EU Constitution a go

[Tiriol]

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?

On emotional side, many might feel that they no longer belong to, for example, Finnish nation, Swedish nation etc., but rather to a large US -style nation called "Europe". These people want to preserve their nation-states and not to become American-style states within a larger union. After all, how many Texans, for example, think of themselves as Texans first and US citizens second? Bear in mind, though, that I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, I'm just pointing it out.

Some also fear that EU as a federation would also mean the diminishment of common citizens' ability to affect the government and its choices. They have at least some experience with this problem with the current Union, even though the Treaty of Lisbon is supposed to reduce the bureaucratic mess of the EU and increase its democratic foundations. They simply do not trust that the EU would become MORE democratic or easier to understand and to influence.

[The Guid]

After all, how many Texans, for example, think of themselves as Texans first and US citizens second?

Just as an aside that's the one state in the union where I'd say that doesn't apply so much. You'll hear Texans go on and on about being Texans in my, granted limited, experience.

However this isn't a rebuttal, more a point of interest. I accept your point.

[Duckie]

After all, how many Texans, for example, think of themselves as Texans first and US citizens second?

Just as an aside that's the one state in the union where I'd say that doesn't apply so much. You'll hear Texans go on and on about being Texans in my, granted limited, experience.

However this isn't a rebuttal, more a point of interest. I accept your point.

In a survey, of 735 persons who describe their primary identity as Texan, 268 further describe themselves as "Texans first, Americans second". 7435 respondents describe themselves as American. If we assume that the survey, which is a national online survey, was equally spread among states and thus respondents are proportional to state population (not unlikely, but an assumption), then 7.61% of respondents would be Texan. This implies 565 Texans answered "American".

So, according to rough calculations on the CommonCensus Project data, 57% of Texans (approximately) consider themselves Texans as an identity when prompted, 21% explicitly Primarily Texan, Secondarily American.

[Coyote]

Yeah, Texas was probably the worst example to pick, but understandable.

But for most of the US States, yeah, we're "Americans" for the most part and then whatever regional affiliation we feel most connected to-- New York, or Boise, or Puget Sound, whatever strikes the individual's fancy.

Europe seems to be about halfway through our process-- ahead lie all the pros and cons of increasing closeness and federalization. But I think it will be a long, long time before Europe is anything more than a Confederacy at most, since there are so many language barriers and cultural barriers (and some left-over grievances, no doubt).

[Skgoa]

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.

Erm, no. The EU is being transformed into a US without general elections and with a House of Representatives that doesn't have much power to do anything but whine etc.
What do you mean by "more resources"?


And one thing about the debate/this thread in generall:
CAN WE PLEASE STOP THE STRAWMEN?
I have been a big fan of the EU for most of my live and I still am, I just have some issues with this particular Constitution/Treaty and I know many people who have the same feelings. This is NOT "waaaah, I don't want us to become stupid americans!", this is NOT "waaaah, I don't want my country to be ruled by foreigners"... This IS "waaah, I want to (democraticly) elect my gouvernment!", "waaaah, I want my constitution to be voted on by the people, as our current constitution demands!", "waaah, I don't want the commissioners be confirmed all at once but have seperate confirmation processes for each of them" etc.

This would be bad why?

Only an american could ask that...

[Starglider]

Good. Bug out, renegotiate on the grounds of the old EEC (which, IIRC, is effectively the status the Swiss have got) and start running the country from Westminster for a change.

Or as another way of looking at it, have to continue paying large fees to the EU and having to follow most of their laws anyway if we want to keep selling to them while losing out on our ability to wield massive influence within it by being one of the biggest countries by both economy and population.

What? Switzerland and Iceland do not pay large fees to the EU, and there is no reason why the UK would if it was in the EEA only. The UK has somewhat more influence than its population would suggest, but that's largely because we are one of the very few European powers that has any military power-projection capability.

[Ritterin Sophia]

What do you mean by "more resources"?

One solidified Europe would presumably have much laxer trading laws than even now, since they would not longer be exporting and importing out of the country, meaning more money can be spent between them.

Only an american could ask that...

TBH I'm only half joking about the North Atlantic Union thing.

[Darth Tanner]

One solidified Europe would presumably have much laxer trading laws than even now

I'm not quite sure what you mean but the EU is already a free trade zone, there are no exceptions to that as far as I'm aware.

My main problem with the Lisbon treaty is that it entrenches the democratic deficit, the exeuctive remains completely unelected and now with the added bonus of an unelected president and foreign minister whose purpose remains unclear seeing as a unified EU military force remains non existant and cohesive diplomacy is unlikely considering countries like Ireland are committed to neutrality.

but that's largely because we are one of the very few European powers that has any military power-projection capability.

For the moment, our naval capacity is about to take a hit when we have to scrap our carriers with no replacements for them.

[Laudon]

Our Constitutional court has decided today, that Lisbon treaty is conformable with the czech constitution. At 15:00 CET, Vaclav Klaus has signed the treaty.

[Starglider]

For the moment, our naval capacity is about to take a hit when we have to scrap our carriers with no replacements for them.

The UK has started building two supercarriers. France has one medium carrier and Italy and Spain have two light carriers each. That is the sum total of Europe's naval air strike capability.

[Darth Tanner]

The UK has started building two supercarriers.

Started being the key word, we simply don't have the money to actually finish construction and with the F33 being delayed we wouldn't have any aircraft to put on them even if they were finished. I read in private eye that they will be cancelled or at least postponed after the election as they are being built in low majority Labour constituencies right next door to Gordon Browns.

Anyone have any ideas on who will be appointed president/foreign minister? Our media is only going with UK politicians as potential candidates for some reason, probably because they can’t name any European ones.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

Started being the key word, we simply don't have the money to actually finish construction and with the F33 being delayed we wouldn't have any aircraft to put on them even if they were finished. I read in private eye that they will be cancelled or at least postponed after the election as they are being built in low majority Labour constituencies right next door to Gordon Browns.

That sounds like a load of uninformed rubbish. For a start, the aircraft are F-35s, not 33s and the completion date of the carriers has already been pushed back to match the new jets in-service date and ease the yearly budget strain they impose. The stuff about them being built "right next door to GBs constituency" also sounds highly suspect, as they are being built in pieces (a modular construction method used previously on the Type 45s) at various different locations by BAE and Vosper Thornycroft, and these pieces will be brought together for final assembly somewhere - probably on the Clyde.

Now, it wouldn't surprise me if the Navy got screwed out of one or even both of the carriers for some reason; but this isn't trimming a couple of destroyers from an order - the carriers are intended as the heart of the Royal Navys striking power for the next 50 years at least. A Tory government is going to have to think very hard about the damage it would do to their credibility amongst the average Tory voter if one of their first actions in office is gutting the RNs future ("Tories destroy Royal Navy" "Tories force Navy to rely on Euro carriers" etc...).

[Starglider]

A Tory government is going to have to think very hard about the damage it would do to their credibility amongst the average Tory voter if one of their first actions in office is gutting the RNs future ("Tories destroy Royal Navy" "Tories force Navy to rely on Euro carriers" etc...).

Significant cuts in military spending under the Tories are unlikely anyway, particularly in procurement. The last 50 years of UK history are replete with examples of Labor canceling technically brilliant and badly needed defence projects, usually when they are 80% complete and despite excellent export potential. The Tories usually make a best effort to fix the damage when they get back into power. In fact I suspect the only reason the military hasn't been cut back under the current government is that Blair needed the backing of the defence establishment for his crusade in the middle east.

[Siege]

Anyone have any ideas on who will be appointed president/foreign minister? Our media is only going with UK politicians as potential candidates for some reason, probably because they can’t name any European ones.

I keep hearing the same three names over and over for the position of president: Herman Van Rompuy, Jan Peter Balkenende and Jean-Claude Junker, respectively the Prime Ministers of Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxemburg. It'll have to be someone reputable, a solid politician with a good track record who hasn't made any enemies in Europe and frankly that rules out Tony 'Captain America' Blair -- in fact that pretty much means it'll probably be someone from a smaller country, hence the three names mentioned.

If I have to make a guess at this stage I'd say Van Rompuy is the man to watch, but I have to wonder if he wants the job: from what I can tell he finally managed to calm down Belgium's rather volatile political climate after they went through what, three PMs last year? Even if they ask him he might feel it more prudent to stay where he is right now.

[Edi]

I think the former prime minister of Finland, Paavo Lipponen, is one of the names that has been mentioned in some circles at least, but could be he's been sidelined, in which case Finland will fight for an influential Commission position.

[Thanas]

Anyone have any ideas on who will be appointed president/foreign minister? Our media is only going with UK politicians as potential candidates for some reason, probably because they can’t name any European ones.

I keep hearing the same three names over and over for the position of president: Herman Van Rompuy, Jan Peter Balkenende and Jean-Claude Junker, respectively the Prime Ministers of Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxemburg. It'll have to be someone reputable, a solid politician with a good track record who hasn't made any enemies in Europe and frankly that rules out Tony 'Captain America' Blair -- in fact that pretty much means it'll probably be someone from a smaller country, hence the three names mentioned.

If I have to make a guess at this stage I'd say Van Rompuy is the man to watch, but I have to wonder if he wants the job: from what I can tell he finally managed to calm down Belgium's rather volatile political climate after they went through what, three PMs last year? Even if they ask him he might feel it more prudent to stay where he is right now.

He'd also have to be small enough so that neither Italy, Spain, France nor Germany feel threatened, which means anybody from those four are out.