European Politics Thread.

[xawery 0]

In theory leaving the EU is indeed illegal, or rather, there are no formal provisions for such a procedure. This however did not stop Greenland from leaving the EU in 1985. The Withdrawal Clause included in the "constitution" (it isn't a true constitution, hence the quotations marks) is nothing more than a formalisation of the process used in 1985. From Wikipedia:

Quote[/b] ] * Withdrawal clause

A new clause allows for the withdrawal of any member state without renegotiation of the Constitution or violation of treaty commitments. Under this clause, when a country notifies the Council of its intent to withdraw, a settlement is agreed in the Council with the consent of Parliament. If negotiations are not agreed within two years, the country leaves anyway.

While these provisions are technically new, the process described is a formalisation of the process which Greenland used to leave the EC in 1985.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with 2/3 majority voting or anything similar.

On another note, I have a hard time understanding the opponents of this "constitution". It is nothing more than a compilation of existing treaties. What is more, it is the first treaty to explicitly state what have been the basic principles of the European Union throughout the decades, i.e. the principles of subsidiarity and conferral. These principles in fact ensure that the EU does not become a centralised superstate.

How can anyone be against this treaty? It does not change the status quo in any significant way, it streamlines the decision making process by introducing qualified majority voting* in more areas and basically compiles all the treaties the member states have previously accepted. In fact, a better reason to vote against it would be the fact that this treaty is not radical enough.

regards,

Xawery

*It is argued by opponents of the constitution that QMV will allow the large countries to dominate the EU. Anyone willing to analyse the QMV system will see that this claim is unfounded. While the QMV does away with the impractical unanimity vote, it makes it relatively easy to create a blocking coalition.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

How can Greenland leave the EC when Greenland is a Danish colony and not an independent country

[xawery 0]

Because it was granted self-government by the Danish parliament in 1979.

[denoir 0]

How can anyone be against this treaty?

If you are a federalist, you won't be too happy about it. As a matter of fact, I personally think it is not going nearly far enough.

The funny thing is that it is a unique opportunity for the EU opponents to cripple further EU integration for quite a while. They however don't get it and if successful, they are playing right into the hands of those who want a federal European superstate.

What will happen, if the constitution isn't ratified is that the EU will go to plan B, which is a multi-geared approach. Those countries that wish to go further with integration will do so, while the sceptical ones will stay at the current level (similar to the current Euro-zone arrangement).

In practice this will mean that the pro-integration group will finally get rid of the whining countries that have been obstacles. They will set up an integration framework as they see fit according to their interest.

The catch is that the countries in the "slower" group will eventually join the "faster" group. This is an economic and political inevitability. Size and common rules bring economic strength - the EU has if anything demonstrated that. The same goes for the political domain.

And when the countries from the "slower" group join in, the rules will have been defined already by the "faster" group countries. So they will have to accept them as they are.

[xawery 0]

Quote[/b] ]

How can anyone be against this treaty?

If you are a federalist, you won't be too happy about it. As a matter of fact, I personally think it is not going nearly far enough.

Which is what I basically state in paragraph four, lines four/five of that post

On a less obnoxious note, a two-speed Europe is indeed already a reality, on a monetary level. This paradigm could very well become an alternative for simultaneous integration, should the ratification of the treaty be compromised. Incidentally, a federalist manifesto containing this very scenario has already been published. I must say that the authors build their arguments well and present a solid, though somewhat utopian case. Well worth the read.

Quote[/b] ]The catch is that the countries in the "slower" group will eventually join the "faster" group. This is an economic and political inevitability. Size and common rules bring economic strength - the EU has if anything demonstrated that. The same goes for the political domain.

And when the countries from the "slower" group join in, the rules will have been defined already by the "faster" group countries. So they will have to accept them as they are.

Indeed. As it happens, this is a well established theory in political economics. The creation of an exclusive "club" (i.e. a high-speed EU) automatically limits the strategic options of non-members. As the exclusive club grows (in influence/size/etc.) the non-members' chances of establishing a viable alternative diminish. This would particularly be the case in the scenario established in the abovementioned manifesto. A "core" EU consisting of the original EC members would represent such an economic/political might that establishing a rival club would prove very difficult indeed.

However, I cannot say it is very likely that the governments of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg will be forsaking sovereignty any time soon

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]

How can anyone be against this treaty?

If you are a federalist, you won't be too happy about it. As a matter of fact, I personally think it is not going nearly far enough.

Which is what I basically state in paragraph four, lines four/five of that post

On a less obnoxious note, a two-speed Europe is indeed already a reality, on a monetary level.

Which is what I basically state in the last line of paragraph three, of that post

Quote[/b] ]A "core" EU consisting of the original EC members would represent such an economic/political might that establishing a rival club would prove very difficult indeed.

Indeed, especially as the rivaling club would have the core idea of less cooperation.

Quote[/b] ]However, I cannot say it is very likely that the governments of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg will be forsaking sovereignty any time soon

I think that very few in Europe are interested in making a EU nation state. Even the most hard-core federalists agree that there would be little point in doing that - and not much of a chance of succeeding.

Personally, I think the really powerful idea behind the EU is that it's not a nation state. It's a fairly new political concept where the member states share laws and political rule to the extent that the individual member states approve of . The things you agree with the rest of the EU on, you do together. The things you disagree on, you keep your own national laws. Given the economic and political diversity of Europe, such an approach is a necessity.

[xawery 0]

Quote[/b] ]Which is what I basically state in the last line of paragraph three, of that post

Granted, but please notice that the way I used 'indeed' suggests that I was simply concurring with a statement which had already been made. The formulation of your answer to my rethorical question on the other hand made it seem like it had not been answered already

In Dutch, there is a rather telling name for such discussion: ant-fucking...    Back on topic.

Quote[/b] ]Personally, I think the really powerful idea behind the EU is that it's not a nation state. It's a fairly new political concept where the member states share laws and political rule to the extent that the individual member states approve of . The things you agree with the rest of the EU on, you do together. The things you disagree on, you keep your own national laws. Given the economic and political diversity of Europe, such an approach is a necessity.

While I agree with you that the EU is quite an achievement given the history of the European continent, I don't think that it is a new political concept. It fits the definition of the confederation rather well (from Wikipedia, of course...):

Quote[/b] ]A confederation is an association of sovereign states. Confederations are usually created by treaty but tend to later adopt a constitution. Confederations tend to be established to deal with critical issues, such as defense, foreign affairs, foreign trade, and a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members.

While the EU doesn't match all of the characteristics mentioned above, it certainly does look a lot like a confederation in practice. In other words, it's not the concept which is original, but the fact that it has been applied to a continent which has been at war with itself for the past 700 years.

[Balschoiw 0]

EU members approve sanctions against US in anti-dumping row

Quote[/b] ]BRUSSELS (AFP) - European Union member states approved slapping sanctions on a range of US products imported into Europe beginning May 1 in a long-running row over a controversial US anti-dumping law.

The EU's executive Commission last month called for an extra duty of 15 percent to be imposed on products ranging from paper to farm and textile products, in response to Washington's failure to repeal the so-called Byrd Amendment.

Foreign ministers of the EU's 25 member states meeting in Luxembourg approved the measure without debate, the EU said.

Under the 2000 law, the US government redistributed anti-dumping duties to US companies that alleged dumping, or the selling of items abroad at less than the market price in the domestic market.

The EU and six other countries (Brazil, Canada, India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea) took the case to the World Trade Organization (WTO), which last year authorized sanctions amounting to 72 percent of the sums reaped by the US law.

The EU executive said last month its proposed level of sanctions was based on the latest distribution of duties made under the Byrd Amendment, amounting to slightly under 28 million dollars (21.5 million euros).

It warned it would revise the sanctions depending on damage caused to European companies, and has drawn up a "reserve list" of products which could become subject to additional import duties if necessary.

Canada has also announced it will slap additional 15 percent duties on a range of US products.

Washington was targeted by the sanctions because the US Congress failed to repeal the legislation -- named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd -- before a deadline of December 27, 2003.

US companies gained about 561 million dollars (463 million euros) as a result of the law in 2001 and 2002, according to US figures.

But according to the EU commission, the Byrd Amendment -- full name the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 -- has distributed over one billion dollars in annual payments since it first came into force.

The main recipients have been in the bearing, steel and other metal, household item and food sectors, it said last month.

It added that a "substantial" increase is foreseen for the next distribution that could start on October 1 this year if the law is not repealed. That payment alone could amount to 1.6 billion dollars, it warned.

Was about time that they did something against that.

[miles teg 1]

Then Europe needs to stop dumping all its wine, chocolates, BMW's, Volvos, Porches, tea, cheese, and beer in America... oh wait... scratch that...nevermind...dump away. lol

Now that I think about it I can't remember ever seeing a non-luxury manufactured product here in the US that said "made in UK, France, Germany, Austria, etc..."

lol

Eh... its alright, if you guys keep it up we'll just invade you next cuz we all know you guys are harboring terrorists and got WMD's. So give 'em up boys or Team America is riding into town!

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

Was about time that they did something against that.

While it's good for the European industry and hence for Europe in the long term, the short term effect that US produced stuff will become more expensive.

I'm not quite sure what type of products they are aiming at. I have the feeling that just about everything is more expensive here.

Let's take some typical über-American products:

A Big Mac + medium coke + medium fries goes for about €5.5 = $7.2

A small (33cl) can of coke from a standard vending machine goes for about €1.1 = $1.4

A pair of Levi's 501's go for something like €85 = $110

Computer hardware etc are somewhat cheaper in the US etc.

So I'm not quite sure what goods they say are being dumped.

Quote[/b] ]Eh... its alright, if you guys keep it up we'll just invade you next cuz we all know you guys are harboring terrorists and got WMD's.

Bah, havn't you learned anything? We won't get invaded because we actually have WMD.

[EiZei 0]

Let's take some typical über-American products:

A Big Mac + medium coke + medium fries goes for about €5.5 = $7.2

A small (33cl) can of coke from a standard vending machine goes for about €1.1 = $1.4

To be fair those are often produced in europe with a license and not imported.

[ran 0]

A small (33cl) can of coke from a standard vending machine goes for about €1.1 = $1.4

€0.80 here at my office

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]A pair of Levi's 501's go for something like €85 = $110

I guess european prices are also very different on US goods.

A 501 is 40-50 Euro here.

Anyway the issue is about items that are sold cheaper in europe than in the US from US manufacturers, so there are no products involved that are already cheap in the USand more expensive in europe. They were sold even more cheaper in europe. That´s what the thing is about. Steel prices may ring a bell.

This was pushed by the US administration and they broke the unilateral contract they signed.

Now they will have to:

1. Bring the prices to a US level for abroad buyers

2. Pay a fine.

That´s it basically.

[Necromancer- 0]

A small (33cl) can of coke from a standard vending machine goes for about €1.1 = $1.4

€0.80 here at my office

Note that Denoir is from the Northern part of the Europe... where almost everything is expensive.

Except for Ikea of course.

Note that food and drinking items in offices for employers use are always cheaper than buying them in a normal store.

Can any US citizen tell us Euro's what the price is of "A Big Mac + medium coke + medium fries" which Denoir mentioned?

[Akira 0]

Can get a Big Mac meal for about $4 I think.

[billybob2002 0]

Can get a Big Mac meal for about $4 I think.

I think it is little higher because you can buy the whopper knock off around $4 something with tax. I think the Big Mac meal is closer to $5 without tax and over $5 with tax.

Anyway, China blows for what they are doing against the dollar.

[llauma 0]

Keep in mind that an american medium is slightly bigger than the european, especially the beverages.

[Radnik 18]

A Big Mac + medium coke + medium fries goes for about €5.5 = $7.2

... €3.02 here, fast lunch yesterday

[Bordoy 0]

Thankfully they got rid of the super-size (Extra large) over here in the UK.

Around Å2.70 i think for a medium extra value meal.

[iNeo 0]

Has anyone heard of asylum seeking, apathetic children? They just lie on a bed 24/7 and get fed through a tube? And their sickness is only cured if and when they are granted asylum?

[llauma 0]

Has anyone heard of asylum seeking, apathetic children? They just lie on a bed 24/7 and get fed through a tube? And their sickness is only cured if and when they are granted asylum?

No one has talked about them being cured if granted asylum. They should be granted asylum cause they wouldn't get the medical care they need if they were being sent back.

[denoir 0]

Has anyone heard of asylum seeking, apathetic children? They just lie on a bed 24/7 and get fed through a tube? And their sickness is only cured if and when they are granted asylum?

As far as I know none of the children have been cured. What has been established is basically is that nobody has really a clue to what is going on.

For those not familiar with this - they've discovered a large cluster of mostly Russian children in Sweden, that have become completely apathetic. It was first thought of to be related to families being denied asylum, but more data now shows that it's much wider than that. That in many cases regardless of the outcome, the situation doesn't change.

What they do agree on is that it is a medical problem, that the children are suffering from clinical depression.

They did an investigation into the subject and came to the conclusion that this has been happening during the last three years and that nothing similar has happened elsewhere in Europe. Furthermore the report showed that the investigations done so far have been more political and medical, and that there were no criteria for diagnosis. Children that voiced opposition to going to school were lumped together with children that had to be fed through a tube.

So nobody really knows the extent of the problem.

[SpongeBob 0]

Has anyone heard of asylum seeking, apathetic children? They just lie on a bed 24/7 and get fed through a tube? And their sickness is only cured if and when they are granted asylum?

Isn't that called "home sickenss"?

[red oct 2]

i cant imagine any sane person would want to have a feeding tube inserted into them and lay in bed all day. i heard it was not uncommon for children of this paticular backround to be sufferning from fetal alcohol syndrom. maybe that could have a factor in the problem.

[iNeo 0]

So is this almost common amongst asylum seeking children in any other European country? Because if it isn't, something is weird. And if it is, why is it happening now? It's almost never happened before 3-4 years ago.