International Politics Thread

[denoir 0]

Europe rocked by winds of change [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

So this is the new European world.

To British eyes, a 25-member Union has attractions and drawbacks too. The chief attraction is that with so many new members, the days of French and German domination are over.

President Chirac's voluble frustration half-way through these interminable talks was a little moment of history all by itself: he had moved decisively with the Germans and his traditional allies to settle something important - looked around - and suddenly realised he didn't have the votes.

It is hard to over-state the change that expansion has brought, and which this new constitution gives shape to.

Everyone knew the expansion would change things, of course: but the full reality has not hit home until this weekend in Brussels.  That post-war idea of a Europe effectively moulded in the image of France and French interests, and funded by a compliant Germany, is now as jumpingly alive as the Holy Roman Empire.

The Slovenes, the Poles, and the Portuguese all have their views and all demand to be heard. But the other glaringly obvious shift brought about by expansion is simply how slow and cumbersome negotiations are between 25 different nations.

These talks had collapsed once before. Over the past 48 hours, they have advanced at the pace of an expiring slug.

Directionless bubble

Endless tiny hiccoughs and obscure puzzles have kept the prime ministers and officials talking, whey-faced with tiredness, long beyond the expected deadlines.

Their final deal was a triumph for the Irish presidency, and a triumph of British obstinancy, but it was above all a triumph of stamina This, of course, was a key reason for the new constitution in the first place. Fewer vetoes by single countries, and more powers for the centre are hailed by some federalist politicians, and feared by British anti-EU campaigners, as a decisive moment in the creation of a super-state.

True or not, a less dramatic explanation for these changes is simply that, without them or something like them, the wider EU would have simply collapsed into a directionless babble.

Now the leaders have finished the haggling, they have to start the selling.

This month's European elections ought to have been a rude blast in the ear for elite Euro-politicians about how bored and contemptuous many ordinary voters have become about the EU. In some countries, notably Britain, there will have to be a referendum. In others, parliaments will ratify the treaty, or not.

Late on Saturday night, an exhausted Tony Blair admitted the constitution was historic and that he had been wrong to try to avoid a referendum. It's an argument we need to have, he said. Millions of people who loathe the EU heartily agree.

'Toilettage'

And before we get there, the legal texts have to be translated and double-checked in a myriad of languages - a process given the faintly unpleasant name of toilettage, or cleaning-up.

Individual leaders will go back to individual countries and claim individual victories. Tony Blair will say he has defended his red lines.  Politically, he has been greatly helped by being attacked so publicly by the French president - though the Tories will point out that other issues once thought important for the British such as Labour hostility to a European foreign minister, or the EU having a full charter of fundamental rights, were quietly dropped long ago.

But perhaps the language of winners and losers among the political elites - a French victory or a victory for London over Berlin, or the small countries over the medium-sized ones - is now out of date.

Maybe the split is less between national governments than between Europe's political establishment, in general, and its electorates across the continent.

This wearisome negotiation, necessary or not, will not have had them switching over from the football. Their harder job now starts.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I was just thinking - if the UKIP and BNP and other moronic parties start having a say in the UK, and eventually the UK does pull out - what would Europe's response be? Would it be Napolionic in response? Or a sad shrug and continued business as usual?

I am thinking that the UK would not be able to survive a trade war with the EU - unless they get American help. Considering the pathetic propaganda that is being spouted off by Murdoch and the other Americans owning British newspapers, this sounds quite plausible.

Another thing that bugs me is the continued insistence on a referendum - if you have a representative democracy, you let the politicians do the decisions. You don't like the decisions, you change your votes. There is a reason why they are voted in - to not have referendums!

I have a feeling that the next year will be make or break for the EU.

[denoir 0]

I was just thinking - if the UKIP and BNP and other moronic parties start having a say in the UK, and eventually the UK does pull out - what would Europe's response be? Would it be Napolionic in response? Or a sad shrug and continued business as usual?

A bit of mixed emotions, I would believe. The UK is a big and important member state so the EU would lose in strength by losing it. On the other hand the UK has been a permanent pain in the ass and a lot of EU integration business would go much smoother.

The funny thing is that as it is now the UK can't pull out. It would be in violation of a number of treaties which in turn would result in sanctions that the UK can't survive (80% of its trade is with EU countries). The constitution on the other hand has a specified exit clause which allows a member state to pull out (with some conditions of course). So those that really want the UK out of the EU should be really positive to the constitution. UKIP and BNP are by opposing the constitution ruling out a UK pullout.

Quote[/b] ]I am thinking that the UK would not be able to survive a trade war with the EU - unless they get American help.

I don't think the Americans run a charity organization and I doubt the Britons would enjoy too much being dependant on charity.

Quote[/b] ]Another thing that bugs me is the continued insistence on a referendum - if you have a representative democracy, you let the politicians do the decisions. You don't like the decisions, you change your votes. There is a reason why they are voted in - to not have referendums!

I couldn't agree more. There is something of a democratic fundamentalism at play today. Nobody dares to suggest that the voters might not be qualified to make a deicision. Anybody against a referendum will be labeled as anti-democratic. And that's rubbish. The politicians have access to ecomic and political experts that can give them a much better picture of the situation than the average apathic voter that gets his very limited info from one or another politically biased media outlets.

Quote[/b] ]I have a feeling that the next year will be make or break for the EU.

It will be very defining. The EU won't go away, but it is a question of which form it should take.

Pro-EU federalists have every reason to be displeased with the current constitution. So the best thing from that point of view is that Britain or another EU-sceptic country votes no. That would lead to plan "B" which is a two-geared EU with two constitutions - one for the willing and one for the unwilling. That would mean that France, Germany, Belgium, Italy and probably most of the new members would get a very federalist constitution with deep political integration while the sceptics would get a very watered down version. It is pretty obvious that the sceptics will if nothing else because of economical reasons have to join the first group in the future.

And then they'll be forced to accept something that the others have written and what they had no say in. That would be great from the perspective of the others becuase they would get rid of the British obstruction of the integration.

[Bordoy 0]

It was just yesterday blair will not bow down to franco-german constitution (his words not mine) Did blair change anything or not?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

It was just yesterday blair will not bow down to franco-german constitution (his words not mine) Did blair change anything or not?

If you had bothered reading the above articles you would have realised that Blair made Chircan and Schroder bend over backwards over some issues.

Which rubbishes the claim by the BNP/UKIP morons that "the EU is mucking about Britain at will".

[Bordoy 0]

It was just yesterday blair will not bow down to franco-german constitution (his words not mine) Did blair change anything or not?

If you had bothered reading the above articles you would have realised that Blair made Chircan and Schroder bend over backwards over some issues.

Which rubbishes the claim by the BNP/UKIP morons that "the EU is mucking about Britain at will".

u think i could be arsed to read all that crap?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

It was just yesterday blair will not bow down to franco-german constitution (his words not mine) Did blair change anything or not?

If you had bothered reading the above articles you would have realised that Blair made Chircan and Schroder bend over backwards over some issues.

Which rubbishes the claim by the BNP/UKIP morons that "the EU is mucking about Britain at will".

u think i could be arsed to read all that crap?

If you can't be arsed to read all that crap, then don't waste our times in a debate with smart ass remarks that are based on nothing but rubbish from the Murdoch Empire.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]It would be a terrible mistake to put in an EMV. It would reinforce the problem that is in the core of the EU cooperation right now: national good rather than a common European good. It's the lack of belief that the EU Right now most nations are trying to grab as much power as possible, without regard for long-term effects. And the UK could be more than the sum of its parts.

just happens to be the ring-leader in that area.

Grab power? The UK isnt trying to grab power or siphon off resources (at least last time i checked), rather it is (through the Labour government) trying to maintain (or claiming to) what most of its citizens regard (rightly or wrongly) as the proper level of national control over various areas of government.

For one thing the UK is somewhat exceptional in the EU (lower level of tax than most of the old EU western european nations, slightly more laissez faire capitalism etc) so its not totally unexpected to see it negotiating for those exceptional circumstances to be taken account of. Plus there is the fact that most British people are relatively contented with what they have (decently performing and stable economy, very low unemployment) and are either uninterested in the EU, dont see it as an answer to whatever problems they do have, or they may even see the EU as the cause of some problems.

Whats wrong with the European Union developing integration at different speeds or even forestalling it in certain areas indefinitly? In America the different states seem to do fine with significantly less regulation and overall standardisation than is currently being proposed for the EU. I dont accept thats it too complicated to handle, each nation can handle its own level of EU 'compliance' just fine. Cant be must more complicated to organise than translating everything into every different language.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

It was just yesterday blair will not bow down to franco-german constitution (his words not mine) Did blair change anything or not?

If you had bothered reading the above articles you would have realised that Blair made Chircan and Schroder bend over backwards over some issues.

Bollocks, the EU aint just about France and Germany however much they want it to be, Just because we don't want to go head stong into it without even thinking twice is not a bad thing, just because we want to keep basic RIGHTS does not mean anything but that, you talk as though if we keep those rights the EU would collapse.

Quote[/b] ]Another thing that bugs me is the continued insistence on a referendum - if you have a representative democracy, you let the politicians do the decisions. You don't like the decisions, you change your votes. There is a reason why they are voted in - to not have referendums!

That's such utter BS, this thing will change how i live so if we are going to accept it i wanna vot for it.

[denoir 0]

That's such utter BS, this thing will change how i live so if we are going to accept it i wanna vot for it.

Now, my ill-educated friend, would you mind pointing out one or two things that would change with the constitution?

Specific things. Not vague rethorics.

IsthatyouJohnWayne: I'll reply tomorrow. It requires a more lenghty answer which I don't have time to write now.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

no we were just ensure that down the road that we keep basic things, i really dont see the problem in that eg tax hamonisation (Which is bad imho), immigration policy, Taxes.

[denoir 0]

no we were just ensure that down the road that we keep basic things, i really dont see the problem in that eg tax hamonisation (Which is bad imho), immigration policy, Taxes.

Funny you should mention those. They are the most common misconceptions.

EU vote is 'reality against myth' [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

The YouGov poll of nearly 1,300 people showed voters would reject the constitution by 49% to 23%.

A majority had believed the UK would no longer be able to have its own asylum policy; that the EU could control British tax rates; and that Britain would have to change its laws on trade unions and strikes.

Mr Blair said all of those beliefs were entirely false.

The poll also showed many wrongly believed the British passport would be replaced by a European one.

However, it said voters said they would back the constitution by 41% to 35% if concerns on these and other issues were met.

"That's what shows us what we've got to play for here - it's reality versus myth," said Mr Blair.

The constitution serves one main purpose: to clear up the beaurocratic mess called the Nice treaty that it is in place now. It can't work with 25 countries and it badly needs a replacement or the EU will become gridlocked and as a consequence there is a high risk that the national parliaments in the member states will as well.

If anybody should like it, it's the British. The new double majority voting system effectively destroys the Franco-German dominance.

Personally I don't like it too much. I think it doesn't go far enough. There is too much appeasement.

[farmcoot 0]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richtucker/rt20040625.shtml

Quote[/b] ]History will certainly record the moment. A group of upper-class white men, having sequestered themselves for days, emerged to declare they'd hammered out a constitution that would eventually create a more perfect union.

Philadelphia, 1787? No. Brussels, 2004.

The leaders of 25 European nations agreed to a constitution there on June 18. But in Europe, nothing comes easily.

For instance, if you assume the American constitutional process started with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, it took us 11 years to achieve a United States. Here, they've already been trying, and failing, to craft a United States of Europe since the Treaty of Rome in 1957. That's 47 years and counting.

Back in the 18th century, we started with a bald statement that all men were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Here, they argued over whether to even mention God in the constitution.

God lost out, mostly because of French opposition. Even the Germans wanted Him in there. So if you want to call them "Godless French," please feel free.

But churches here can stay open, if only because this constitution is a long way from official. Way back when, we had to get 13 former colonies to agree to give up a handful of their newly-won freedoms to a federal government. And, despite what recent Supreme Court rulings might lead one to believe, our Constitution was pretty clear about what powers it did, and did not, assign to the federal government.

Europe's new constitution is exactly the opposite. It runs to 300 pages, and even the leaders who voted for it don't exactly agree on what it says.

"I don't think there is consensus in Europe for some federal superstate,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced. “That has gone as an idea." Blair served as the leader of "new" Europe during this constitutional process, working hard to keep certain powers (the right to tax, control of foreign policy) in the hands of individual governments instead of moving them to Brussels.

Not surprisingly, "old" European leaders disagreed. Prime Minister Jacques Chirac of France insists the constitution would create "a federation of states, but also of peoples." And Belgium's leader called the constitution, "the capstone of a federal European state."

Perhaps the most uplifting thing to see, from an American perspective, is the acceptance of the idea of an "old" and "new" Europe. That concept was mocked in the American press when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld first mentioned it. Today, it's used without irony by British newspapers to describe Europe's voting blocks.

Or maybe "voting" isn't the correct word. After all, a key difference between our Constitution and theirs is that ours moved the United States toward democracy. Of course, it took a while for our republic to get everyone involved, but the framers clearly intended to involve "we the people" in the government. That's why they started with that phrase.

The European system, on the other hand, seems to be set up to be not just undemocratic, but almost anti-democratic. They've already got a president who's not chosen by voters, but instead by a vote of their leaders. When those leaders can't agree on a nominee, they just table the discussion "for another day," as Ireland's Europe Minister put it.

Even more surprising, only eight of the 25 European Union members plan to hold referendums on the new constitution. More will undoubtedly follow, but in some nations, the leaders will surrender some of the people's sovereignty to a federal government in Brussels without the people's permission. This could never happen in the United States.

Democratic Britain, of course, is one of the eight planning a vote. Blair has promised a referendum sometime between now and the end of 2006. Later seems more likely, since polls show if the ballot were held today, the constitution would be voted down.

So, no matter what happens, a United States of Europe is anything but just around the corner. And that's all right.

After all, we've had our Constitution for more than 200 years and we're still "perfecting" it. In recent years, courts found a right to privacy and decided to allow a seemingly unconstitutional campaign finance reform bill. Still, our constitution has held up because it was pretty good to start with.

Maybe Europe's headed in the opposite direction. Because this constitution is so bad, maybe 200 years from now they'll have whittled it down to a pretty good one. Too bad today's upper-class white men won't be around to celebrate.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Farmcoot-

Quote[/b] ]Democratic Britain, of course, is one of the eight planning a vote

Hehehe, funny article.

Quote[/b] ]Back in the 18th century, we started with a bald statement that all men were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Here, they argued over whether to even mention God in the constitution.

God lost out

Poor god. But what does a dead deity (from my point of view, and many europeans) have to do with a secular political union? People may worship as they wish in the EU anyway.

Quote[/b] ]the acceptance of the idea of an "old" and "new" Europe. That concept was mocked in the American press when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld first mentioned it. Today, it's used without irony by British newspapers to describe Europe's voting blocks.

Which papers would those be i wonder? I read a few papers and ive seen no such usage.

Quote[/b] ]After all, a key difference between our Constitution and theirs is that ours moved the United States toward democracy.

Europe of the Union is already democratic, so theres no need to 'move towards' democracy. But there is obviously a danger that centralisation of power could diminish the role of representative national democracy. This is especially manifest in the unelected Commission.

Quote[/b] ]Of course, it took a while for our republic to get everyone involved, but the framers clearly intended to involve "we the people" in the government.

In other words in America you had to fight a civil war because much of the social fabric was based on unrepentant slave owning. Then, something more than a century passed before women had the vote and the reality finally started to live up to the constitution (not to mention the necessity of the civil rights movement)

Quote[/b] ]The European system, on the other hand, seems to be set up to be not just undemocratic, but almost anti-democratic. They've already got a president who's not chosen by voters, but instead by a vote of their leaders. When those leaders can't agree on a nominee, they just table the discussion "for another day," as Ireland's Europe Minister put it.

But that the president of the EU is chosen by the national leaders shows just that it is more of a union of nations (as the article seems to feel is best) than a true united european nation (a prospect the article seems almost fearful of).

----------------------------------------------------

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]The constitution serves one main purpose: to clear up the beaurocratic mess called the Nice treaty that it is in place now. It can't work with 25 countries and it badly needs a replacement or the EU will become gridlocked and as a consequence there is a high risk that the national parliaments in the member states will as well.

Few people in Britain (even conservatives) would find that particularly troubling (or even interesting), but your contention that it is the main aim of the constitution is quite subjective. Even if that is the stated aim that many politicians can agree on, there is the potential for other aims to be pursued through it by the various groups at work in the various nations that have played a part in formulating it, and statements by some european federalists seem to indicate that there are wider issues at play in this constitution than plain and simple 'tidying up'. It is a large and comprehensive enough document to be able to cite all kinds of potential aims in its introduction.

Quote[/b] ]Personally I don't like it too much. I think it doesn't go far enough. There is too much appeasement

You posted an article about Blair saying it was 'reality against myth', but surely Federalists such as yourself would like to see many of the myths become reality (such as the scrapping or cutting down of Blairs 'red lines')

Nonetheless with the new member countries the balance of power does seem to have shifted, the Franco-German alliance is not so powerful and new alliances may start to emerge. Its definitely a time of change and redefinition and im not sure its clear just how things will pan out at the moment.

[denoir 0]

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]The constitution serves one main purpose: to clear up the beaurocratic mess called the Nice treaty that it is in place now. It can't work with 25 countries and it badly needs a replacement or the EU will become gridlocked and as a consequence there is a high risk that the national parliaments in the member states will as well.

Few people in Britain (even conservatives) would find that particularly troubling (or even interesting), but your contention that it is the main aim of the constitution is quite subjective. Even if that is the stated aim that many politicians can agree on, there is the potential for other aims to be pursued through it by the various groups at work in the various nations that have played a part in formulating it, and statements by some european federalists seem to indicate that there are wider issues at play in this constitution than plain and simple 'tidying up'. It is a large and comprehensive enough document to be able to cite all kinds of potential aims in its introduction.

What I state here as the main purpose is not my subjective thinking, but the reason why it was so urgent to pass it. The Nice agreement could not work with 25 member states, simple as that. We couldn't have a situation where if one of 25 countries blocked something, the whole thing failed. And yes, implicitly it does transfer power to the EU, but there is no other way around.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Personally I don't like it too much. I think it doesn't go far enough. There is too much appeasement

You posted an article about Blair saying it was 'reality against myth', but surely Federalists such as yourself would like to see many of the myths become reality (such as the scrapping or cutting down of Blairs 'red lines')

Indeed and I make no secret about it. The only "red line" of Tony that I agree with is the taxes. (Although I wouldn't mind for Sweden to get a more reasonable European tax system rather than the hard socialist one we have now). I want a common foreign policy and I want a common defence. The first one I need only say one word: Iraq. For the second one, I happen to like my money. Duplicating the same costs in each state is expensive.

Now, for Farmcoot's article, he he

[denoir 0]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richtucker/rt20040625.shtml

LOL. Good one, although more or less completely wrong, I'm still surprised that they even care or bother.   Anyway, point by point.

Quote[/b] ]

For instance, if you assume the American constitutional process started with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, it took us 11 years to achieve a United States. Here, they've already been trying, and failing, to craft a United States of Europe since the Treaty of Rome in 1957. That's 47 years and counting.

Actually, they're not trying to craft a United States of Europe, and they most certainly havn't since 1957. What they did then was open market agreements. The EU officially came to existance in 1992. What we have now is the second attempt at a constitution. The last time was right before Christmas last year. Adding to that the time they've been discussing it, we have a total of 2-3 years.

Quote[/b] ]Back in the 18th century, we started with a bald statement that all men were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Here, they argued over whether to even mention God in the constitution.

God lost out, mostly because of French opposition. Even the Germans wanted Him in there. So if you want to call them "Godless French," please feel free.

Actually it's not true. Germany abstained. Most of the member states were against the inclusion of any reference to Christianity. And there can't be any other way. We have a separation of church and state.

Quote[/b] ]Way back when, we had to get 13 former colonies to agree to give up a handful of their newly-won freedoms to a federal government. And, despite what recent Supreme Court rulings might lead one to believe, our Constitution was pretty clear about what powers it did, and did not, assign to the federal government.

...and that's exactly what we have here. God can still save the Queen etc. It's not a Union question, it's up to the member states. The difference here is that we have 25 countries, most of which have histories that span centuries back. Unlike a bunch of colonists who betrayed their country we have a ver long political and cultural history to take into account. Hence a more complicated process.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps the most uplifting thing to see, from an American perspective, is the acceptance of the idea of an "old" and "new" Europe. That concept was mocked in the American press when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld first mentioned it. Today, it's used without irony by British newspapers to describe Europe's voting blocks.

LMAO. Precious. "New" is refering to the 10 new member states. "Old" refers to the old 15 member states. Unlike in Bush's definition the UK is an "old" member state.

Quote[/b] ]Or maybe "voting" isn't the correct word. After all, a key difference between our Constitution and theirs is that ours moved the United States toward democracy. Of course, it took a while for our republic to get everyone involved, but the framers clearly intended to involve "we the people" in the government. That's why they started with that phrase.

We already have democratic systems across Europe. As a matter of fact it's a part of the so called "Copenhagen criterium". To be accepted as a member state candidate a country must fullfill a number of criterion that deal with democracy, free speech, human rights etc The US would for instance not qualify as a member both thanks to your strange non-democratic electoral system, your way of doing a population census as well as other issues such as the death penalty etc

Quote[/b] ]The European system, on the other hand, seems to be set up to be not just undemocratic, but almost anti-democratic. They've already got a president who's not chosen by voters, but instead by a vote of their leaders. When those leaders can't agree on a nominee, they just table the discussion "for another day," as Ireland's Europe Minister put it.

First of all, we don't have a president now. We have the European Comission, which consists of one representative for each member state. These representatives are chosen by the democratically elected administration in each member state. The Comission has a chairman that is chosen by the other comissioners.

As for an EU president, there is such a clause in the new constitution. It would unlike your president be more or less a ceremonial function with no real power. The problem today is that if you want to talk to the EU, you have to call like 5 people. A president would give a single point of contact, which is its purpose. And unlike the US president who is not chosen democratically, but through a bizzare electorate system, we are going to have a direct democratic vote on this one.

Quote[/b] ]Even more surprising, only eight of the 25 European Union members plan to hold referendums on the new constitution. More will undoubtedly follow, but in some nations, the leaders will surrender some of the people's sovereignty to a federal government in Brussels without the people's permission. This could never happen in the United States.

LOL, yeah, you usually have referendums. Tell me how the referendum on the Iraq war went? Huh? You had no referendum?

We've had referendums on if our countries should be part of the EU. The constitution is an internal agreement that should be hammered out by the democratically elected politicians. If you don't want the constitution, then vote for an anti-EU party. There's more than enough of those.

Quote[/b] ]

Too bad today's upper-class white men won't be around to celebrate.

This is the best part. First, in European politics there are far many more women than in US politics. Second the "white" part is an American social problem, not a Europan one. We have only a very small percentage of blacks in our population, and furthermore we didn't have slavery. And as for the "upper-class" - how many Senators do you know of that you would classify as "lower-class"?

Entertaining article.

Got to go though. Midsummer celebrations here in Sweden (think like Christmas and New Year all in one), and I have some people here who have expressed their intense displeasure with me sitting in front of the computer  

[Grizzlie 0]

I'm afraid that "white" part CAN be European social problem too.

Watch how many Turks r in Germany, Arabs in France, ect.

And Turkey can be EU member too...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

So where in fact is Monkey Lib Fronts misconception in believing it to be a part of the British position that they do feel a need to

Quote[/b] ]ensure that down the road that we keep basic things ...eg tax hamonisation (Which is bad imho), immigration policy, Taxes.

?

If part of the federalist (or even mainstream european) position is a desire to get rid of 'red lines' and other percieved obstacles to european integration then surely the euro-skeptic myths are such only to the extent that the British and the other awkward members have so far succeeded in preventing them from being realised or manifested.

The reality that Blair is afraid to concede to the British public is that many in mainland europe (including national leaders) want much more integration than is currently proposed here. If the British people in the BBC article have the wrong idea about how far the current constitution goes they have the right idea about how far more hardcore federalists would like to go if they get their way. So when you quote it to seemly reassure Monkey Lib Front of how innocuous the document is, it seems a little ironic. It appears you would criticise Blair for his obstruction yet use the concessions his obstructions have brought to seemingly reassure the euroskeptic Monkey Lib Front that his fears are ill founded...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]LMAO. Precious. "New" is refering to the 10 new member states. "Old" refers to the old 15 member states. Unlike in Bush's definition the UK is an "old" member state.

Doh..It didnt even occur to me that the guy had made this obvious slip up

Quote[/b] ]This is the best part. First, in European politics there are far many more women than in US politics. Second the "white" part is an American social problem, not a Europan one. We have only a very small percentage of blacks in our population, and furthermore we didn't have slavery. And as for the "upper-class" - how many Senators do you know of that you would classify as "lower-class"?

Grizzlie- I'm afraid that "white" part CAN be European social problem too.

Watch how many Turks r in Germany, Arabs in France, ect.

And Turkey can be EU member too...

Whilst there are certain similarities I think there are somewhat different problems in every country but the articles take is laughable.

Quote[/b] ]Got to go though. Midsummer celebrations here in Sweden (think like Christmas and New Year all in one), and I have some people here who have expressed their intense displeasure with me sitting in front of the computer

Have fun

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Got to go though. Midsummer celebrations here in Sweden (think like Christmas and New Year all in one), and I have some people here who have expressed their intense displeasure with me sitting in front of the computer  

Have fun

Yeah, I would if there was not for the football match. Crappy football match courtersy of the French team. I've got family and friends eating, drinking having, having fun in the back yard, while I'm camping in the living room watching football and posting here. I'll have to play catch up later

Anyway:

Quote[/b] ]

So when you quote it to seemly reassure Monkey Lib Front of how innocuous the document is, it seems a little ironic. It appears you would criticise Blair for his obstruction yet use the concessions his obstructions have brought to seemingly reassure the euroskeptic Monkey Lib Front that his fears are ill founded...

There is nothing conflicting in that. MLF should be happy about Blair's obstruction, they give him the limitations he wants and that's what I'm telling him. I on the other hand am displeased with those limitiations. The only reason why I'm not rejecting the constitution outright is because we need something for the new 25 member EU to work. Without it there will be trouble for all member states. About 70-80% of all decisions now in the national parliaments have their origin in EU directives. A paralyzed EU could very well paralyze the member states. So it's in everybody's interest to get something, anything that works.

[denoir 0]

Court overturns finance ministers [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

The European Court of Justice has annulled a decision by EU finance ministers to suspend action against Germany and France over budget deficits.

Giving its verdict on a case brought by the European Commission, the court said the ministers' decision was not compatible with EU law.

Before the ministers got involved, the commission had been planning to penalise or even fine the two nations.

This is because France and Germany keep breaking the Stability and Growth Pact.

The pact is meant to keep the deficits of eurozone states below 3% of GDP, but several - most notably France and Germany - have breached it.

The pair are on track to breach the deficit ceiling for the third year running.

In its ruling the European Court of Justice said the council of finance ministers "cannot depart from the rules laid down by the treaty or those which it set for itself in regulation no 1467/97 (which specifies the terms of the pact)".

The German finance ministry declined to comment immediately after the court decision, but said it may issue a statement later on Tuesday.

Its French counterpart said it would be leaving any reaction to the current president of the eurozone finance ministers - Dutch Finance Minister Gerrit Zalm, saying he would comment "in the name of all his colleagues".

Power tussle

In November 2003 the EU finance ministers, led by the German and French representatives, voted to suspend action against Germany and France, arguing that the 3% rule was too severe.

In an effective fight for power between the European Commission and the finance ministers - who come from the member states - the commission quickly followed with its lawsuit.

And while the commission has since agreed that the 3% rule does in fact need to be relaxed, it has continued to object to the intervention of the finance ministers and the law suit remained.

The 3% rule and the subsequent penalties were formulated to prevent bad budgetary policies in one member state having an effect across the eurozone.

The pact has been controversial, with critics saying its focus on fighting inflation means it is ill-equipped to deal with slow growth.

But smaller countries, including the Netherlands, have insisted that all 12 eurozone members should stay in line.

And Portugal has worked strenuously to remove its own deficit.

Possible relaxation

Yet at the same time other eurozone nations, such as Italy and Greece, have been struggling with their deficits.

And six of the 10 new EU countries that are committed to joining the eurozone at some point also have excessive deficits - Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia.

All these factors could only have influenced June's comments by economic affairs commissioner Joaquin Almunia, who admitted that the Commission had been "too stringent" with the Stability and Growth Pact.

Calling for more flexibility, he said it was "probably necessary" to clarify the definitions of the pact's rulebook.

Good The whole thing was becoming a joke. When you agree on 3% then it is 3%. Now, pay up  

[Supah 0]

I wouldn't mind a "United States Of Europe". As long as we dont get the undemocratic two party system here they have across the pond. One citizen one vote. No more stupid national voting. It would be an improvement over the current situation where some countries want a veto, others get more of a say then others do. I would be all for that.

[iNeo 0]

I hate the fact that they take much more money than we get back. And that they use that money to:

[*] sue the country for the monopoly system used here for alcohol

Leave the EU and let us control our own country.

[*] force us to support tobacco farms while some money here is spent against tobacco and the government is strictly against tobacco usage.

Leave the EU and spend money where we want it to be spent.

[*] complain about "rough refugee politics" even though they are the most generous in Europe (in the world?) They should be happy that we take them so that they don't have to. Unthankful btchs..

Leave the EU and close the borders, at least until there's some justice and reason.

Etc. That's just the very recent stuff. And they want our money for all that. BS. Mind your own business. This is like paying to be robbed.

Would it be practically possible to leave the EU?

United States of Europe, no thanks.

[denoir 0]

I hate the fact that they take much more money than we get back.

"Much more"? Sweden is basically balanced in regards to membership fee/subsidies.

Quote[/b] ]

And that they use that money to:

[*] sue the country for the monopoly system used here for alcohol

Leave the EU and let us control our own country.

[*] force us to support tobacco farms while some money here is spent against tobacco and the government is strictly against tobacco usage.

Leave the EU and spend money where we want it to be spent.

[*] complain about "rough refugee politics" even though they are the most generous in Europe (in the world?) They should be happy that we take them so that they don't have to. Unthankful btchs..

Leave the EU and close the borders, at least until there's some justice and reason.

Etc. That's just the very recent stuff. And they want our money for all that. BS. Mind your own business. This is like paying to be robbed.

Would it be practically possible to leave the EU?

Instead of debating this pile of rubbish, I would like to apologize for my countryman here. Sweden has its own share of narrow minded, ill-educated hillbilies. But I don't think you need me for identifying them.

[iNeo 0]

"Much more"? Sweden is basically balanced in regards to membership fee/subsidies.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. Really.

Instead of debating this pile of rubbish, I would like to apologize for my countryman here. Sweden has its own share of narrow minded, ill-educated hillbilies. But I don't think you need me for identifying them.

Well arent you fuckin amazing. It's the same from you over and over. Excuse me for trying to express my humble opinion.