Sarkozy and Merkel propose new EU treaty

Amtmann

He has stated that Europe "must be refounded", but has also reportedly stated that he won't give up French sovereignty on borders and immigration (I can't find the link though).

What can the EU leaders realistically change in any such treaty? It's pretty clear that they won't propose a fully-fledged federation. So, by how much more can they deepen the union, both politically and economically?

Anita Blow

Fair to say I'll be voting no.
Really don't agree with handing further power away. Government should be as close to the individual as possible, not in a different country.

Don't know how he can say he wouldn't be giving up sovereignty of France? Seems like a tactic to ease fears of the vast majority of his electorate who wouldn't want to just become a state of Europe. But when the EU has power over fiscal, monetary and foreign policy and has a hand in many aspects of government, how is it anything but a federal system?

I have no doubt that Europe would unite sometime in the future, but naturally. This is being forced through.

N8

I think to be more specific Sarkozy has called for a New Europe "refounded" with France and Germany at its heart to create "a zone of stability" ie France and Germany in charge.

Added to the fact the Lisbon treaty is self amending we probably won't get to vote on this since our political elite love the idea of a federal superstate where they would bear no responsibility at home.

However thankfully I doubt the Nordic block or the UK will go for this not to mention Poland so it may not happen.

Anita Blow

I assume this will firstly be Eurozone countries so neither UK or Poland would come into it.

Also, Lisbon Treaty doesn't change the fact that our constitution states anything which requires us to handover sovereignty has to be put to a referendum.

clearz

Anita Blow wrote: »

I assume this will firstly be Eurozone countries so neither UK or Poland would come into it.

Also, Lisbon Treaty doesn't change the fact that our constitution states anything which requires us to handover sovereignty has to be put to a referendum.

Referendum, constitution lol. Your having a laugh. If there is anything the Nice and Lisbon treaties thought us it's that them words mean nothing here.
I voted no in both those referendums and diddnt participate in the disgraceful second rounds. Even so I'm going to vote yes in the future to hopefully quicken the downfall of this dump of a country.

Amtmann

To bring the thread back on topic (I don't care how you'd vote on something that hasn't been decided yet), here are the key points of his speech:

• France and Germany will announce proposals on Monday to "guarantee the future of Europe"
• They agree that there should be a new EU treaty to impose greater financial integration
• Convergence is the key to solving the eurozone crisis but it will be a long and difficult process.
• France rejects fiscal union where national budgets would be approved in Brussels
• The rebuilding of Europe is not a march towards a federal super-state
• The European Central Bank will remain independent
• France must end doubts about its ability to repay debts

Source.

oscarBravo

Anita Blow wrote: »

Fair to say I'll be voting no.

I'm really hoping any proposed treaty changes are ratified by the Dáil and don't get near a referendum. I can't handle another round of misleading slogans being force-fed to an electorate that is determined not to educate itself on the topic.

Government should be as close to the individual as possible...

You'd be in favour of abolishing national governments and replacing them with village councils?

censuspro

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm really hoping any proposed treaty changes are ratified by the Dáil and don't get near a referendum. I can't handle another round of misleading slogans being force-fed to an electorate that is determined not to educate itself on the topic. You'd be in favour of abolishing national governments and replacing them with village councils?

...because our elected TD's are so much more educated on the topics than the electorate? I think it's fair to say that your mind is made up also.

View

censuspro wrote: »

...because our elected TD's are so much more educated on the topics than the electorate? I think it's fair to say that your mind is made up also.

Most Legislators are usually more educated about legislation than people who are not legislators, much as, let's say, dentists are usually more educated about dentistry than people who aren't dentists.

It isn't just an accident that states opt for and continue to use parliamentary democracy.

KINGVictor

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm really hoping any proposed treaty changes are ratified by the Dáil and don't get near a referendum. I can't handle another round of misleading slogans being force-fed to an electorate that is determined not to educate itself on the topic. You'd be in favour of abolishing national governments and replacing them with village councils?

I understand your point totally and agree that a lot of people clamouring for the demise of the Euro or the European project do not understand the ramifications of the massive negative effect of that eventuality -not only in Europe but the global impact. However, you do understand that the Irish government refusing to put any treaty change to the electorate is not only potentially unconstitutional but would be undemocratic.

So far, ordinary EU citizens are bemused with the way the project most hold so dear is imploding in their eyes, more shocking is the apparent indecisiveness and division of the political class and you want their right to be discounted because of dissenting elements?

View

Anita Blow wrote: »

I assume this will firstly be Eurozone countries so neither UK or Poland would come into it.

Also, Lisbon Treaty doesn't change the fact that our constitution states anything which requires us to handover sovereignty has to be put to a referendum.

Very true but there is no reason to suppose that any proposed changes might effect sovereignty. Changes to the EU Treaties don't necessarily effect it - the Accession Treaties don't for instance.

Indeed, before the first Lisbon referendum, one TCD(?) law professor argued that Lisbon itself didn't effect it which, if he was right, means we held two unnecessary referenda!

View

KINGVictor wrote: »

However, you do understand that the Irish government refusing to put any treaty change to the electorate is not only potentially unconstitutional but would be undemocratic.

Treaty changes do not necessarily require referenda. In the Crotty judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the "Any treaty change requires a referendum" argument - in which case it is up to a democratic decision of the Oireachtas.

Amtmann

People complaining about big state dominance should be more open to the idea of authentic federalisation, but they generally aren't. I don't think we can have it both ways anymore. In whatever negotiation arises, I'm all for a responsible and accountable method of achieving a fiscal union. But it must be done right, if it's to be done at all.

tonycascarino

Yay!! It will be a No from me all the way...if we get to vote on it. I have enough of this Franco/German alliance and their ambition to control every other member state. No EU shill here or anywhere is gonna change my mind.

Captain Chaos

A big yes from me. I have zero faith in the ability of our government or any of our parties or politicians. Let a real government/s run us for a change and see how the pros do it and not a load of back water lacky yes men.

meglome

Anita Blow wrote: »

Fair to say I'll be voting no.
Really don't agree with handing further power away. Government should be as close to the individual as possible, not in a different country.

Yes we'll teach those Germans a lesson. A lesson in what a bunch of idiots we are who can't just read what the proposals are and decide based on those proposals.

Anita Blow wrote: »

I have no doubt that Europe would unite sometime in the future, but naturally. This is being forced through.

I'm amused... the situation we're in was caused by us repeatedly voting for big spending and low taxes mixed with no regulation. We did this to ourselves and we are complaining the Germans want to stop us doing it again. Seems pretty sensible to me.

N8 wrote: »

I think to be more specific Sarkozy has called for a New Europe "refounded" with France and Germany at its heart to create "a zone of stability" ie France and Germany in charge.

Added to the fact the Lisbon treaty is self amending we probably won't get to vote on this since our political elite love the idea of a federal superstate where they would bear no responsibility at home.

However thankfully I doubt the Nordic block or the UK will go for this not to mention Poland so it may not happen.

Sigh.. the Lisbon treaty is not self amending and if it was we wouldn't be having this discussion about voting on a new treaty. See the logic?

clearz wrote: »

Referendum, constitution lol. Your having a laugh. If there is anything the Nice and Lisbon treaties thought us it's that them words mean nothing here.
I voted no in both those referendums and diddnt participate in the disgraceful second rounds.

You had the choice to democratically vote No at very turn if that was your wish. But it boggles my mind that people think having more democratic votes is less democratic. A democratic vote is always the will of the people at the time, given the overwhelming yes to the second vote the people have spoken.

BTW has the Lisbon treaty caused some problem that you'd like to share with us?

censuspro wrote: »

...because our elected TD's are so much more educated on the topics than the electorate? I think it's fair to say that your mind is made up also.

The whole Lisbon campaign was a joke and I haven't seen a thing that makes me think it would be different for a new treaty. The No side lied their way to the first no and the Yes side used rubbish slogans to push for the yes in the second vote. I dread to think what a fiasco it would be.

The really funny thing about all this is I cannot find anyone who can tell when exactly what issue the Lisbon caused since it's introduction. I have repeatedly asked and am yet to get an answer but the whining goes on.

cyberhog

View wrote: »

Very true but there is no reason to suppose that any proposed changes might effect sovereignty.

Merkel the Merciless wants more Europe, and more Europe means less Irish sovereignty.

Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, will present a report on limited treaty change to the summit next week,... “It is about discipline and integration... and about short-term actions and long-term reforms,” he said yesterday. “Regardless of whether there will be treaty change or not, both entail a sacrifice of sovereignty in exchange for providing the economic and monetary union with a structural credibility.”

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/germany-and-france-at-odds-ahead-of-summit/72785.aspx

sirromo

I don't care as long as we retain our vetoes.

positron

Looks like one of Zarkozi's pet projects, and one he want to gains votes from, is 'tax harmonization' across Europe. I can not see how Ireland can join such a more united Europe and still maintain the current corporate tax rates. And if Ireland has to increase corporate tax to align with German, France, Poland etc - is there any hope for Ireland for next 20 years? Wouldn't the capital and foreign multinationals just relocate to cheaper economies? That would then mean we are in for higher unemployment, lower salaries, and the euro will remain strong as ever and our mortgages and loans even more unserviceable! This is all bad news..!!

Could not joining such a treaty be an alternative? That probably would mean leaving EU, but then I don't really trust our politicians and policy makers to do a job as important as this - I just don't think they are capable of making the right decisions.

Messed up sh1t is messed up! Is there no way out of this now?

Wibbs

View wrote: »

Most Legislators are usually more educated about legislation than people who are not legislators, much as, let's say, dentists are usually more educated about dentistry than people who aren't dentists.

True, but I wish I had more faith in our legislators than currently. Plus dentists have to train to be such, with a few notable exceptions our political class in particular isn't exactly a brains trust. Their only training seems to consist of pressing the flesh and standing on the backs of lorries giving speeches. Sadly too often in this country I have found "the man in de pub" has more of a clue than those he elected. It's getting better mind you. At least compared to the last shower.

Wibbs

positron wrote: »

Looks like one of Zarkozi's pet projects, and one he want to gains votes from, is 'tax harmonization' across Europe. I can not see how Ireland can join such a more united Europe and still maintain the current corporate tax rates. And if Ireland has to increase corporate tax to align with German, France, Poland etc - is there any hope for Ireland for next 20 years? Wouldn't the capital and foreign multinationals just relocate to cheaper economies? That would then mean we are in for higher unemployment, lower salaries, and the euro will remain strong as ever and our mortgages and loans even more unserviceable! This is all bad news..!!

To be fair our lot have already said no on this corp tax rate thing since the French Premiers speech. Dead right too as even the most ardent federalist would see how it would directly affect our ability to earn and pay back our debts. It'll be interesting to see how such a No from our government will survive the heat of eurozone political battle and the fiscal realities of the euro.

Amtmann

Tremelo wrote: »

To bring the thread back on topic (I don't care how you'd vote on something that hasn't been decided yet), here are the key points of his speech:

• France and Germany will announce proposals on Monday to "guarantee the future of Europe"
• They agree that there should be a new EU treaty to impose greater financial integration
• Convergence is the key to solving the eurozone crisis but it will be a long and difficult process.
• France rejects fiscal union where national budgets would be approved in Brussels
• The rebuilding of Europe is not a march towards a federal super-state
• The European Central Bank will remain independent
• France must end doubts about its ability to repay debts

Source.

How this compares with what Chancellor Merkel said this morning:

• Under the fiscal union advocated by Chancellor Merkel, the 17 eurozone members would have to stick to tight controls on taxing and spending or face penalties imposed by the European Court of Justice.
• What she did not talk about was any new funds that might be available for countries in difficulty. Her speech made clear that eurobonds or any similar scheme where there would be a collective guarantee of the debts of individual governments was off the agenda.
• She explicitly said that there would be no common liability as long as member states controlled their own budgets.
• Chancellor Merkel said this would involve renegotiating treaties for the eurozone, and non-eurozone countries would be invited to participate.

Source.

force eleven

Unfortunately we have already sold ourselves into economic thralldom to Berlin and Paris.
Gilmore and Kenny going on about corporation tax harmonisation being 'off the table' is a red herring and has been for a long time, it is an irrelavance in comparison to all the other facets of sovereignty which we have handed over to Brussels in the past year.
Another referendum, another no, then another round of armageddon threats and false promises to get a yes. I don't think people are really going to be changed this time and I believe the government will do everything in its power to avoid a referendum.

Amtmann

force eleven wrote: »

Unfortunately we have already sold ourselves into economic thralldom to Berlin and Paris.
Gilmore and Kenny going on about corporation tax harmonisation being 'off the table' is a red herring and has been for a long time, it is an irrelavance in comparison to all the other facets of sovereignty which we have handed over to Brussels in the past year.
Another referendum, another no, then another round of armageddon threats and false promises to get a yes. I don't think people are really going to be changed this time and I believe the government will do everything in its power to avoid a referendum.

I agree that the corporation tax issue is a red herring in the wider scheme of things. These issues carry far more significance than that.

In terms of a referendum, I agree with OB: I don't think this is something that should be put to people for the simple reason that the answer you get often has nothing to do with the question asked. However, I'm also mindful that something like a fiscal union does require more than just the stamp of the Dail to lend it popular legitimacy.

I think I would favor a one-off in/out referendum, however.

As an aside, I think it's pretty clear already that this next treaty will not make the leap towards official federalism that I would like to see.

cavedave

meglome

Yes we'll teach those Germans a lesson. A lesson in what a bunch of idiots we are who can't just read what the proposals are and decide based on those proposals.
...

Sigh.. the Lisbon treaty is not self amending and if it was we wouldn't be having this discussion about voting on a new treaty. See the logic?

The issue is not just about logic. To pretend it is is bad reasoning in any public choice question. People base their votes on opinions and trust rather then solely on legal documents. There are Ad hominem arguments in politics. They may be bad logic but good bayesian statistics.

meglome

cavedave wrote: »

The issue is not just about logic. To pretend it is is bad reasoning in any public choice question. People base their votes on opinions and trust rather then solely on legal documents. There are Ad hominem arguments in politics. They may be bad logic but good bayesian statistics.

On one hand I'm very happy to see people vote on these issues, very democratic an' all that. Unfortunately I agree with you about why people vote. It seem perfectly clear and sensible to me that the current financial mess should not be allowed to happen again and the obvious fix for that is greater financial control from the EU. Course I also appreciate that we are the EU as much as anyone is so this is not actually some 'foreign' imposition. Given many people cannot accept any responsibility for repeatedly voting for policies that caused our mess I'm not looking forward to what comes next.

Scofflaw

If this comes about, then such a move will obviously entail giving up some sovereignty, which means it will definitely involve a referendum here. The obvious canard of the referendum is likely to be something a couple of people have said already - "having our budgets set in Brussels".

I don't think that's remotely likely, because other countries won't stand for it either. What's likely is a Brussels veto on doing things in your budget that are likely to blow up in everybody's faces - and from what I've seen, that's what's on the table.

I don't have a major difficulty with that, I admit. I'm not sure why I should think that the ability to do stupid things is necessary, when our electorate seems to have no way of stopping them happening?

cordially,
Scofflaw

beeftotheheels

Latest suggestion is that Merkel is aiming for treaty changes which won't require a referendum (I presume that that is aimed at us). Legally a blessing, politically a curse, but I assume that it then means no change to unanimity in Art 115 since I can see a Dáil ratifying changes which make e.g. Art 121 and Art 126 more binding (since they're already pretty binding on us) but I cannot see them "risking" the CT rate.

cavedave

Can anyone tell me if any of these assertions are not true or likely not true?

1. A referendum wont get passed here. (I am not arguing here about whether it should or not.)

2. Leaving the euro would require leaving the EU

3. The referendum would be to make rules that are required to keep the euro.

4. Greece was already told a referendum would be on staying within the euro. "Euro zone leaders made plain this would effectively be a referendum on the country's membership of the euro bloc". So at least the possibility of voting yourself out of the EU has now been made by euro zone leaders.

5. Intrade gives 40% chance that someone will say they will leave the euro in 2012.

Is the only way of squaring this information that no referendum will be held? And as Scofflaw points out one would be needed for this sort of large change.

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Latest suggestion is that Merkel is aiming for treaty changes which won't require a referendum (I presume that that is aimed at us). Legally a blessing, politically a curse, but I assume that it then means no change to unanimity in Art 115 since I can see a Dáil ratifying changes which make e.g. Art 121 and Art 126 more binding (since they're already pretty binding on us) but I cannot see them "risking" the CT rate.

If the changes don't require a referendum we'll presumably have a litany of complaints about how it's "undemocratic". A point of view which will entirely ignore the fact that the Irish constitution prescribes what triggers a referendum, and that avoiding changes that would trigger a referendum here means avoiding changes that impact our sovereignty, which is in theory what those complaining would want to vote No to avoid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

beeftotheheels

Scofflaw wrote: »

If the changes don't require a referendum we'll presumably have a litany of complaints about how it's "undemocratic". A point of view which will entirely ignore the fact that the Irish constitution prescribes what triggers a referendum, and that avoiding changes that would trigger a referendum here means avoiding changes that impact our sovereignty, which is in theory what those complaining would want to vote No to avoid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Quite!

censuspro

View wrote: »

Most Legislators are usually more educated about legislation than people who are not legislators, much as, let's say, dentists are usually more educated about dentistry than people who aren't dentists.

It isn't just an accident that states opt for and continue to use parliamentary democracy.

You're not comparing like with like. A dentist is a qualified professional who has spent years studying and practising medicine, politicians are not professional legislators. I'm aware that some of our politicans have practised or studied law however most of our politicians are not from a legal background.

eire4

Lets hope our government shows a bit of backbone and actually negotiates hard if there is to be treay changes. Demand some debt relief and reduce the burden being put on the majority of Irish people who didn't cause these problems but who are being saddled with carrying the can.

carveone

It's quite mindblogging that people are already voting No to something that we don't know the first thing about. Has even a single word been written down? I'm speechless...

Anyway, Germany's constitution "does not permit devolving budget control to a European institution" as Merkel herself said. Does that mean a referendum in Germany? That'll be a first.

meglome

eire4 wrote: »

Lets hope our government shows a bit of backbone and actually negotiates hard if there is to be treay changes. Demand some debt relief and reduce the burden being put on the majority of Irish people who didn't cause these problems but who are being saddled with carrying the can.

So the majority of the Irish people didn't vote for policies that promised to give-away more and more while spending more and more. Not the way I remember it.

carveone wrote: »

It's quite mindblogging that people are already voting No to something that we don't know the first thing about. Has even a single word been written down? I'm speechless...

No your not, you were around for the Lisbon 'debate'.

carveone wrote: »

Anyway, Germany's constitution "does not permit devolving budget control to a European institution" as Merkel herself said. Does that mean a referendum in Germany? That'll be a first.

Binding referenda are not allowed in Germany so I would assume the parliament can approve it.

carveone

meglome wrote: »

No your not, you were around for the Lisbon 'debate'.

Damn! Can't get away with anything around here!

Binding referenda are not allowed in Germany so I would assume the parliament can approve it.

Ok, Thanks. I don't know the first thing on how Germany would ratify a change to their constitution. I didn't want to guess (but did anyway, it's a hobby).

View

censuspro wrote: »

You're not comparing like with like. A dentist is a qualified professional who has spent years studying and practising medicine,

True, but the example could be replaced with - let's say - a master carpenter or indeed many other trades or professions.

censuspro wrote: »

politicians are not professional legislators.

Members of a Legislature are professional legislators if they are getting paid since they clearly aren't (unpaid) amateurs.

censuspro wrote: »

I'm aware that some of our politicans have practised or studied law however most of our politicians are not from a legal background.

The "output" of a Legislature is legislation and clearly anybody involved in this process on a day-to-day basis is going to know more about legislation than you or I who aren't involved in it.

As someone once commented, politics is a unique profession as - unlike any other profession - the more involved a person is in it, the less expert they are deemed by the public to be about it.

Amtmann

Does the European Council have to meet in public? I'm pretty sure there was an article in the Constitutional Treaty that said it did, but I think the article was killed in Lisbon.

View

cyberhog wrote: »

Merkel the Merciless wants more Europe, and more Europe means less Irish sovereignty.

It is perfectly possible to have "more Europe" without it meaning "less Irish sovereignty".

The Supreme Court could well take the attitude that rule changes to how the Euro operates don't impact Irish sovereignty as - in the Crotty judgment - it ruled that most changes in the SEA to how the then European Communities Treaties operated did not impact on sovereignty - bar the new CFSP area - and that the "sovereignty issues" for those changes had been approved in the 1972 referendum.

Scofflaw

Tremelo wrote: »

Does the European Council have to meet in public? I'm pretty sure there was an article in the Constitutional Treaty that said it did, but I think the article was killed in Lisbon.

TEU Article 16:

8. The Council shall meet in public when it deliberates and votes on a draft legislative act. To this end, each Council meeting shall be divided into two parts, dealing respectively with deliberations on Union legislative acts and non-legislative activities.

Note that that's the Council of Ministers, not the European Council.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Tremelo wrote: »

Does the European Council have to meet in public? I'm pretty sure there was an article in the Constitutional Treaty that said it did, but I think the article was killed in Lisbon.

If you mean, the Council (of Ministers), I think the answer is Yes. If you mean the European Council (of heads of state), I think the answer is No.

Amtmann

Yes, I meant the council that is composed of the heads of state.

Scofflaw

Tremelo wrote: »

Yes, I meant the council that is composed of the heads of state.

No, that's pretty fundamentally inter-governmental, with all that that implies. I'm not sure there was anything in the Constitution either, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ArmaniJeanss

cavedave wrote: »

Can anyone tell me if any of these assertions are not true or likely not true?

1. A referendum wont get passed here. (I am not arguing here about whether it should or not.)
It could be a landslide Yes or a landslide No, or close either way! It depends on the campaigns and the No side of these things generally has greater potential to amass popular support as the Yes side are hamstrung by the sheer boring tedium of the text of the treaty.
My gut instinct would be a Yes 55% fwiw. (Obviously ludicrous to be estimating this when we have little more than an inkling of the text).

2. Leaving the euro would require leaving the EU
There are countries currently in the EU but not the Euro, so leaving the Euro should not automatically mean leaving the EU. It should just bring us down to the level (or up to the level) of Sweden, Denmark, UK etc.

3. The referendum would be to make rules that are required to keep the euro.
This seems to be what Sarkozy and Merkel said.

4. Greece was already told a referendum would be on staying within the euro. "Euro zone leaders made plain this would effectively be a referendum on the country's membership of the euro bloc". So at least the possibility of voting yourself out of the EU has now been made by euro zone leaders.
You are crisscrossing between EU and Euro there, not quite sure what you mean.

5. Intrade gives 40% chance that someone will say they will leave the euro in 2012.
It seems to be a fivers and tenners market, possibly not worth reading into too much?

Is the only way of squaring this information that no referendum will be held?
Would expect the government to do everything to try to avoid a referendum.
And as Scofflaw points out one would be needed for this sort of large change.

.

cyberhog

View wrote: »

It is perfectly possible to have "more Europe" without it meaning "less Irish sovereignty".

What you said was

there is no reason to suppose that any proposed changes might effect sovereignty.

Not true. I gave you a reason in my last post. Van Rompuy made it quite clear that further integration will "entail a sacrifice of sovereignty" Ignoring what he said will not suddenly provide your position accuracy which wasn't there to begin with.

Shattered Dreamer

Eventually the EU are going to try & federalize the entire system but I hate that they're being underhanded by trying to get us to agree to it in baby steps.

carveone

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

2. Leaving the euro would require leaving the EU
There are countries currently in the EU but not the Euro, so leaving the Euro should not automatically mean leaving the EU. It should just bring us down to the level (or up to the level) of Sweden, Denmark, UK etc.

4. Greece was already told a referendum would be on staying within the euro. "Euro zone leaders made plain this would effectively be a referendum on the country's membership of the euro bloc". So at least the possibility of voting yourself out of the EU has now been made by euro zone leaders.
You are crisscrossing between EU and Euro there, not quite sure what you mean.

Beeftotheheels explained it in another thread somewhere. In essence, the current treaties have no provision for leaving the euro, so the current situation is that leaving the euro involves leaving the EU.

This happens because leaving the Euro involves putting a set of rather unfriendly rules in places, like imposing viscious credit controls and banning lawsuits and possibly imposing martial law and border controls and generally acting against all the laws present in the treaties.

If you want or need to violate EU law in this manner, then you cannot be part of the EU. This is what the Commission was saying in regards to the Greece situation - a vote on the next bailout would result in a set of circumstances (ie: the vaporisation of their banks) that require Greece to leave the Euro. And thus the EU.

They Commission had to make that clear in order to give the Greek people all the information they required. And then papers here started reporting that information release as an "attack on their sovereignty". But that's another big long thread

Scofflaw

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

Eventually the EU are going to try & federalize the entire system but I hate that they're being underhanded by trying to get us to agree to it in baby steps.

A very common point of view, but not really any less illogical for that. The EU moves forward by small steps because it's experimental - cooperating on x seems necessary/useful, try cooperating on x, see whether it works well, if it does, try a bit more, if it doesn't, don't.

And, sure, part of the point there is to let people adjust to the cooperation, get used to it. If they don't, that particular area of integration will just stop until people are happy enough with it for integration to move forward again.

I appreciate that for someone who opposes integration, that is apparently outrageously sinister, as you've just said - but if people are OK with integration in a given area, then what's the problem exactly? It seems the issue is that other people then accept something you personally don't accept - but if the majority do accept something, your fundamental problem is that you're in a minority, which means that in a democratic system, you're basically on the losing side.

I also appreciate that nobody really wants to think of their personal point of view as the unpopular one, so it's very common for people in that position to pretend to themselves that their opponents are somehow cheating - hence the constant eurosceptical shouting about things being undemocratic, and the people being tricked. You'll find exactly the same sort of thing in any fringe group, because it's a necessary psychological defence against the fact that one is in a minority.

In truth, the problem is much simpler - integration has had a largely positive (if often irritating) outcome, so it commands majority support in a general sense. That's not to say that people are gung-ho integrationists - obviously they're not - just that because the outcome has been generally positive, they're generally disposed to accept further experimentation. The larger the change, the more suspicious and resistant people are to it, which is fair enough, because the bigger the potential downside risk to it - but the majority are not opposed to integration in principle. The proof of that is that integration has moved forward, through both representative and popular votes, which it couldn't have done if people opposed it.

The problem for eurosceptics, it seems to me, is democracy, because the will of the majority is what has allowed integration to move forward.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Shattered Dreamer

Giving the EU the right to be "experimental" with sovereignty is utter madness. The European experiment, in particular the Euro, will fail regardless of what treaty changes France & Germany come up with.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Jacques-Delors-Says-Eurozone-skynews-1374130662.html?x=0 Jacques Delors former President of the European Commission seems to think so.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think that's remotely likely, because other countries won't stand for it either. What's likely is a Brussels veto on doing things in your budget that are likely to blow up in everybody's faces - and from what I've seen, that's what's on the table.

Well that's the same as saying that Brussels has the final say on our future budgets - which means that the EU as a whole is the arbiter of what happens in terms of our taxation and public spending. (Essentially making the EU a parliamentary upper house in budgetary terms)

Is this necessary for the long term survival of the euro?
Probably.
Is the retention of a single currency worth the creation of a federal union?
Probably not.

carveone

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well that's the same as saying that Brussels has the final say on our future budgets - which means that the EU as a whole is the arbiter of what happens in terms of our taxation and public spending. (Essentially making the EU a parliamentary upper house in budgetary terms)

I don't know what the plan is but I don't think it will be as simple as "Brussels has final say". My guess is the Council and Parliament will review budgetary proposals in a broad sense and come back with comments on how this will affect the EU has a whole. No one wants to get involved in the nitty gritty. Like the upper house - I guess that's an appropriate analogy alright.

Besides, the current budgetary method isn't great either. It's always hints and rumours and then surprise! Santy's brought you a VAT increase. Thanks Santy...