EU Constitution a go

[Colonel Olrik]

Questions: under this constitution, will Europe be a free-trade zone? Is it already?

Dude, you're late 30 years.

[Colonel Olrik]

I'm not complaining but saying that BOTH sides have benefited from the EU expansion not just the new entries as Thanas is claiming.
EDIT: Of course Croatia has a National bank, every country does however most of the market was bought off by west since they had far more money and we had to relax national barriers because of EU entry negotiations.

Sure, but let's not delude ourselves about who gained by far the most. Like it's my tax money that's going to Croatia now and in the foreseable future, not viceversa.

[Kane Starkiller]

And is that tax money offset by all the revenue Western companies will generate by owning all that stuff I just listed? See there are no Western companies owned by Croatia's companies so that flow will be one sided. Not to mention Croatia is still not part of EU yet a large chunk of our economy is already owned by West due to national barrier lowering and cash has been flowing into Germany, Italy, France etc for some time.

[Thanas]

Oh, a lovely strawman. No, you do get left behind if you act like a spoilt child and if you demand more than your fair share. But please, tell me what good rational argument is there against signing the treaty?

What fair share? Countries joined the EU which had a certain nature. Now some want to change that nature but others don't. Why are those not wanting the change being "spoiled children"?

Are you being purposefully dense? Did you somehow miss all those statements of intent? One of the main goals of the EU is bringing Europe closer together. You'd have to purposefully stick your head in the sand to miss that the goal of the EU is integrate them more closely.

One of the changes is the switch from unanimity to qualified majority. A major sovereignty concession which I support but don't expect others to automatically support. I also think that it's up to the proposers to justify and clearly explain the benefits their countries get at the cost of certain degree of autonomy.

Ah, so the fearmongering and scaremongering is the fault of the EU members. Yeah, right.

Which was a vote on national politics instead of a vote on the EU. The EU constitution was rejected because the french wanted to vote against Chirac, not against the EU.

They voted NO and I won't presume to read their thoughts and neither should you.

That would be a valid argument if studies had not shown that this was a vote on Chirac.

Yes. And what is your evidence of Ireland, UK, Poland and the Czech bailing? Ireland is not going to bail, Poland likewise will not and as for the UK and the Czech, nobody knows at the moment.

You seem intent on generating a conflict in opinion with me where none exists. I said, as you can see for yourself in previous posts, that HAD the Irish rejected the treaty the opposition in those countries would likely be greater thus it would not be as simple as leaving Ireland behind because that would cause the fragmentation of EU.

Ah, so you were wasting time on a hypothetical you cannot support with one shred of argument besides "I think".

I do support the EU but I don't think there is a burning rush to revolutionize EU TODAY at the expense of other members. I see nothing wrong with two steps forward one step back approach if it will ultimately result in both current EU intact and deeper integration not today but in 5 years.

I see that there is something wrong - it would be selling the EU for a cheap thing that can be manipulated by whomever wishes to do so. If the vast majority of states decides to go ahead, then the rest might just be forced to get in line. That is the way it goes if you join a club. You can't expect 90% of the club members to put their plans on hold just because others do not feel like it. It is not fair. Especially not when effectively one country is paying for most of the EU.

Sod off. Nobody is pushing the Netherlands, Denmark or Slovakia around currently. Define being pushed around. If being pushed around means that the vote of every of your citizens counts a multitude more than the vote of a german or french citizen, then oh no, so sorry for them.

Are you arguing that many smaller countries don't feel pushed around? I never said that that perception is true merely that it exists and it could undermine the Union.

My neighbour's dog could undermine the union by biting sarkozy tomorrow. The reason that this fear exists is precisely because of fearmongering and because people are idiots. Nobody who has even read the current treaties or looked at the history of the EU would dream of thinking "oh noes, I am being pushed around". So in short, you have no argument besides a vague appeal to fears.

Also, why should larger members not get more power than smaller ones? I am seriously asking. At the moment, Germany is paying the lions share of the EU, why should its opinion not matter more than that of, say, the Czechs, Ireland or Malta?

I honestly don't see why you feel the need to attack me personally for pointing out sentiments that are known to exist in smaller countries.

Because anyone who has those sentiments has not read up on the EU structure.

And you are an idiot if you really think this is what happened. "You're welcome as long as you sit in a corner and do as you're told" has never been employed in the history of the European Union and you should know that.

But quite frankly, arguing with you is a waste of time. You clearly think the EU is a huge giant monster dominated by the eeevil french and germans who want to have all of Europe to do their bidding. Yeah, right. Too bad that is not reflected in any way by reality. Ireland, for example, has received more than 50 billions in subsidies. And what have they brought to the table in return?

This is not being pushed around. This is biting the hand that feeds them. The EU can do very well without Ireland. The opposite is clearly not the case.

Let me tell you something about my country. As part of the negotiations for EU accession one of the terms was to allow EU firms free movement in our market. One of the consequences of that is that practically the entire banking sector is now owned by Raiffesen bank, Erste Steiermerkishe bank, Hypo Alpe adria bank, Intesa Sanpaolo (Italy), Unicredit Group (Italy) and Societe Generale. Our national telecommunication company was bought by T-Com as an other example. Huge chunks of our country were easily bought off by interests in Germany, France, Italy and Austria directly as a result of relaxation of regulations as terms of entry into EU and this is not unique to our country. The process was previously replicated in Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia etc. And you sit there telling me they brought "nothing to the table" because of the piddly subsidies you gave them while buying their entire economies.

Are you an idiot? Why, I think you are. Please tell me when Germany bought the entire economy of Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. And after you have done so, please tell me why it is a bad thing if it even happened. Poland will have received about 87 billions by 2013. The Czech Republic will have received 22 billions at the same time. Slovakia will have received 14 billion. Those are not piddly subsidies.

And the buying off companies by foreign competitors is nothing new. German companies are bought and sold every day by foreign investory, I don't get why you are upset about this. It is not like Germany is trying to plunder Croatia here (which would be odd, considering what went down when you guys got your independence).

[Thanas]

And is that tax money offset by all the revenue Western companies will generate by owning all that stuff I just listed? See there are no Western companies owned by Croatia's companies so that flow will be one sided. Not to mention Croatia is still not part of EU yet a large chunk of our economy is already owned by West due to national barrier lowering and cash has been flowing into Germany, Italy, France etc for some time.

Alright. I demand that you now produce proof that the money flowing out of Croatia is still
a) larger than the subsidies
b) larger than the money pouring in (investments and the like)
c) larger than the profits gained by those investments in croatia (like people getting jobs).

Put up or shut up.

[Colonel Olrik]

You're vision of the economy resembles the sacking of a defeated country for war reparations. money has flowed into Croatia's economy for those purchases and investments and group consolidation at European level is part of what the EU is all about. Your businessmen will have access to a market of 500 million people, and you will be able to work and study wherever you desire. Besides, of course, the billions in structural funding. These are the reasons a country such as yours benefit in the long run (like mine did).

[Colonel Olrik]

Drats. Thanas is faster and more engaged than I am with my iPod. Time to sleep.

[Kane Starkiller]

Are you being purposefully dense? Did you somehow miss all those statements of intent? One of the main goals of the EU is bringing Europe closer together. You'd have to purposefully stick your head in the sand to miss that the goal of the EU is integrate them more closely.

Yes "closer together". What does that mean? A federal state? A unitary state? What is the end goal? Some want to stop sooner rather than later.

Ah, so the fearmongering and scaremongering is the fault of the EU members. Yeah, right.

Poland and Czech Republic and Ireland are EU MEMBERS.

That would be a valid argument if studies had not shown that this was a vote on Chirac.

So they rejected EU constitution just to stick i to Chirac? This doesn't exactly prove your point that Netherlands and France are certain to go ahead with the further integration even if Ireland, UK and Poland back down.

Ah, so you were wasting time on a hypothetical you cannot support with one shred of argument besides "I think".

I responded to your hypothetical answer on what would've happened if the Irish rejected the treaty. You said that those "willing" would go ahead. I responded that "willing" might turn out not to be as numerous as you think thus leading to the end of EU project.

I see that there is something wrong - it would be selling the EU for a cheap thing that can be manipulated by whomever wishes to do so. If the vast majority of states decides to go ahead, then the rest might just be forced to get in line. That is the way it goes if you join a club. You can't expect 90% of the club members to put their plans on hold just because others do not feel like it. It is not fair. Especially not when effectively one country is paying for most of the EU.

If UK, Poland, Czech Republic and Ireland have doubts then that is a serious chunk of EU population about 22%. Seeing as how Netherlands and France also said NO to EU constitution there are doubts. We are at a critical point and pushing too hard could break the EU for good.

My neighbour's dog could undermine the union by biting sarkozy tomorrow. The reason that this fear exists is precisely because of fearmongering and because people are idiots. Nobody who has even read the current treaties or looked at the history of the EU would dream of thinking "oh noes, I am being pushed around". So in short, you have no argument besides a vague appeal to fears.

Also, why should larger members not get more power than smaller ones? I am seriously asking. At the moment, Germany is paying the lions share of the EU, why should its opinion not matter more than that of, say, the Czechs, Ireland or Malta?

That depends on what model you wish to base EU. Should it be a kind of meta state where states itself are "individuals" in a democracy? In that case Bill Gates has one vote just like a homeless person so Germany paying this or that shouldn't make a difference. Or should EU be more like a Federal state? I would rather see a Federal like EU where each individual citizen has equal voice but this would actually reduce the power of Germany. Parliament is currently very limited in it's powers and all the true deals are really made in person to person discussion between heads of state and this is where Germanies size comes into play.

Are you an idiot? Why, I think you are. Please tell me when Germany bought the entire economy of Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. And after you have done so, please tell me why it is a bad thing if it even happened. Poland will have received about 87 billions by 2013. The Czech Republic will have received 22 billions at the same time. Slovakia will have received 14 billion. Those are not piddly subsidies.

And the buying off companies by foreign competitors is nothing new. German companies are bought and sold every day by foreign investory, I don't get why you are upset about this. It is not like Germany is trying to plunder Croatia here (which would be odd, considering what went down when you guys got your independence).

Did I say it's a bad thing? I said the benefit is mutual and not one sided. Buying foreign companies is indeed nothing new but Eastern Europe was much poorer than Western Europe so buyoff was one sided. For example Volkswagen bought Skoda. You subsidize Czech economy it grows, Skoda grows and in revenue pours into Volkswagen. As Eastern Europe grows subsidies will diminish but the ownership structure West->East will be far more permanent.
I'm certainly grateful at how quickly Germany recognized our state and for everything Helmut Kohl did for our fledgling country but it was also in German interest to break down Serb dominated Yugoslavia and reduce Russian influence there.

Alright. I demand that you now produce proof that the money flowing out of Croatia is still
a) larger than the subsidies
b) larger than the money pouring in (investments and the like)
c) larger than the profits gained by those investments in croatia (like people getting jobs).

Put up or shut up.

a)Croatia is not a member so subsidies are roughly 0 while there are 2.8 million T-com subscribers in Croatia for example.
b),c) I never claimed Croatia won't benefit only that the benefit is MUTUAL.

You're vision of the economy resembles the sacking of a defeated country for war reparations. money has flowed into Croatia's economy for those purchases and investments and group consolidation at European level is part of what the EU is all about. Your businessmen will have access to a market of 500 million people, and you will be able to work and study wherever you desire. Besides, of course, the billions in structural funding. These are the reasons a country such as yours benefit in the long run (like mine did).

Yes MUTUAL benefit. All I'm saying is that the idea that Eastern Europe is some kind of ungrateful child and that only it benefited from joining is ridiculous. Subsidies might be flowing from the West but in a free market that Eastern Europe agreed to when it joined up big Western companies had a huge advantage over much poorer East thus buying many sectors of it's economy. Thus even subsidies find their way into companies ultimately owned by the West.
East needed investment and West wanted to get richer.

[Stark]

I'm uninformed here, but is Kane saying his country chose to become involved with EU, recieved subsidies etc, and now wants to call a halt to the movement towards closeness because if their own fears? That sounds pretty funny.

[Kane Starkiller]

Am I that boring that people are incapable of reading my posts? I already stated my country doesn't receive subsidies because we aren't a member yet, that I only used my country as an example of how accession benefits both new and old members and that without passing judgment on Euroscepticism (which I am NOT) I'm saying that it currently is widespread in many EU countries like UK, Poland etc. and that we should thread carefully instead of pushing the treaty with the "coalition of the willing" because that could lead to a major fragmentation and ultimately the end of EU.

[Stark]

Sorry. I got the sense that you felt smaller countries who benefitted from the EU were now entitled to stop the 'centralisation' (if that's the right word), having got what they wanted. I may have confused your attitude with the attitude you are discussing.

[Netko]

Kane, we actually do receive subsidies from certain pre-accession EU funds (the biggest being the PHARE program) going back all the way to 1999, but the sums are limited so far (less then a billion € overall).

Direct investment from EU countries' companies (that would include the mentioned takeovers), according to Eurostat, have so far been roughly 40-50 billion € (data up to 2006), with an annual rate of return of 7% for 2006 (when investments from EU members totaled ~12bn €) and higher previously, so its definitely a two way street, where both benefit - and lets be honest here for a moment, you know very well the competence and corruptness of our local political and economic leaders and related hanger-ons - those companies are better off in foreign hands as long as local jobs are maintained. As you already mentioned, the financial industry has been a favorite, along with the telcos.

Anyhow, while we're on the subject of Croatia, to tie it in with the actual thread topic, the passage of the Treaty in Ireland is a huge deal for us because the Treaty fixes the structural problems of the EU which would have prevented further enlargement (several things were fixed to a maximum of 27 members in current treaties). The contingency plans for our entry in case of the failing of the Treaty were not pretty or simple. Because of that very simple selfish reason (I'm very pro-EU), I'm really glad the Irish voted for the Treaty. Other then that - it, as well as the failed constitution out of who's ashes it rose, contain truly necessary changes to make the union function. What is often overlooked is that the basic structure of the current union was created with the initial 15 members in mind; with almost a doubling of the number of members, and planned further expansion, its not surprising that some solutions require revisiting.

[Siege]

I hate it when people in smaller countries whine about how the big bad EU is going to be all representative, meaning that bigger countries which pay more money and have more citizens will have more to say in the overall scheme of things than smaller countries that have fewer people in 'em and pay less. I see it all the time around here too. Oh no, the humanity! Germany will have more votes than us! I mean, it only has five times more citizens than the Netherlands, surely it is unfair that it has more of a say in what goes and what does not! For God's sake, get a bleeding grip. I'm not exactly overjoyed at the prospect of losing influence, but at least I can recognize when it makes sense for it to happen...

[Thanas]

Yes "closer together". What does that mean? A federal state? A unitary state? What is the end goal? Some want to stop sooner rather than later.

Here's the deal, though. Everybody agreed to the constitution when it was proposed. It was the first reform attempt. The first. And then have countries trying to sabotage that....what?

Ah, so the fearmongering and scaremongering is the fault of the EU members. Yeah, right.

Poland and Czech Republic and Ireland are EU MEMBERS.

Which has nothing to do with my point and you know it. My point is that there are no rational arguments against this treaty that do not come down to blatant scaremongering.

So they rejected EU constitution just to stick i to Chirac? This doesn't exactly prove your point that Netherlands and France are certain to go ahead with the further integration even if Ireland, UK and Poland back down.

First, could you please use at least a fifth-level grade of english? Thank you.
Second, now that Chirac is gone, yes it does. It also means that you cannot say that the people in those countries are opposed to EU membership or EU reform.

I responded to your hypothetical answer on what would've happened if the Irish rejected the treaty. You said that those "willing" would go ahead. I responded that "willing" might turn out not to be as numerous as you think thus leading to the end of EU project.

Yeah, and you did so by naming...four nations, of which only two have decent-sized populaces. Oh noes, what will happen if four nations are gone? It is not like there would still be 23 left, right?

I see that there is something wrong - it would be selling the EU for a cheap thing that can be manipulated by whomever wishes to do so. If the vast majority of states decides to go ahead, then the rest might just be forced to get in line. That is the way it goes if you join a club. You can't expect 90% of the club members to put their plans on hold just because others do not feel like it. It is not fair. Especially not when effectively one country is paying for most of the EU.

If UK, Poland, Czech Republic and Ireland have doubts then that is a serious chunk of EU population about 22%. Seeing as how Netherlands and France also said NO to EU constitution there are doubts. We are at a critical point and pushing too hard could break the EU for good.

Hey, idiot. This is the third time you bring out that freaking french no which had nothing to do with the constitution. Stop arguing that way or I will bring this to the attention of the mods for blatant rule-breaking. And what "we" are at a critical point? Your state is not a member, so don't go around talking about "we". And there is no indication about the EU fragmenting over this anyway, so your horror scenario has no bearing on your arguments anyway.

My neighbour's dog could undermine the union by biting sarkozy tomorrow. The reason that this fear exists is precisely because of fearmongering and because people are idiots. Nobody who has even read the current treaties or looked at the history of the EU would dream of thinking "oh noes, I am being pushed around". So in short, you have no argument besides a vague appeal to fears.

Also, why should larger members not get more power than smaller ones? I am seriously asking. At the moment, Germany is paying the lions share of the EU, why should its opinion not matter more than that of, say, the Czechs, Ireland or Malta?

That depends on what model you wish to base EU. Should it be a kind of meta state where states itself are "individuals" in a democracy? In that case Bill Gates has one vote just like a homeless person so Germany paying this or that shouldn't make a difference. Or should EU be more like a Federal state? I would rather see a Federal like EU where each individual citizen has equal voice but this would actually reduce the power of Germany.

Why?

Parliament is currently very limited in it's powers and all the true deals are really made in person to person discussion between heads of state and this is where Germanies size comes into play.

Holy idiocy, you have obviously never read the text of the EU reform treaty.

Are you an idiot? Why, I think you are. Please tell me when Germany bought the entire economy of Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. And after you have done so, please tell me why it is a bad thing if it even happened. Poland will have received about 87 billions by 2013. The Czech Republic will have received 22 billions at the same time. Slovakia will have received 14 billion. Those are not piddly subsidies.

And the buying off companies by foreign competitors is nothing new. German companies are bought and sold every day by foreign investory, I don't get why you are upset about this. It is not like Germany is trying to plunder Croatia here (which would be odd, considering what went down when you guys got your independence).

Did I say it's a bad thing? I said the benefit is mutual and not one sided. Buying foreign companies is indeed nothing new but Eastern Europe was much poorer than Western Europe so buyoff was one sided. For example Volkswagen bought Skoda. You subsidize Czech economy it grows, Skoda grows and in revenue pours into Volkswagen. As Eastern Europe grows subsidies will diminish but the ownership structure West->East will be far more permanent.

Easy counterexample - Germany and the USA. Guess who owned a majority of the European and of the German economy after the second world war? The ownership structure does not really matter in the age of global capitalism. For all you know, a german company could be 100% owned by chinese investors.

I'm certainly grateful at how quickly Germany recognized our state and for everything Helmut Kohl did for our fledgling country but it was also in German interest to break down Serb dominated Yugoslavia and reduce Russian influence there.

States do act in accord with their own interests - who knew?

Alright. I demand that you now produce proof that the money flowing out of Croatia is still
a) larger than the subsidies
b) larger than the money pouring in (investments and the like)
c) larger than the profits gained by those investments in croatia (like people getting jobs).

Put up or shut up.

a)Croatia is not a member so subsidies are roughly 0 while there are 2.8 million T-com subscribers in Croatia for example.
b),c) I never claimed Croatia won't benefit only that the benefit is MUTUAL.

Uh-huh. Sure you did. That is why you claimed that western europe bought the entire economies of the eastern world, creating a one-sided cashflow in return for piddly subsidies.
Also, nice try. You sure as hell get development aid.

Kane, we actually do receive subsidies from certain pre-accession EU funds (the biggest being the PHARE program) going back all the way to 1999, but the sums are limited so far (less then a billion € overall).

Direct investment from EU countries' companies (that would include the mentioned takeovers), according to Eurostat, have so far been roughly 40-50 billion € (data up to 2006), with an annual rate of return of 7% for 2006 (when investments from EU members totaled ~12bn €) and higher previously, so its definitely a two way street, where both benefit - and lets be honest here for a moment, you know very well the competence and corruptness of our local political and economic leaders and related hanger-ons - those companies are better off in foreign hands as long as local jobs are maintained. As you already mentioned, the financial industry has been a favorite, along with the telcos.

Anyhow, while we're on the subject of Croatia, to tie it in with the actual thread topic, the passage of the Treaty in Ireland is a huge deal for us because the Treaty fixes the structural problems of the EU which would have prevented further enlargement (several things were fixed to a maximum of 27 members in current treaties). The contingency plans for our entry in case of the failing of the Treaty were not pretty or simple. Because of that very simple selfish reason (I'm very pro-EU), I'm really glad the Irish voted for the Treaty. Other then that - it, as well as the failed constitution out of who's ashes it rose, contain truly necessary changes to make the union function. What is often overlooked is that the basic structure of the current union was created with the initial 15 members in mind; with almost a doubling of the number of members, and planned further expansion, its not surprising that some solutions require revisiting.

Kane Starkiller is an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about? News at 11.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Yes. And what is your evidence of Ireland, UK, Poland and the Czech bailing? Ireland is not going to bail, Poland likewise will not and as for the UK and the Czech, nobody knows at the moment.

If the Czechs ratify the treaty before the Conservatives win the next election, then Britain is in. If they don't, Cameron says that he's going to hold a referendum. The result of that would probably be a 'no' vote, to absolutely nobody's surprise. The Czechs effectively decide whether the UK votes no, or doesn't vote at all.

Personally, I hope the Czechs get off their arse and hurry up. I'm a Euroskeptic, but only because I think the EU is extravagantly wasteful, poorly managed and sometimes comes up with annoying laws that I don't like, not because I think it's actually a bad idea. Lisbon, I understand, is intended to make the whole thing more efficient, and it's thus a good thing.

[Kane Starkiller]

Here's the deal, though. Everybody agreed to the constitution when it was proposed. It was the first reform attempt. The first. And then have countries trying to sabotage that....what?

WHO agreed to the constitution? The people or their governments? Constitutional crisis began when people of France and Netherlands rejected it. What should've their governments do then? Proceed regardless?

Which has nothing to do with my point and you know it. My point is that there are no rational arguments against this treaty that do not come down to blatant scaremongering.

You are treating EU integration as some kind of moral imperative that should proceed unless someone can come up with a reason why not. I also support EU integration but am not about to demand everyone must agree with me. If others want to leave things as they are that is their right.

First, could you please use at least a fifth-level grade of english? Thank you.
Second, now that Chirac is gone, yes it does. It also means that you cannot say that the people in those countries are opposed to EU membership or EU reform.

Yeah, and you did so by naming...four nations, of which only two have decent-sized populaces. Oh noes, what will happen if four nations are gone? It is not like there would still be 23 left, right?


Hey, idiot. This is the third time you bring out that freaking french no which had nothing to do with the constitution. Stop arguing that way or I will bring this to the attention of the mods for blatant rule-breaking. And what "we" are at a critical point? Your state is not a member, so don't go around talking about "we". And there is no indication about the EU fragmenting over this anyway, so your horror scenario has no bearing on your arguments anyway.

What exactly is wrong with my english?
And are you honestly threatening me with mods if I use the results an official referendum because there were apparently some opinion polls later where people said that they were only doing it to spite Chirac?
"Do you approve the bill authorising the ratification of the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?"
"NO" 55%
Not to mention that Chirac doesn't exactly explain the rejection in Netherlands and Ireland.
You are saying it's not a big deal if 4 countries (even if UK and France are among them) leave. I would ask you why is such a big deal to further integrate Europe? Where is the fire? Where is this driving moral imperative that's so important EU should allow further fragmentation?
With Irish YES on the referendum it's entirely likely treaty will be accepted and if that is the case good on them but it's not exactly life or death issue.

Holy idiocy, you have obviously never read the text of the EU reform treaty.

Yes I have but if you disagree by all means POINT to the Article or a Protocol that disproves my point rather than vaguely insinuating that answer is somewhere in the 200 pages of the treaty.

Easy counterexample - Germany and the USA. Guess who owned a majority of the European and of the German economy after the second world war? The ownership structure does not really matter in the age of global capitalism. For all you know, a german company could be 100% owned by chinese investors.

And it benefited the US economy didn't it? That's what I was saying about West Europe/East Europe relationship today.

States do act in accord with their own interests - who knew?

I did.

Uh-huh. Sure you did. That is why you claimed that western europe bought the entire economies of the eastern world, creating a one-sided cashflow in return for piddly subsidies.
Also, nice try. You sure as hell get development aid.

OK so I overstated when I said that subsidies were piddly which was a reaction to your continued accusations newer members brought nothing to the table.

Kane Starkiller is an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about? News at 11.

Since you completely ignored how free trade zone, to which much poorer Eastern Europe agreed when it joined EU, benefited the much richer Western Europe you are hardly in a position to call me an idiot for forgetting about the PHARE program.

[Thanas]

Here's the deal, though. Everybody agreed to the constitution when it was proposed. It was the first reform attempt. The first. And then have countries trying to sabotage that....what?

WHO agreed to the constitution? The people or their governments? Constitutional crisis began when people of France and Netherlands rejected it. What should've their governments do then? Proceed regardless?

The governments. And the referendum were repeated and voila, end of discussion.

Which has nothing to do with my point and you know it. My point is that there are no rational arguments against this treaty that do not come down to blatant scaremongering.

You are treating EU integration as some kind of moral imperative that should proceed unless someone can come up with a reason why not. I also support EU integration but am not about to demand everyone must agree with me. If others want to leave things as they are that is their right.

RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,

IN VIEW of further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration,

It is right in the preamble of the Maastricht treaty. Quit dodging. List some objections as to why EU integration should not proceed.

What exactly is wrong with my english?

You mean, asides from being littered with spelling mistakes?

And are you honestly threatening me with mods if I use the results an official referendum because there were apparently some opinion polls later where people said that they were only doing it to spite Chirac?

No, I am saying that you better start answering some points of mine. The board rules are quite clear on that.

Not to mention that Chirac doesn't exactly explain the rejection in Netherlands and Ireland. You are saying it's not a big deal if 4 countries (even if UK and France are among them) leave.

Learn to read - France is not going to leave. Neither are the Netherlands and Ireland. You are having a nice little tempest in a teapot here, but I honestly do not care about that.

I would ask you why is such a big deal to further integrate Europe? Where is the fire? Where is this driving moral imperative that's so important EU should allow further fragmentation?
With Irish YES on the referendum it's entirely likely treaty will be accepted and if that is the case good on them but it's not exactly life or death issue.

Asides from Europe having to come together instead of being a conglomerate of nations who all do what they want? Are you honestly that blind to history and to the rise of other powerful blocks of nations? If Europe does want to talk eye-to-eye with the USA, they have to integrate.

Holy idiocy, you have obviously never read the text of the EU reform treaty.

Yes I have but if you disagree by all means POINT to the Article or a Protocol that disproves my point rather than vaguely insinuating that answer is somewhere in the 200 pages of the treaty.

You, idiot, claimed that the treaty would reduce Germany's power. How so? I am still waiting for an answer to that. You claimed this would be because currently, most arrangements are made between the heads-of-states and if the European parliament would be reduced, that would be a bad thing because Germany's power would no longer come into full play.

Yeah, right. Germany has the largest numbers of EP members. It also still retains the right to go the head-of-state approach if necessary. So in short, your argument is wrong. Beforehand, a single nation could block everything. Now, that is no longer the case. So in reality, this treaty means an expansion of power by Germany, not a reduction.

And it benefited the US economy didn't it? That's what I was saying about West Europe/East Europe relationship today.

No, you were claiming that the West of Europe would buy the entire economies of the west in return for piddly subsidies, little child.

Kane Starkiller is an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about? News at 11.

Since you completely ignored how free trade zone, to which much poorer Eastern Europe agreed when it joined EU, benefited the much richer Western Europe you are hardly in a position to call me an idiot for forgetting about the PHARE program.

Which might be a nice point if this would be actually relevant when talking about European integration as a whole. As it isn't, I'd still be more than happy to call you an idiot for whining about "waaah. Baad western banks buy us. Waaah" when your tiny country that without outside help, especially from the EU, would not exist in the first place has received more than 70 billions in investments.

[Kane Starkiller]

The governments. And the referendum were repeated and voila, end of discussion.

It was not repeated in Netherlands and France. However I don't see a pressing need that it be repeated for Lisbon treaty. That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about the sentiment in those countries does it?

RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,

IN VIEW of further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration,

It is right in the preamble of the Maastricht treaty. Quit dodging. List some objections as to why EU integration should not proceed.

And I already asked you what is the end goal. It's not defined.

You mean, asides from being littered with spelling mistakes?

You mean the typo in my reply concerning Chirac when I typed "just to stick i to Chirac" instead of "just to stick it to Chirac"? You really are hell bent on generating conflict.

No, I am saying that you better start answering some points of mine. The board rules are quite clear on that.

No you said I'm not allow to invoke French rejection of the treaty because they didn't really really mean it.

Learn to read - France is not going to leave. Neither are the Netherlands and Ireland. You are having a nice little tempest in a teapot here, but I honestly do not care about that.

They don't need to leave for unity of the EU to be broken.

Asides from Europe having to come together instead of being a conglomerate of nations who all do what they want? Are you honestly that blind to history and to the rise of other powerful blocks of nations? If Europe does want to talk eye-to-eye with the USA, they have to integrate.

I agree fully. And this is the part where you don't push on leaving others behind because it defeats that purpose. Do you think US, China or Russia actually want to see a unified Europe as a monolithic political, economic and even military bloc? Whatever piece you dump they will pick up. Eastern Europe might not look significant today but it adds the strategic depth and size to the EU that Western Europe can never have by itself.

You, idiot, claimed that the treaty would reduce Germany's power. How so? I am still waiting for an answer to that. You claimed this would be because currently, most arrangements are made between the heads-of-states and if the European parliament would be reduced, that would be a bad thing because Germany's power would no longer come into full play.

Yeah, right. Germany has the largest numbers of EP members. It also still retains the right to go the head-of-state approach if necessary. So in short, your argument is wrong. Beforehand, a single nation could block everything. Now, that is no longer the case. So in reality, this treaty means an expansion of power by Germany, not a reduction.

Wrong I said "I would rather see a Federal like EU where each individual citizen has equal voice but this would actually reduce the power of Germany." Federal EU means that parliament powers are expanded therefore I said that expansion of parliament powers will reduce power of Germany not the reduction which you claim I said.
I am of the opinion that each EU citizen should have the same voice in the EU and the existence of institutions like Commission and Council reduces the democracy of the EU. For example Council can act by decision of a qualified majority which is 65% of the membership population. Germany and France alone have about 28% of the population which means that those two countries can relatively easy block any initiative they don't like while countries like Netherlands or Czech Republic have little chance of getting a veto coalition.
So the way it's set up is that big countries can still sort of have a veto while smaller can't.

No, you were claiming that the West of Europe would buy the entire economies of the west in return for piddly subsidies, little child.

In response to your claim that newcomers are "biting the hand that feeds them" and that they "brought nothing to the table". If I was wrong about the subsidies you were no more correct about them bringing nothing to the table.

Which might be a nice point if this would be actually relevant when talking about European integration as a whole. As it isn't, I'd still be more than happy to call you an idiot for whining about "waaah. Baad western banks buy us. Waaah" when your tiny country that without outside help, especially from the EU, would not exist in the first place has received more than 70 billions in investments.

You have it backwards. You started whining abut the ungrateful spoiled children that were the Eastern Europeans that bit the hand the fed them etc. etc. I responded by showing how much benefit West had from their joining. It was an error to play down the significance of the subsidies but not smaller than your ignorance of the way EU expansion eastwards benefited the West.
And there goes the "sit in your corner and be quiet" attitude again. You invested in our country (which didn't benefit you at all I'm sure) and we are tiny so I really have no business arguing with you. After all I'm a lowly Croat and you are, well, a German.

[Skgoa]

Here's the deal, though. Everybody agreed to the constitution when it was proposed. It was the first reform attempt. The first. And then have countries trying to sabotage that....what?

WHO agreed to the constitution? The people or their governments? Constitutional crisis began when people of France and Netherlands rejected it. What should've their governments do then? Proceed regardless?

The governments. And the referendum were repeated and voila, end of discussion.

... I can't even believe you actually wrote that. The fucking governments do NOT have the power to decide something of that importance. A constitution needs a referendum. (Its explicitly stated in the german constitution, even though it seems you don't even care...) Even if we forget all of your other strawmen and lies, we still have the simple fact that the EU citizens don't want this constitution. And no, repeating the referendum until you get the result you like is NOT the right way to do it.

[Stark]

How have you measured that 'EU citizens' do not want the constitution? If so, how many of them have even read it?

[Skgoa]

Have you read this thread? The irish, french and dutch have voted against it. Of the top of my head I can't remember any country that had a referendum where the citizens voted yes. Well ok, the irish re-referendum, but as I said before I don't consider that valid.

edit: and I think I saw some polls on it when it was still called a constitution and not a treaty, but take that with a grain of salt.
edit2: the very fact that they had to make it a treaty between governments because it did not have the neccessary public support to legaly be a real constitution is also telling.

[Crown]

... I can't even believe you actually wrote that. The fucking governments do NOT have the power to decide something of that importance. A constitution needs a referendum.

Says who, exactly? I mean, I know some people have a referendum clause within their own legal structure, but where does this myth that it is somehow 'mandated' or more appropriately 'needed' come from?

The simple matter is we (each of us) live in a representative democracy; that is elected officials are empowered to cast votes on these matters on our behalf.

And no, repeating the referendum until you get the result you like is NOT the right way to do it.

Why not, exactly? Are you actually naive enough to believe that people couldn't actually be voting on another topic/issue other than the question put forward in a referendum? Seriously? Take the Australian 'referendum' on whether we become a Republic or not; it wasn't actually a yes or no referendum question (as one would imagine) it was weighted as 'keep everything the same, or replace it with a republican model which polls show most Australians oppose?'

Wanna guess what happened? Yep the referendum got rejected. But that DOES NOT mean to say that the majority of Australians are opposed to republicanism, it's just the way the question was phrased was tailored to defeat the proposition.

[Teebs]

Have you read this thread? The irish, french and dutch have voted against it. Of the top of my head I can't remember any country that had a referendum where the citizens voted yes. Well ok, the irish re-referendum, but as I said before I don't consider that valid.

Second-order elections. Low turnout and people vote on domestic issues. Same reason as why the European Parliament is a joke.

edit: and I think I saw some polls on it when it was still called a constitution and not a treaty, but take that with a grain of salt.
edit2: the very fact that they had to make it a treaty between governments because it did not have the neccessary public support to legaly be a real constitution is also telling.

It has never been anything like what people think of when they say a 'constitution'. In my opinion the changes in the treaties of the 1990s were far more significant than the ones in Lisbon.

[Ritterin Sophia]

So let me see if I've got this right: Certain groups in and outside of the European Union are afraid that it is going to turn into the United States of Europe, thereby giving their nation access to more resources but in return ceding some control to a new larger Federal government which would be represented ala a House of Representatives system. This would be bad why?

PS: Hey guys, you're becoming like us, so I was thinking we should team up. I like your name better so we'll call it the North Atlantic Union. Eh? You like that?

[Mr Bean]

jonfromwigan the spambot is no longer with us. Please carry on with your existing thread.