because he's an EU Commissioner". What else would we take McCreevy's word for? Hmm...nothing much, actually. Would you take his word for the Lisbon Treaty being a great thing, and vote Yes on that account?

I'm sure most politicians are damned glad they don't have referendums on things like Lisbon, because referendums are hard work and their outcome is uncertain. However, all that tells us is that most of the EU's politicians are less than confident of their ability to 'manage' their electorates (unlike FF) - and that's exactly as it should be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

okay

reject everyones opinion and word - no one has any right to say anything, no one can be trusted and no one has experience


no, i take a balanced view on things. i tend and try to listen to all sides and then decide what i think about them, thats all anyone can do.

referendums are tricky and their outcome not set in stone and cant be predicted, true.

but if they truly believed this would revolutionize the eu and make it better - they would stand by it and put it to a vote, where that is legally possibly, as they could easily defend it

they don have to manage the electorate, they have to present the facts and why this is good for europe - they obviously feel it is - and from what i read it on the whole does look good for europe. so where possible let people vote
it would raise peoples eu spirit, make them more trusting, make them innvolved maybe they would vote in the elections next time and we wouldnt have an embarrassing turnout

the_dark_side

Scofflaw wrote: »

However, all that tells us is that most of the EU's politicians are less than confident of their ability to 'manage' their electorates (unlike FF) - and that's exactly as it should be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The mask drops

conchubhar1

ff couldnt manage the faroe islands......

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

The mask drops

Er, yes, I think FF are very confident of their ability to 'manage' the electorate - or were.

"The masks slips"! Could you possibly take me up more wrong?

amused,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

no, i agree with scofflaw here

fianna fáil had the electorate, (have still?), under their hand.

they are a bunch of useless pricks, but peoples perception of them is they are capable.

is_that_so

Every utterance from said commissioner is a further reminder of why he was shipped off to Europe. Regrettably instead of just being "content" with a commissioner's salary and concentrating on own brief, he has continued to make an ass of himself without any prompting whatsoever.

carveone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, yes, I think FF are very confident of their ability to 'manage' the electorate - or were.

I took it the same way - as a criticism of FF rather than of the electorate. I think we forget that given how tattered the government are looking.

Morgans

Scofflaw wrote: »

And Charlie McCreevy's evidence for this is?

dismissively,
Scofflaw

I dont think that there is any ambiguity in what Charlie McCreevy is saying. Of course, its his opinion, and it makes sound sense. EU politicians arent stupid and selling the EU to any electorate is tricky. It doesnt mean it was right or wrong to reject Lisbon. Asking for evidence etc is childish and I would have thought beneath you. Its hardly rocket science. The Constitution was rejected twice. If the Irish people werent asked, the Lisbon treaty would have been ratified with barely a dissenting voice in the parliament. Like with the French dodge on the referendum re-run, its hardly showing representative democracy in its finest light.

carveone

is_that_so wrote: »

Every utterance from said commissioner is a further reminder of why he was shipped off to Europe. Regrettably instead of just being "content" with a commissioner's salary and concentrating on own brief, he has continued to make an ass of himself without any prompting whatsoever.

Ditto. Man, he's noisy. The government must just weep whenever he pops his head up. This must dispell any doubt in people's minds that McCreevy somehow represents Irelands interests or is Commisioner for Ireland rather than his actual title, which is Commissioner for Foot in Mouth. Sorry, "Internal Markets"...

conchubhar1

no one said he speaks for ireland

he is an eu commissioner and like it or not would have a better view on what the leaders of the various countries think - on eu matters and lisbon.

carveone

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no one said he speaks for ireland

You know that and I know that, but there were quite a lot of questions last year about whether he was representing Ireland or not.

he is an eu commissioner and like it or not would have a better view on what the leaders of the various countries think - on eu matters and lisbon.

I'd agree with that - I'm sure the Council and the Commission are in very close contact. I'm not so sure he'd know what the public think.

BlitzKrieg

is_that_so wrote: »

Every utterance from said commissioner is a further reminder of why he was shipped off to Europe. Regrettably instead of just being "content" with a commissioner's salary and concentrating on own brief, he has continued to make an ass of himself without any prompting whatsoever.

and yet

tonycascarino wrote:

NO - Abolish each State's present right to "propose" and decide who its national Commissioner is, by replacing it with a right to make"suggestions" only for the incoming Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU). The Commission, which is appointed not elected, has the monopoly of proposing all European laws. Ireland's No vote last year secured a commitment to a permanent Commissioner for all. But what is the point of every EU State continuing to have its own Commissioner post-Lisbon when it can no longer decide who that Commissioner will be? Under the present Nice Treaty Member States would continue to decide that, and can continue too to have their own national Commissioner indefinitely as well.

Thinks we should continue to let the government use the commission position as something to dump our useless garbage on.

Give the EU the power to say *no* to idiots like McCreevy!

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no, i agree with scofflaw here

fianna fáil had the electorate, (have still?), under their hand.

they are a bunch of useless pricks, but peoples perception of them is they are capable.

Didn't do a great job last year.

conchubhar1

would he be elected if ireland and other states elected ''their'' commissioners?

age old question........

---

no they didnt

but they still have 25% of votes - they do have the electorate under the thumb

the_dark_side

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, yes, I think FF are very confident of their ability to 'manage' the electorate - or were.

"The masks slips"! Could you possibly take me up more wrong?

amused,
Scofflaw

ok... I think I did take you up wrong... for a second there I was wondering were you an impartial moderator at all... or do mods have to be impartial?

conchubhar1

they can be fairy goddesses (insert random thing here) if they so wish

oscarBravo

the_dark_side wrote: »

ok... I think I did take you up wrong... for a second there I was wondering were you an impartial moderator at all... or do mods have to be impartial?

We have to be impartial in our role as moderator - we're still allowed to have and express opinions on the topics being discussed.

the_dark_side

oscarBravo wrote: »

We have to be impartial in our role as moderator - we're still allowed to have and express opinions on the topics being discussed.

in that case I did pick up Scofflaw wrong, and god knows who else... so apologies guys n gals

ART6

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ff couldnt manage the faroe islands......

I believe they could comfortably manage Rockall, and I propose dispatching them there immediately.

Meanwhile back at the farm, Charlie McCreevey will have much more contact with EU governments and politicians than any man in the street would. If he feels that the majority of EU citizens would reject Lisbon then I am prepared to believe that he is simply reflecting the views of said politicians. That would seem to be borne out by the French and Dutch vote, and by the strength of feeling in the UK at least (G.Brown didn't dare to hold the referendum he promised in his election manifesto), thus reflecting the true democratic thrust of the Treaty.

Unfortunately we never hear the true voices of the people in a vast community like Europe. We only hear the interpretation of the media and the speeches of politicians, both of which have their own axes to grind. The real question for me is do we want a united states of europe, and in the absence of referenda in every member state we will not know the answer. However, what evidence I have seen suggests we don't.

So should the EU require a referendum on Lisbon in every member state? For my money no. It should come all out and ask "Do you want a federal European state with a single government, where individual countries simply become states (as in the USA and Russia) under federal law?" The anwer to that, I suspect, would be a resounding "NO". Stop creeping up on it.

No doubt the old argument would be rolled out that Europe must compete with the USA, and so we need a single political bloc that can exert its influence in the way that the USA does. Fine, but it took the USA 400 years and a civil war to achieve that. Better start now!

My opinion, for what very little it's worth, is that one could indeed dream of an European Federation as I do, but I imagine that will require a common first language, federal tax and legal system, and a common system of justice. Will the French people accept English as their first language? Will the Germans accept the power of their industry being subservient to French interests? Will the Baltic and Muslim states with no experience of democracy want to accept what is fundamentally a Christian Western philosophy?

Maybe the 400 years starts now?

oscarBravo

ART6 wrote: »

The real question for me is do we want a united states of europe, and in the absence of referenda in every member state we will not know the answer. However, what evidence I have seen suggests we don't.

I certainly don't, and I know very few people who do.

Thankfully, it's not on the agenda - except in the imaginations of some euroskeptics.

ART6

oscarBravo wrote: »

I certainly don't, and I know very few people who do.

Thankfully, it's not on the agenda - except in the imaginations of some euroskeptics.

Depends upon whose's agenda?

oscarBravo

Oh, I'm sure it's on some people's agendas. But not that of those who actually decide the future of the EU (its members), so it's moot.

conchubhar1

steel union

economic community

union

federation of states......... sure thats an illogical step and will never happen

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

steel union

economic community

union

federation of states......... sure thats an illogical step and will never happen

When I was a baby, I was about two foot high. By the time I was 15 I was about six foot. Logically, I should now be 14 foot high.

logically,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, I'm sure it's on some people's agendas. But not that of those who actually decide the future of the EU (its members), so it's moot.

You'd swear people think the EU writes its own treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

You'd swear people think the EU writes its own treaties.

It does - you should remember what comprises the 'EU'. If the EU does not create EU treaties, who, pray, creates them? National governments working together in a federal body? Yes, this is a tautology.

You would be 14ft (or thereabouts) if there was not a biological inhibiting force on the continued generation of HGH. There is no obvious cap on the number of ammeding constitutional treaties that the EU can produce (which may be a good or a bad thing depending how it goes).

The EU isn't actually a union at the moment, but it is actually a federation (or a federal union if you want to be pedantic). Though its name is the European Union, this is in many ways as arbitrary as the Lisbon Treaty being called after the Portuguese Capital [the location of the signing hardly has much bearing on the content].

And if the EU isn't fundamentally about 'the economy, stupid' what is it about? Political centralisation? If so, to what end? The legislative superstructure has outgrown its macroeconomic origins and has come to resemble a giant Country Council, albeit with vastly inflated powers. It exhibits a fundmental distrust in the capacities of individual nation states, particularly as determined by the electorate, whilst it instead attempts to safeguard the interests of the structure of the EU itself [this is the explicit role of the Commission].

So, in relation to the thread title, whenever McCreevy speaks 'for Ireland' he is contradicting his sworn duty to disregard national interests and instead pursue supranational agendae. The supranational interests have deemed that the Lisbon treaty is too important to risk public rejection - so any noises that someone like Charlie makes which undermines this chosen method is in direct conflict with his role as European legislator.

conchubhar1

Scofflaw wrote: »

When I was a baby, I was about two foot high. By the time I was 15 I was about six foot. Logically, I should now be 14 foot high.

logically,
Scofflaw

that is not the same thing - and you know it

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

that is not the same thing - and you know it

It is, in fact, a reasonable enough analogy. Simply because something is a "logical progression" doesn't mean it will happen. A better analogy might be that someone is first a seminarian, then a priest, then a bishop - the logical next step is Cardinal, but that doesn't mean he will get there.

Whether you feel that a federal union is a logical next step (arguable in itself) is entirely irrelevant to whether it actually happens. That there are people who would like it to happen is equally irrelevant. Until the governments, parliaments, and people of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all agree to becoming a federal state, it will not, and cannot happen.

EU treaties don't write themselves, nor are they written by the EU. They are negotiated by the governments of the member states, who are answerable to their parliaments, and to their people. The governments will not write themselves out of meaningful existence, and would face parliamentary (and probably popular) revolts if they did so.

rather definitely,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

it is not an equal or reasonable analogy

my staement wasnt really a statement at all i merely listed out the progression so far and stated a possible next step and stated this is not impossible and not a huge jump

is that not so?


on your point of writing themselfs out of existence - much like american politicians at a federal level dont have a job?
yes there most likely would be revolts

but this is all hypothetical

conchubhar1

conchubhar1 wrote: »

steel union

economic community

union

federation of states......... sure thats an illogical step and will never happen

it is not illogical - but that does not state it is logical (just merely possible)

and will never happen - does not mean i state it will happen - just that the possibility is there and is not a huge leap by any means

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Until the governments, parliaments, and people of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all agree to becoming a federal state, it will not, and cannot happen.

Please provide an argument that it is not already a federation.

Scofflaw wrote: »

They are negotiated by the governments of the member states.

I think my definition of tautology already covered that.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

If the EU does not create EU treaties, who, pray, creates them?

Which of the EU's several bodies create or creates treaties? The Parliament? The Commission?

The treaties are negotiated by the members. Modification of treaties or introduction of new treaties is not an EU competence. If you knew anything about that which you oppose so vehemently, you'd know this.

You would be 14ft (or thereabouts) if there was not a biological inhibiting force on the continued generation of HGH. There is no obvious cap on the number of ammeding constitutional treaties that the EU can produce (which may be a good or a bad thing depending how it goes).

Subtle goalpost move, but not subtle enough. The question is not how many treaties there will be, but what their effect will be. There is no appetite among the member states for a federal superstate, so it's not gonna happen.

If such an appetite should become widespread amonth all the members, then maybe it will happen at some point in the distant future - but if such is the will of the members, then so be it.

The EU isn't actually a union at the moment, but it is actually a federation (or a federal union if you want to be pedantic).

That's a long way from a federal superstate - unless you're going to try to pull a semantic trick like pretending that the common etymological roots of "federation" (which the Union is not, but could loosely be described as) and "federal" (as in "federal republic", which is what we're talking about, and the EU is a long, long way from being a republic).

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Please provide an argument that it is not already a federation.

Is it your contention that "federation" and "federal superstate" are perfect synonyms, completely interchangeable with absolutely no difference in meaning?

If not, please stop asking people to provide arguments to back up your conclusions rather than theirs.

conchubhar1

is it not a collection of countries - with a parliament and court and money and flag and anthem?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it your contention that "federation" and "federal superstate" are perfect synonyms, completely interchangeable with absolutely no difference in meaning?

If not, please stop asking people to provide arguments to back up your conclusions rather than theirs.

gack! :pac: why does 2+2 always equal 5 with you?

federal = of or relating to a form of government in which power is divided between one central and several regional governments

super = placed above another

state = a soverign political power or community

federation = a political unit which is federal

Less hyperbole, more substance. Sorry for the semantics, but you did explicitly ask for it (although you can backtrack and say that by saying that you asked for it, you were in fact talking about a flying spagetti monster)

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

It does - you should remember what comprises the 'EU'. If the EU does not create EU treaties, who, pray, creates them? National governments working together in a federal body? Yes, this is a tautology.

It's bolloxology, not tautology. The EU is an institutional framework - that people use "the EU" as shorthand for the member states is mere sloppiness, not some kind of definition.

To claim that the EU writes treaties that grant it powers at the expense of the member states is totally false, because the EU is a creation of the member states, the treaties that govern it are the creation of the member states, and there is no mechanism by which "the EU" (the institution) can grant itself powers through the treaties.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You would be 14ft (or thereabouts) if there was not a biological inhibiting force on the continued generation of HGH. There is no obvious cap on the number of ammeding constitutional treaties that the EU can produce (which may be a good or a bad thing depending how it goes).

Except the fact that it's not desired, except by a small minority - and spare me the Monnet quotes, the man's dead and buried. Unless his animated corpse is in charge of the EU, his original intentions are irrelevant.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The EU isn't actually a union at the moment, but it is actually a federation (or a federal union if you want to be pedantic). Though its name is the European Union, this is in many ways as arbitrary as the Lisbon Treaty being called after the Portuguese Capital [the location of the signing hardly has much bearing on the content].

It's not generally accepted as being a federation at all, or a federal union, whether one is being pedantic or not. It is generally regarded as sui generis, and attempts to pigeonhole it as something else usually serve a political purpose, as I suspect they do here.

RandomName2 wrote: »

And if the EU isn't fundamentally about 'the economy, stupid' what is it about? Political centralisation? If so, to what end? The legislative superstructure has outgrown its macroeconomic origins and has come to resemble a giant Country Council, albeit with vastly inflated powers. It exhibits a fundmental distrust in the capacities of individual nation states, particularly as determined by the electorate, whilst it instead attempts to safeguard the interests of the structure of the EU itself [this is the explicit role of the Commission].

It's about political cooperation, and always has been. Centralisation would be one possible way of doing that, but the two are not synonymous. An ever-closer relationship and unity between the peoples and states of Europe has always expressly been the purpose of the EU, all the way back from the ECSC, whose purpose was quite overtly the prevention of war between Germany and France - a political purpose. The economic instruments, common control of coal and steel, were chosen only because they were the sinews of war - the economic value was secondary. The EU is, and always has been, political - it's not NAFTA. Even the common market was constructed with the aims of the EU in mind - "preserve peace and liberty and to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe". It's not there for fun.

RandomName2 wrote: »

So, in relation to the thread title, whenever McCreevy speaks 'for Ireland' he is contradicting his sworn duty to disregard national interests and instead pursue supranational agendae. The supranational interests have deemed that the Lisbon treaty is too important to risk public rejection - so any noises that someone like Charlie makes which undermines this chosen method is in direct conflict with his role as European legislator.

Making a tit of himself would be the shorthand version.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

federal = of or relating to a form of government in which power is divided between one central and several regional governments

super = placed above another

state = a soverign political power or community

Is the USA a country?

Is Florida a country?

Is the EU a country?

Is Italy a country?

The answers to these four questions should make it clear to anyone who's actually interested in understanding the difference that the EU is not a federal country (super or otherwise).

federation = a political unit which is federal

I guess the National Federation of Group Water Schemes is next in line for superpower status, so.

BlitzKrieg

is it not a collection of countries - with a parliament and court and money and flag and anthem?

by that logic wouldnt the UN be a federation? it has a flag, courts, a intenational assembly. THere is an anthem/hymn for the UN but its not officially recognised as the UN anthem. THough to be fair to the EU the european anthem is shared with the Council of Europe (which adopted it first).

conchubhar1

does the un have a parliament? an actual anthem? a proposed constitution?

Morgans

So which country came up with the idea of the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty?

Is it one specific country who decided that the EU was getting too unwealdy for its own good and decided to come up with a draft for negotiation with the other countries leaders? Maybe that countries govt ran out of things to do locally and in their spare time concentrated on Europe.

Or

Was it decided by a pan-national bureaucrats who for whatever reason felt this was the next best step, with the finishing touches to be decided on and approved by the national govts?

The idea of hiding behind the technicality that the EU doesnt create treaties is ridiculously one-eyed. That one country comes up with the drafts without consultation is ridiculous. There can be absolutely no criticism or hint of an argument that could be construed as a criticism with some.

I also think its ridiculous to think that there is no one in the EU who doesn't want a Federal EU. Isn't one of the more persuasive arguments for closer co-operation is the development of a European power block?

Interesting to see how this thread has moved away from McCreevy's comments.

oscarBravo

Morgans wrote: »

Was it decided by a pan-national bureaucrats who for whatever reason felt this was the next best step, with the finishing touches to be decided on and approved by the national govts?

Have you considered the possibility that it was decided by the national governments in the first place?

That one country comes up with the drafts without consultation is ridiculous.

Just as well nobody's arguing that that's the case, so.

I also think its ridiculous to think that there is no one in the EU who doesn't want a Federal EU.

Again, I haven't heard anyone suggest that that's the case either.

Did you have anything to bring to the discussion other than straw men?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is the USA a country?

Is Florida a country?

Is the EU a country?

Is Italy a country?

If you said state instead of country it would be yes to all of the above (apart from USA). By definition the eu has to be federal - don't blame me, blame the english language if you want. Or the eu (as you profess not to like the idea of a federal europe). I believe that your objection to the term is due to potential negative connoctations associated with it, or possibly it doesn't fit with your view of what the eu is (which is what? A european governmental tea-party situated in the vacinity of Brussels?)



To Blitzkrieg: The UN doesn't have any citizens or legislative government.

Morgans

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that it was decided by the national governments in the first place? Just as well nobody's arguing that that's the case, so. Again, I haven't heard anyone suggest that that's the case either.

Did you have anything to bring to the discussion other than straw men?

Good so we are agreed that treaties are developed by pan-national agencies. And there are those in the EU who wish to see a Federal EU, dare I say along the lines of the US of A. Good we've established something here.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's bolloxology, not tautology. The EU is an institutional framework - that people use "the EU" as shorthand for the member states is mere sloppiness, not some kind of definition.

I say: the framework within which the member states are incorporated.
You say: sloppiness
I say: EU = EU
You say: bolloxology

Scofflaw wrote: »

To claim that the EU writes treaties that grant it powers at the expense of the member states is totally false, because the EU is a creation of the member states, the treaties that govern it are the creation of the member states, and there is no mechanism by which "the EU" (the institution) can grant itself powers through the treaties.

The EU does write treaties that grants it powers at the expense of individual member states. If it did not, it would cease to exist. It is, if you will, a Social Compact made between the national governments (you should understand what I mean by this, but I will spell it out if necessary).


affably,
RandomName2


P.S. You seem to have a problem admitting that EU member states surrender some soverignty, yet you immediately admit that such a surrender was one of the principle purposes behind the creation of the ECSC (for the benign, if superficial concern of a possible war between West Germany and France).

I imagine that your hesitancy to admit the soverignty issue stems from the fact that it is the basis of many anti-eu attacks. I suggest that, seeing that this is your viewpoint, and I imagine that you place a certain value upon truth, that you roll with the implications and merely argue that on the whole it is beneficial. To deny it and admit it, however, does little for the strain of your analysis.

congenially,
RandomName2

BlitzKrieg

conchubhar1 wrote: »

does the un have a parliament? an actual anthem? a proposed constitution?

it has an assembly but a proposal for a parliament has been given and it is currently being debated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly,) no it does not have an official anthem, but an anthem was written for it and performed at numerous key events. and it has the Charter of the United Nations.

conchubhar1

so your previous argument is baseless

the un and the eu can not be equated.....