EU in Chaos after Ireland's 'No' Vote

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,559730,00.html

By Ralf Beste, Hans-Jürgen Schlamp and Stefan Simons

...

Following a long journey through the EU institutions, the name of the text had been changed from the EU “constitution” to the more harmless-sounding “Treaty of Lisbon.” Still, the treaty, which to a large degree had been shepherded through by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, appeared to have the power to streamline EU decision-making and to give it a single voice to the outside world by creating a position equivalent to an EU foreign minister. But that didn’t happen. Now everything is up in the air once again. The 860,000 "no" voters in Ireland have blocked the path of a half-billion Europeans. In any case, the treaty will no longer be able to go into effect as planned on January 1, 2009, lamented Luxembourg’s prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker. And no one can say for certain now whether it will be possible to overcome the blockade.

“This is an utter disaster,” one diplomat at the French Foreign Ministry commented. “It’s an even deeper crisis than in 2005,” said Jo Leinen, chairman of the committee in the European Parliament responsible for drafting the original constitution. Back then, the French and the Dutch rejected the draft constitution in national referenda. It took three difficult years after that to get the treaty back on track as the Treaty of Lisbon. But, as French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said, “If the Irish people decide to reject the Lisbon Treaty, naturally there won't be any more Lisbon Treaty.”

Even committed members of the European Parliament, like Germany’s Elmar Brok of the conservative Christian Democrats, who is an advisor to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on EU matters, believe this week’s development threatens to bring an end to a united Europe in its current form. The community of 27, Brok believes, may wind up getting reduced to a casual economic alliance of friendly states and a “mini-Europe based around Germany and France.” This multi-speed model, however, would be the worse case scenario for Berlin in terms of Germany’s foreign and European policy.

During a meeting last week in Germany, Merkel and Sarkozy together agreed on how they would respond if the Irish rejected the referendum. But neither really knew what they should do. Capturing the sense of helplessness both felt, Sarkozy said, “Whatever happens, we will offer a joint German-French response.” No matter what, the two said, the ratification process should continue, and an exit clause could be provided for the Irish if they weren’t willing to hold a swift second referendum on the issue. On Friday afternoon, France’s minister for European affairs, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, who described himself as "devastated," suggested that the scope of the treaty could be limited to the other 26 member states and that Ireland could be offered some other type of legal arrangement.

...

The expansion has been overdone.

of its member nations, virtually wiping out the governments of its member nations. It is a far cry from its "original" intent of being a trade union.

direction its going in.

I have never seen it as anything other than an economic union, it does not seem to interfere with the member state's own repression or enlightenment of its people. In other words they do not seem to serve a civic function, just an economic one. Is that understanding so very wrong?

The EU Constitution would override the Constitution of member nations. The EU Constitution calls them Member States.

How would you feel about our Constitution being trumped by a group originally set-up to be a trade union that morphed into a central government with its own Constitution? If you look at the EU Constitution, it doesn't only involve trade.

Lisbon 2008 was a first step to expanding and centralizing control for laws and taxes and foreign policy. This agreement is a repackaged version of the European Constitution rejected by voters in France and The Netherlands. This time the only country allowing a referendum for people to vote is Ireland. Because it changes the Irish constitution the Irish need to vote.

IMO they made the correct decision

You don't say WHY you think it would be bad thing and furthermore, where did the "Totalitarian" part come from?

Since the EU is strictly limited to European countries, it is tough for them to do that whole "one world totalitarian state" thing that you are so paranoid about.

Please, put the tin foil down.

The same way Europe didn't stop at Europe when it came looking for more land and accidentally hit what would be known as America. The same way Russia didn't stop at just Russia. The same way America didn't stop at 13 colonies, but went west, then continued west into the Pacific, then had to go east to Europe, then further east to the Middle East, etc.

Only this time it isn't land, it's people. There is no more open land to bring under the control of X and Y central authority. Multi-national corporations know how the world works. Governments are still living in the 20th century. Governments aren't multi-national. That's why they're losing power to the corporations. The only way to combat that corporate power is to...well, incorporate and merge more people into a single system. Especially with aging populations like they have in Western Europe, they need to get as many people as possible paying for and to keep their social systems running.

The EU won't expand beyond Europe for now, but when Asia gets a similar union, and Africa, and South America, then you'll see hemispheric unions, then a global one. Provided that the energy is cheap enough to do it. One is more efficient than two, and economic productivity rules the world. It's too inefficient, and far too much money and energy is wasted in even having corporations and governments as separate entities.

The political management of our nation is handled in this manner:

Passing an "act" requires two thirds approval of the Senate.

Passing an "agreement" requires only a fifty-one per cent approval by the Senate.

Next year when the North Amerian Union "agreement" is fast tracked through the Senate, LOOK OUT!

We will lose all our environmental, health, highway etc protections. The only upside is if we end up with Canada's Single Payer Universal Health System.

Such as the Massachusetts plan where everyone is forced to buy into for-profit health insurance corporations?

The EU wasn't originally started as a mere trade union. It was established originally to provide increasing economic and political ties between the European countries in order to prevent any more world wars. From the start of the European Coal Commission, it was the intent to forge the countries of Europe into a single, continental state that would rival the US.

recognised and defined; as, de facto, there are at the moment.

But not quite so laissez-faire as to become a Europe 'a la carte'.

I don't really know much about the EU, but alarm bells went off when I was reading my newspaper this morning. The AP article, which was quite lengthy, is not online, so I can't post a link.

This is what the article said, and my questions follow:



Question: French and Dutch voters torpedoed this in 2005, but now those voters don't have a say because appointed commissioners now make the decisions for them? What happened to their voting rights? Were they taken away? By whom? Did the "powers" change the ratifying rules to accommodate ratification? If so, how did the people react to this?

As I said, I know little of the EU. I am sure it has its merits, but when I read about "powerful commissioners" who are not "popularly elected", I begin to wonder who and what all this really benefits, and what it will mean to a nation's sovereignty; and what will happen or bring to the regular everyday people of society.

Quietly here, there is talk of an NAU - and what does it mean for us.

Quite frankly it worries me that a handful of people could end up legally controlling a globe of people, their lands, possessions and freedoms.

and they're not elected either.

The most powerful body in the EU is the Council of the European Union, more commonly known as the Council of Ministers - made up of the relevant ministers from each country's government. There is also the European Council, which is made up of the heads of government, or heads of state where they are the most powerful politician in the country (eg in France).

The European Commission is somewhat like a cabinet: its president is selected by the European Council, and confirmed by the European Parliament (which is elected). Each country nominates a commissioner, and the president decides what area each will look after - competition, environment and so on. The whole package then needs confirmation from the European Council, and the parliament as well.

European laws are passed by the elected European parliament. The commissioners have the same kind of power, in EU terms, as American cabinet posts, like Secretary of Defense and so on - who are also unelected.

United Europe would be a good thing, I do not see it as being totalitarian at all. Europe already went through that insanity and they are not ones to repeat themselves.

If you think a United continent is bad, perhaps we should make every state their own country?

Sovereignty is SOOOOOOOOOO Passe'.

regardless if you like it or not.

This 'One World Government' is more likely than not, conspiracy BS. Even if it was to come into being, would it really be that bad if every country was on the same page? I do not for see this happening in this generation, perhaps 2 or 3 generations down the road.

If the world does not unite and come together as a global community, what chance do you think we have at existing far into the future? I would be willing to bet, that far into the future, there will be a unified global community, we will not have a choice. Unite or die.

You know, even though I have utter contempt for your breathtaking naivety, it's amazing to see someone on this Site even hint that the prospect of the NAU even exists.

And while I can respect the idealistic notions in your sentiment, you've got to wake up to one simple fact.

It isn't the CONCEPT or the IDEA that is bad.

It's who would be RUNNING and CONTROLLING it.

And if you actually think those running it would have your best interests in mind, then you are completely uninformed.

Post like yours only confirm that Orwell was a Prophet. He just got the year wrong.

"Unite or die" is just another iteration of the same kind of absolutism that all people should rightly oppose.

People, whether you want to or not, always should be given the final say, and if people do choose independence over subsuming themselves to some other external authority, then their views should be respected.

The EU Constitution is dead. Neither the French, the Dutch, or the Irish would agree to it. With the NAU, the same can be said that if the people have not given consent for such an entity, then it would appear to be anti-democratic to force it through.

anybody got cookies?

or some nougat?

Nationalism=War.


I'm a citizen of the world.

Yes, they went through that "totalitarian government thing" once.

Wait, there were two big wars in the last century. Ok, maybe they won't three-peat.

But hold on, what about Napoleon? Ok, another anomolous repeat.

And the Holy Roman Emperor? Charlemagne? Caesars?

If EU becomes a "real" government, where will the capitol be? My money's on Berlin.

:hi:

If there is anything I've learned from history is that similar events can repeat themselves. Just your saying and your opinion on that does not make it so.

If you think a United continent is bad, perhaps we should make every state their own country?

Our nation is "supposed" to be a union of soverign states.

Have you read the 10th amendment to the constitution?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Although the US Congress hasnt really acted like that is the case, but that is how our nation was founded, and I believe that is how the country should be. Not everyone shares the same ideas and beliefs and I think different states should have different laws depending on the beliefs of the people living there, we do not all need to be the same homogeneous people with the same ways of doing things.

went the way of the Dodo bird. It amazes me that people are so uneducated about the Constitution. I'm sure that the lack of this part of public school education is/was on purpose.

Thanks for saying that....It deserves to be repeated. Our nation is "supposed" to be a union of soverign states.

You certainly don't seem to have remembered yours. First a definition: A union of sovereign states wouldn't be something in the form of the United States, nor would it have a document like the Constitution. What you're looking for is a Confederacy, which is what the Continental Congress was supposed to provide in the form of the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers, along with many others, found the Articles to be unwieldy at best, and an obstruction at worst(several times the provisions of the Articles threatened to bring the Revolutionary War to a screeching stop due to lack of men, money and supplies). This is why the Articles were scrapped in favor of a the Constitution. They realized that a "union of sovereign states" was simply unworkable, and instead established a unified national government structure.

outlined in the Constitution and further reaffirmed in the 10th amendment, which I already posted but I'll do so again.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The biggest changes were that of the Constitution were that it allowed for direct taxation by the central government and the bicameral legislature so that both the people and the states could be represented. There were ofcourse other changes but the government outlined in the Constitution is still a relatively limited one, where the state governments play a larger role.

And the Constitution outlined many major changes over the Articles of Confederation, including military, foreign relation and economic powers that welded thirteen sovereign states(which is what the case was under the A of C) into a single country.

A big sticking point at the Constitutional Convention was how much power the central body should have, and the 10th Amendment was added as a compromise to the Anti-Federalists. From that was born the notion of states' rights vs. federal authority. To this day, that argument is still being hashed out. Witness California and its desire to pass stricter emissions standards, yet the federal government has blocked that as well as the idea of medical marijuana.

No where did I say that there was not a central US government or a document like the Constitution. Keep your insults to yourself. Your kind of diatribe is not appreciated, nor does it make you appear superior or more intelligent like you had hoped.

You specifically stated that originally the US was supposed to be, under the Constitution, a "union of sovereign states" I was pointing out the error of you statement. If you don't like that, oh well.

I'm not interested in appearing superior or intelligent, I'm interested in historical and factual accuracy. You were being neither.

...for the citizens of the "Member States"...

This will be the final nail in Gordon Brown's coffin if he pushes this through...I am all for a more stream-lined trade and immigration process but handing over sovereignty to some barely representative governing body is not progress in any way, shape or form...

And believe me it's a great deal of bile I'm gagging down writing this.
Would you say the Constitution of the US is oppressive?
The EU is formed, with an eye towards how we do ti, one federal and lots a member states ( i would remind you that my beloved California is a "Member state" in the UNITED (union) States, much like my new home The Netherlands is a "Member state" in the (united) European UNION.

Second, there are varying levels of membership.
There's probationary (most east block countries are this) and Full (20 or so I believe) membership.


There are LOCAL changes that MUST be made in order to even APPLY for EU membership. The carrot constantly being held over Turkey is because their human rights laws are still pretty behind the EU minimum, but still LIGHT YEARS AHEAD of the rest of the middle east.

So a country has to change themselves FIRST to at least meet the minimum standards of Europe (health care, education, human rights, etc).

Not that much different from our own states addition to the US. Each stats MUST have it's own constitution, and technically be it's own country before we admit it. (look up what STATE means!)

Next, each state in the EU needs to modify their own laws (not be superseded by the EU, as some INWO believers would think) in accordance to the EU standard.

This is actually a problem here in The Netherlands because our laws are actually STRONGER than most of the EU, and it would require LOWERING out standards (a very ironic twist) to come into line. One of the reasons the Eu treaty was killed. That and the Dutch as a people are (foolishly?) stubborn when it come to ANY kind of change. They make southerners look down light radical at times.

Personally I think the US model if Federal and state levels is a good model, and don't understand why it's not more closely followed. But oh well..

You have to remember that that literally up until 60 years ago, these countries had THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HISTORY KILLING EACH OTHER!!!!

The fact that ANY kind of Union is possible, let alone stable and happening for over 30 years in one form or another is amazing.

The short answer to all these posts is (god help me I'm defending this hole)


S T F U YOU DON'T LIVE HERE, KEEP YOUR BLOODY NOSE OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!!!

I think I can safely say that the above sentiment represents all of Europe.

and tell us not to discuss European issues. Okaly-dokaly.

I see you are new to this union business. Thirty years on the US was struggling with these same sorts of problems. Maybe one could refer to US history and learn something. We fought our Civil War and it was not good. Hopefully you guys will avoid this.

And that's the only way peace can be achieved, by bowing to the money bags? All of the hard fought advances for workers thrown out the window? The EU, as it stands, is of a piece with NAFTA and GATT, it is the enemy of the working class.

How you can expect the capitalist to bring peace when they are the source of war is beyond me. If they bring peace to Europe it will only be because it has off-shored war.

But maybe that's good enough for you.

telling people on DU to STFU?

Just curious? :shrug:

We'll see what happens....

*Closing in on 1000*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_lisbon

The Treaty of Lisbon would reduce the size of the Commission from the present 27 Commissioners to 18. That would end the arrangement of having at least one for each Member State at all times, which has existed since 1957. Commissioners are appointed for five year terms. The new system would mean that for five years in any fifteen year cycle, each country (regardless of size) would be without a commissioner. The reason for lowering the number of commissioners is that there are not enough tasks for 27, and increased effectiveness.

So for 5 years your country would be out of the loop in this regard, better hope nothing that could adversely effect your country happens in those five years.

That would almost like for us deciding that 10 US states would go without senators and every 5 years rotate the states that get screwed.

What does it say about the organization that only one state cared enough about the thoughts of its people that they left the decision up to them rather than going along with what the rest of them did which was to let the politicians decide what was best. IMO the Irish people made the right decision.

...This is NOT a good idea...

They are, as I pointed out further up, more equivalent to US cabinet members. Those positions aren't divided up according to state of origin, are they? Because countries still have a tendency to think of the commissioners as 'representing their country', they keep a rule of saying they have to be picked from everywhere to keep people quiet (fairly silly, with Germany having a population 200 times that of Malta).

One thing the Treaty of Lisbon would do is change the qualified majority voting system used - at the moment, when votes on decisions are taken by the member governments, there's a weighting system used, but it's out of kilter - Germany gets 29 votes, but Poland, with under half the population, gets 27 votes - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_Majority_Voting .

The treaty would be more democratic that the current position - it gets rid of those artificial vote numbers, and has a system based on getting a double majority in both population and states (which also applies at the moment, but with lower thresholds).

Ireland had to have a referendum by law, because there would have been a transfer of some powers. The problem with putting something like this to a vote in every country is that somewhere is almost bound to object, whatever the proposal is, and the EU rules say all 27 countries have to agree. Compare that with the US method of amending the constitution - you just need three quarters of the state assemblies to agree to the amendment (not by public referendum). Do you reckon you'd ever get an amendment passed if all states had to agree to it? And then think what would happen if many states said they' have a referendum to decide, and you still had to get all states to pass it ...

whereby Ireland can be a conditional member. That way, the continent can remain in a united state and Ireland a conditional member but with limited voting rights concerning the union, but with an easy passageway to join.

...the treaty quite clearly states that in order to be in effect it has to be ratified by all member states...that isn't going to happen now...so if the EU "validates" it next January they will have violated their own rules...

Why?

Follow the money.

ALWAYS follow the money.

of full member, a compromise can be reached that preserves the verbage and rules.

...the citizenry?

By changing the status of Ireland in order to still install this Treaty the EU will show itself it to be the most self-serving of organisations...

Talk about moving the goalposts mid-game...

I am trying to decide which I find more offensive, the product, the process, or the politicians foisting this upon their own citizenry...

Some want an international counterweight to US hegemony. Others want nothing to do with corporate interests. No matter what direction is chosen, international banking interests will be involved. I guess one upside would be that Europe would be less likely to return to days of conflict between each other.

An international counter-weight to the hegemonistic USA is a fine idea, but even if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified that won't be the outcome...it will still back the US in it's actions, but it will have succeeded in running roughshod over the rights of every European citizen...Which in the eyes of the international banking interests is all that really matters anyway...

A United States of Europe would be a tremendous force in the world, the Lisbon Treaty isn't the right way to acheive that...

sovereignties intact but to keep a strong common currency and control trade rules. That would be the best way to keep both influence but integrity with the people.

...handing over sovereignty and the bigger countries telling the smaller countries what to do...

Doesn't seem very democratic to me. Especially considering how it prohibits counries from improving socia welfare by imposing mandatory "austerity measures" on its member states. That sounds familiar (ie, world bank, IMF).

...will decide what's best for their electorate...

Because we know that Merkel, Sarkozy and Brown hold the interests of the common man near and dear to heart don't we? :eyes:

God Bless them

the EU was the NWO to lose sovereignty is there first step to total control