[pricemazda]

If you knew anything about the EU, you would know the European Commission has intervened in the cross border mobile market as it believes the phones companies are grossly inflating prices.

Thanks to the EU the mobile firms are being forced to reduce their prices.

[Major AWACS]

I know plenty enough about the EU for this diatribe, and being as I work for NATO and get plenty of international-pan European flavour on my plate daily trying to get 15 countries to fly one airplane correctly. But I digress.

The Mobile phone bills are still absurd. I was told the contracts would change a year ago. It still hasn't happened-fact. When the market is finally adjusted, then you can claim success until then it has not been fixed.

There is plenty to be worked out before there is a united Europe. The latest constitution attempt shows how hard that can be. Maybe the Dutch and French will be happy with the newest efforts, only time will tell but will the Turks and Croats and Romanians when they join the united Europe? Maybe in our lifetime as Shiro says, amybe.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, All Scottish Food is based on a dare

[The Dear Leader]

Europe's natural state is unity.

Most of the time this was forced on people though. Most minorites within the Austro-Hungarian empire for example weren't too happy to be members of that construct (especially within the Hungarian part).

[Joka]

After reading this book I have a new found trust and hope for the EU.

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/1226/euburnsuz9.jpg ;)

I've just read a, probably, similar book, with exactly the same name "United States of Europe" by Guy Verhofstadt. I should get around to read your book as well.

PS. A clothing brand (http://www.use-shop.com/) to suit the thread, sadly they have a somewhat narrow sortiment but hopefully it will expand over time. I want a football sweater with "Europa" on the back. :cool:

[one very bored guy]

that's fine and all but i just don't understand the EU nationalism; identifying with all things EU as opposed to my own country. if i were a brit or french, i would still identify my as british or french, not EUian, even if i was a proponent of the EU.

@ swede: my globe still has the USSR, yugolslavia, east/ west germany. :banana:

Interesting, but if you were alive when the United States of America came into being, would you have instantly considered yourself American first?

By the way, what's this EUian? Do you call yourself USAian? I would imagine you call yourself American, derspite The United States only being part of the large continent of North America or the America's as a whole. The same way a person from the Euopean Union can simply call themselves European, even though not all Europeans are from the EU.

[SHiRO]

Most of the time this was forced on people though. Most minorites within the Austro-Hungarian empire for example weren't too happy to be members of that construct (especially within the Hungarian part).
Not true.
There are just as many examples of unions formed without violence as there are of ones that did through conquest. The very example you mention, Austria-Hungaria came into existence largely NOT through conquest.
Besides, conquest and violence were "valid" methods of the day for most of history as there was no such thing as democracy. By your reasonning there is hardly a nation on earth with a legitimate existance then...

[Joka]

If Europe became one nation, imagine how much terrorism there would be from people who want to become indpendant again. Europe doesnt need those kind of problems. We have suffered enough over the past few centuries.


Its nice to trash the Americans as a united Europe in the golf though ;)

The threat of terrorism should never be a factor when deciding anything. You don't cave in to simpleton schoolyard bullies, you don't cave in to bullies with bombs.
Not to mention I seriously doubt that if the majority of Europeans voted for a USE (which is the only way it will ever happen, with the approval of the majority) a significant amount of people would be stupid enough to even try to put up a long term terrorist campaign against the same people their nationalist agenda would claim to champion.

[one very bored guy]

I am all for a more unified Europe, don't get me wrong. Hell, it makes my life easier. The first thing to fix are the goodamn cellphones/handy contracts. Let's work on abolishing the borders on those so it doesn't cost me over a Euro to call 3 kilometers from Tuddern DE to Sittard NL. Cell phones are absurd.


This is actually a very interesting issue you brought up and I agree with you something has to be done. Without government intrevention this would of cause not happen easily. The problem is that most companies simply enjoy charging as much as they can. This is not a national problem, but a corporate problem. One has to remember that in many cases, it is the same company that charges higher fees to phone across a border - i.e. Vodaphone, a UK company is present in many other EU countries, so a Vodaphone user from the UK may travel to Germany and still be charged extra to phone back to the UK even when he is using Vodaphone in Germany.

But something like this cannot be tackled at a national level. The German government has no control over UK phone operators. This must be held at a higher "federal" level, in this case, the EU. And the EU is working on this.

As pricemazda pointed out, the laws are changing now with the European Commission on proposed Roaming laws. You can read staight from the EU site about it here:
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/roaming/roaming_regulation/index_en.htm

More interesting detail can be found here.
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/978&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The only way companies would do this on their own initiative, is if market forces forced it. Skype and other internet phone companies may very well be the answer. It is becoming incredibly popular here (as I am sure it is in the US) to the point where even Supermarkets like Tesco are offering similar Internet phone services. But before that all settles in, the EU is already putting forward directives to drop the prices.


On a side note, as early as 1996, the EU proposed to end the seperate international numbering codes for all the different countries in the EU, to one single number, "3". This means at the moment if I want to call the UK from Germany, I have to press 00 44 before the number, (00 for international, 44 for the UK). Under the proposal, I would just have to use the area code in the UK like I was living in the UK. Only outside the EU would one have to press 00 3 xxx...

Unfortunately, this is a very complex change as each country has developed their own number scheme independently. For the proposal to work, there would have to be many changes to the numbering system in each country, as national numbers may conflict with other national numbers. A watered down version was proposed which would have made the number 1 be inserted and then the current country code?!? This would have just confused the matter, as the only thing changed, was that instead of 00, a person in the EU would use 1. And a person out of the EU would have to use 00 (or whatever they use for international numbers), then 3, then country code, then number.

So effectively it was dropped for the time being. It is a great idea, but it would mean so many people would have to change prefixes across the EU, some 450million citizens and at the moment, this is deemed very expensive (every business in the EU would have to change their documents, letterheads etc) and too confusing. Most people can't program their video recorder, changing their phone numbers could make their brain explode.

[The Dear Leader]

PS. A clothing brand (http://www.use-shop.com/) to suit the thread

Man, that's just sad. :rolleyes:

[The Dear Leader]

Not true. There are just as many examples of unions formed without violence as there are of ones that did through conquest. The very example you mention, Austria-Hungaria came into existence largely NOT through conquest.

A-H still wasn't what I'd call "united" and people were more or less ruled against their will (forced Magyarization as well).


By your reasonning there is hardly a nation on earth with a legitimate existance then...

Where do you detect that reasoning (did I even address that)? All I'm saying is that Europe's natural state isn't to be united. The examples of European countries being at each other's throats are far more numerous than the example of European countries living in peace, harmony and even unity. Even the "original European empire", the Roman Empire" wasn't in control over all of Europe and it was constantly waging wars against other tribes.

[Joka]

Man, that's just sad. :rolleyes:
How is that sad The Dear Leader?

[The Dear Leader]

The stuff in the "about USE" section. Just sounds pretty cheesy "...but also with a wink expresses the identification with the ideals of Europe as it is getting started to become a political and even more a people connecting unit." I mean come the f*ck on, you'd expect something like this in a Communist country but not in 21st century Europe.

[SHiRO]

I find the clothes a bit cheesy as well, not to mention I don't like the name "United States of Europe", but that line you quoted is exactely what is happening and it is you who is living in the past if you do not see that.

[pricemazda]

So Kampfs position is that because of past performance in history it is simply inconceivable that the future may be different?

Well 'past performance should not be taken as an indication of future performance'

In Political Science it is a well known idea that institutions inform culture and over time the common standards laid down by common institutions rapidly become how people conceive politics to be and it is what they expect from government and how they expect to be governed.

It is called the socialisation of institutions. This has happened everywhere, when new power structures were set up eventually they become the norm. Initially in ever new system their are objectors and conservatives but eventuall it becomes the normal practice. People then respond to their institutions and develop a sense of loyalty and identification with those institutions.

The euro is the biggest sign of this, as each new generation uses the euro in essence the more they will consider themselves as Europeans.

Take the difference between our generation and our parents generation and then our grandparents. It is certainyl ture that many more of our generation consider themselves to have a European identity (among others) than say our parents and grandparents.

[pricemazda]

I know plenty enough about the EU for this diatribe, and being as I work for NATO and get plenty of international-pan European flavour on my plate daily trying to get 15 countries to fly one airplane correctly. But I digress.

The Mobile phone bills are still absurd. I was told the contracts would change a year ago. It still hasn't happened-fact. When the market is finally adjusted, then you can claim success until then it has not been fixed.

There is plenty to be worked out before there is a united Europe. The latest constitution attempt shows how hard that can be. Maybe the Dutch and French will be happy with the newest efforts, only time will tell but will the Turks and Croats and Romanians when they join the united Europe? Maybe in our lifetime as Shiro says, amybe.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, All Scottish Food is based on a dare

I also know plenty seen as I work for an MEP, but I digress as well.

The industry is dragging its feet on cross border phone charges. Proper procedure has to be gone through otherwise the Commission will be open to a legal case brought by the industry. If we want lower charges the Commission has to do things properly.

But you seem to be saying because you don't have lower charges on your mobile phone right now, the whole EU is a disaster!

Trying to co-ordinate as you rightly point out the interests of 25 member states is difficult, and therefore these things take time, but the Commission and Parliament and Council of Ministers have all backed this measure so it will happen.

You only have to look at the rise of low-cost air carriers to see how the EU works, without a common European sky these carriers would not have happened as each member state protected its national carrier from competition. But then I imagine you and your NATO credit card would never take advantage of low cost fares... business class only!

[pricemazda]

I know plenty enough about the EU for this diatribe, and being as I work for NATO and get plenty of international-pan European flavour on my plate daily trying to get 15 countries to fly one airplane correctly. But I digress.

The Mobile phone bills are still absurd. I was told the contracts would change a year ago. It still hasn't happened-fact. When the market is finally adjusted, then you can claim success until then it has not been fixed.

There is plenty to be worked out before there is a united Europe. The latest constitution attempt shows how hard that can be. Maybe the Dutch and French will be happy with the newest efforts, only time will tell but will the Turks and Croats and Romanians when they join the united Europe? Maybe in our lifetime as Shiro says, amybe.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, All Scottish Food is based on a dare

I also know plenty seen as I work for an MEP, but I digress as well.

The industry is dragging its feet on cross border phone charges. Proper procedure has to be gone through otherwise the Commission will be open to a legal case brought by the industry. If we want lower charges the Commission has to do things properly.

But you seem to be saying because you don't have lower charges on your mobile phone right now, the whole EU is a disaster!

Trying to co-ordinate as you rightly point out the interests of 25 member states is difficult, and therefore these things take time, but the Commission and Parliament and Council of Ministers have all backed this measure so it will happen.

You only have to look at the rise of low-cost air carriers to see how the EU works, without a common European sky these carriers would not have happened as each member state protected its national carrier from competition.

[JManc]

Interesting, but if you were alive when the United States of America came into being, would you have instantly considered yourself American first?

By the way, what's this EUian? Do you call yourself USAian? I would imagine you call yourself American, derspite The United States only being part of the large continent of North America or the America's as a whole. The same way a person from the Euopean Union can simply call themselves European, even though not all Europeans are from the EU.

the US and the EU have entirely different dynamics in their formations.

as for EUian, i was being funny and tried to differentiate a european and a european within the EU but since you brought up this can of worms; unlike the western hemisphere where people from the US have called themslves americans as well as as being refered to as such by non americans since day one and we are the only country with "america" in the official name, countries west of the urals and not members of the EU will take issue when the EU starts to refer to themselves as europeans in context of as being citizens of the EU and not inhabitants of the continent. especyally since the term "european" has long been established as people living on the continent.

[pricemazda]

actually jman the debates there were during the formation of the USA are pretty similar to the debates in the EU today.

Confederal or Federal?

How to distribute power between big states and small states

What power the centre should have and what powers should be reserved to the states?

Should we have a powerful central bank?

Should a common defence force emerge?

These are very similar arguments to the ones Washington et al had during the formation of the federal US.

[one very bored guy]

the US and the EU have entirely different dynamics in their formations.

as for EUian, i was being funny and tried to differentiate a european and a european within the EU but since you brought up this can of worms; unlike the western hemisphere where people from the US have called themslves americans as well as as being refered to as such by non americans since day one and we are the only country with "america" in the official name, countries west of the urals and not members of the EU will take issue when the EU starts to refer to themselves as europeans in context of as being citizens of the EU and not inhabitants of the continent. especyally since the term "european" has long been established as people living on the continent.

Interesting defence, that in, "we are the only country with "america" in the official name". I say this because "European Union" is the only union of it's nature also with "Europe" in it's name.

Of cause, many American's also call their country "the United States" or simply "The States", when there are other country's in the world which also use those terms (Mexico for one), but I won't even go there.

[The Dear Leader]

So Kampfs position is that because of past performance in history it is simply inconceivable that the future may be different?


Ehm, where did I state that? Why are people always twisting my words. My main point simply was that the natural state of Europe is not to be united. I've gone to enough political science lectures to understand that countries can change, sometimes quite rapidly.

Here's something that you and Shiro should perhaps save on their pc for future reference...IMO it is conceivable that a European political union will come into being in the future (see, I never argued that it won't happen or that history is just stale). Does that mean that it will happen or do I see an increased desire of Europeans to live in such a state? Well, that's an entirely different matter.

[JManc]

Interesting defence, that in, "we are the only country with "america" in the official name". I say this because "European Union" is the only union of it's nature also with "Europe" in it's name.

...only after centuries of people of the continent being refered to as europeans. the US was the first independent country in the americas; everyone else were still european colonies. plus the name "united states of america" denotes that is merely a component of something bigger, the "european union" arrogantly claims to be something it is not...a european union in which all european nations are a member of.


Of cause, many American's also call their country "the United States" or simply "The States", when there are other country's in the world which also use those terms (Mexico for one), but I won't even go there.

mexicans refer to their nation as either "mexico" or "the united mexcan states", not the "united states".

@ price, the american colonies all had a common and short history prior to creating the united states; which means far less "baggage" when it came down to surrendering their authority to a central government than european countries if they ever decide to take a step beyond the current EU power structure. the american colonies also knew they needed one another to defeat britain and gain independence.

[The Dear Leader]

...only after centuries of people of the continent being refered to as europeans. the US was the first independent country in the americas; everyone else were still european colonies. plus the name "united states of america" denotes that is merely a component of something bigger, the "european union" arrogantly claims to be something it is not...a european union in which all european nations are a member of.

Well, Germany's also officially called "Federal Republic of Germany".

Interesting debate though. :haha:

[JManc]

wasn't that name established when the german democratic republic (east germany) in all their trabant making glory was created and there were two germanies?

[The Dear Leader]

Yeah but I think in the English language more or less all official country names have that "of" in it (Republic of Poland, Kingdom of Sweden etc.), don't they? We don't have that in German but then again we do call the USofA the "Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika", so you might be on to something.

[pricemazda]

@ price, the american colonies all had a common and short history prior to creating the united states; which means far less "baggage" when it came down to surrendering their authority to a central government than european countries if they ever decide to take a step beyond the current EU power structure. the american colonies also knew they needed one another to defeat britain and gain independence.

Not true entirely, some states did not want independence, and thousands of 'colonists' fought on the side of the king. Most people did not want seperation from the UK, they were just unhappy with taxation. It was a small group of leaders who argued for complete independence, and when the war started thats when the populus turned on the King.

Equally not all states legislatures were happy with the articles of confederation and then the consitution. There was a great debate on what kind of state if any, would emerge.

Most states issued their own currency, had their own independent militias. I believe New York state was extremely reluctant to give up its new found autonomy. I know you are a widely read guy, so you know there is an awful lot of romantic myth attached to the constitution, founding fathers and the start of the US.

[Major AWACS]

I also know plenty seen as I work for an MEP, but I digress as well.

The industry is dragging its feet on cross border phone charges. Proper procedure has to be gone through otherwise the Commission will be open to a legal case brought by the industry. If we want lower charges the Commission has to do things properly. .
Which it has been trying to do for years, while we still wait. Again as stated by myself and several others these sort of fixes must come faster for a United Europe to function properly. Which Shiro and others think could happen "in our lifetime". Well as noted in the article I posted from 1956 this dream has been around a long time. I doubt a fully "federal" Europe will happen in my lifetime, but more progress will be made. When/If Turkey joins and when/if the UK starts on the Euro and When/if all the other countries start to sort Garbage like Germany (partly kidding on that one) we will see a more United Europe. The new "constitution" is the next big step.

But you seem to be saying because you don't have lower charges on your mobile phone right now, the whole EU is a disaster!.
Could you go ahead and post a link or requote where I stated this? I am curious since I don't see it on any post. In fact it seems to me you take every piece of discussion here as a personal insult to some sort of pan-European tralla-la that is beyond the scope of what we are discussing.

Trying to co-ordinate as you rightly point out the interests of 25 member states is difficult, and therefore these things take time, but the Commission and Parliament and Council of Ministers have all backed this measure so it will happen.
True, unlike the constitution, which has been in the works for some form or another for nearly 50 years. Again just stating a fact=slow process. You seem to take this as an insult, which it is not.

You only have to look at the rise of low-cost air carriers to see how the EU works, without a common European sky these carriers would not have happened as each member state protected its national carrier from competition.

Low Cost carriers, following the American model of Southwest Airlines, exist world wide. Europe's carriers, it can be argued, not only existed before major deregulation but forced it upon the EU (chicken and the egg). And oh-by-the-way, countries still prohibit some expansion by both legacy and LCC. Belgium and the Netherlands are two recent examples.

But then I imagine you and your NATO credit card would never take advantage of low cost fares... business class only!
Wow NATO has a credit card? Could you do me a favour and tell me how to sign up? Though I do normally upgrade on my commercial flights. Flying perks if you will. I will try not to stare at you as you walk through first class toward the back and "steerage":jester:

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Dutch girls are easy, I'm cool with that

[Major AWACS]

Not true entirely, some states did not want independence, and thousands of 'colonists' fought on the side of the king. Most people did not want seperation from the UK, they were just unhappy with taxation. It was a small group of leaders who argued for complete independence, and when the war started thats when the populus turned on the King.

Equally not all states legislatures were happy with the articles of confederation and then the consitution. There was a great debate on what kind of state if any, would emerge.

Most states issued their own currency, had their own independent militias. I believe New York state was extremely reluctant to give up its new found autonomy. I know you are a widely read guy, so you know there is an awful lot of romantic myth attached to the constitution, founding fathers and the start of the US.

By the start of the War all state Reps signed on for independence. The articles of confederation were a weak start which the Constitutional convention fixed. George Mason's argument for the bill of rights placated all states and all signed on to the constitution. Though to this day state's rights is a huge issue. It was Virginia which was most reluctant to give up rights to the feds.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Not all pilots are alcoholics, we don't go to meetings

[pricemazda]

But low cost carriers could only work within each member state, pan-european low cost carriers would never have emerged without the de-regulation of EU aviation. I didn't say the EU invented them, but for example an Irish company would never have been allowed to set up numerous bases across the EU.

The Warsaw Treaty only allows for flight to go to and from its registered home country. Ryanair would only have been able to fly to and from ireland, not from Stansted to Warsaw, or Madrid to Frankfurt.

The deregulation of air travel in the EU is one of its greatest achievements for consumers.

[one very bored guy]

...only after centuries of people of the continent being refered to as europeans. the US was the first independent country in the americas; everyone else were still european colonies. plus the name "united states of america" denotes that is merely a component of something bigger, the "european union" arrogantly claims to be something it is not...a european union in which all european nations are a member of.


We live today jmancuso, not hundreds of years ago. Names that apply today are what is important. 13 years ago there was a country called Czechoslovakia, now there is not. People don't use that name any more. Don't try and bring history into this, or how ever many years the United States has been around. The fact is, that people from the European Union may call themselves Europeans for short, regardless whether the US has an "of" in their name or not, and regardless if there are other European countries outside the Union. Just as there are other countries in North America and you call yourself Americans.


mexicans refer to their nation as either "mexico" or "the united mexcan states", not the "united states".


Be honest, that's just being Anal. Trying to use the placing of the words as some sort of excuse.

Especially as Mexicans don't call their country the "United Mexican States", they call it "Estados Unidos Mexicanos". Ops, States and United are next to each other there... Maybe it's important, but somehow I doubt it.

[one very bored guy]

Which it has been trying to do for years, while we still wait. Again as stated by myself and several others these sort of fixes must come faster for a United Europe to function properly. Which Shiro and others think could happen "in our lifetime". Well as noted in the article I posted from 1956 this dream has been around a long time. I doubt a fully "federal" Europe will happen in my lifetime, but more progress will be made. When/If Turkey joins and when/if the UK starts on the Euro and When/if all the other countries start to sort Garbage like Germany (partly kidding on that one) we will see a more United Europe. The new "constitution" is the next big step.


Surely you must realize how much work it is to unite an area of 450million people. Not everything can be done at once, but an enormous amount has been done. You also have to remember that the EU is a free market economy, restrictions like the ones the EU is imposing on cross border mobile charges have to be very careful. In a free market economy it is often frowned upon to force control like this on businesses. This is why it took so long. The EU was waiting to see if the company's would tackle this themselves.

Besides, I am sure that not everything in the US is the same prices where ever you go.

As for the Garbage sorting in Germany ?? Does every state in the US have exactly the same recycling laws? If not, why should the EU?

[pricemazda]

Actually the EU does have common standards on recycling, by next year all member states have to achieve 40% recycling of household waste.

[Joka]

The stuff in the "about USE" section. Just sounds pretty cheesy "...but also with a wink expresses the identification with the ideals of Europe as it is getting started to become a political and even more a people connecting unit." I mean come the f*ck on, you'd expect something like this in a Communist country but not in 21st century Europe.

Cheesy marketing lines are hardly something associated with communist countries.. ;)

Anyway, I'm ordering a shirt. Generally I don't like to walk around with patriotic emblems/national flags/whatever of any sort (apart from my uniform where the Finnish flag looks pretty cool), but in civilian life I've never had any clothing to express any sort of political sentiment. It is because of people like you, Nigel Farrage, Timo Soini & The Demagogic Big Band I've felt it important to express my pro-European posture, at some point I just got tired of hearing that people like me don't exist. Once you euro-sceptics have been defeated I'll change my avatars back to funny gif's, add my USE-shirt in the neat tower of clothes I'm building and go back to pratice the lost art of procrastinating until my superpowers are needed again. :cool:

Til' then I'm stocking up on all the Euro stuff I can find, sad or not.

[The Dear Leader]

Please don't put me in the same group as that lunatic Nigel Farrage. Apparently certain Europhiles can't make a distincition between people who are Eurosceptic. Farrage hates the EU, I don't. I just don't want a political union, that's all. The least people like you can do is respect that opinion.

[SHiRO]

IMO it is conceivable that a European political union will come into being in the future (see, I never argued that it won't happen or that history is just stale). Does that mean that it will happen or do I see an increased desire of Europeans to live in such a state? Well, that's an entirely different matter.
If you are willing to see the possibility of an integrated Europe, you should also recognise, once you factor in historical tendencies (economic integration is almost always followed by political integration) and the very real consequences of globalisation, that it is almost inevitable that Europe will only integrate more.
You also stated more then once that we have reached the furthest point of integration but surely this can not be true considering the above.

Also, I think there is a very real increasing desire of Europeans wanting to live in such a state (plus a lot of people who just don't care one way or the other, nationstates or pan European superstate, as long as they can acheive their goals). If not where was this discussion 20 years ago, but in the minds of visionaries or the political backrooms?
Believe it or not, I was quite a bit more nationalistic 15 years ago and didn't like the idea of "one Europe". Nowadays, I barely know a person who is adementally against it.

[SHiRO]

Besides, I am sure that not everything in the US is the same prices where ever you go.

Moreover, as stated before, the laws between EU member states are more similar then the laws between US states. Something worth remembering through this discussion.

I don't find it surprising that Americans (even the ones that lived here for a while or have a great interest in our continent) don't realise how far along European integration really is (and that there pretty much isn't a realistic way back). What I do find surprising is other Europeans (granted TDL didn't grow up here, correct me if I'm wrong) can't see the changes occuring around them.
I remember the time when going to Belgium (a 5 minute drive) meant changing your money, getting out your passport and be thouroughly checked at the border by a grumpy border guard. Everything there was different. Different tv, different stores, different news.
Nowadays, crossing the border isn't different from crossing the New Jersey - Pennsylvannia border. People can go to school, find a job or set up a company as easily there as "at home". Consequently (in an ever changing world) "at home" doesn't have the same meaning as it used to have.

On last remark at the "arrogance of calling the EU, Europe". Most European nations are dying to join the EU, they don't care how we call ourselves, as they intend to be part of it as well! (and they will)

[SHiRO]

By the start of the War all state Reps signed on for independence.
Hmm, I seem to remember a couple of names of people who didn't sign when I was in the National Archives a couple of weeks ago...;)

[CHapp]

Besides, I am sure that not everything in the US is the same prices where ever you go.

Haha, o how true! :haha: There's enormous fluctuation in prices from one place to the next. SHiRO, you must have experienced this during your recent travels.

[pricemazda]

Please don't put me in the same group as that lunatic Nigel Farrage. Apparently certain Europhiles can't make a distincition between people who are Eurosceptic. Farrage hates the EU, I don't. I just don't want a political union, that's all. The least people like you can do is respect that opinion.

I am really surprised he is even known outside of the UK. Even here he is considered part of the lunatic fringe.

As much as Kampf may seem hostile to the Europea project, he certainly isn't in Farages category.

[The Dear Leader]

What I do find surprising is other Europeans (granted TDL didn't grow up here, correct me if I'm wrong) can't see the changes occuring around them.

I grew up in Germany but lived in the US for 6 years (between the ages of 13 & 19). But to be honest I didn't care much for politics before moving to the US so I don't really remember how big a role Brussels played in my daily life in the mid 90s.

I am really surprised he is even known outside of the UK. Even here he is considered part of the lunatic fringe.

I don't think too many Germans know him. I just do because I watch some British tv.

You also stated more then once that we have reached the furthest point of integration but surely this can not be true considering the above.

I just stated that I think we've reached a good point of integration. My main arguments against such a thing as a common foreign policy is that it's simply not possible to get 27+ governments on the same page on highly controversial measures. Sure, there's cooperation here and there but at the end of the day most countries want to remain in control over their own foreign policy. What's more we should get the union to work more properly in its current state rather than try to take the next steps towards a federal Europe.

[JManc]

We live today jmancuso, not hundreds of years ago. Names that apply today are what is important. 13 years ago there was a country called Czechoslovakia, now there is not. People don't use that name any more. Don't try and bring history into this, or how ever many years the United States has been around. The fact is, that people from the European Union may call themselves Europeans for short, regardless whether the US has an "of" in their name or not, and regardless if there are other European countries outside the Union. Just as there are other countries in North America and you call yourself Americans.

not sure what czechoslovakia has to do with anything but the last time i checked, people from the continent of europe were still known as europeans.

[one very bored guy]

not sure what czechoslovakia has to do with anything but the last time i checked, people from the continent of europe were still known as europeans.

And people from the Euopean Union are still known as Euopeans.

[Major AWACS]

Hmm, I seem to remember a couple of names of people who didn't sign when I was in the National Archives a couple of weeks ago...;)

Many people didn't sign. George Mason didn't sign the Constitution as he presssed for the bill of rights, but my point was all 13 colonies did. And don't bring up Bermuda or Canada, you know what I mean ;)

As for Bored guy and others, don't post attack like emails on me. I never said anything bad about a United Europe. I just pointed out that there is much work to be done and it is not as rosy as some might like to believe. You could say it is a glass half-full/empty semantics argument to some degree (though I always think the glass is to big...). As for phone rates in the US, every major national company has a national plan. T-Mobile has better rates in the US than in its home country of Deutschland. And I know virtually every German township has different garbage rules. Lord knows I got enough little red stickers on my gelbesacks in Hongen and Tuddern-- but the rules on the Dutch side are much different, though I am aware they are changing Europe wide. Also, The Dutch tax is going up to 19% to match Germany's (though luckily I am exempt :-D ).

Europe will continue to become more united but the rosy forcasts of the next few years are a bit to optimistic IMO that is my point. Tackle the issues of Turkey and the Eastern countries and the constitution. German has alreayd said it plans to change the stance on Russia, when it takes over the EU leadership Jan 1. THat will be interesting as Gazprom tries to make deals in Germany that other EU countries are not getting. All of this is complicated and will take time, Good luck as I say.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Not all pilots are alcoholics, We don't go to meetings

[SHiRO]

As for phone rates in the US, every major national company has a national plan. T-Mobile has better rates in the US than in its home country of Deutschland. And I know virtually every German township has different garbage rules. Lord knows I got enough little red stickers on my gelbesacks in Hongen and Tuddern-- but the rules on the Dutch side are much different, though I am aware they are changing Europe wide. Also, The Dutch tax is going up to 19% to match Germany's (though luckily I am exempt :-D ).
Very nice and all but that still doesn't change the fact that in the US the laws differ more between the states then in the EU.
Talking about red stickers and other local rules is irrelevant. I don't see how local rules have anything to do with European unity. Will we never be united if they don't collect the trash in Romania exactely the same way as they do in Germany? What's your point?



Europe will continue to become more united but the rosy forcasts of the next few years are a bit to optimistic IMO that is my point.
On the contrary I think. We had a number of years of economic stagnation, the rise of populism and now it is time for realism again. With the economy recovering, there will be an upswing in enthusiasm for Europe again as it becomes clear that the EU has been used as a scapegoat and it was neglected to get people enthused for the entire project.

[Major AWACS]

Not really, in fact for the EU to Unite faster it could easily be argued (and has) that the states of Europe should have more independence in a more federal US like system. You can easily pick and choose which laws in the US are uniform versus Europe and which are not, but I would like to see you quantify the argument that US states have more different laws than EUrope period. On what scale? What topics? Banking? Driving? Consent? Tax? And do those differing laws hinder the unity of the US?

re trash and local politics--My point is, look at the polls and recent elections in many European countries: France, The Netherlands, Hungary, the current German coalition. These countries are voting down the constitution, or certain aspects of European unity to maintain those local rules you so quickly throw out. Not to mention immigration and expansion policies which are dying at the moment. Ditto rules on Euro currency expansion.

It is clear you want a united Europe. I do too, though it is mainly to make my life easier. I have no grand vision for Europe. I will let them/you sort it out but I have a feeling I will be bringing my grandkids over when it starts to really smooth out, not my firstborn. If you think it is going to happen sooner great but I think you are looking through rose coloured glasses and ignoring the serious work that has yet to be accomplished.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Dutch RVs and German Autobahns don't mix well

[pricemazda]

This is nothing new within the EU. Different countries see things differently. The EU has basically the same powers as the US federal government. In terms of the US constitution the federal government has few actual powers. But since the New Deal its powers were expanded dramatically. FDR utilised the 'inter-state commerce' clause to the hilt. The EU has the same power to regulate inter-state trade and to harmonise product standards, regulations, rules, even VAT rates are set for a minimum across the EU.

In the US some states are in favour of strong environmental protection (California) and others less so (Texas).

[Major AWACS]

I know, and that is my point re: Europe. Many folks, especially the old timers do not want to see the individual powers of their home countries go by the wayside. yes the younger generation is more tolerant but so far these "old timers" are gumming up the works. This isthe uphill battle I still speak of. I am a big fan of states rights in the US and personally would feel the same if I voted in Europe, but that is just my opinion. You(i.e. 2nd person EU) have to prioritise your battles. What is more important at the moment: A new constitution or more chages in expansion policy? That is just one example of the things that must be sorted out.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, King of Belize

[SHiRO]

re trash and local politics--My point is, look at the polls and recent elections in many European countries: France, The Netherlands, Hungary, the current German coalition. These countries are voting down the constitution, or certain aspects of European unity to maintain those local rules you so quickly throw out. Not to mention immigration and expansion policies which are dying at the moment. Ditto rules on Euro currency expansion.

You don't have a great understanding of European politics if you really think that. I assure you that "voting down certain aspects of European unity" has little or nothing to do with the no votes from France or the NL last year.
First you need to understand what "the constitution" really is.
And again, local rules have nothing to do with European unity either.
How is immigration and expansion dying when for example a country like Spain has seen it's population increase by a staggering 10% over the last 5 years(!) and come 2007 two new countries are now confirmed to join the EU? The Eu takes in more immigrants then the US atm.
I think you only see part of the picture at best. Not meant as a insult but maybe you should first (like many Europeans) fully understand what the EU really is and how it works (yeah it's quite complicated), before you are so certain of your views. No the EU is not trying to take over countries...

[The Dear Leader]

Many folks, especially the old timers do not want to see the individual powers of their home countries go by the wayside. yes the younger generation is more tolerant but so far these "old timers" are gumming up the works.

I actually think it's the other way around. Plenty of old folks remember the war (or the period after it) and they're in favor of European integration. It's quite obvious that young people these days have become less idealistic. They don't really care about the EU, they just want a job and a steady income. I know Shiro doesn't want to hear it, but especially amongst the young population of Switzerland, support for EU membership has dropped off considerably.

[SHiRO]

I know, and that is my point re: Europe. Many folks, especially the old timers do not want to see the individual powers of their home countries go by the wayside. yes the younger generation is more tolerant but so far these "old timers" are gumming up the works. This isthe uphill battle I still speak of. I am a big fan of states rights in the US and personally would feel the same if I voted in Europe, but that is just my opinion. You(i.e. 2nd person EU) have to prioritise your battles. What is more important at the moment: A new constitution or more chages in expansion policy? That is just one example of the things that must be sorted out.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, King of Belize
No power is being lost that's the beauty of it! People just have to find the new ways to the political arena.
It's not an uphill battle either as "the dinosaurs" are dying out (and no I don't mean "old peole" in general, because you might be surprised how favourable much of the older generation is to the European project - they were around to see what happens when there is lack of unity - another thing you need to understand before commenting)

[SHiRO]

I know Shiro doesn't want to hear it, but especially amongst the young population of Switzerland, support for EU membership has dropped off considerably.
:haha:
That's just conjecture, I find it comical you view it as a victory.
Next year or in a couple of years the tables could be (most likely will be) turned again.
It's all a process and I'm becomming increasingly more convinced that you just weren't around (physically or otherwise) to view it like that (nevermind Americans who are living here now but lack the first hand experience of transition).
What is the only way for Swiss people to take advantage of all the possibilities European integration grants us? Maybe they are not as enthused on paper right now. What will happen if they find it increasingly more difficult to take part "in Europe"(I'm talking education, jobs and business oppurtunities here), how will they feel about the whole EU thing then?
There comes a point when even Switserland might as well become a full member, because it otherwise be just a vassalstate with no political influence whatsoever. You are concerned for Swiss sovereignty? The best way to presurve it is to encourage them to join while there still are some big decisions to makeabout the whole set up. Pretty soon they will not have a choice, they will need to implement all the laws without having a say in it (and pay for it too), purely for economical reasons. Norway is just about at this point. Within 10/15 years Switserland will be too.

[The Dear Leader]

That's just conjecture, I find it comical you view it as a victory.

Even the Swiss foreign minister (who's hardly anti-European) said that. It's interesting that when somebody mentions facts which don't fit your worldview, you turn into a childlike state, putting your fingers in your ears singing "lalalala, I can't hear you."

It's all a process and I'm becomming increasingly more convinced that you just weren't around (physically or otherwise) to view it like that (nevermind Americans who are living here now but lack the first hand experience of transition).

It's foolish to think that the opinion of people who're not living here or lived abroad in the past is somehow not as valuable as that of people who've been living in Europe all their lives. You're not the only one who reads a newspaper or watches the news. ;)


What will happen if they find it increasingly more difficult to take part "in Europe"(I'm talking education, jobs and business oppurtunities here), how will they feel about the whole EU thing then?

They're cherry picking things (and the EU allows them to). Switzerland gets cultural funds, they have access to the open market and their researchers are participating in some EU programs.


Pretty soon they will not have a choice, they will need to implement all the laws without having a say in it (and pay for it too), purely for economical reasons. Norway is just about at this point. Within 10/15 years Switserland will be too.

Now that's conjecture.

[SHiRO]

Even the Swiss foreign minister (who's hardly anti-European) said that. It's interesting that when somebody mentions facts which don't fit your worldview, you turn into a childlike state, putting your fingers in your ears singing "lalalala, I can't hear you."
I'm not putting my fingers in my ears, I'm just taking things for what they are.
Besides, how is it substansiated that younger Swiss are less enthusiastic about EU membership? (I would be too btw considering all the bad press the EU got the last couple of years). A poll? I'd say more and more young Swiss are participating in the possibilities the EU has granted us.
I'm not worried...



It's foolish to think that the opinion of people who're not living here or lived abroad in the past is somehow not as valuable as that of people who've been living in Europe all their lives. You're not the only one who reads a newspaper or watches the news. ;)
Not necessarilly, but they have not seen all the changes first hand that's for sure. They haven't for instance seen Spain change from a dictatorship to a modern western democracy, one of the most liberal in the world I might add.



They're cherry picking things (and the EU allows them to). Switzerland gets cultural funds, they have access to the open market and their researchers are participating in some EU programs.
Cherry picking yeah that's a good one. And they are going to continue to do that in the next 50 years as well right?:haha:
Don't forget to mention that conversely they have to implement laws which they had zero influence in creating in. Cherry picking? I call that doing as you are told because otherwise you can't play.



Now that's conjecture.
We just have to wait and see, wont we...

[Major AWACS]

You don't have a great understanding of European politics if you really think that. I assure you that "voting down certain aspects of European unity" has little or nothing to do with the no votes from France or the NL last year.
First you need to understand what "the constitution" really is.
And again, local rules have nothing to do with European unity either.
How is immigration and expansion dying when for example a country like Spain has seen it's population increase by a staggering 10% over the last 5 years(!) and come 2007 two new countries are now confirmed to join the EU? The Eu takes in more immigrants then the US atm.
I think you only see part of the picture at best. Not meant as a insult but maybe you should first (like many Europeans) fully understand what the EU really is and how it works (yeah it's quite complicated), before you are so certain of your views. No the EU is not trying to take over countries...

yeah, Front page of the IHT today, I guess I am not the only one who "doesn't understand Euro immigration"
I never said the EU was taking over countries. I said it will be well beyond the next "few" years before the type of unity discussed earlier in the thread will happen

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/11/europe/web.1011muslims.php

Share with me your view on the Euro constitution and the Dutch failure. It seems the Euro Politics I have been working in Brussels this past week is "not mainstream" then ;-) I would love to hear your explaination of the Constitution failures since all the Dutchies I work with tell me something different. I am serious not being flippant. Everything I hear from all the folks here is different. Now granted I live and work in the countryside so the city views are a bit different, I am sure, but not so much as to change the vote eh? Or no?

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, I have no piercings and the paperwork to prove it

[pricemazda]

and considering the Netherlands is one of the most urbanised countries on earth, maybe you shouldn't rely too much on personal anecdotal evidence to form your theories.

The Dutch, like the French are reacting against the forces of globalisation that have brought hundreds of thousands of immigrants to their countries, have increased job insecurity and they feel their culture is under threat from globalisation as well.

However, the Dutch in every opinion poll since the Referendum are still some of the most positive about European Integration.

If they have changed their minds as you suggest, how can the idea of european integration still be so popular in the Netherlands?

[one very bored guy]

@Capt AWACS.

Who said you need a majority vote to unify a federation? Naturally, it's the way we work today, but it wasn't always. People in general don't like change, this is a fact which is why so many referendums fail when they suggest a change of the status quo.

Can I ask this. How many people supported the idea of the federation to create the United States? Was the a referendum? Did any states oppose the idea? The South?

Is the average person really the person who should make important policy decisions? Do they really know what they are talking about, or do they just vote based on personal feelings? I can say one thing, by far the majority of people didn't even bother to read the constitution, yet a great deal voted against it because they "didn't agree with it". Yet how can they not agree with something they have never read?

[Major AWACS]

Kid, I am well aware of what the Netherlands are like, and England and Germany and plenty of other countries I have lived in. My "conotation" of "countryside" is a city of 120,000 people versus North Holland, what is yours? I am well aware of the Dutch and European views on immigration. I have heard enough Germans say "The only good Turk is a dead Turk" and some of those were politicians, but I digress. Read the article on Brussels thoughts on immigration and get back to me about theories.

European integration and what I was discussing are two different things. Please, again, post a link to where I said European Integration is not popular in the Netherlands. I can wait. I did say further progression on the Constitution, Immigration issues, and local control of certain aspects others want controlled from Brussels was a concern here in Zuid Limburg and Kreis Heinsberg. And that it will take more than "a short" time to get all these things resolved, as others here are suggesting could happen.

Oh please post a link to all the opinion polls on integration and would like to see the rack and stacked numbers.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Seven continents down, none to go, only way now is up

[Major AWACS]

@Capt AWACS.


Can I ask this. How many people supported the idea of the federation to create the United States? Was the a referendum? Did any states oppose the idea? The South?

And who cares as opposed to what we are discussion now? But hey: The "South" opposed the bigger states controlling shipping rights and other issues but all wanted some sort of federation. And look how long it took to happen since being settled in 1607. Now tell me that Europe is going to fix all this in the next couple of years? Don't put words in my mouth.


Is the average person really the person who should make important policy decisions? Do they really know what they are talking about, or do they just vote based on personal feelings? I can say one thing, by far the majority of people didn't even bother to read the constitution, yet a great deal voted against it because they "didn't agree with it". Yet how can they not agree with something they have never read?

So what is your point here? Europeans are stupid and don't care about politics or that we should have a poll test before voting?

Who should make and/or force policy decisions on people? I can't wait to here this one.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, I have no children and the paperwork to prove it

[one very bored guy]

And who cares as opposed to what we are discussion now? But hey: The "South" opposed the bigger states controlling shipping rights and other issues but all wanted some sort of federation. And look how long it took to happen since being settled in 1607. Now tell me that Europe is going to fix all this in the next couple of years? Don't put words in my mouth.



So what is your point here? Europeans are stupid and don't care about politics or that we should have a poll test before voting?

Who should make and/or force policy decisions on people? I can't wait to here this one.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, I have no children and the paperwork to prove it

I'm rather surprised at your tone of writting. To be honest, I had a lot of respect for your posts before, but in this thread you seem a tad harsh.

My first point was related to what the people want and what is good for them are two different things. And to be honest, I very much doubt that during the time of the federation of the US, the majority supported it.

My 2nd point is refelective of all people, everywhere. Not just Europe.

and finally, creating a federation of Europe, and the point where the majority are happy about it are two different things. Natually, it will take generations for everyone to feel "European", I certainly don't doubt that.

[SHiRO]

yeah, Front page of the IHT today, I guess I am not the only one who "doesn't understand Euro immigration"
I never said the EU was taking over countries. I said it will be well beyond the next "few" years before the type of unity discussed earlier in the thread will happen

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/11/europe/web.1011muslims.php

Share with me your view on the Euro constitution and the Dutch failure. It seems the Euro Politics I have been working in Brussels this past week is "not mainstream" then ;-) I would love to hear your explaination of the Constitution failures since all the Dutchies I work with tell me something different. I am serious not being flippant. Everything I hear from all the folks here is different. Now granted I live and work in the countryside so the city views are a bit different, I am sure, but not so much as to change the vote eh? Or no?


Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, I have no piercings and the paperwork to prove it
I was refering to European integration not immigration or integration of immigrants. but now that you mention it, yes the Anglo press indeed does tend to overhype the situation (although the IHT isn't as bad as the rest). If we are to believe particularly the Rupert Murdoch controlled part of the Anglo press, we are having a civilwar here in NL, with daily firebombings and all (in reality some kids threw a gas filled bottle to an outside gate one time).
Actually, integration is going pretty well over here although for some reason, many people seem to think otherwise. Surprisingly these are mostly the people who don't live in highly diverse areas. It's all a mediahype...

The reason why the constitutional treaty didn't pass was that at the time people were dissatisfied with the current NATIONAL government. The oppositional EXTREME parties took advantage of this and started an outright PROPAGANDA campaign in which they were flatout lying about the implications of the constitutional treaty. btw all of the regular opposition was in favour of the treaty as well.
The pro side couldn't counter the extremist propaganda because it was unexpected that the traditionally pro European Dutch population was so easily riled up. I say extremist because the only parties opposed were the near communist socialists, the populists and the christian right religious nutters. Together these parties had maybe 10 seats in parliament out of 150. Explain to me how come the proside had 140 seats and the anti side only had 10 and still 60% of voters voted against. Either a large % of people don't vote the party they are supposed to vote (and are extremist nutters instead to boot) or people were voting totally out of line with their actual beliefs.
Anyone who is telling you otherwise is falsifying history, people didn't know what the hell they were voting for and were easily riled up by scare tactics, made easy by their dissatisfaction of the current government (this dissatisfaction has largely dissappeared in the mean time, hmmm could it have something to do with economics). I don't like the current government btw.
Further proof of this comes from the no voters themselves because the top 5 reason they gave for voting no were something like:

-I'm against the current governement
-I don't like the PM
-I don't want Turkey to join
-I don't like the Euro
-etc

All of which have absolutely NOTHING to do with the constitutional treaty.

You have to understand that the EU was being used for years by various politicians in most EU member states as a SCAPEGOAT. It's easy to say it is all the fault of "Brussels" because nobody is going to defend it.
A nice example is how all of the NL seems to be convinced mayor constructionsites are on hold because of European dust norms. The Dutch politicians forgot to mention that they themselves decided to attach the European dust norms to construction projects. It gets translated as "Brussels is the cause houses aren't getting build". There are plenty of examples of this.

It's a shame you don't read Dutch, otherwise this propaganda site of the Socialist Party might give you some insight:
http://www.sp.nl/nieuws/actie/grondwet/

[The Dear Leader]

The pro side couldn't counter the extremist propaganda because it was unexpected that the traditionally pro European Dutch population was so easily riled up. I say extremist because the only parties opposed were the near communist socialists, the populists and the christian right religious nutters. Together these parties had maybe 10 seats in parliament out of 150. Explain to me how come the proside had 140 seats and the anti side only had 10 and still 60% of voters voted against. Either a large % of people don't vote the party they are supposed to vote (and are extremist nutters instead to boot) or people were voting totally out of line with their actual beliefs.

You don't always have to vote along party lines though. I don't agree with everything the FDP does for example (they're in favor of Turkish EU membership). If there was a referendum on it in Germany, I'd vote against it...and I'd probably be lumped together with Neo-Nazis by you (after all the right wing NPD is dead set against it as well). ;)

[jef]

Don't be silly.

Integration would be a loss for everyone.

@PriceMazda: I believe that your support to integration is biased by the fact you are susbsidised by Europe.

However:

Look at Belgium: this country is heading for separatism. I don't say it's good or bad. It is just a fact that different ethnic group wants to be ruled differently and according to their own desiderata.

[SHiRO]

You don't always have to vote along party lines though. I don't agree with everything the FDP does for example (they're in favor of Turkish EU membership). If there was a referendum on it in Germany, I'd vote against it...and I'd probably be lumped together with Neo-Nazis by you (after all the right wing NPD is dead set against it as well). ;)
Always an excuse right?

When the Dutch start agreeing with communists and religious right, you know something isn't right.

People voted against more democracy, how stupid is that?

There shouldn't have been a referendum on such a complex issue in the first place. A referendum which btw was consultative (non binding).

[The Dear Leader]

When the Dutch start agreeing with communists and religious right, you know something isn't right.


They also agreed with The Economist and the Tories. All I'm saying is that your "xy was against it, hence you're xy yourself" logic is flawed. We can debate the merits of the consitution until the cows come home but blaming people for not voting in line with their party's stance makes no sense.

[SHiRO]

Don't be silly.

Integration would be a loss for everyone.
You probably don't understand what is meant by integration.



@PriceMazda: I believe that your support to integration is biased by the fact you are susbsidised by Europe.
that's not only silly but also offensive. I'll let PM speak for himself though...



However:

Look at Belgium: this country is heading for separatism. I don't say it's good or bad. It is just a fact that different ethnic group wants to be ruled differently and according to their own desiderata.
Oh please spare us. Belgium is not headed towards seperatism, and if anything a EU framework is a better garantee for regionalism (see Catalonia).
What different "ethnic" groups?

[SHiRO]

They also agreed with The Economist and the Tories. All I'm saying is that your "xy was against it, hence you're xy yourself" logic is flawed. We can debate the merits of the consitution until the cows come home but blaming people for not voting in line with their party's stance makes no sense.
Not their party, ALL parties. All non extremist parties in any case.
And we can't debate the merits of the constitution because the vast mayority of no voters still haven't got a clue what they voted against.

Seriously, my logic is not "xy was against it, hence you're xy yourself", mu logic is that the constitutional treaty was supported by a wide political base (I'd call 140 out of 150 a wide base). These people know what it wa about, it's their job. If all of a sudden 60% of voters is going to disagree with hthe people they themselves have elected to represent them and start agreeing with extremists, you know something is wrong and it is not the 140 MP's on the pro side.

And would you be so kind as to prove your claim that the Economist was against the constitutional treaty?

[The Dear Leader]

And would you be so kind as to prove your claim that the Economist was against the constitutional treaty?

There you go: http://www.electroniceconomist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_ID=2790226&subjectid=3833071
European voters should reject the new constitutional treaty and demand something better

[SHiRO]

You can't view that if you're not subscribed...(copy paste?)

Anyway, if it is an opinion piece you have proven nothing...
(though you sure do try hard ;)).

EDIT- From the intro it seems like they are saying that the constitutional treaty is too much of a compromise and that we should demand something better. That sounds to me like a call for more integration, not less...

[The Dear Leader]

It's a piece by The Economist. As soon as I find my account details, I'll post it in this thread.

[The Dear Leader]

Alrighty then...

The right verdict on the constitution
Jun 24th 2004
From The Economist print edition

http://www.electroniceconomist.com/images/20040626/2604LD1.jpg

European voters should reject the new constitutional treaty and demand something better

THE task of agreeing a new constitutional treaty for the European Union with 25 countries around the table, all with their own interests and aims, was no doubt a difficult one. Compromise, fudge and imperfection were inevitable. The text that European governments ended up with on June 18th may be, as they say, the best that could be done in such circumstances. Fortunately, however, there is now a chance for those circumstances to be changed: at least ten countries will put the new treaty to their voters in referendums, while the others seek to ratify it solely through their parliaments. Those voters would do themselves, and the European Union, a great service if they were to reject this treaty and jolt governments into coming up with a better version.

Some European politicians and EU devotees have argued that the consequences of a rejection would be catastrophic. That is hyperbole. It might be true that if merely one country out of 25—Britain, say—were to vote no, the situation would be awkward for all concerned. Yet that can be dealt with when and if it occurs (Britain's referendum may well not take place until 2006, the last or nearly last of all the polls). It would be bizarre indeed—unconstitutional even—if governments were to be holding referendums in which only one outcome is deemed acceptable. If you can't take no for an answer, why ask the question? The European Union badly needs more popular legitimacy, as the big anti-incumbent votes and quite sizeable anti-EU votes in this month's European Parliament elections showed. And the big flaw in the proposed constitutional treaty is that it does little or nothing to make Europeans likelier to feel comfortable with the whole enterprise.

Checks, balances and brakes

Regular readers, and offended Europhiles, will recall that when the first draft of this proposed constitution was unveiled in June last year, we recommended (see article) that governments should throw it in the wastepaper bin and start again. Unaccountably, European leaders failed to take our advice. Partly, perhaps, this was because so much time had already been invested in producing that draft, but mainly it was because the treaty does bring some real improvements to the EU—for governments. For the people they serve, however, it does not.

This whole exercise, it should be noted, was supposedly intended to bring the Union closer to its citizens. The so-called Laeken declaration of December 2001, which launched the process of writing a new constitution to replace the existing treaties, talked of popular concerns about too many powers being exercised at European rather than national level, about the lack of democratic scrutiny, and about European institutions and practices being rigid and hard to understand. In fact, however, the new constitutional treaty focuses on a genuine but quite different problem: how to make decision-making easier in an enlarged EU.

If you measure the new treaty against that problem alone, it is a success: a clear improvement on the previous arrangements (see article). The new voting system is fairer and more workable than the absurd formula set up in the Nice treaty of 2001; national vetoes have been removed from several areas; the Union's executive, the European Commission, will eventually (by 2014) have fewer commissioners and thus be less top-heavy; meetings of member governments, the European Council, will be presided over by one person for two-and-a-half years rather than a different country every six months; the Union will have one common representative for foreign policy rather than two, as now.

But the point of a constitution, or even of a constitutional treaty, as many European leaders now prefer to call it, is not simply to make the process of government easier. In some ways, just the reverse: it is to make sure that government happens under clear rules and constraints, so that it is hard for it to act and evolve in ways that citizens find unacceptable. Otherwise, effectiveness may be achieved at the expense of popular legitimacy and, ultimately, provoke a backlash. That is where Europe's new constitution fails.

For starters, the new treaty is little easier to understand than its predecessors; nor, overall, are the new institutional arrangements. It was probably always hopeless to expect something that could be recited in schools, however. Much more important is the fact that the new treaty does nothing to provide citizens with any sense of control over the process of European government or the evolution of the EU.

Contrary to Laeken's aspirations, no powers have been repatriated. Protections for “subsidiarity”—ensuring that issues are dealt with at the most appropriate level—are weak at best, non-existent at worst: national parliaments are invited to speak up if they think subsidiarity has been flouted, but the European Commission is merely obliged to take note. A procedure known as the “emergency brake” will now allow governments that are uncomfortable with EU measures in social security or criminal justice to opt out of them, but the provision is so vague that it is unclear how it will work. And the European Court of Justice may have been given a more powerful role in coming decades in interpreting the constitution and especially its attached Charter of Fundamental Rights in such a way as to enforce and accelerate integration. Or it may not have been. No one can be sure.

Aux urnes, citoyens

That lack of subsidiarity, of control, above all of any real sense of constitutional stability are the fundamental flaws of this treaty. The European Union does need a smoother, more efficient decision-making process, both for its own sake and so that it can enlarge itself even more in future, bringing in more countries in eastern Europe and the Balkans, and Turkey. But if voters are to feel comfortable both with that efficiency and that enlargement, they need a constitution that stabilises and controls the process properly. Such a constitution plainly cannot be achieved just by inter-governmental negotiations. It needs to be demanded by voters. That is why the best result in all the ten referendums would be a resounding no vote.

[jef]

Shiro: I did not intend to be offensive with Pricemazda and I am sorry if it was understood as such. I have also been working for the EU and indeed I believe it could lead to a bias.

For your information, there are two main ethnic groups in Belgium: The Flemish speaking (Flanders, Brussels) and the French speaking (Brussels, Wallonia). Note there is also a small German speaking area in the eastern part of the country.

[SHiRO]

@TDL: Thanks for the article, still not sure if this is a opinion piece or "the official" stance of the Economist.

I find it a bit light though. There isn't much critisism to reply to. The judgement is that there isn't enough of the principle of subsidiarity to be found in the treaty, but by their own admission there is more of that in it then we currently have. They also forgot to mention that the treaty provides for members wanting to leave the union and for civil initiatives accompanied by 1 million signatures.

This last example just infuriated me recently when the Socialist Party here posted an article on their website talking how "Brussels" didn't listen to an initiative they supported against the moving around of the EP each month (a minor issue but very usefull for propaganda off course), accompanied by 1 million signatures (400,000 of which they got). How can someone take these guys seriously? First they campaign against the treaty which would have provided for signature initiatives and now they are saying "Brussels" doesn't listen to their initiative. It's just sickening, much like this article. yeah, vote no so that you can afterwards complain about the lack of things the treaty would have provided in...

[SHiRO]

For your information, there are two main ethnic groups in Belgium: The Flemish speaking (Flanders, Brussels) and the French speaking (Brussels, Wallonia). Note there is also a small German speaking area in the eastern part of the country.
FYI, Flemings and Walloons are not different ethnicities...

[The Dear Leader]

I'm pretty sure that was the official stance of The Economist, after all this was their cover back then:

http://www.economist.com/images/20040626/20040626issuecovEU400.jpg

All they're saying is that the document's not good enough. And I can't blame them. A constitution is something that's supposed to be one of the central pillars of your society, a document that shouldn't be changed or tampered with all the time. If you get the basic issues wrong, you're essentially screwed. Of course we can argue about whether it's even possible to get a better document, one that all 25 or 27 member states can agree on. But then we're back to the debate about European unity and European values.

[jef]

@TDL: Thanks for the article, still not sure if this is a opinion piece or "the official" stance of the Economist..

Of course, it is.

[SHiRO]

All they're saying is that the document's not good enough. And I can't blame them. A constitution is something that's supposed to be one of the central pillars of your society, a document that shouldn't be changed or tampered with all the time. If you get the basic issues wrong, you're essentially screwed. Of course we can argue about whether it's even possible to get a better document, one that all 25 or 27 member states can agree on. But then we're back to the debate about European unity and European values.
IT ISN'T A CONSTITUTION!!!!!!

[SHiRO]

Of course, it is.
Yeah, but does that somehow validate things? Sure it's more valid then if it was just one person's opinion, but it still is just an opinion.

I find the article to be extremely simplistic and "light".
Furthermore it omits a great deal of information to the reader.

[The Dear Leader]

IT ISN'T A CONSTITUTION!!!!!!

If it walks like a constitution and talks like a constitution...I'll call it a constitution. :D

Seriously, Europhiles always talked about the need for a European constitution but as soon as they saw that this name might not be too popular they decided to call it a treaty.

[SHiRO]

If it walks like a constitution and talks like a constitution...I'll call it a constitution. :D

Seriously, Europhiles always talked about the need for a European constitution but as soon as they saw that this name might not be too popular they decided to call it a treaty.
But it doesn't walk and talk like a constitution! Do you really know that little about it still?

It was always a treaty, to name it constitution had an adverse effect. maybe to the point that it would have passed otherwise. It certainly would have passed without the silly referenda which actually were counter democratic in retrospect.

[pricemazda]

Don't be silly.

Integration would be a loss for everyone.

@PriceMazda: I believe that your support to integration is biased by the fact you are susbsidised by Europe.

However:

Look at Belgium: this country is heading for separatism. I don't say it's good or bad. It is just a fact that different ethnic group wants to be ruled differently and according to their own desiderata.

How on earth am I subsidised? Could it be possible that someone might want to work within EU institutions because they are pro-european to start with, rather than are corrupted by lavishing cash and benefits on them.

People forget that 2 countries also voted in favour of the consitution should we ignore the democratic will of those countries?

Why is it the negative result seems to be worth more?

[Mercutio]

The best thing about the EU is the freedom of movement. We are no longer confined to our small countries but have a vast continental sized country that stretches from the Arctic Circle to the sunny Mediterranean and we can all travel, work, and live wherever we choose with no need for visas. It's a huge increase in our personal freedom.

Compared to this the EU constitution really pales into insignificiance. OK so it was supposed to make some processes smoother and faster but do most of us actually care about that stuff? Probably not. If it doesn't impact upon our daily lives then why should we care?

[Mercutio]

People forget that 2 countries also voted in favour of the consitution should we ignore the democratic will of those countries?

Why is it the negative result seems to be worth more?Because you need a consensus.

[SHiRO]

Actually ten countries voted for the constitution.
But PM means by referenda...



Because you need a consensus.
I'm not against referenda, but do it on clear cut issues that everyone understands after a healty clear debate. Not after a propaganda campaign on an issue 80% of the people don't know the first thing about.

Had the constitution gone through ratification via parliamental approvement, like how the smart countries did, we would now be on our way to a more transparent, more democratic Europe, which I do think is an important issue people should care about.

[tergeste]

I don't understand why some people put it as an issue of identity. It's not like the EU is trying to rob people of their national identities. Overall I don't feel strongly European, but I still see the EU and its predecessor the EC as a practical union which has overall brought more benefits than harms.

[pricemazda]

Because you need a consensus.

People forget that the people of Spain should have their voices heard as well, yet to listen to the antis you would think that only the no votes had any legitimacy.

[The Dear Leader]

Why is it the negative result seems to be worth more?

Because that's what the EU wanted...if one country votes against it, it's essentially dead.

[The Dear Leader]

But it doesn't walk and talk like a constitution! Do you really know that little about it still?

Feel free to point out what made it so "non-constitutional".

[SHiRO]

For starters, 3/4 of it is just the old treaties...

And how long is it going to take you to understand that "the EU" doesn't want anything. It can't want anything because it isn't a entity with a brain or feelings.

[The Dear Leader]

For starters, 3/4 of it is just the old treaties...

And how long is it going to take you to understand that "the EU" doesn't want anything. It can't want anything because it isn't a entity with a brain or feelings.

So if you read a newsstory where it says "the EU has stated that it would like to see Israel end its military operation against Lebanon", you also say "godfuckingdamn journalists, when will you get that the EU isn't an entity with a brain or feelings!!!?"?

[pricemazda]

Actually especially on foreign affairs the EU 'does' nothing, member states agree on a common statement.

But anyway the formation of a single european superstate won't happen in our lifetimes and anyway it won't occur in the way we think it will. It won't be some momentus occassion with a signing of treaties and Ode to Joy played by a symphony in the background. It will be like the emergence of most european nation states did in history through evolution. One day will we will realise that actually our domestic leaders have less power than the centre in Brussels and Brussels has in effect become our government. Don't misunderstand me, this won't be some epiphany but people will be comfortable with the transition and won't even realise it is happening.

This is because of the dynamics of the EU, as new problems present themselves that require ever more complex and bigger solutions more common action among the member states will occur. We have seen the consequence of free movement to be calls for a better more unified approach to immigration problems, with the increased air travel with free movement we need a common solution to aircraft pollution.

This dynamic will mean ever closer union.

[jef]

Politics were so afraid Belgium - Federal State - voted against the EU Constitution that they simply ruled out a referendum ...

That's the democracy as defined by the EU.

[jef]

This dynamic will mean ever closer union.

What do you mean exactly: Fiscal policy? Foreign Policy ? ?.

These issues are far more complex than you think I am afraid.

"One size fits all" policy - or integration - does not work.

I would prefer bi- or multilateral agreements in some of these very specific areas you mentioned.

[JManc]

If it walks like a constitution and talks like a constitution...I'll call it a constitution. :D

no, it's a duck.

[Joka]

Please don't put me in the same group as that lunatic Nigel Farrage. Apparently certain Europhiles can't make a distincition between people who are Eurosceptic. Farrage hates the EU, I don't. I just don't want a political union, that's all. The least people like you can do is respect that opinion.

I replied in haste and jumped to conclusions, my apologies.

But if you see the benefits from cooperating in some fields, can you then explain to me how you choose in which fields Europe should cooperate and share sovereignity? ie. What should be decided by Brussels and what by, in your case, Berlin?

You see, I would apply cooperation and sharing of sovereignity to all fields where benefits are to be yielded, generally speaking matters of global or continental scale. Thinking like; "Sure, I see the benefits from cooperating but we can only apply it to this and this field because of this dogmatic approach I have, so let's not cooperate in this and this field even if they would be more beneficial." is alien to me.

[Joka]

This discussion seems meaningless. Here are just a few improtant questions about USE.
Do you think UK will sign European Constitution and adopt euro and when?

I certainly hope UK decides to adopt the euro and sign the constitution, but that's entirely up to the Brits themselves. As it looks right now they're not going to do either in the foreseeable future. Eventually, I guesstimate they'll do both though.

Should all monarchies be abolished?

I don't see monarchies as an obstacle for European integration, on the contrary, many of the European royal families are related and could function as a positive force in integration. Personally I don't like the idea of monarchies though, but if a state in the USE wants to stick to their monarchy, I don't see how it should concern the rest of the federation. As long as democratic principles are respected.

Do you want one european arm forces, in what language is the command?

Yes. All EU states should put the same amount of money towards a common force, say, 1.5-2% of GDP. On top of that the memberstates could maintain a "National Guard" of their own, in which they could preserve old military traditions and units. eg. If the common EU force would have no use of the French Republican Guard or British Royal Guard, they could both still maintain those within the "National Guard" framework.
As for the language: The brigade I'm currently serving my conscription service in is the only Swedish-language brigade in Finland, meaning that all the communication and education is done in Swedish, while the actual orders are in Finnish, so as to make brigades interoperable. This could be one solution. Having orders in one language and speaking whatever you want.

Or alternatively teaching all the soldiers one common language like the French Foreign Legion.

Or making entire USE bilingual where one common language is teached in school along side the national language(s).

There are probably many obstacles for a EU force, but I doubt language is one of them.


Do you back the right to leave USE?

Yes, as the alternative in such a case would be civil-war. Having said that the process of leaving should be "slow" as to make sure no-one left due to a short-term trend. eg. Dual parliamentary approval by current and new parliament or dual referendum with a year in between. Or something in that direction. Likewise the founding of USE should have very broad and longterm support to ensure stability.

[one very bored guy]

Politics were so afraid Belgium - Federal State - voted against the EU Constitution that they simply ruled out a referendum ...

That's the democracy as defined by the EU.

Interesting thought. Of the current democratíc nations we have in today's world. Please list the country's which approved their constitution by referendum.

[one very bored guy]

no, it's a duck.

Have you read it?

[Grumpy]

Politics were so afraid Belgium - Federal State - voted against the EU Constitution that they simply ruled out a referendum ...

You forgot to mention that the state made this decision and that there was never even a tought for asking the Belgian people by referendum what they thought was best for them.
It was a liberal politician De Gucht who took it for 10.000.000 people...a liberal decision.

That's the democracy as defined by the EU.

I wonder if democracy still exists :shrug:

[Mercutio]

People forget that the people of Spain should have their voices heard as well, yet to listen to the antis you would think that only the no votes had any legitimacy.Because you need a consensus. That's why no votes trump yes votes.

[one very bored guy]

You forgot to mention that the state made this decision and that there was never even a tought for asking the Belgian people by referendum what they thought was best for them.
It was a liberal politician De Gucht who took it for 10.000.000 people...a liberal decision.



I wonder if democracy still exists :shrug:

Maybe you can answer this question then. Please list all of the democratic country's that you know of that polled a referendum to create their current constitutions.

[Grumpy]

Maybe you can answer this question then. Please list all of the democratic country's that you know of that polled a referendum to create their current constitutions.

Sorry but I am not the guy to inform you about stats of political issues.
I guess "SHiRO" or "pricemazda" could inform you better about this