[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

eastern Europe will solve this problem by allowing hundreds of thousands of its gypsies and shephards to move to the west and thus establish goat-based economies.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

63% of the Dutch people voted against the European Constitution. Please discuss this event.

[Goldfinger]

It's a sad thing that we even allow people who don't even know the contents of this European Constitution to vote.

No wonder you get a bunch of "no's" from the bitter dutch and french people who themselves have a lot of internal political problems.

These kind of referenda should only be held if the governments somewhat know that their people know what they are voting for.

Ah well, there is still some hope. As long as the Germans and the Spanish don't say no.

[TETENAL]

Germany and Spain already ratified the constitution. There are no referenda in Germany for the reason you mentioned.

[y0y0]

As much as I think Pachead is the dumbest piece of crap to hit this board in a long time, he's dead right. The people in Holland and France are sick and tired of arrogant, unelected, distant wankers in Brussels trying to make decisions over the people's heads and then trying to get the people to rubber stamp it.

Fuck them. I am positively delighted that that corrupt piece of Portuguese crap is finally getting shown exactly how he got into office in the first place, and I am ecstatic that that corrupt Banking magnate in Luxembourg is now trying to throw his weight around and thereby pissing off even more people.

And now, even the Germans are finally starting to rumble as well. Their government which doesn't let them have any referendums, because they're scared that the people will vote Hitler back into power, now has to recognise that their people are pissed off with them as well.

fabulous. It's just a pity that we can't hang the ****ers up.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by y0y0

As much as I think Pachead is the dumbest piece of crap to hit this board in a long time, he's dead right. The people in Holland and France are sick and tired of arrogant, unelected, distant wankers in Brussels trying to make decisions over the people's heads and then trying to get the people to rubber stamp it.

The "wankers" in "distant" Brussels are unelected? Really? This is just like the Americans attributing decisions to the United Nations as if they weren't part of it. Only a few months back, Europeans had a chance to elect their EU representatives ... and turnout was the lowest ever recorded in France. France didn't wake up last week and decide to take an interest in European politics. The French vote was a vote against the government and a vote against globalisation (which they call "the Anglo-Saxon approach").

I don't know much about Holland,so I won't comment on their reasons for the no.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Germany and Spain already ratified the constitution. There are no referenda in Germany for the reason you mentioned.

True. My bad.

Originally Posted by Troll

I don't know much about Holland,so I won't comment on their reasons for the no.

Two reasons:
1) They are sick of their government and used this referendum to voice their opinion about their government in the hope that the current government would resign. The prime minister said after the referendum was held that he would not resign. He said that the local problems have nothing to do with Europe, and he's right. It's pure stupidity that the people have used this referendum for voicing their discontent for their local government.
2)Bad communicatoin. The government didn't explain everything to the people like they should have. And the nay-sayers had more convincing arguments than the yes-sayers. The government handled this awefully.

EDIT: one thing I might add: the government in The Netherlands doesn't have to care about the public opinion, but they probably will and vote "no". Referenda have no law making powers in The Netherlands as opposed to France.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Troll

Only a few months back, Europeans had a chance to elect their EU representatives ... and turnout was the lowest ever recorded in France.

Huh? What are you talking about? The Council is not elected and neither is the Commission (and I assume y0y0 was referring to the president of the Commission in his post).

[Troll]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Huh? What are you talking about? The Council is not elected and neither is the Commission (and I assume y0y0 was referring to the president of the Commission in his post).

I'm talking about the European Parliament.

The people that are on the Council and the Commission are not directly elected to their posts but to make out as if Brussels is some autonomous body that isn't accountable and does its own thing is a major distortion of the truth. Besides, the Constitution would improve accountability and democracy in Europe so it makes little sense to vote against it if your problem with Europe is a lack of accountability. If you reject the Constitution, the normal course of events is another 20 years of the status quo.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Troll

I'm talking about the European Parliament.

That's more than "a few months back" in my sense of time, but OK.

Originally Posted by Troll

The people that are on the Council and the Commission are not directly elected to their posts but to make out as if Brussels is some autonomous body that isn't accountable and does its own thing is a major distortion of the truth.

With regards to the commissioners the amount of indirection so large I hardly see how they are democratically legitimized. The Council is composed of member-states governments, all right, but that is a) indirect as well and b) there is no separation of executive and legislative branch of power in the Council. This is inherently undemocratic. The influence the European people can take these two bodies are minimal.

Originally Posted by Troll

Besides, the Constitution would improve accountability and democracy in Europe so it makes little sense to vote against it if your problem with Europe is a lack of accountability. If you reject the Constitution, the normal course of events is another 20 years of the status quo.

You said yourself the Constitution will not change much. I feel every right to criticize the lack of democracy and transparency in the EU (nota bene that I'm not an opposer of the EU though).

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

True. My bad.



Two reasons:
1) They are sick of their government and used this referendum to voice their opinion about their government in the hope that the current government would resign. The prime minister said after the referendum was held that he would not resign. He said that the local problems have nothing to do with Europe, and he's right. It's pure stupidity that the people have used this referendum for voicing their discontent for their local government.
2)Bad communicatoin. The government didn't explain everything to the people like they should have. And the nay-sayers had more convincing arguments than the yes-sayers. The government handled this awefully.

EDIT: one thing I might add: the government in The Netherlands doesn't have to care about the public opinion, but they probably will and vote "no". Referenda have no law making powers in The Netherlands as opposed to France.

For some no-voters yeah but for most no-voters it has more to do with EU related stuff, including the constitution, see Simey's post.

Simply dismissing the no votes for the reasons you posted is rather ignorant.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

That's more than "a few months back" in my sense of time, but OK.With regards to the commissioners the amount of indirection so large I hardly see how they are democratically legitimized. The Council is composed of member-states governments, all right, but that is a) indirect as well and b) there is no separation of executive and legislative branch of power in the Council. This is inherently undemocratic. The influence the European people can take these two bodies are minimal.

I don't see why this is undemocratic. In every democracy, there is a certain level beyond which there is no consultation with the public. For the sake of efficiency, you can't refer everything to the people. In most democracies, people don't decide on the actual composition of the government; as in who occupies which posts in the government. And when it comes to trans-national instutitions, there is only one exception to the rule that there is no direct election to such institutions.

Dominique de Villepin is the Prime Minister of France and he has never been elected by a popular vote in his life before. Is that undemocratic? I don't think so. De Villepin is accountable to the people indirectly via the government that they elected just as European Councillors are elected by the elected European governments. Europeans don't vote on who represents them at the UN or at NATO or at the OECD or at the IAEA. This is not unusual. The European Parliament is the only trans-national body in the world whose members are directly elected.

The point is that it's laughable to blame "Brussels" for anything. If you must, blame your government for EU policies but ultimately blame yourselves for not taking more of an interest in your candidates' view on Europe. Brussels is not an entity with its own interests. It is composed of politicians from all of the member states who, if they want to keep their jobs, need to serve the interests of their countrymen ... or at least their government's interpretation of the needs of their countrymen. The real disconnect is between Europeans and their governments not European governments and the Council. I think THAT is the problem and I think that THAT is what the people in France are signalling with their No - that there is a disconnect between the French government and the French people.

Now clearly the EU has evolved since it was set up and the EU has become the most active trans-national entity in the world. Given that it plays a bigger role in people's lives, it probably would be a good thing if people participated more directly in the EU and the comparison with other trans-national bodies is less fair. The drafters of the Constitution recognised that and the Constitution does seek to achieve greater democracy. Note the move away from consensus to majority rule for example (which is probably the most significant change in the Constitution).

See, I don't think that Europeans really do want greater democracy in the EU. Look at the EU Parliament elections - virtually no one bothers to vote! These are the worst attended elections in countries that don't have a good record for voter attendance as it is. Let me ask you this - in the last EU Parliament elections, did the policies of the parties on the drafting of the EU Constitution affect your choice of candidate? Remember that you are interested in politics.

I think that if you're honest, you'll acknowledge that most people haven't cared for a long time about EU politics and certainly haven't given a damn about the drafting of this Constitution. I find it hard to believe that they suddenly do now. That they just woke up and started asking fundamental questions about the EU. This Constitution was negotiated between interest groups and states all over Europe. The negotiations weren't easy. They involved elected governments. The No boys weren't making as much of a fuss back when the document was being negotiated and the ones that were by and large bought in to the final document. I think that what is really happening in France (and perhaps the Netherlands too) is that globalisation and the general slump in economies all over Europe have created a negative mood in Europe. This Constitution has become a scapegoat for unrelated issues like unemployment and tough economies (notably in France) and the rise of crime and continued high subventions (in the case of Holland).

I'm not saying that you don't have a right to criticise what you see as a lack of democracy and transparency in the EU, but I'm saying that I find it strange that you reject a process which has at its very root, the desire to achieve greater democracy and transparency. In any event, your No is really quite different from many of the other No's out there. Many others want Europe to be less political and wouldn't want to see direct elections to EU posts which a) means it's difficult to know what the no means and b) makes it very difficult to know how to improve on this draft. The challenge for the naysayers, particularly people like you who still support the EU in principle, is to start making positive suggestions for moving Europe forward in a way that everyone, or at least a majority of people, will support instead of just shooting down what exists.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

For some no-voters yeah but for most no-voters it has more to do with EU related stuff, including the constitution, see Simey's post.

Simply dismissing the no votes for the reasons you posted is rather ignorant.

I'm just saying what I hear and read. I hear/read that most people, just like in France (and I know that it's like that for a fact in France), have voted no just to oppose to Balkenende et Co.

What's the real reason according to you ? Don't tell me the people are voting no because of the "bureaucracy in Brussels", that's a ridiculous reason as Troll has pointed out. People who vote no for that reason are the proof that all communication about this European Consitition went wrong.

That said. Referenda are pointless IMHO since most people almost never understand for what they are voting.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Troll

See, I don't think that Europeans really do want greater democracy in the EU. Look at the EU Parliament elections - virtually no one bothers to vote! These are the worst attended elections in countries that don't have a good record for voter attendance as it is.

Surely that is a chicken and egg thing. Right now the European parliament is little more than a rubber stamp and a talking shop. So why would it surprise anyone that turnout is low for a mainly symbolic and powerless body?

If, on the other hand, the parliament were given the power to initiate and draft legislation, then it would have real power. In that situation, isn't it probable that more people would pay attention to it?

Of course, this suggestion presupposes that there is popular agreement with the idea that legislation should come out of the EU and be binding on the national governments of the EU. That's not for me to say, but I don't believe has ever been put squarely to a popular test in Europe either. Many of the older countries of the EU joined the EEC because it was a "common market" -- basically just a tariff zone. For example, Britain held a referendum on that issue. Nobody said anything about making Parliament subordinate to Brussels, and I suspect had Ted Heath told the country that is where it would go, he wouldn't have gotten a yes vote.

Nor has there ever been any kind of a referendum on that decision since then. All there has been are national elections when there were other issues also at stake that make it impossible to say that there is a mandate for giving up sovereignty. And the same essentially can be said for the other members (with the possible exception of the post-Maastricht members). So what you have had is basically a combination of mission creep and a power grab. You shouldn't be surprised that a lot of people are upset.

Note the move away from consensus to majority rule for example (which is probably the most significant change in the Constitution).

That's only a democratizing if you view the democratic entity the entire EU. Then it is a way to make sure that majority votes in the EU as a whole can ride roughshod over minority votes. That's only a good thing if what you want is to make sure that the European project goes on dispite local objections.

But look at it from the point of view of people who want to keep their national governments and don't want to be overridden on their local affairs. Removing the consensus rule at the supranational rule means that countries can no longer be assured that the final decision on how to manage their own countries will be made by the governments of those countries. From that point of view, removing the consensus is a profoundly undemocratic move.

I think that point of view needs to be acknowledged, and not dismissed. There needs to be an acknowledgment that political union isn't inevitable or pre-ordained and that there is a legitimate position between wanting to pull out of the EU entirely and going the whole hog into political union. People might genuinely want to keep their countries and just keep the EU as just a common market, not a proto-state in creation.

That is why I think this debate among Europeans is so healthy and so overdue. The basic problem seems to me is that nobody has taken the time to get the consent of the governed on the European project. Get agreement on where Europe is going, then work out the details. Not cram the details down their throats and get churlish if they puke it back up at you.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

All there has been are national elections when there were other issues also at stake that make it impossible to say that there is a mandate for giving up sovereignty.

Actually that's not quite true. Whilst other issues have been important, the Tories have led each of their last three manifestos with the explicit pledge to repatriate power from Brussels. They've been soundly crushed on each occasion.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

Actually that's not quite true. Whilst other issues have been important, the Tories have led each of their last three manifestos with the explicit pledge to repatriate power from Brussels. They've been soundly crushed on each occasion.

But not necessarily on that issue alone. There are always multiple issues in any national election, and I think you would admit that there is more than one reason why the Tories have been in the doldrums for the last decade.

Some issues, however, are so important that really they ought to be put to the people in a referendum where there is only that issue, and no others to distract matters. Issues of Constitutional dimensions fall into that category. You shouldn't be muddling up issues of sovereignty with other issues like who best funds the health service.

There should be a debate on whether or not the EU should become a political union, and that debate should be put to the people of each EU member state for an up or down vote. I don't see how any kind of a mandate for political union can be claimed otherwise. At best all you can claim is acquiescence.

[PacHead]

At least the French and Dutch got to vote on the issue, unlike the Germans which are forbidden from even holding referendums, because of their nazi past.

Expect more NO votes in the future from the other countries that will vote soon.

I'm sure all of those votes will be explained away also.

"You see, they voted NO, bu they don't really mean NO, so we should go ahead with our power grab anyhow."



What many are voting NO to is to a modern day fuedal system in Europe, and judging by some of the replies here and excuses made, I'd say this is correct. People are doing whatever they can to explain away (spin) the results into something completely different.

The funniest people are those who just dismiss the NO votes, real democracy in action here. We have a lot to learn from Europe.

Quick, somebody call Kerry, surely a recount is in order. Republicans are probably behind the voting machines in Europe.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

But not necessarily on that issue alone. There are always multiple issues in any national election, and I think you would admit that there is more than one reason why the Tories have been in the doldrums for the last decade.

Some issues, however, are so important that really they ought to be put to the people in a referendum where there is only that issue, and no others to distract matters. Issues of Constitutional dimensions fall into that category. You shouldn't be muddling up issues of sovereignty with other issues like who best funds the health service.

There should be a debate on whether or not the EU should become a political union, and that debate should be put to the people of each EU member state for an up or down vote. I don't see how any kind of a mandate for political union can be claimed otherwise. At best all you can claim is acquiescence.

I'm quite happy with the balance we (meaning the UK) have. It's not damaged our competitiveness in the slightest, and we haven't had to suffer through the birthing period of the Euro. We've gained substantial social and employment rights without damaging the economy. We're also somewhat unique in having a main opposition party that want to fundamentally re-negotiate Britain's relationship with the EU, so there is always an option to take that course at the ballot box, if people consider it that important. And of course a press that is savagely opposed to all things European and which never misses the opportunity to highlight and campaign on any back-door concessions.

Funnily enough, it was of course the Tories that gave away all of these powers without referenda; the 'constitution' was the first major renegotiation that the supposedly pro-EU Labour Party have worked on.

I say just let it settle down for 5-10 years, as it is. Maybe some simple reorganisation treaty to help administer the enlarged membership. We've come such a long way in a short space of time - no civil war yet - and I think people (and governments) need to ease off the gas pedal and take stock. No need to panic at the current situation.

[nath]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...PA%20Feed&ct=5

Britain's referendum on the EU constitution is to be shelved after Dutch voters dealt a devastating blow to the treaty, sources have said.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw will announce on Monday that the Bill paving the way for the British vote is to be put on hold indefinitely.

In Britain, Europe Minister Douglas Alexander acknowledged the constitution was in trouble.

"These two 'no' votes leave the constitutional treaty in serious difficulty," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "Certainly, from a British point of view, we are very clear of the need to respect public opinion and respect the results we have seen this week."

[Randman]

So much for Tony Blair being named first president of Europe.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Troll

naysayers, particularly people like you

I didn't say "nay". No referendum was held in Germany, but if there would have I would have likely voted in favour of it.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

If, on the other hand, the parliament were given the power to initiate and draft legislation, then it would have real power. In that situation, isn't it probable that more people would pay attention to it?

You mean like a Constitution?

Seriously though, where were all these millions of people when the Constitution was being drafted? I'll tell you - they weren't interested. And I don't believe they are now. The issues that are being discussed are unrelated to the Constitution and only vaguely related to the EU. The real issues, are globalisation and the effect it's having on EU economies, the relatively high levels of unemployment in Europe (and all the xenophobic issues related to that question) and social security issues caused by a top hevy population (age wise).

Besides, there are chickens and eggs everywhere in this tale. How do give the EU Parliament more power if you can't get people to pay attention to EU politics?

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Nor has there ever been any kind of a referendum on that decision since then. All there has been are national elections when there were other issues also at stake that make it impossible to say that there is a mandate for giving up sovereignty. And the same essentially can be said for the other members (with the possible exception of the post-Maastricht members). So what you have had is basically a combination of mission creep and a power grab. You shouldn't be surprised that a lot of people are upset.

I think that criticism is going overboard. A huge majority of Europeans still support the basis of the EU. Even the No crowd declared themselves in favour of the EU as it is today. The Dutch have expressed dissatisfaction with having to bankroll the EU and the French have expressed dissatisfaction with the direction the Constitution takes the EU in future. No one of any significance, not even in the UK thinks that EU countries have already given up too much sovereignty.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That's only a democratizing if you view the democratic entity the entire EU.

I don't see it that way. When there are a handful of members, consensus is workable. It's not workable when there are 25 members. If people think that the EU is bureaucratic now, they ain't seen nothin' yet. The currrent EU rules are straining to cope with 25 members. The system needs an overhaul.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

But look at it from the point of view of people who want to keep their national governments and don't want to be overridden on their local affairs.

As opposed to what other view. No one is suggesting getting rid of national governments. Look at the things that the EU creates laws on. They're aimed at created a free flow of capital and labour and opening up the market. These are hardly major sovereignty issues.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That is why I think this debate among Europeans is so healthy and so overdue. The basic problem seems to me is that nobody has taken the time to get the consent of the governed on the European project. Get agreement on where Europe is going, then work out the details. Not cram the details down their throats and get churlish if they puke it back up at you.

Absolutely. Now we just need to have that debate! We haven't had it over this Constitution in France. There seems to have been more debate in the Netherlands but not much more.

[yakkiebah]

Germans seem to agree with the Dutch and the French.

(because of domestic problems ofcourse...)

[analogika]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Germans seem to agree with the Dutch and the French.

(because of domestic problems ofcourse...)

The tiny percentage of ZDF viewers who actually use TV Text AND were watching at that time AND who actually had a strong-enough opinion to spend time and money on participating in an obscure poll that goes completely unnoticed anywhere else seem to agree with the Dutch and the French.

You know full well that any poll that requires initial action by the would-be respondent is completely worthless. Even more so when that initial action costs 24 cents.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by analogika

The tiny percentage of ZDF viewers who actually use TV Text AND were watching at that time AND who actually had a strong-enough opinion to spend time and money on participating in an obscure poll that goes completely unnoticed anywhere else seem to agree with the Dutch and the French.

You know full well that any poll that requires initial action by the would-be respondent is completely worthless. Even more so when that initial action costs 24 cents.

The poll was done by phone.

[TETENAL]

96.9% of the Germans voted against the European Constitution!

(s)

[analogika]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

The poll was done by phone.

And to vote, YOU (the would-be respondent) had to

a) be watching ZDF at the time

b) switch to teletext (even when I had a TV-text-capable TV, I never used it. I have an internet connection, you know.)

and most importantly:

c) CALL THEM.

At 24 cents a call.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

96.9% of the Germans voted against the European Constitution!

(s)

The same applies to the poll that supplied that ridiculously stupid number.

You will note that the article you linked to also mentions the results of a serious poll, conducted by the Institut polis (for "Focus", but you can't hold that against polis ):

44% IN FAVOR (62% among respondents under 24 years of age).
39% against.
17% undecided.

VERY different picture, though still clearly showing the need for public discussion.

[TETENAL]

Thanks, but I trust "Bild" better than some obscure Polish institute. So do most real Germans.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Thanks, but I trust "Bild" better than some obscure Polish institute. So do most real Germans.

You used "trust" and "Bild" in the same sentence...

And YOU posted the link to the Spiegel Online article, which mentioned the poll by the Institut polis - which, by the way, is in Munich.

And beyond my amusement, I'm somewhat disappointed, to tell the truth. I always thought that source analysis and things like the difference between a representative poll and something like a TED poll were part of basic education in German schools. Sad to see that I was obviously wrong.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Thanks, but I trust "Bild" ...

...but you forgot the " " (hopefully)

[analogika]

Actually, I don't think he was kidding.

Of course, it's better for all concerned if we just assume sarcasm.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by analogika

Actually, I don't think he was kidding.

Do you really think so?
I just can't believe that someone with a Spiegel sig can seriously use "Bild" and "trust" in one sentence as you mentioned before!

[asdasd]

That said. Referenda are pointless IMHO since most people almost never understand for what they are voting.

What rubbish. When this referendum comes to Ireland I will vote against this ridiculous constitution as it removes national sovereignty from the Irish People. I presume that is why this tyrannical treaty was rejected by the citizens of France - and it is not up to you to undemocratically "deduce" their reasons. It will be rejected by 90% in Britain. It would have been rejected in Germany if they had opted for a vote.

On the other hand, the Dutch parliament would have voted for this pile of dogshite with a 80% majority which shows exactly how unrepresentative supposed "representative democracy" on the continent is. The problem there is with the system of voting; given the list system most political operatives are elite members of a political class with no actual constituency.

My other reason for rejecting this treaty is it's sheer incomprehensibility. In that respect i agree that most people must not understand what they are voting for, and that must be the case with any of the fools who voted for the treaty, as they could not have understood what this turgid New-Speak actually means.

If I were as undemocratic as you I would suggest that all YES voters be banned from voting, but I am not, so I won't. But that continental disdain towards referenda ( with the exception of the ever democratic Swiss) is another reason to not continue along the path of closer union with pseudo-democratic states.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by asdasd

What rubbish. When this referendum comes to Ireland I will vote against this ridiculous constitution as it removes national sovereignty from the Irish People. I presume that is why this tyrannical treaty was rejected by the citizens of France - and it is not up to you to undemocratically "deduce" their reasons. It will be rejected by 90% in Britain. It would have been rejected in Germany if they had opted for a vote.

On the other hand, the Dutch parliament would have voted for this pile of dogshite with a 80% majority which shows exactly how unrepresentative supposed "representative democracy" on the continent is. The problem there is with the system of voting; given the list system most political operatives are elite members of a political class with no actual constituency.

My other reason for rejecting this treaty is it's sheer incomprehensibility. In that respect i agree that most people must not understand what they are voting for, and that must be the case with any of the fools who voted for the treaty, as they could not have understood what this turgid New-Speak actually means.

If I were as undemocratic as you I would suggest that all YES voters be banned from voting, but I am not, so I won't. But that continental disdain towards referenda ( with the exception of the ever democratic Swiss) is another reason to not continue along the path of closer union with pseudo-democratic states.

Well said !

[Troll]

Originally Posted by asdasd

What rubbish. When this referendum comes to Ireland I will vote against this ridiculous constitution as it removes national sovereignty from the Irish People.

Do you mind explaining how the Constitution "removes national sovereignty from the Irish people"? If you could refer to the text and tell me which parts change the status quo, I'd be very happy. Because being a lawyer and having studied the Constitution at length, I can't see that it removes anything. The sovereignty situation after the Constitution is passed seems to me identical to the current situation.

Originally Posted by asdasd

I presume that is why this tyrannical treaty was rejected by the citizens of France.

That's the wrong assumption. The different political parties that were in favour of a No don't have much in common at all. Roman Giertych, leader of the archconservative League of Polish Families thinks the Constitution isn't Christian enough; Arlette Laguiller, French Trotskyite and presidential candidate suggests that European workers should now rise up in a general insurrection against exploitative bosses; Serb ultranationalist Tomislav Nikolic, whose Radical Party is led by an indicted war criminal, Vojislav Seselj said the vote was proof that Serbia should "not jump every time Brussels tells them to"; French Socialist Henri Emmanuelli, who hailed the "power of popular sovereignty" that prevailed against his own party leadership; and Marianne Thieme of the Dutch Party for Animals, who claimed that the Dutch vote left "animal-rights organizations standing stronger in negotiating a better treaty." There are as many "No's" in Europe as there are political parties.

Originally Posted by asdasd

The problem there is with the system of voting; given the list system most political operatives are elite members of a political class with no actual constituency.

Wait a minute; you're talking about rejecting the Constitution because the CURRENT system is not democratic enough? That doesn't make sense! If you're rejecting the new dispensation, reject it for what it is, not what it is designed to remedy. The whole point of the Constitution project is to make the EU more accessible to people and more democratic! It makes zero sense to reject that process because you agree with the premise of the project! The Constitution, if passed, would make European politicians MORE accountable to the electorate! That's the whole point.

Originally Posted by asdasd

My other reason for rejecting this treaty is it's sheer incomprehensibility.

Have you read the Bunreacht na hEireann? The European Constitution is far more comprehensible than your own Irish Constitution. It's a law. Laws are the product of a process whereby people fight for days over the placement of a comma. It's very difficult to make these documents simple to read whilst still covering the point adequately and taking all points of view into consideration. The European Constitution is not a masterpiece of simplicity but it's not nearly as bad as you say it is. It's a lot better than most of the Constitutions out there - trust me, I've read many of them.

Personally, even if I didn't think that the Constitution would decrease the cost and improve the efficiencies of running the EU, and if I was considering voting no, I'd just have to look at the characters that are in the No camp to know that I'd be making a big mistake - Jean-Marie Le Pen, Jörg Haider, Pim Fortuyn, Vojislave Seselj - these are not people I'm inclined to agree with ... on anything.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by asdasd

My other reason for rejecting this treaty is it's sheer incomprehensibility.

Apparently that is the ONLY reason.

And PacHead is at heel, as usual, to applaud ignorance where it shows up.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Troll

I'd just have to look at the characters that are in the No camp to know that I'd be making a big mistake - Jean-Marie Le Pen, Jörg Haider, Pim Fortuyn, Vojislave Seselj - these are not people I'm inclined to agree with ... on anything.

Pim Fortuyn campaigned against the treaty in the Netherlands referendum? Wow! Even the dead are opposed.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Pim Fortuyn campaigned against the treaty in the Netherlands referendum? Wow! Even the dead are opposed.

There's always a pedantic bastard waiting to cut you down. Before he was murdered he campaigned against the Constitution (according to my Dutch friend ... and Time magazine - I leave it to you to decide who is the more reliable source). The Pim Fortuyn party was against the Constitution in any event.

[Tarambana]

Originally Posted by Troll

Do you mind explaining how the Constitution "removes national sovereignty from the Irish people"? If you could refer to the text and tell me which parts change the status quo, I'd be very happy. Because being a lawyer and having studied the Constitution at length, I can't see that it removes anything. The sovereignty situation after the Constitution is passed seems to me identical to the current situation.

Hi, Troll.

First, let me say that I agree with most of what you just said. Nevertheless, I don't think the sovereignity question is as cut and dry as you make it sound. I don't know about the situation in Ireland, but I certainly can explain you, at least in general, how it can be said that the EU Constitution affects the States' sovereignity. What follows will sound of little importance to some of you, and, maybe far too focused on semantics; but believe me, it's important nonetheless.

The problem lies upon the fact that up until now, only the ECJ had stated the "precedence" of EU Law before the States' internal Law (Case Costa v. ENEL - july 15th 1964). No treaty had said as much; it was a secondary rule meant to make sure that the Court's decissions were effective. This gave place to various interpretations by the State's courts (v. gr. Solange I, may 29th 1974 & II, october 22nd 1986; or, in my home country, CC decisions 28/1991 and 130/1995) not all of them coincident with the extension the ECJ wanted to give to the precedence principle (but focused on the idea of the dialogue between the courts). Even if for no other reason, things are somewhat different now, as the EU Constitution is giving the principle more force and, in a way, petrifying it, as for the first time, it isn't mere jurisprudence but a Law. The States' judiciary will have problems to integrate that principle without admitting for once and for all that all EU Law precedes their own. This might be a good thing, but it certainly is different now. Our Constitutional Court (here in Spain) and the Federal Court in Germany won't probably be able to maintain our Constitutions' primacy above the ECJ's decisions if the EU Constitution is approved with its article I-6.

This leads me to the second part of the problem. The ECJ had been always talking in Costa v. ENEL and posterior decisions, of "precedence" (the condition of being considered more important than someone or something else; priority in importance, order, or rank - OAD), and someof us believe that this term wasn't chosen lightly but because it doesn't necessarily imply as "primacy" (the fact of being primary, preeminent, or more important - OAD) does that some is in and of itself more important. Also, the way the relation between different sets of rules and laws in the State and in the international realm had been explain was one of "precedence" and not of "primacy" (v. gr. Lowenstein, Biscaretti di Ruffia or Kelsen, all set sovereignity as an absolute and explain the role of international law, if granted this position by the State, as one of precedence). I know we are in a historical process which leads to the loss of sovereignity by the States; or, at the very least, to a transition towards other agents. Anyway, the EU Constitution article I-6 states: «The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the union in excercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the memeber states.» This terminological change might be moot, but depending on how the ECJ chooses to interpret it, might have great importance on redefining what it is the State's sovereingity.

To sum it all, tthe problem comes from two fronts: one, that for the first time, precedence (or primacy in the Constitution wording) of the EU Law is stated by this same Law and not by a judicial decision (for you, common law folks, this might be hard to understand, but let me remind you, without going into further detail, that here in the continental Europe, judicial opinion is less relevant than legal rules); two, that they have chosen to change the wording, maybe to open a more pervassive interpretation.

So, Troll, seeing that what precedes is a bit of a simplification, if you are still interested (and you can read spanish fairly well) I can send you several scholar opinions (one of them mine), the decision of the spanish Council of the State, and the one adopted by our Constitutional Court (roughly, the equivalent to the Supreme Court of the USA). But, anyway, believe me when I tell you that this question has generated quite a bit of debate.


Cheers.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Tarambana

The problem lies upon the fact that up until now, only the ECJ had stated the "precedence" of EU Law before the States' internal Law (Case Costa v. ENEL - july 15th 1964). No treaty had said as much; it was a secondary rule meant to make sure that the Court's decissions were effective.

Good post. Sure, things are never as cut and dry as anyone thinks. As soon as lawyers are involved, there are always at least two possible arguments. I don't know much about your local law, but I think that in this case, if your argument is that local laws currently have precedence, you're arguing against a rather massive opposition.

Personally I think that some of the civil law countries' lawyers are in denial. EU law is not a civil system. A few points that I think you need to bear in mind.

First point: My question was what would change for an Irish person; not for a Spaniard. In a common law context (like Ireland's), the courts effectively make law. Decisions of the ECJ are not "secondary rules". EU law currently always has precedence over Irish laws on the same topic and Irish courts are subservient to EU courts on the same point of law. Now of course Ireland can reverse that by backing out of the EU. They might want to plant some potatoes before they do that though.

Second point: It's not just the ECJ that has said that EU law takes precedence. Under Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome, the European Court is the supreme tribunal for the interpretation of European law. That is, a Spanish court has to give way to a decision of the ECJ. I think this is what messes with civil lawyers minds - the Treaty of Rome effectively implements a common law approach to precedent. The ECJ effectively makes law just like common law courts do. This is reinforced by another source of law (note: again not a court decision). Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 states that EU law takes precedence over local law and Section 3 states that questions as to the validity, meaning or effect of Community legislation are to be decided in accordance with the principles laid down by the European Court. That is, your own national courts have to follow the principles laid down by the ECJ. So, if the ECJ establishes the principle that EU law has precedence over Spanish law, then your courts have to implement that principle. The only way out (and this is what Costa says) is for the Spanish legislature to legislate against EU law which would mean undermining the whole EU and probably mean Spain leaving a union that has been rather profitable for it.

That this represents English law (which would be far more informative of Irish law than Spanish law) is confirmed in R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame (1990). The ECJ said that national courts were to ignore any national law that ran contrary to European law. Pubblico Ministero v Ratti (1974) confirmed that this is the case even when penal sanctions are involved. Solange dealt with questions of fundamental human rights in a time when there was no European wide statement of human rights and where the German Constititution had a particular issue with human rights. Solange has been surpassed by more recent developments in EU human rights law and never established a universal principle anyway.

Besides, we're talking here about Ireland - the only state whose national courts have actually explicitly accepted the ECJ's (post Solange) argument that EU law takes precedence over even the must fundamental constitutional provisions, and that problems involving fundamental rights can be resolved by the extension of the jurisdiction of the ECJ and of treaties into this territory. So, in the case of Ireland, it's patently clear that nothing will change. In the case of Germany (and perhaps Spain), I don't see what you would salvage by voting against the Constitution. If you ever refused to give precedence to EU law, you'd be kicked out of the EU. That's effectively what Costa says.

In any event neither Spain nor Germany nor the ECJ nor any European country argues that its laws have precedence over EU law. There is always a legal argument to justify a countervailing point but yours is a minnow facing a tidal wave. I take your point that the Constitution makes your argument more difficult and I agree but the reason the Constitution does this is because the vast majority thinks that EU law does currently take precedence and the majority of people agree that it should. You're kidding yourself if you think that voting against this Constitution will change anything. The question as whether EU law takes precedence over national law is not a question at all. It wasn't even considered during the drafting of the Constitution. At the end of the day, Spain could assert its sovereignty and refuse to comply with EU law, but it would never bring your argument because it would mean Spain leaving the EU which would be complete suicide. Besides, IMHO your argument is already so contrived and counter-intuitive that I doubt the Constitution would affect it very much.

For me, all the Constitution does is take all of the different sources of EU law as they are currently interpreted by the vast majority of people and put them in one place. It takes the prevailing ECJ interpretation (which like it or not Spain is bound to follow), ECJ decisions, the current interpretation of the law given by the EU members the EC Act and the Treaty of Rome and summarises all of those volumes into one simple, easy to read paragraph. You have pointed out how in Spain one might argue that it does represent a minor change (one that the vast majority of people and the Spanish government don't make) but that argument doesn't apply to Ireland which is the one country who more than any other has specifically affirmed that EU law takes precedence.

[Tarambana]

Originally Posted by Troll

…

Personally I think that some of the civil law countries' lawyers are in denial. EU law is not a civil system. A few points that I think you need to bear in mind.

Probably; I was very much playing devil's advocate in that last post. Yet, at least until we have a political EU and not only an economical one, their denial, specially when taken into consideration by politicians, is certainly important.

Originally Posted by Troll

First point: My question was what would change for an Irish person; not for a Spaniard. In a common law context (like Ireland's), the courts effectively make law. Decisions of the ECJ are not "secondary rules". EU law currently always has precedence over Irish laws on the same topic and Irish courts are subservient to EU courts on the same point of law. Now of course Ireland can reverse that by backing out of the EU. They might want to plant some potatoes before they do that though.

Yep. Of course, that's why I mentioned civil law cases (Germany, Italy, Spain, France, etc.).

Originally Posted by Troll

Second point: It's not just the ECJ that has said that EU law takes precedence. Under Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome, the European Court is the supreme tribunal for the interpretation of European law. That is, a Spanish court has to give way to a decision of the ECJ. I think this is what messes with civil lawyers minds - the Treaty of Rome effectively implements a common law approach to precedent. The ECJ effectively makes law just like common law courts do. This is reinforced by another source of law (note: again not a court decision). Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 states that EU law takes precedence over local law and Section 3 states that questions as to the validity, meaning or effect of Community legislation are to be decided in accordance with the principles laid down by the European Court. That is, your own national courts have to follow the principles laid down by the ECJ. So, if the ECJ establishes the principle that EU law has precedence over Spanish law, then your courts have to implement that principle. The only way out (and this is what Costa says) is for the Spanish legislature to legislate against EU law which would mean undermining the whole EU and probably mean Spain leaving a union that has been rather profitable for it.

That this represents English law (which would be far more informative of Irish law than Spanish law) is confirmed in R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame (1990). The ECJ said that national courts were to ignore any national law that ran contrary to European law. Pubblico Ministero v Ratti (1974) confirmed that this is the case even when penal sanctions are involved. Solange dealt with questions of fundamental human rights in a time when there was no European wide statement of human rights and where the German Constititution had a particular issue with human rights. Solange has been surpassed by more recent developments in EU human rights law and never established a universal principle anyway.

Yeah, we also agree on this, at least pro principio. The problem is that most high courts in civil law countries have fought that very idea (in a more or less open manner). They stablished the courts' dialogue so to avoid accepting the ECJ's authority altogether, because they simply culdn't reject it. Yet, decision after decision, those same courts haven't relinquished the point of view I was talking about. For most high courts the idea of an EU in which even the ECJ's decisions supassed the State's Constitution was (and up to some extent still is) revolting.

What I am trying to say is that no matter how much the ECJ insists to claim its own grounds (not only EU's Law position and precedence, but also that of their own decisions, above the States internal Law and Constitutions) we are still in a time of changes and the ECJ lacks the best means to make those proprositions as effective in practice as we would like. Fact is that up until now there has been no serious confrontation between the ECJ and the States' courts. But until we get a political union, that model is somewhat at risk, because any govrenment that faces a contradiction between its own high court and the ECJ would have a hard time if it chose to align with the judiciary of the European authority.

Originally Posted by Troll

Besides, we're talking here about Ireland - the only state whose national courts have actually explicitly accepted the ECJ's (post Solange) argument that EU law takes precedence over even the must fundamental constitutional provisions, and that problems involving fundamental rights can be resolved by the extension of the jurisdiction of the ECJ and of treaties into this territory. So, in the case of Ireland, it's patently clear that nothing will change. In the case of Germany (and perhaps Spain), I don't see what you would salvage by voting against the Constitution. If you ever refused to give precedence to EU law, you'd be kicked out of the EU. That's effectively what Costa says.

Yep, that's why I didn''t talk about Ireland. FTR I didn't vote against the EU Constitution but for it (I had several gripes and grumbles with it, but they were almost exclusively legalities and the type of things I knew could not be changed). Funnily enough, both Spain and Germany voted for the EUC.

My position was not one against the treaty, but for clearly stablishing (at least some of) the EUC's effects. I'll try to make myself clearer without revealing any inside info. EUC's Article I-6 is, in my opinion, a not enoguh clear sign of the irreversibility of the process which, for us, began 20 years ago. We (Spain, as a country) have been giving our sovereignty away. We began (as all the others) giving away the EU the exercise of certain facets of that sovereignty; we slowly transtitioned to giving away not only the exercise but also the competency which derives from it; we are now putting the core of that very idea in the hands of a different subject. Article's I-6 current wording is a missed oportunity (and I hope it won't be missed twice) to make things clearer for all the people that, as you mentioned before, are in denial. We have gone through a referendum. This would have been (should the treaty had made the primacy principle more clear and the political forces been more receptive to our --mine and of others'-- point of view) the best moment for us to face a modification of our Constitution which included the EU and to make sure that no future debate could take place about this matter.

Originally Posted by Troll

In any event neither Spain nor Germany nor the ECJ nor any European country argues that its laws have precedence over EU law. There is always a legal argument to justify a countervailing point but yours is a minnow facing a tidal wave. I take your point that the Constitution makes your argument more difficult and I agree but the reason the Constitution does this is because the vast majority thinks that EU law does currently take precedence and the majority of people agree that it should. You're kidding yourself if you think that voting against this Constitution will change anything. The question as whether EU law takes precedence over national law is not a question at all. It wasn't even considered during the drafting of the Constitution. At the end of the day, Spain could assert its sovereignty and refuse to comply with EU law, but it would never bring your argument because it would mean Spain leaving the EU which would be complete suicide. Besides, IMHO your argument is already so contrived and counter-intuitive that I doubt the Constitution would affect it very much.

I hope you don't mind, but have emphasized what I consider the most important part of your post. Also, note that I don't advocate voting against the EUC (not that it matters that much either, right now).

Yeah, the vast majority of people (and all the lawyers I know) not only think but know that the EU Law takes precedence over internal law (even the constitution) and that this precedence (following the common law system from which it spawns) also holds true for all the ECJ decisions. Maybe you 're right in the second part, and it is also true that most people want this to be exactly as it is. I, for one, think that in spite of my own desires, it would have been wise, both for the EU tomake things clearer in a. I-6, and for my own country to use this last referendum as a legitimacy stand-point for what the ECJ first stated in "Costa". That way we would be avoiding several future (even if only potential) problems.

Originally Posted by Troll

For me, all the Constitution does is take all of the different sources of EU law as they are currently interpreted by the vast majority of people and put them in one place. It takes the prevailing ECJ interpretation (which like it or not Spain is bound to follow), ECJ decisions, the current interpretation of the law given by the EU members the EC Act and the Treaty of Rome and summarises all of those volumes into one simple, easy to read paragraph. You have pointed out how in Spain one might argue that it does represent a minor change (one that the vast majority of people and the Spanish government don't make) but that argument doesn't apply to Ireland which is the one country who more than any other has specifically affirmed that EU law takes precedence.

I'm in agreement again with you, in all but the details. Yes, ECJ decisions are binding for us and for our courts, and they always have been. But, time after time, our Constitutional Court (and we aren't alone in this front in the EU) has stated that our Constitution was prevalent (most times not in this clear way, but always in a more or less direct manner) to the ECJ decisions. We have never had to think about leaving the EU because the Law which comes both from our parliament and the EP, and the principles behind them, are very much the same. This was, as I explained, the best time to seize on the situation and make things clear for once and for all; now it's a missed oportunity.

Yes, it is also true that the EU which is envisioned in the EUC is one far stronger than the current one, and one, also, in which EU Law would be far clearer than it is now. Yes, that would be a neat result of the Constitution. But, again, I believe a bolder wording would have helped. I am fully aware that the arguments I laid before were mostly foreigner to my government and my countrymen; yet this is only the sad result of a treaty extremely complex (the treaty in the PDF edition has 349 pages, and that is without taking into consideration declarations et al.) and the perennial disconnection between the EU institutions and the EU population. And, yes, that argument does not apply to Ireland (maybe I should had started the previous post indicating that it was somewhat Off-Topic ).

So, all in all, I didn't mean to defend that "this ridiculous constitution … removes national sovereignty from the Irish People" as I consider that to be utter nonsense. On the other hand, I believe your posts are quite good in general, and some of them are very good. I only wanted to bring into the debate another point of view (which, I reiterate again, is not mine) about the sovereignty discussion. After all, something hasn't been made perfectly clear when people talking about Ireland will say that the EUC makes them surrender their sovereignty. The discussion, as inadequate as it is in some cases (such as Ireland) and contrived and counter-intuitive in others (such as my country's in which in spite of this, led to an opinion by the Council of the State, the rough equivalent to the french "Conseil d'Ètat" and the supreme consultative authority in Spain), is still necessary, or at least should have taken place to make sure that things are made perfectly clear.

[Troll]

That's a great post Tarambana. Thought-provoking and well argued. I think we were arguing past each other slightly in that I was responding specifically to the Ireland point.

I know from my experience in France that there are some people that cling to the idea that there is still sovereignty to save and the low level of comprehension of what the EU is astounds me. The only thing that's worse is people that know what the EU is but want to claw back precious sovereignty over the colour of their headlights (seriously, I have a French friend who think it was a disaster that France abandoned yellow headlights apparently in favour of EU integration). For me the EU is a club; you take the good with the bad. If you're outvoted, you stay or go. The point I was trying to make about the argument you raised is that it's really academic because if it were ever to gain sufficient popularity to fly, it would mean the end of the EU ... at least for the member asserting sovereignty in that way.

Simey and I have had the discussion about how we came to this pretty pass before and I think we both agree with you. I think that Europeans are often shocked when they find out what the EU is today and that is because a lot fo the changes have snuck in under their radars. When you tell people that EU laws have precedence over national laws, they're often horrified or tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. Then, inevitably, they realise that their lives aren't so bad and they move on. But the point is that this is not obvious to them. I think that it is certainly true that there has been a disconnect between the leaders in Europe and the population. The EU hasn't communicated well in the past. That's not only the fault of the leaders. I think that Europeans haven't taken much of an interest in European affairs. They don't participate much, they don't inform themselves. That said, I do think that people in Spain and Portugal and Greece (countries that benefitted most from the EU) have a better understanding than the French or the British (which is not to say these countries haven't benefitted enormously). I've said before I think that the biggest issue the EU faces right now is communication. I think the EU needs to communicate to people what the EU is in June 2005 before we can start talking about what the EU should be in June 2010. Until people have a better understanding of what the EU is, having rules pass the way they have in the past spells disaster long-term because that lack of knowledge will be exploited by all of the marginal loonies like the socialists and the animal rights activists and the far right.

[Tarambana]

Originally Posted by Troll

That's a great post Tarambana. Thought-provoking and well argued.

Thanks a lot for the compliment.

Originally Posted by Troll

]
I don't think we're arguing past each other. I know from my experience in France that there are some people that cling to the idea that there is still sovereignty to save. In fact, it's not these people that irritate me so much as those that cling to both membership of the EU and their precious sovereignty over the colour of their headlights (seriously, I have a French friend who think it was a disaster that France abandoned yellow headlights apparently in favour of EU integration).

Yeah. Sadly, that's quite frequent. Here in Spain we still have idiots that complain about the recent EU opening to 25, and specifically because the East Europe countries are going to be net receivers, even though we, spaniards, have received several billion euros from the european funds. It's the type of hypocrisy that makes people ask for all the benefits without assuming that there are (as it could not be any other way) costs associated.

Originally Posted by Troll

The point I was trying to make is that the argument that you mentioned is really academic because if it were ever to gain sufficient popularity to fly, it would mean the end of the EU.

Yep. Luckily it will never be a popular argument (at least as enunciated above) because, as you said, it is quite counter-intuitive.

Originally Posted by Troll

Simey and I have had the discussion about how we came to this pretty pass before and I think we both agree with you. I think that Europeans are often shocked when they find out what the EU is today and that is because a lot fo the changes have snuck in under their radars. When you tell people that EU laws have precedence over national laws, they're often horrified or tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. Then, inevitably, they realise that their lives aren't so bad and they move on. But the point is that this is not obvious to them. I think that it is certainly true that there has been a disconnect between the leaders in Europe and the population. The EU hasn't communicated well in the past. That's not only the fault of the leaders. I think that Europeans haven't taken much of an interest in European affairs. They don't participate much, they don't inform themselves. That said, I do think that people in Spain and Portugal and Greece (countries that benefitted most from the EU) have a better understanding than the French or the British (which is not to say these countries haven't benefitted enormously). I've said before I think that the biggest issue the EU faces right now is communication. I think the EU needs to communicate to people what the EU is in June 2005 before we can start talking about what the EU should be in June 2010. Until people have a better understanding of what the EU is, having rules pass the way they have in the past spells disaster long-term because that lack of knowledge will be exploited by all of the marginal loonies like the socialists and the animal rights activists and the far right.

Yeah, I totally agree with that. A friend of mine is nowadays in Harvard attending the most prestigious master in international law, and we often comment on this issue. We are in agreement that the EU needs to change the way how it communicates with the european population; but we also think that it is essential to find something that serves to unify not the countries but the people. A spanish philosopher (José Ortega y Gasset) while analyzing the situation of Spain before the II WW used to say that the only way to assure that my country wouldn't disunite (I'd love to explain in further detail the situation we had back then, but this isn't the right thread and I don't have time) was to find something to give the masses a sense of unity. I've no idea what could serve that purpose in the EU, but I'm sure we need somethingof that kind.

Cheers.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Tarambana

A spanish philosopher (José Ortega y Gasset) while analyzing the situation of Spain before the II WW used to say that the only way to assure that my country wouldn't disunite (I'd love to explain in further detail the situation we had back then, but this isn't the right thread and I don't have time) was to find something to give the masses a sense of unity. I've no idea what could serve that purpose in the EU, but I'm sure we need somethingof that kind.

Traditionally a nice little war somewhere serves this purpose well.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by analogika

Apparently that is the ONLY reason.

And PacHead is at heel, as usual, to applaud ignorance where it shows up.

We shall see who the ignorant ones are, when the EU starts to go down the crapper.

Should be an interesting EU meeting this week, with France/Chirac attempting to bully the UK, something Blair will have nothing of, obviously.

I predict a complete breakup of the EU eventually.

The main people who benefit from the EU are the tens of thousands of overpaid, useless workers.

The "Democratic" (more like fascist, secretive) EU is forced to reveal "obscenely high salaries".

Civil servants on the Brussels gravy train now earn £70,000 a year after tax. And that's just for starters. The European Commission, by instinct bashful about its generous perks and allowances, was forced to disclose the figure, and much more, in response to a written question from a Czech MEP.

What's more, in return for adhering to the EU's mantra of "ever closer union", the bureaucrats know they will never willingly be let go.The perks don't stop there.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../12/weu112.xml

Basically, those people are like parasites, feeding on the gullible (or ignorant, as the YES crowd would call them) European people.

[Tarambana]

Originally Posted by Troll

Traditionally a nice little war somewhere serves this purpose well.

Heh, heh, heh. As long as we don't fight between us again, I'll be a happy camper.

[asdasd]

Besides, we're talking here about Ireland - the only state whose national courts have actually explicitly accepted the ECJ's (post Solange) argument that EU law takes precedence over even the must fundamental constitutional provisions, and that problems involving fundamental rights can be resolved by the extension of the jurisdiction of the ECJ and of treaties into this territory. So, in the case of Ireland, it's patently clear that nothing will change.

If the Irish Supreme court ruled like that, it was treasonous. And my understanding of Irish constitutional law is that the people are sovereign constitutionally, that is - all EU agreements and changes have been added to the constitution via a referendum.

You guys are clearly very smart - your English is better than the vast majority of Americans on this board. However that tells me that you may belong to a Pauline Kael type elite. I say Pauline Kael - the late New Yorker film critic, and occasional political pundit - as she is famous for saying that she was amazed that Nixon won with 60% of the vote in 1968 as no-one she knew voted for him .

She wasn't joking either - she did not know one person who would have voted for Nixon. However he got 60% of the vote and swept all 50 States, including New York where she lived.

On similar fashion the internationalist elites ( people with international law degrees) are divorced from the belief systems of most Europeans, or Americans. There is a very real desire for most people to be sovereign, to have self determination - which is the basis of nation states. Such as desire has not gone away, and it may be that the elites have abandoned it, but the average man has not. Tribalism will out.

Nationalism is natural. Suppressed nationalism leads to extremism. That is the lesson that you should have learned from history: not that nationalism is bad, but that it's suppression will lead to extremism. Think of hitler in the Austrian-Hungarian empire, think of the latest nationalist wars in Europe - the collapse of Yugoslavia - all of these people were born and raised in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic State, and educated to believe themselves as Yugoslavian: and yet reverted to ethnic type when the system collapsed.

The EU will collapse if it over-integrates - and it is clear that there is no uniformity of belief, economics, law or culture across the union. Look at the unseemly row about the budget that rages now.

To save Europe and the EU, a fine project, it must be looser and more sovereign. The constitution was rightly rejected.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by asdasd

If the Irish Supreme court ruled like that, it was treasonous.

Well they did. And for good reason. Ireland has benefitted more than perhaps any other country from membership of the EU.

The reason you have referenda is basically that EU law is restricted to certain topics that the individual states have authorised it to legislate on. That is, you voluntarily hand over sovereignty on certain issues on the basis that these are better dealt with at a European level. The EU only legislates on those matters (like agricultural policy) that you've already agreed to part with. The EU doesn't have free reign to legislate on anything they want to. But once states have authorised it to legislate on a certain area, it only makes sense that the laws they make should have precedence over national laws. Otherwise the EU simply cannot function. If every state can, for example, make its own laws regarding the free flow of capital in the EU, how do you expect to create a single market?

Let me ask you this. Are you in favour of Ireland's membership of the EU?

Originally Posted by asdasd

On similar fashion the internationalist elites ( people with international law degrees) are divorced from the belief systems of most Europeans, or Americans. There is a very real desire for most people to be sovereign, to have self determination - which is the basis of nation states. Such as desire has not gone away, and it may be that the elites have abandoned it, but the average man has not. Tribalism will out.

If people are so interested in self-determination, then why is participation in democratic institutions so low? If people are really interested in the European project, why do more of them not turn out for European elections?

I think a lot of people are getting their knickers in a knot for nothing. The EU does not take away self-determination. You still choose your own government. You also have to be aware of the economic reality of globalisation - money and capital don't recognise borders. No country can afford to isolate themselves, to attempt to subsidise their economies and protect their industries. The EEC recognised this trend a long time ago and economic realities are still the basis of the EU. Globalisation is far more of a reality today than it was then. Once you recognise the benefits of a zone within which capital can flow (and as an Irish person, these should be clear to you), you need to implement it. You need laws that encourage the free flow of capital. The means telling states that they can't tax companies that move capital within the zone, it means telling states that they can't prevent labour from moving around the zone. Once labour is moving around, you need laws on things like social security etc. Creating the conditions that make the zone possible necessarily means the individual states within the zone giving up sovereignty on certain issues, like these. The thing is that Ireland gave up a long time ago all of the sovereignty that the Constitution asks you to give up. And look what it has done for you. It has turned Ireland around completely. And what is the downside for your sovereignty. Do you feel any less in control of your life today than you did 20 years ago. Did you parents have more or less control over their destinies than you do? I think the answers to those questions are obvious ... which suggests to me that all this fuss about losing sovereignty is much ado about nothing.

You might be right that us international lawyers are out of touch, but I also think that gap exists because we're interested in the EU and its laws whereas the average Joe Soap isn't. We're not scared of the EU because we know what it is and we don't let loonies tell us that the Constitution is Turkey's ticket to membership because we know the two have nothing to do with each other. A lot of the people in Europe are simply not aware of what the EU is, how and why it works. Largely because they haven't taken an interest for the longest time and because the EU hasn't been good at communicating. I don't think it's that difficult to understand. Certainly you don't need a law degree to get to grips with the EU, but you have to inform yourself. Yours is an example. You thought that the Constitution would rob Ireland of its sovereignty which is simply not true. And in France, it was the same thing. People I spoke to had the craziest ideas about what the Constitution meant.

Originally Posted by asdasd

The constitution was rightly rejected.

You're agreeing with those who rejected it because they thought it was a step too far towards integration. I'm not sure you're agreeing with those who thought it wasn't christian enough or wasn't socialist enough. I'm not sure you're agreeing with those who thought the Constitution didn't give animals enough rights or those who thought it would lead to a flood of Polish plumbers or those who are simply fed up with their governments. No one really knows what the mix was. It so hard to know what these referenda mean because there are so many different no's out there.

What's sad for me is the fact that Europe is stuck with more of the same as a result of these referenda. You get to keep a system that everyone (whether they voted yes or no) thinks is no good. The No camp has no direction, no consensus on what the issue is and therefore no positive contribution to make to improving the situation, so you're stuck with moe of the same.

[asdasd]

Troll.

i have been mostly pro-EU until now. I am now concerned with

a) Can member States control their borders, or will the European State take control of migration?
b) Can we control Tax policy. Harmonization would be bad for Ireland.
c) I have never supported the Euro. The interest rates are far too low for Irelands economic cycle. I would prefer that we were growing at 3-4% a year and not 6-10%.
d) Can we control foreign policy. i am no Irish neutralist, but there was some mention in the constitution of a european foreign minister. That is pie in the sky. Look at the Iraq war. There is no foreign policy agreement across member States.
e) Who decides if Turkey gets in or not?
f) Most importantly. The document is badly written which is why it is open to such oppositional interpretations.

And it does challenge sovereignty - to my mind - in a way it has not been challenged before.

There may be a different between the way common law and continental law would interpret certain aspects of the constitution too - for instance, it guarantees the right to a job. what would that mean in practice, who supplies the job?, is it aspirational and will it be seen as aspirational by an Irish court ( who seen constitutions as binding and not aspirational), forcing the government to employ people in a recession.

i can give more examples or dubious prose.

The constitution was rejected by a rag bag of forces because it tried to be all things to all men ( except Christians, of course), and ended up seeming to be all the ideologies that needed to be rejected by all men,all for different reasons.