http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7454333.stm

- Another dead end for the cohesion and consolidation of the EU. Which sparks a bit of a crisis over here seen as it's been three years and technically nothing has changed - although practically and theoretically the EU continues changing regardless of a certified constitutional Treaty.

After the defeat of the last Treaty in the French and Dutch referendum rejections, I think EU politicians need to radically readdress their perceptions of what the Public actually want, or move ahead with or without member-state referendums. Otherwise we'll keep clattering ahead in an ad-hoc manner, making suggestions and plans for a coordinated foreign policy or merged military forces, but without actually seeing it on paper.

I think the main question is as it has always been: is the EU to be a political federation or a trading member bloc? The politicians, it seem, want the former; the people the latter.

For the main constitutional points (or changes) of the Lisbon Treaty:

'The treaty, which is designed to help the EU cope with its expansion into eastern Europe, provides for a streamlining of the European Commission, the removal of the national veto in more policy areas, a new president of the European Council and a strengthened foreign affairs post. '

I guess we'll see.

The latter should grant the former no?

You would think.

If the people want something different than the politicians something doesn't seem right. Did you guys vote on all this? Or is this all new stuff that has come about since wanting to allow those Eastern countries in?

'If the people want something different than the politicians something doesn't seem right.'

- Well you folks of all people must know how rarely the people's views coincide with politician's.

'Did you guys vote on all this?'

- Well, we vote for the party, and since the 1970s almost all political parties can be singled out on their European agenda (which is, of course, one policy on a politicians list). But it's still the case in Britain, as it is in others such as Ireland and particularly in Scandinavia, that domestic politics still stands far apart from European politics (I guess a good question is still how domestic is the European factor to member states now, as Briton's still do regard it as a foreign policy issue in many respects).

In regards to voting specifically on the issues at hand - which in this case are the seperate Treaties over the past 3 years that have attempted to provide some sort of constitutional framework for the EU as a political body to move forward, democratic voting comes in the form of referendum's, such as the one in Ireland last week, or those in France and the Netherlands last year, to decide on the treaty as a whole.
400 million Europeans do not decide seperately on specific EU policies and issues, rather the politicans who the people vote for pursue their obvious and very public European agendas once in power, and the referendum is the people's most direct access to deciding official policy.

Obviously the failures right now indiciate one of two things: that the politicians in various member states are starkly out of touch with their public as to EU issues, ie common defence and army, increasing cohesion and geographical solidarity, expansion, etc; or that the referendum system as a structure of voting on EU issues is antiquidated and needs to be replaced with something more specific, and less obstructional.

It's a complex issue, but the aftermath of the Irish rejection has certainly left us all in a bit of a flux over here right now. How to move on, or can we at all?

or that the referendum system as a structure of voting on EU issues is antiquidated and needs to be replaced with something more specific, and less obstructional.


That sounds exactly like what you would here from a politician trying to advance an agenda thats contrary to his constituancy's wishes.
thats why if I where you I would become a staunch defender of that thar referendum dohickie.

Not in that sense - more in the UN sense, where any tom, dick, or harry can stop something in its tracks. Latvia's rejection alone, for example, could stop an agreed policy by 26 other member states.

I think referendums are a good idea, but they need a context and a limitation in themselves. The Treaty is a dead letter now, for example, but I don't think that's right. I think each of the 27 member states need to call one, and where 85% or something like that have passed it, then the measure should be brought in.

Otherwise, as the EU is such a diverse, loosely connected and supranatural organism, it's not going to see any progress for the forseeable future. Sometimes, just sometimes, things need to be spasm or convulse into motion.

I personally like referndums, sadly not everyone votes yes or no though. I can see the point of having them and yet I can also see the point for not.

Odd as it may be, I always thought of the EU as The Federation from StarTrek or rather the idea of it. I remember in the mid 90s when it was all coming about all the hope for it and then I remember some nations bitching at letting the poorer nations in to drag things down. I sort of lost track of things after that. The last time I was in Europe the dollar was still worth more than Euro, seems so long ago :(

So having said all that, I realized I'm really quite dumb to how things even work in the EU as opposed to what things "were" going to be.

Question (s)...

Do you elect represenatives for just the EU?
Do any of your other elected officials serve both an EU and local interest role?
When the EU president is elected, do the normal people get to vote or is there some other process?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7461918.stm

- Interesting development.

'Do you elect represenatives for just the EU?'

- No, we don't. The Cabinet appoints members of the Gov for EU positions, but the EU Commission or Parliament elect politicians from various member states for the really important one (ie British Labour MP is currently the Trade Commissioner and sets trade policy for the entire EU).
So we elect the people who appoint EU officials.

'Do any of your other elected officials serve both an EU and local interest role?'

- All of them do, yes. As I've said before, the EU is just one item on a European politician's political agenda, for some members its a foreign item, for others its just as domestic as gaining their constituency better rail access, or something. There is as yet, no corps of EU officials. No EU civil service, as it were. Perhaps this is something for the future?

'When the EU president is elected, do the normal people get to vote or is there some other process?'

- The European Parliament votes, sitting in Brussels.

Sorry I can't go into more detail, will try and post a bit more tommorrow. I found the link very interesting, perhaps an indicative link to what other member states will do in reaction to the Irish rejection.

Ill be in Italy and Greece in a few days for a while, if any of you Euros wanted to tongue kiss me, or punch me in the face, now is your chance...

Ill check into this whole EU thing while there.

Ill be in Italy and Greece in a few days for a while, if any of you Euros wanted to tongue kiss me, or punch me in the face, now is your chance...

Ill check into this whole EU thing while there.

Skip Rome and spend more time in Florence, Venice or on a Greek Isle. Rome is hot and smelly and not that exciting.

I'll take some tongue kissing, L2.

Mucho agreeo with Kel, skip Rome. Florence is fantastic, but you'll be overwhelmed by Venice. No place like it on earth.

And in Greece, if you don't mind the Tourism, hit Lesbos, Kos, or Rhodes. They've got some lovely local food, charm and ruins.

If you come to London, drop me a line like Rybit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7462857.stm

- Result of the meeting in Brussels today.

Check out Mardell's blog for a good - and easy - opinion on the current 'crisis'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/

- Here's Mardell's link, for any interested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7464879.stm

- Another good link on the result of yesterday's conference.

'French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said the European Union will not be able to expand further without ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. '

So what's up with Ireland not accepting this treaty? Is this about money, religion, or beliefs? Do they stand to lose something or are they just trying to show some muscle?

So what's up with Ireland not accepting this treaty? Is this about money, religion, or beliefs? Do they stand to lose something or are they just trying to show some muscle?

Correct me if I'm wrong, Halo, but it's my understanding that the EU as an actual governing body isn't very popular with most of the EU states' populace. Ireland is just one of the very few places it's been put to a popular vote.

Simple - it's not well understood outside political circles.
It's very much a legal document, not a popular one. It contains many provisions, no general theme except closer integration.

So there's confusion, and people reject what they don't understand.
For example, one person who voted "no" said he did so as he thought saying yes would abolish Ireland's no-abortion laws, while someone else thought it meant reintroducing the death penalty.
Overall, most people just didn't "get" what it was trying to do. Indeed, something like 60% of "no" voters claimed to be pro-EU.

It is certainly *not* about money. Indeed Ireland have received something like 8bn in the past few years from the EU.

One of the major problems of EU politics in member states is that it carries little personal intimacy. It seems to most people as an abstract, "beyond the Little Man" concept. That's not true here in Britain, nor in France, for example, but it certainly is in the majority of other states.

Now the Czechs, who are currently hesitating - they are indeed showing "some muscle" - but they are new members and I expect are hung up on whether or not integrating closer to the EU means a reduction in their own sovereignity. We were like that for much of the 90s. When I studied law in college it was actually all the lecturer could talk about.

Mardell's blog is good for this sort of question, though.

No, you're dead right San. Many members - particularly newer members - believe the EU as a governing body stands to detract from member state's sovereignity. For example, where the House of Lords used to be the highest court of appeal in this country for centuries, it has been superceded by the EU court sitting in Strasborg. That proved extremely unpopular in the late 80s early 90s.

Brussels and Strasborg, one the administrative capital, the other the legal capital, seem remote to people, inpersonal - like I said, even abstractive.

But the EU is a supranatural state, a composite organisation, where the relatively new idea of "European" cannot hope to win against millenia of individual cultural identities. It's only been three generations since the World Wars. I guess it is something that cannot be forced. Or perhaps it *is* only by force that it can change.

I can't say that I blame them. I see NAFTA being turned into the groundwork for an NAU, and detest the idea of ceding more of our sovereignty away.

Eh I have to agree completely there, I am not keen on the idea of an NAU. The idea makes me shudder, we're already losing our soverignty daily :(

I can understand how lack of understanding something can also make people vote against it. Just hearing that folks don't really get to appoint their leaders in the EU (in a traditional sense) seems against the concept of democracy. Sure you vote for your local leaders, but I would think folks should be able to vote also for their EU reps.

Yes but the advantages to a nation like the US are far less than to the small, independent nations of Europe.

We used to dominate about 80% of world trade, and at least 65% of manufactured goods - right up until 1914. Now even the most dominant powers of Europe are barely in the top 10 economies and military capabilities of countries in the world. A common defence/economic policy benefits such diminished powers as Britain, France and Germany to a considerable degree and allows them to pool resources and make a greater impact on the world. France, for example, has Europe's largest military, a standing army of 250,000 men, but it is perhaps the most idle - next to Germany's. But as plans for a European army come about, there's talk of slashing the army in half, ceding French bases in Africa; the freed resources will be used for increasing technological capabilities, double research, and rapid reaction forces. It is very much a mirror of a defence initiative already active here in the UK, and when combined Europe will possessed a sophisticated, advanced, rapid reaction force for counter-terrorism and peacekeeping. Far better than a dozen large, standing and useless armies.

It's not just the larger countires that benefit. Those countries like Ireland, the Czech Republic, Poland, etc, gain massive agricultural subsidies (Ireland alone has received several billion pounds alone in the past decade), access to advanced technological and research initiatives and a common defence policy in place of relatively weak national resources - and they are thus themselves forced to contribute to peace keeping and counter-terrorism where otherwise they wouldn't, at least not on the same scale.

Europe is a land of liberal governments and Western ideals. To create a more integrated, common purpose driven organism benefits not just the European members, but the world. It serves as a good counterbalance to rising Eastern powers, and in most things shares common ideas and policies with the US.

If all of that comes at the price of less sovereignity, I dunno - not too bad a price.
But yes, for a nation like the US it wouldn't make much sense.

Another update for anyone interested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7483370.stm

Poland presents another faux paux. Diversity and democracy do not indeed seem to favour political federation in the EU. Problem is, the German princely states all possessed Germans, the Indian states all possessed Indians, and the American colonies all possessed Americans - despite all the odds this is what, in the end, forced a political union and the creation of a supra-state out of these historical processes. The European member states, obviously, have 27 different races. Being "European" does not exist at a local level. I'm beginning to believe there can be no further progress than a loose and ill-defined juidical/political union with central emphasis on trade, and not much else.

As always here's Mardell's excellent blog on the new crisis:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/

Well I don't agree with you on the Americans all being Americans.

The fact is America is and was made up of many different ethnicities the difference is that at some point the ethnic background took a backseat to the greater cause. I see no reason why Europe could not also have the same thing with the EU unless the gains vs. risks are not considered worth enough to the people.

I'm beginning to wonder if the advantages of being "the EU" outweigh the advantages of not. Most EU countries are free, democratic, and not threatened by big bad mamma imperialistic country trying to regain control. I say most b/c some of the more Eastern countries do not have me fully convinced they're democratic.

On another note poor Europe and it's constant history of being conquered and its' people being conscripted to fight in wars. If there were a foe such as Rome knocking on the door I'd think your EU would have more of a chance. However the war on terror isn't enough, nor are the financial gains, so what are folks holding on to by remaining seperate?

[/URL]

Poland presents another faux paux. Diversity

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/"] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7483370.stm)


What, are the swarthy thick-bearded Polish discriminating against the swarthy clean-shaven Polish?

Sorry, but the lady looking over my shoulder spit beer on my back laughing, and this is what she said occurred to her.