Political union for European states - pros and cons

Aard

sink wrote: »

There is only one genuine reason to vote no; to vote against a political union of European states.

The above quote was in the "10 reasons to vote yes for Lisbon" thread, and got me thinking about something that I really don't know much about. I'd like to leave the Lisbon debate to the other threads out there, and instead focus this thread on the pros and cons of a political union for European states.

I myself am not read up at all on the issues; all I have is my gut feeling, which tells me that a political union (as opposed to an economic union) of European states is not a Good Thing for me.

Can you tell me your opinions on it? I'd like to understand it some more. Thanks.

Mario007

It all depends how such a political union would function. right now(even with lisbon in) we'd be having something in between an economic union and a political union. thus it does not work very democratically, and particullary the bigger states could complain, looking at the EP or the European Council where veto works or where germany is limited with 99 MEPs and Luxembourg with compulsory 6. Basically we now have a bit of a political union but the representation is made up in such a way so that big states wouldnt dominate it(this is pretty weird because in reality this means that decissions made by those representing less than a majority are sometimes worth more than those representing more than a majority of the eu population).
Of course EU can never work like the USA, maybe not even like Germany...but maybe we'll see eu evolving into something like Switzerland...which wouldn't be necessary bad...

djpbarry

Aard wrote: »

...all I have is my gut feeling, which tells me that a political union (as opposed to an economic union) of European states is not a Good Thing for me.

Is an economic union a good thing? It's pretty much impossible to have an economic union without some form of political agreement.

ixtlan

djpbarry wrote: »

Is an economic union a good thing? It's pretty much impossible to have an economic union without some form of political agreement.

There are models I guess like NAFTA in the US, and in a limted way the WTO, but an economic only union for the EU would remove most of what we think are the benefits of the EU.

No structural funds... can't allocate these without political agreement on what they get spent on.
No environmental laws... can't force another state to shut down it's Chernobyl-type reactor (Lithuania) or restrict pollution.
No equality laws, can't tell other states how to treat it's citizens.

Political union, the limited form of the EU, is not about them/Brussels/the elite controlling Ireland. From our point of view it's about us having an influence on the other states. I am happy that the EU will insist that Lithuania close that reactor. How could that be achieved without some form of political union?

Ix

Dr. Baltar

To me, a "United States of Europe" is a scary idea and something that I am certainly not ready for.

djpbarry

ixtlan wrote: »

There are models I guess like NAFTA in the US…

Which is still a political agreement, with supplemental agreements on labour and environmental cooperation.

PopeBuckfastXVI

For me a United States of Europe is something that I aspire to, and hope one day we can establish, but I'm painfully aware that I'm in the minority, certainly in Ireland, and most likely across Europe.

Scofflaw

Sir Baralot wrote: »

To me, a "United States of Europe" is a scary idea and something that I am certainly not ready for.

I don't consider it scary, but I think it's inappropriate, unnecessary, and probably unwise - I certainly can't see that it would lead to better outcomes than the current system of close and permanent cooperation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

freedom of info

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't consider it scary, but I think it's inappropriate, unnecessary, and probably unwise - I certainly can't see that it would lead to better outcomes than the current system of close and permanent cooperation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

given that eu membership has'nt been bad for us up to now at least,and also given that our politicians, some of them at least, get elected at the parish pump, would a united states of europe be all that bad?

davej

I'm generally for greater European political integration but I think it will take some perceived geo-political crisis for it to come about. Look at Iceland, they are now apparently willing and ready to join the EU.

davej

Edit: 1000 posts and it only took me 7 years

bijapos

USE will never happen, people would be against it. I dont think it would work as people in Europe are so diverse in so many ways that it wouldnt be worth the hassle, cant see what real benefits it will bring. Would just antagonise too many people.

Scrambled egg

A European federation is enevitable IMO. WE might as well back it, if the EU was counted as one country we would have the highest GDP in the world, and that lady and gentlemen is impressive and can be used in breaking the stranglehold the US has on global issues. United we stand, divided we fall.

freedom of info

Scrambled egg wrote: »

A European federation is enevitable IMO. WE might as well back it, if the EU was counted as one country we would have the highest GDP in the world, and that lady and gentlemen is impressive and can be used in breaking the stranglehold the US has on global issues. United we stand, divided we fall.

you make an interesting point on gdp, the us in my humble opinion will not be the major force in economics within 20 years, the new powers will be the eu, china and india, i have to agree with your sentiment united we stand, unfortunately most people seem to euro skeptics for some reason, i believe that europe has been good to us, and why shouldn't that continue?

Scofflaw

freedom of info wrote: »

given that eu membership has'nt been bad for us up to now at least,and also given that our politicians, some of them at least, get elected at the parish pump, would a united states of europe be all that bad?

Well, to put it very straightforwardly, if we became part of a USE, then there are two options - either one citizen, one vote, or not. The latter isn't democratic, while the former reduces us to a microscopic appendage. In a true federation, leaving would require secession, which means that our acquiescence to legislation can be assumed - and it would be implemented here by a federal civil service, whose loyalty would be to the federal centre rather than to Ireland.

Whereas currently the EU is held together by consent, which prevents the imposition of policy and legislation unacceptable to Ireland, because such law must be implemented by the legislature and civil service of Ireland. The veto power on the Council of Ministers isn't the real veto power wielded by EU member states - the real veto is that their cooperation cannot be assumed, and cannot be enforced. Yes, there are fines, and wrist-slaps, but those are equally voluntarily submitted to.

Let's take for a moment the old europhobe chestnut of conscription. Assume we have a proper USE, and we're at war with China. Manpower needs are not being met by voluntary recruitment, and the Council (now in essence the federal government) decides to institute conscription. Now, historically, Ireland would revolt at this point - and that's the thing, it's a revolt, just as it nearly was in 1918, when the British government instituted conscription here, provoking a political crisis which was rapidly followed by the Sinn Fein general election victory of 1919, the formation of the first Dáil Éireann and the Declaration of Independence.

Now under the current EU, that's essentially unthinkable:

1. First, unlike a proper federal state, there is no EU army, and no way for the EU to declare war - no provisions or mechanism for it to do so. Similarly, there is no power for the EU to declare conscription to the non-existent EU army. Under a USE, there would be both a federal army, and the means for the USE to declare war.

2. Second, we are not part of what EU military framework exists - the common defence policy, and cannot sign up for it without a referendum, because we have a blocking amendment (29.4.9) in the Constitution. Again, unthinkable in a federal USE - as if Texas could 'opt out' of a US war.

3. Third, we have a veto on the creation of EU foreign policy. We wouldn't have that under a USE - if we dissented from the policy of challenging China, our voice would be so small as to be meaningless. Under the EU, we would have a veto on whatever policy led to conflict in the first place.

4. Fourth, and most practically, even were all the foregoing absent, even if there were an EU army, and the EU had the power to go to war, and the power to conscript citizens of the member states, the EU could not institute conscription in Ireland because it could not make the Irish government do it. The Irish representative on the Council of Ministers would simply say "it cannot be done - we cannot implement it". It has taken the EU over a decade of pressure to get the Irish government to finally stop turf-cutting on bogs of special scientific interest, a move affecting approximately 800 landowners.

The thing that makes the EU acceptable to me is that in the final analysis, it relies on cooperation. It cannot do what one of its members absolutely opposes, because the breakdown of consent involved would make the EU unworkable. The members are sovereign countries - they have borders, police forces, armies, sovereign parliaments, their own constitutions and legal traditions. They cannot, short of war, be forced to do anything.

A federal USE would have no such restraints, short of being such a loose federation as not to be a federal state in any meaningful sense.

It's worth pointing out that this is what makes europhobe criticism of the EU so counter-productive - they act as if we were already part of a federal state, or only one treaty away from becoming one, when we're very clearly not. I sometimes wonder if they've ever read the story of the boy who cried wolf?

cordially,
Scofflaw

freedom of info

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, to put it very straightforwardly, if we became part of a USE, then there are two options - either one citizen, one vote, or not. The latter isn't democratic, while the former reduces us to a microscopic appendage. In a true federation, leaving would require secession, which means that our acquiescence to legislation can be assumed - and it would be implemented here by a federal civil service, whose loyalty would be to the federal centre rather than to Ireland.

Whereas currently the EU is held together by consent, which prevents the imposition of policy and legislation unacceptable to Ireland, because such law must be implemented by the legislature and civil service of Ireland. The veto power on the Council of Ministers isn't the real veto power wielded by EU member states - the real veto is that their cooperation cannot be assumed, and cannot be enforced. Yes, there are fines, and wrist-slaps, but those are equally voluntarily submitted to.

Let's take for a moment the old europhobe chestnut of conscription. Assume we have a proper USE, and we're at war with China. Manpower needs are not being met by voluntary recruitment, and the Council (now in essence the federal government) decides to institute conscription. Now, historically, Ireland would revolt at this point - and that's the thing, it's a revolt, just as it nearly was in 1918, when the British government instituted conscription here, provoking a political crisis which was rapidly followed by the Sinn Fein general election victory of 1919, the formation of the first Dáil Éireann and the Declaration of Independence.

Now under the current EU, that's essentially unthinkable:

1. First, unlike a proper federal state, there is no EU army, and no way for the EU to declare war - no provisions or mechanism for it to do so. Similarly, there is no power for the EU to declare conscription to the non-existent EU army. Under a USE, there would be both a federal army, and the means for the USE to declare war.

2. Second, we are not part of what EU military framework exists - the common defence policy, and cannot sign up for it without a referendum, because we have a blocking amendment (29.4.9) in the Constitution. Again, unthinkable in a federal USE - as if Texas could 'opt out' of a US war.

3. Third, we have a veto on the creation of EU foreign policy. We wouldn't have that under a USE - if we dissented from the policy of challenging China, our voice would be so small as to be meaningless. Under the EU, we would have a veto on whatever policy led to conflict in the first place.

4. Fourth, and most practically, even were all the foregoing absent, even if there were an EU army, and the EU had the power to go to war, and the power to conscript citizens of the member states, the EU could not institute conscription in Ireland because it could not make the Irish government do it. The Irish representative on the Council of Ministers would simply say "it cannot be done - we cannot implement it". It has taken the EU over a decade of pressure to get the Irish government to finally stop turf-cutting on bogs of special scientific interest, a move affecting approximately 800 landowners.

The thing that makes the EU acceptable to me is that in the final analysis, it relies on cooperation. It cannot do what one of its members absolutely opposes, because the breakdown of consent involved would make the EU unworkable. The members are sovereign countries - they have borders, police forces, armies, sovereign parliaments, their own constitutions and legal traditions. They cannot, short of war, be forced to do anything.

A federal USE would have no such restraints, short of being such a loose federation as not to be a federal state in any meaningful sense.

It's worth pointing out that this is what makes europhobe criticism of the EU so counter-productive - they act as if we were already part of a federal state, or only one treaty away from becoming one, when we're very clearly not. I sometimes wonder if they've ever read the story of the boy who cried wolf?

cordially,
Scofflaw

a very good argument, but would that not be a worst case scenario, as a small country, i think any involvement in any potential war would be minimal, on the plus side, would greater economic involvement prove to be beneficial

Freeborn John

Scofflaw wrote: »

Whereas currently the EU is held together by consent, which prevents the imposition of policy and legislation unacceptable to Ireland, because such law must be implemented by the legislature and civil service of Ireland. ...

This is total junk. International law, including EU law is the law of the land, and has been accepted as such for a very long time by all states, including Ireland. If a state like Ireland does not comply with the binding commitments it has entered in to via international agreements it would be up before the International Court of Justice in the Hague. International law is law like any other, and is not something a state is free to ignore whenever it feels like doing so.

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

Scofflaw

Freeborn John wrote: »

This is total junk. International law, including EU law is the law of the land, and has been accepted as such for a very long time by all states, including Ireland. If a state like Ireland does not comply with the binding commitments it has entered in to via international agreements it would be up before the International Court of Justice in the Hague. International law is law like any other, and is not something a state is free to ignore whenever it feels like doing so.

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

Perhaps unsurprisingly, you've entirely missed my point.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ChocolateSauce

How deep a union? Into one country, where war is decided not by the regional (formally national) governments, but by a federal power? Or just deeper than it is now, where we're still nation-states?

Although I wouldn't be intrinsically opposed to a USE, we're not ready for it, and it would want to be at least 80 years off, if ever. For now and probably for the rest of my life, I think the appropriate approach is deeper integration, but slowly, and certainly never to the point where the power to make war is removed from the nation-states.

The USA is one nation, the EU isn't, will never be, and should never be; to make us one nation (as opposed to a federal super-nation) would be to erase the identity of each member, something neither desirable nor possible.

I do think there are advantages to being in a very close union, apart from the ones we are already enjoying like free market and security. One that comes to mind would be the synergetic influence we could hold on the international stage if our voices were united. Another is that by having over-arching powers, on one state could slip into an authoritarian government; as soon as a national government did something illegal, like say take a political prisoner, the higher EU government (accountable to many nations) could remove that government.

For now, I want the EU to be a close and free association of members, not a supra-national entity. However, I'll qualify this by stating I think the EU is a very good thing and the supra-national powers it already has are acceptable and have worked very well in virtually every member state.

Purple Gorilla

I fully agree with Scofflaw...and I'm pretty sure most citizens in the EU would agree too considering the average turnout for the recent EU Elections averaged at 43%

A USE would destroy our individuality as countries. When you see tourists over here from America, and you ask what nationality they are, they don't say they are Bostonian or Nebraskan, they say they are American.
I don't want that to happen here. I'm Irish first, European second.

FutureTaoiseach

I don't want a Federal Europe. Generations of Irishmen/women have sacrificed their lives for independence and sovereignty. To throw it away with the stroke of a pen seems to call into question the point of it all, and to make those countless deaths seem in vain. I am not opposed to the European project, but I am uneasy at the absence of a clear "destination" to the project beyond "ever closer union". I am not opposed to ever closer union in terms of cordial relations between Europeans, but I am opposed to further political-union. I am also of the view that strutting the European stage has distracted our politicians from longstanding domestic problems like the crisis in our economy and health-service. It is a convenient distraction for them to be seen as movers and shakers in Brussels, from a prestige point of view. But there is a price to pay, and the elderly people stranded on hospital-trollies and the massive queues of the unemployed epitomise the neglect of domestic issues by the politicians in Leinster House. Their eyes are so focused on the horizon that they give the impression (at least to me) of being more concerned with foreign policy than domestic affairs. Indeed it is possible they no longer distinguish between the two.

davej

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, to put it very straightforwardly, if we became part of a USE, then there are two options - either one citizen, one vote, or not. The latter isn't democratic, while the former reduces us to a microscopic appendage. In a true federation, leaving would require secession, which means that our acquiescence to legislation can be assumed - and it would be implemented here by a federal civil service, whose loyalty would be to the federal centre rather than to Ireland.
.......

There are a couple of scenarios where a lot of the changes that need to be made to make a USE possible could be fast tracked by all member states (as I briefly alluded to in my previous post). Any sort of existential threat to Europe or the "Western" way of life could convince people to agree to much closer integration. Some examples include: Continental resource wars, dollar/ US economic collapse, severe climate change, peak oil...

I am not saying that any of these specific possibilities will happen, but something will happen. I don't think the "80 years of slow integration" proposition is all that likely. Between now and 2090 there are bound to be some major upheavals on the planet.

People are often more willing to sign up to things in times of fear or uncertainty. Not wanting to drag this thread specifically towards the Lisbon debate, but it seems to me that the "fear card" has now switched to the hand of the "yes" campaign. This is why they will probably succeed this time.

davej

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

...I am uneasy at the absence of a clear "destination" to the project beyond "ever closer union".

You're not married, then?

I don't see why the project has to have a clear destination. I don't even see how it could have a clear destination; it's a project that by its nature will span generations, and we have no idea where future generations will want to take it.

I don't want a federal USE, but who's to say the next generation won't - and who are we to say they can't have it?

djpbarry

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I don't want a Federal Europe. Generations of Irishmen/women have sacrificed their lives for independence and sovereignty. To throw it away with the stroke of a pen seems to call into question the point of it all, and to make those countless deaths seem in vain. I am not opposed to the European project, but I am uneasy at the absence of a clear "destination" to the project beyond "ever closer union".

What is the “clear destination” of the Ireland “project”? Where exactly is this country heading? How will we get there? I’m not comfortable voting in any further general elections until those questions are answered.

ei.sdraob

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're not married, then?

I don't see why the project has to have a clear destination. I don't even see how it could have a clear destination; it's a project that by its nature will span generations, and we have no idea where future generations will want to take it.

I don't want a federal USE, but who's to say the next generation won't - and who are we to say they can't have it?

spot on, we cant predict the future or what our children will do

70 years ago if you told a frenchman or a german that all of europe would be united and prospering beyond belief they would have laughed at you



i don't want a union ala US, with a ever growing federal budget and institutions,

but i am not being short sighted either I realize that Lisbon grants more unity when it comes to matters of European foreign policy and more importantly (economically) common energy policy

the above are highly important because:
1. Russia and other energy suppliers are playing EU countries against each other in order to earn more profit, this makes everything in EU more expensive as energy is a cornerstone of any economy

2. China is still growing wildly and is about to overtake Japan (if it hasn't already) into #3 spot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
and the Chineese have a very mercantile economic policy, right now they are buying up as many natural resources around the world as they can get hands on, everything from oil to metals to lithium (they have monopoly on the main resources used in electric cars) all of this while EU and US are asleep and are economically retarding


so to summarize Lisbon in my eyes is very important economically, i can go on with more examples




anyways only history would tell

knowing a bit more history would certainly make people wiser with their votes, but who cares nowadays? your average person can tell you about the big brother tv show than WW2, which is fairly sad

sorry for going a bit offtopic there at end :pac:

ei.sdraob

djpbarry wrote: »

What is the “clear destination” of the Ireland “project”? Where exactly is this country heading? How will we get there? I’m not comfortable voting in any further general elections until those questions are answered.

spot on there!

i can tell you exactly where the country is heading in the short to medium turn

but no one would like the answer as its quite negative

that would not stop me voting in next elections, in fact quite the opposite

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're not married, then?

I don't see why the project has to have a clear destination. I don't even see how it could have a clear destination; it's a project that by its nature will span generations, and we have no idea where future generations will want to take it.

I don't want a federal USE, but who's to say the next generation won't - and who are we to say they can't have it?

The constant, endless stream of treaties every 5 years or so smacks of an agenda of federalism to me. The core of federalism is an overarching authority over the constituent member states. At least with the "Ireland project", we have a constitution we can change ourselves via referenda. We can't do that if we find an existing, ratified EU treaty to be in some way harmful to this country, because to change a treaty you need unanimous ratification of such changes in all (presently 27) member states. Which is better?

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The constant, endless stream of treaties every 5 years or so smacks of an agenda of federalism to me. The core of federalism is an overarching authority over the constituent member states. At least with the "Ireland project", we have a constitution we can change ourselves via referenda. We can't do that if we find an existing, ratified EU treaty to be in some way harmful to this country, because to change a treaty you need unanimous ratification of such changes in all (presently 27) member states. Which is better?

Much like the euroskeptics, federalists are very much in the miniority on the european stage. Such is the rules of joining a club some rules you will find you like, others not so much. Are there may examples of such changes that have been truely abhorrant to Ireland in the past 35 odd years? Should the rules of membership become completely incompatible with our values (unlikely since we will always have a role in defining them), I point to the addition of the exit clause in the Lisbon Treaty.

FutureTaoiseach

marco_polo wrote: »

Much like the euroskeptics, federalists are very much in the miniority on the european stage.

My only answer to that is to quote the architect of the EU Constitution himself, Giscard d'Estaing, and the former Belgian PM Verhofstadt:

Valery Giscard d'Estaing (Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007) wrote:

Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.

Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister (Financial Times, 21 June 2004) wrote:

The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

My only answer to that is to quote the architect of the EU Constitution himself, Giscard d'Estaing, and the former Belgian PM Verhofstadt:

That's two. Find another quarter of a billion and you're heading for them not being in the minority.

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's two. Find another quarter of a billion and you're heading for them not being in the minority.

Didn't know there were that many politicians in the EU. :rolleyes:

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

My only answer to that is to quote the architect of the EU Constitution himself, Giscard d'Estaing, and the former Belgian PM Verhofstadt:

Two people quote mined, wow you have really blown my claim that federalists are a minority grouping right out of the water.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The constant, endless stream of treaties every 5 years or so smacks of an agenda of federalism to me. The core of federalism is an overarching authority over the constituent member states. At least with the "Ireland project", we have a constitution we can change ourselves via referenda. We can't do that if we find an existing, ratified EU treaty to be in some way harmful to this country, because to change a treaty you need unanimous ratification of such changes in all (presently 27) member states. Which is better?

You're entitled to your view. I don't understand a philosophy that is suspicious of something that has been shown over several decades to be a benign and beneficial process, just because there's a slight chance that it might at some point in the future have drawbacks.

You're wrong about one thing: "we" can't change our constitution by referendum. What we can do is choose to allow the government to change it - or not - but only the government can initiate the process of change.

Y'know, the same government that negotiates EU treaties on our behalf.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Didn't know there were that many politicians in the EU. :rolleyes:

There are more than three politicians in the EU. You're still a helluva long way from showing that federalists are not in a minority - and that's leaving aside the fact that your Giscard d'Estaing quote doesn't mention federalism.

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are more than three politicians in the EU. You're still a helluva long way from showing that federalists are not in a minority - and that's leaving aside the fact that your Giscard d'Estaing quote doesn't mention federalism.

The question is who the burden of proof should be on when approaching this question: those making the accusation, or those against whom it is made? Do not actions matter more than words?

You're wrong about one thing: "we" can't change our constitution by referendum. What we can do is choose to allow the government to change it - or not - but only the government can initiate the process of change.

Which is better? Being twice removed from the process (in the case of the Irish Constitution) or being 27-times removed (as with the Charter of Fundamental Rights should Lisbon go through)?

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The question is who the burden of proof should be on when approaching this question: those making the accusation, or those against whom it is made? Do not actions matter more than words?

I completely agree that the burden of proof rests on those who claim the EU it is moving toward the utimate creation of a Federalist superstate. (Or is it an oligarchy, it's hard to keep up)

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The question is who the burden of proof should be on when approaching this question: those making the accusation, or those against whom it is made? Do not actions matter more than words?

The burden of proof is on the accuser. You're accusing the EU of moving in a federalist direction. You're doing so on the flimsiest of evidence, extrapolating wildly. I've moved from Westmeath to Mayo in the past, but that doesn't mean that I'm inevitably going to move to Canada.

Which is better? Being twice removed from the process (in the case of the Irish Constitution) or being 27-times removed (as with the Charter of Fundamental Rights should Lisbon go through)?

The question is predicated on the assumption that the other member states are malevolent forces waiting for us to fall into the trap that they've carefully laid for us.

A steel door with a high-tech locking mechanism would be "better" from a security standpoint than the three-point locking wooden front door on my house. I don't need a steel door. The world just isn't that scary a place.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Didn't know there were that many politicians in the EU. :rolleyes:

Indeed, but there are at least 8-9,000 current national parliamentarians in the EU, which does still leave 2 as something of a minority.

amused,
Scofflaw

tlev

It seems to me that Europe in its current state has to evolve in order to keep up with the States and China. Federalism may achieve this.

FutureTaoiseach

OscarBravo wrote:

The question is predicated on the assumption that the other member states are malevolent forces waiting for us to fall into the trap that they've carefully laid for us.

I don't see them as malevolent - just wrong with respect to Lisbon. I am making the point that it is better to have our rights codified in our Constitution, which we can change by referenda, rather than in a Charter of Fundamental Rights that will be impossible for us to change on our own, but which will nonetheless bind this generation and perhaps many others indefinitely. An example of what can happen when you have a codification of rights that is prohibitively difficult to amend can be seen in the US with respect to their gun-laws. We don't know for sure what - if any - similar anomalies may arise from ECJ interpretations of the Charter in the future. But we should learn from the experience of the US Constitution in order to avoid potential pitfalls.

Purple Gorilla

tlev wrote: »

It seems to me that Europe in its current state has to evolve in order to keep up with the States and China. Federalism may achieve this.

Why though? The Eurozone is treated as one economy and it is currently the second biggest in the world. As more EU countries join, it'll be the biggest. I support being counted as a single entity in some areas. EG- If EU were the ones to negotiate oil supply/prices as a single entity instead of 27 small states negotiating separately.

ei.sdraob

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Why though? The Eurozone is treated as one economy and it is currently the second biggest in the world. As more EU countries join, it'll be the biggest. I support being counted as a single entity in some areas. EG- If EU were the ones to negotiate oil supply/prices as a single entity instead of 27 small states negotiating separately.

a single united energy policy is one of the main points for voting YES to Lisbon

Purple Gorilla

ei.sdraob wrote: »

a single united energy policy is one of the main points for voting YES to Lisbon

..I know..I didn't mention Lisbon in my post though?

Scofflaw

freedom of info wrote: »

a very good argument, but would that not be a worst case scenario, as a small country, i think any involvement in any potential war would be minimal, on the plus side, would greater economic involvement prove to be beneficial

Well, the conscription argument is only an example, though. The general principle is what's important - that the EU as a body can proceed only by consent, because it has no legitimate control over the member states as individual nations except by their consent. It's the difference between being a member of a team and being a member of a military unit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I don't see them as malevolent - just wrong with respect to Lisbon.

Yup, everyone's wrong except the paranoid few in Ireland.

I am making the point that it is better to have our rights codified in our Constitution, which we can change by referenda, rather than in a Charter of Fundamental Rights that will be impossible for us to change on our own, but which will nonetheless bind this generation and perhaps many others indefinitely.

You seem to be under the illusion that the CFR was handed down from heaven on stone tablets.

If the Charter turns out to be actively harmful, it can be changed by consensus. That's how the EU works.

Your point seems to be that we shouldn't allow our laws to be framed by anything other than our own Constitution. That's another way of saying that we shouldn't be in the EU. That's an opinion that you're entitled to, but that I disagree with, as do most of our compatriots.

An example of what can happen when you have a codification of rights that is prohibitively difficult to amend can be seen in the US with respect to their gun-laws. We don't know for sure what - if any - similar anomalies may arise from ECJ interpretations of the Charter in the future. But we should learn from the experience of the US Constitution in order to avoid potential pitfalls.

First, the NRA and their Republican hangers-on suffered a landmark defeat last week. Second, can you point to a provision in the CFR that you can see being as controversial as the second amendment?

tlev

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Why though? The Eurozone is treated as one economy and it is currently the second biggest in the world. As more EU countries join, it'll be the biggest. I support being counted as a single entity in some areas. EG- If EU were the ones to negotiate oil supply/prices as a single entity instead of 27 small states negotiating separately.

It's treated as one economy but in reality isn't it the 27 different economies of all the member states? And this is the thing, people want the benefits of being in a federation without actually having to sacrifice anything. I want this but not this etc.

The reason I said that the EU is stagnating, in my opinion and I may be wrong is that China and India have the cheap labour power, China also have massive reserves and are a country that is growing, the USA still are the largest superpower in the world. What do Europe have to offer? Cheap labour? Large of amounts of natural resources? Cutting edge technologies? Like I said I may be wrong but Europe needs change.

worldrepublic

tlev wrote: »

It's treated as one economy but in reality isn't it the 27 different economies of all the member states? And this is the thing, people want the benefits of being in a federation without actually having to sacrifice anything. I want this but not this etc.

The reason I said that the EU is stagnating, in my opinion and I may be wrong is that China and India have the cheap labour power, China also have massive reserves and are a country that is growing, the USA still are the largest superpower in the world. What do Europe have to offer? Cheap labour? Large of amounts of natural resources? Cutting edge technologies? Like I said I may be wrong but Europe needs change.

You are so right, "Europe needs change" ....but it needs "hope" as well. Change and Hope represent the future, like President Obama. That man is so sharp.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

You are so right, "Europe needs change" ....but it needs "hope" as well. Change and Hope represent the future, like President Obama. That man is so sharp.

President Obama isn't doing too well at the moment. His approval ratings are dropping due to rising unemployment and the unfeasibility of his health care reform plan. I'm all for the guy though, I just 'hope' that he hasn't bitten off more than he chew. Anyway that is OT...

The point is that yes Europe needs hope but in order for there to be hope people need to see that things are happening and efforts need to be made so that things do change. It isn't enough that we all just get down on our knees and hope our way out of this recession.

worldrepublic

tlev wrote: »

President Obama isn't doing too well at the moment. His approval ratings are dropping due to rising unemployment and the unfeasibility of his health care reform plan. I'm all for the guy though, I just 'hope' that he hasn't bitten off more than he chew. Anyway that is OT...

The point is that yes Europe needs hope but in order for there to be hope people need to see that things are happening and efforts need to be made so that things do change. It isn't enough that we all just get down on our knees and hope our way out of this recession.

I resent the implications. I hope you have not become tinged with the racism against Obama. Obama is totally different to Bush, but must now solve all the problems (or had you "forgotten" that part) and he must fight the War or Terror. The peace keeping work he is doing even inn Pakistan now is great. We also have some preventative measures and technologies in place within Europe now to fight the terrorist networks. This needs to be expanded thought, hopefully the Lisbon Treaty will serve as a basis for consolidation of anti-terrorist programs.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

I resent the implications. I hope you have not become tinged with the racism against Obama. Obama is totally different to Bush, but must now solve all the problems (or had you "forgotten" that part) and he must fight the War or Terror. The peace keeping work he is doing even inn Pakistan now is great. We also have some preventative measures and technologies in place within Europe now to fight the terrorist networks. This needs to be expanded thought, hopefully the Lisbon Treaty will serve as a basis for consolidation of anti-terrorist programs.

I don't like acusations made against my character. I am not a racist and made no such remark as to be imply that I am racist against Obama. I just said I like him but to blindly think that he will solve the world's problems is just going overboard. He is one man, albeit he may be a great man but he is not a messiah.

worldrepublic

tlev wrote: »

I don't like acusations made against my character. I am not a racist and made no such remark as to be imply that I am racist against Obama. I just said I like him but to blindly think that he will solve the world's problems is just going overboard. He is one man, albeit he may be a great man but he is not a messiah.

"messiah" why bring religious undertones into this. Please make straight-forward points in future, thankyou.

tlev

Fine, not messiah, a shining beacon of hope that will guide the world from darkness into an era of peace and prosperity? Is that better? My point is he can bring change but not to the degree you are going on about.