Lisbon Treaty

[Derbedeu]

To all our fellow Irish mp.netters:

Whatever your position on the Treaty, get out there and vote! Tell you family and friends to go vote as well!

:)

[MaverickCowboy]

you guys voting No?


seems like the right choice to keep sovreignty

[Derbedeu]

you guys voting No?


seems like the right choice to keep sovreignty

:roll:

Honestly, do you know anything about the Treaty?

[theholeinthedonut]

:roll:

Honestly, do you know anything about the European Union?

Fixed it for you ;-)

[muttbutt]

Yep I'll be voting in about an hour.....

[muttbutt]

you guys voting No?


seems like the right choice to keep sovreignty
No offence, but I don't tell you which way to vote in your polls, I'd kindly suggest you do the same in reverse.

[2495]

Yep I'll be voting in about an hour.....

I hope to God the Irish vote no again - because if they vote Yes, Tony Blair becomes EU President.....

[muttbutt]

I hope to God the Irish vote no again - because if they vote Yes, Tony Blair becomes EU President.....
I don't think so.

plus he won't be the "EU's president" he'd be president of the comission for longer then 6 months thats all.

But I seriously doubt it would be teflon Tony.....it would be awkward for him (us) to visit certain places, they might try and bust him for war crimes:roll:

[Derbedeu]

I hope to God the Irish vote no again - because if they vote Yes, Tony Blair becomes EU President.....

Tony Blair? I doubt it. He's yesterday's news, and the whole Iraqi war ruined whatever chance he had.

[Formby]

I will vote "NO"

If I vote yes than I as a P.A.Y.e. worker will get screwed
If I vote "NO" that I as a P.A.Y.E. worked will get screwed, but so will the Politian’s and the businessmen/women.

[MaverickCowboy]

Fixed it for you ;-)

I do, since i have Family in the EU and have a passport/citizenship.

[MaverickCowboy]

:roll:

Honestly, do you know anything about the Treaty?

I do. do you?

[Derbedeu]

If you do, please feel free to explain to us how the Lisbon Treaty will take away sovereignty of the 27 EU states. After all you're the one who made that assertion.

Edit: Oh, and please then explain to us how it is that the German Court decided that the Treaty did not impose on the sovereignty of the German nation. Or any other of the 27 governments who back it.

[MaverickCowboy]

It would Violate Ireland's constitution for one.

1. Top jobs

A politician will be chosen to be president of the European Council for two and a half years, replacing the current system where presidency is rotated between member states every six months. Another post to be created will be the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, combining the current roles of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and external affairs commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

2. Charter of Fundamental Rights

The Lisbon Treaty makes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights a legally-binding document. The charter lists the human rights recognized by the European Union.

3. Citizens’ initiative

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the commission is obliged to consider any proposal signed by at least one million citizens from a number of member states.

4. National parliaments to get ‘yellow card’ facility

All proposals for EU legislation will have to be sent to national parliaments, who will then have eight weeks to offer a ‘reasoned opinion’ on whether they believe the proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity (this is the principle by which decisions should as far as possible be made at local or national level). If enough national parliaments object to a proposal, the commission can decide to maintain, amend or withdraw it.

5. Smaller commission

The European Commission is the EU’s executive arm; it puts forward legislation and ensures that EU policies

are correctly implemented. Since 2004, it has been made up of 27 commissioners, one from each member state. Under the new treaty, the commission will be reduced to 18 members from 2014, with membership rotating every five years. This means that only two-thirds of member states will have their own commissioner at any one time, and each country will lose its commissioner for five years at a time.

6. European Parliament to get greater powers but reduced numbers

Currently, the European Parliament has joint lawmaking power with the Council of Ministers over about 75% of legislative areas. If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, co-decision will be extended to virtually all areas of EU policy.

The European Parliament comprises 785 MEPs from across the union; under the treaty, this will be permanently reduced to 751. The number of Irish MEPs will drop from 13 to 12.

7. New areas of EU competence

The Lisbon Treaty will set out those areas over which the EU has exclusive competence, shared competence with member states, or supporting competence. The treaty gives the EU no new areas of exclusive competence; however, it establishes joint competence in the areas of space and energy. It also gives the EU the role of supporting competence in several new fields including health, education, tourism, energy and sport.

8. Redistribution of voting weights between member states

Within those areas to be decided by qualified majority voting, the current rules require the support of a little over 72% of member states for a law to be passed. Under the new system due to come into effect from 2014, a vote can be passed if it is backed by 55% of member states, and secondly, if these countries represent 65% of the EU’s population. It can also be passed if less than four countries oppose it. The changes mean

that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

9. Shift from unanimity to majority voting

The Lisbon Treaty will see an increase in the number of policy areas to be decided by a majority vote at the council, rather than by unanimity. Qualified majority voting will become the norm; however, there are some notable exceptions that will still require unanimous decisions, including taxation and defence.

One area where the unanimity veto will give way to qualified majority voting is Justice and Home Affairs, covering issues such as asylum, immigration, criminal law, border controls and police cooperation. Ireland has the power to opt out of this area on a case-by-case basis.

10. Changes to common security and defence policy

The Lisbon Treaty provides for the progressive framing of a common defence policy for the European Union, which will nonetheless respect the neutrality of member states like Ireland. It also allows the European Council to change decision making from unanimity to majority voting in a number of areas, excluding military and defence. However such changes will themselves require unanimous decisions.

The treaty extends the range of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions for which the union may draw on member states to include disarmament operations, military advice and assistance and post-conflict stabilization.

[joka]

plus he won't be the "EU's president" he'd be president of the comission for longer then 6 months thats all.


The permanent President role introduced in the LT is the president of The Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council). It would basically be a spokesman & errand boy role, The President wouldn't for example have any voting rights.

[Derbedeu]

It seems that your information is either outdated, or coming directly from a rag like the Sun.

• Ireland, and all other Member States, will keep a Commissioner
• Ireland will remain in control of its own tax rates
• Irish neutrality will not be affected: This means no conscription whatsoever and no common defence.
• Ireland retains control of sensitive ethical issues such as abortion .
• Workers’ Rights and public services are valued and protected in Ireland and the EU, in particular through the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

I need to mention that Ireland is already a signatory to the ECHR (european Court of Human Rights).

Ireland will get their Parliamentarians reduced by 1, but a lot of other nations are going to have theirs reduced as well, including the big ones like Germany (which will lose 3).

Several of those things that you listed are good things, like getting petitions to the Commission, or consolidation of areas of space (where already ESA is the de facto arm of the EU), or energy, where the EU needs to have a common policy to make sure that it's energy needs are met.

Majority voting will mean the reform of CAP, and getting rid of the stupid second Parliament location in Strasbourg that costs us taxpayers money (France will no longer be able to veto it).

Most importantly, for people such as yourself who sees the EU as a bad thing (I'm assuming, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), it provides a secession clause which regulates the withdrawal of a nation from the EU. Something that up to now has been legally dubious since there is no formula for withdrawal.

[futurepilot2004]

Voted yes the last time and going to be voting the same again.

[Stonewall71]

p-) If the "No" wins a 3rd referendum will be called, don't worry

[CMN]

Remember, a Yes! vote is a vote for Bliar p-)

[Derbedeu]

Remember, a Yes! vote is a vote for Bliar p-)

I've never seen a politician sidelined as fast as Blair was. He went from being a possible future EU President and everyday in the papers to literally nothing. His post as special envoy to the middle east peace talks was harked on when it was created for him, but I haven't read or heard anything of what he's done in that position. He's already a footnote in history.

[Estopped]

I hope Ireland votes yes to the treaty.

[Estopped]

I've never seen a politician sidelined as fast as Blair was. He went from being a possible future EU President and everyday in the papers to literally nothing. His post as special envoy to the middle east peace talks was harked on when it was created for him, but I haven't read or heard anything of what he's done in that position. He's already a footnote in history.

Yes. Blair will be a bitter pill to swallow if he does become European president.

Now, Blair was actually pro-Europe and under any other circumstances he would have made an excellent president. But he's a political corpse now. He's not even a zombie. He is hated by the people in his own country and has zero credibility. Iraq ruined him.

[Derbedeu]

Yes. Blair will be a bitter pill to swallow if he does become European president.

That will never happen now. There's no way he can garner enough political support from the rest of Europe's leaders.


Now, Blair was actually pro-Europe and under any other circumstances he would have made an excellent president. But he's a political corpse now. He's not even a zombie. He is hated by the people in his own country and has zero credibility. Iraq ruined him.

Precisely.

[CMN]

I'd bet good money on Blair getting in. Word is he has Sarkozy in his corner and Merkel softening up after her election dogfight at home. If that was the case, welcome Darth Blair, as France & Germany are Europe.

[Derbedeu]

Crap, you might be right CMN.

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

I guess we just have to wait and see. They raise an interesting point in the last sentence:


If it is Tony Blair then there is the intriguing possibility of a former Labour leader as President of the European Union with potentially a Conservative prime minister in Downing Street.

[Derbedeu]

Dublin defies trend with strong Lisbon turnout

EOIN BURKE-KENNEDY and STEPHEN COLLINS



Voting across Dublin in the Lisbon Treaty referendum is substantially up on last year, in contrast to the rest of the country where turnout has been described as “low and slow”.
A spokeswoman for the Dublin city returning officer said voter turnout across the six constituencies averaged 21.4 per cent at 2pm today, compared to 15.5 per cent at the same time during the last referendum.
This contrasted sharply with other parts of the country, where turnout was as low as 10 per cent in several areas at lunchtime.
Polling stations opened at 7am and will remain open until 10pm tonight.
Returning officers for Dublin city and county earlier said voting had been steady all morning, with St Kevin's National School in Donaghmede recording the highest turnout of 23 per cent by mid-morning.
Voter preference in the Tallaght area of the Dublin South West constituency, which recorded the highest No vote of 65 per cent last year, appeared to be more mixed this time.
Several voters, interviewed by The Irish Times , said they had reversed their decision to vote No last time because of the state of the economy.
But others said they were holding firm to their decision to reject Lisbon, with some saying they resented having to vote a second time on the treaty.
The overwhelming majority voters interviewed in Dun Laoghaire, which recorded the highest Yes vote in the coutry last year, said they had vote Yes.
Turnout was reported to “very low” in Cork city and county, averaging about 5 per cent earlier. Voting in Limerick was also said to be low, with turnout running at between 4 per cent and 9 per cent by mid-morning.
The returning officer for both the Galway constituencies said voter turnout was "low and slow", averaging between 10 and 20 per cent by lunchtime, which she said was substantially down the figures witnessed at thsi stage during the last referendum.
A spokeswoman for Waterford city and county said turnout averaged between 10 and 20 per cent in most areas.
Taoiseach Brian Cowen cast his vote shortly before 11am this morning at Mucklagh National School, Co Offaly.
President Mary McAleese and her husband Martin cast their ballots at St Mary's Hospital in the Phoenix Park at 10.30am. Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny voted in his home town of Castlebar earlier at 9.15am while Libertas leader Declan Ganley voted at Briarfield National School near Moylough, Co Galway.
Counting of votes will begin tomorrow at 9am and the official result is expected in the early evening.
The importance of the result for the country’s future prosperity, as well as its place in the world, has been stressed by both sides in the campaign.
Over three million people are entitled to vote in the referendum.
Polling cards and a statement of information have been sent to voters, although some TDs have complained that the way they have been distributed together caused confusion.
People will be entitled to vote whether or not they have a polling card but they may be required to produce evidence of identity. Anyone who fails to do so when asked will not be allowed to vote.
A range of documents, including a passport, driving licence, employee or student identity card will be accepted as photo ID.
The ballot paper for the referendum will be white. If voters wish to approve the proposal, they should put an X in the square beside TÁ/YES or if they do not want to approve, they should mark X in the square beside NÍL/NO.


Good job Dublin on the high voter turnout! woot



But what's with the rest of Ireland?



Go Vote!!!! :)

[Keshik]

you know old wisdom how to boil the frog?

never put it in a hot watter it will jump out,
but in a cold watter and then slowly increase da heat!

french said no in a referendum this is 99% same mukash & gamash just with diffrent wording easier for fools to swallow...
no referendums across europa , no democrasy in all countries exept behold but poore little ireland where its easiest to push for, and will for 100 times untill they get results they want , and ofcourse usual promices of better life etc. where only the rich families will benefit.

who was the ruler which said -^you are all going to vote, untill i like the results!^

...hitler must be having partytime in hell and alot of his living friends all over south amerika.

[futurepilot2004]

^^^ Drugs are bad mmmk

[joka]

I've never seen a politician sidelined as fast as Blair was. He went from being a possible future EU President and everyday in the papers to literally nothing.

Last I heard Blair landed a 6 figure job in New York, we should be lucky if he chooses to come back to the poo flinging contest.

I'm hoping Ireland votes yes and that we get Tony Blair for Council President.

[Mike Keenan]

Just after coming back from voting, I am not telling what way thought.

[futurepilot2004]

Just after coming back from voting, I am not telling what way thought.

That sounds like you voted no but are too embarrassed to admit it :D

[Rayber]

So, could any of you guys actually tell me what its all about xD?

[Keshik]

maybe its not drugs but because i eat organic food, and drink clean watter ,breed clean air... automobule exausts and sewer inhalation IS bad for you.

basicaly anyone with some brain would understandd the frog analogy....
-what took hitler 5 years and a blitzkrieg ,the other blokes are taking it slowly at 50 years and a E-union...
no matter ,they will fail too!
Why no referendum in every state ,its basic democrasy! Why only ireland and france and island and netherland sad NO already.... you can call it berlin pact ,paris declaration ,lisabon treaty its still DA SAME !

and referendum must be held again in all countries .,AGAIN!

those president were NOT elected by people but by MONEY!
Without money how many votes would they get??
0,1% ,or 0,0000001%
so naturally they are answering not to people but to their creditors ...and we all know you will go eventually into bank to pay off credits...with interest!

enourmous centralisation , complete loss of national and individual freedoms to a corporate monster ,and a few rulling oligarh families...
and many of you laughed soo much to russia and amerika and china ,hahaha, and remember Europe dont have military nor resources nor population....
yet europe will take the worse things of all three powers.

[Steak-Sauce]

What the heck are you talking about dude?
I just hope the Irish voted yes.

[Stevey1]

I wish all the best for our Irish neighbours, but I do wish that they vote 'no' on this occasion. In the UK, the Labour Government has broken its promise for a referendum and if Ireland ratify the treaty, the overwhelmingly EU-sceptic British public will be trapped somewhat. The UK Tories want a referendum if they (likely) get into power next year, but may be unable to risk UK chaos by having to perform a general EU-opt out if Lisbon has been ratified by holding a referendum in those circumstances.

I like our European neighbours immensely, but don't like the EU as a concept. The UK people should be able to have a say.

[Eye]

Is it democratic way of making decision to repeat voting as long as proper outcome will be reached?

[kalerab]

Is it democratic way of making decision to repeat voting as long as proper outcome will be reached?

Who said there´s a democracy in Union. One way or another - according to both strongest parties Irish voted for yes.

[Keshik]

-for just 1 out of 20 examples now you have president of europe ,chosen by a bunch of people who are chosen by a bunch of people who are chosen by a people with lots of money.....

....ok time to go practicing SIEG HEIL! to welcome our beloved E-president when he visits.

[SHAM]

Irish Foreign Minister Michael Martin says a convincing yes for the Lisbon Treaty.

What a cock, after a campeign of trying to frighten people into voting yes (banners with yes for jobs up around the country) what does he expect.
There shouldnt have been a second referendum in the first place! Do we have a third one now because the no voters arent happy?

[Gammelpreusse]

It's interesting so many people put the blame of an undemocratic EU on the EU itself, while in facts it's the national governments to blame for that. Maybe I am wrong, but democracy, from the people, for the people, has been on the downhill patch for quite some time, both in Europe, especially in Germany and the UK, as well as the US. Less and less basic rights, more instrusion possibilities for the governments, party politics for the sake of party politics instead for the good of the country and so on.

The EU deficits are symptons, not root causes of that.

Expect some revolutions in roughly 50 years or so, then we'll see further. Until then a strenghend EU at least for the sake of global politics can't hurt any further what's rotten anyways.

[mrxyz]

This sucks :( We didn't even get to vote on the matter.

[Stevey1]

Irish Foreign Minister Michael Martin says a convincing yes for the Lisbon Treaty.

What a cock, after a campeign of trying to frighten people into voting yes (banners with yes for jobs up around the country) what does he expect.
There shouldnt have been a second referendum in the first place! Do we have a third one now because the no voters arent happy?


Those are exactly my sentiments. For peoples who are genuinely keen on the EU: great. But people should not be forced into repeating referendums if 'the wrong outcome' is achieved or denied referendums in the first place: as with the UK.

[Sumadinac]

It's interesting so many people put the blame of an undemocratic EU on the EU itself, while in facts it's the national governments to blame for that. Maybe I am wrong, but democracy, from the people, for the people, has been on the downhill patch for quite some time, both in Europe, especially in Germany and the UK, as well as the US. Less and less basic rights, more instrusion possibilities for the governments, party politics for the sake of party politics instead for the good of the country and so on.

The EU deficits are symptons, not root causes of that.

Expect some revolutions in roughly 50 years or so, then we'll see further. Until then a strenghend EU at least for the sake of global politics can't hurt any further what's rotten anyways.

There's a gap between the people and their governments. People should learn the lesson and not vote for them anymore.

[Derbedeu]

WOHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! wootwootwootwootwoot

THANK YOU IRELAND!!!!!!!!!!!! :hug::hug::hug:

[futurepilot2004]

Thank god common sense prevailed and people didnt listen to the utter ****e the No campaign were telling people.
My area has voted almost 80% yes.

[Derbedeu]

Lisbon Treaty passed with decisive 67% Yes vote

Ireland has passed the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty with an overwhelming majority of 67 per cent in favour and just two of the 43 constituencies voting against.
Taoiseach Brian Cowen said credit for the result rested with the Irish people who had shown a determination to be at the centre of Europe.
Speaking at a press conference at Government Buildings in Dublin this afternoon, Mr Cowen said: “We will now work with all our partners in ensuring the reforms this treaty will bring are implemented”.
Mr Cowen also said he was “confident” the Green Party would stay in the Coalition and that its members would vote in favour of supporting Nama at a party conference next week. "I am confident that my Government will continue and will take all necessary steps to affect economic recovery as quickly as possible".
The referendum was carried with 67.1 per cent
of the electorate voting in favour, reflecting a 20.5 per cent swing to the Yes side since the June 2008 referendum. In the first Lisbon poll, the No side secured 53.4 per cent of the vote.
Yesterday's turnout was 58 per cent.
Dublin South recorded the highest support for the treaty, with 82 per cent of ballots in favour. This was closely followed by Dún Laoghaire, which had an 81 per cent Yes vote, a 17.7 per cent swing compared to last year.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he saw the Yes vote as indicative of the Irish electorate's confidence in the European Union and as a “sign that Ireland recognises the role that the European Union has played in responding to the economic crisis”.
Tipperary South was first constituency to declare a result today, reporting resounding majority in favour of the treaty just before 1pm. It was quickly followed by Yes majorities across the State as almost all constituencies reported significant swings in favour of the treaty. The counting, which began at 9.00am, was completed by 4.30pm.
The exceptions to the national trend were Donegal North East and Donegal South West, which rejected the treaty, the latter by a narrow margin of 50.3 per cent against. Donegal South West is the constituency of Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise Mary Coughlan. Both Donegal constituencies rejected the treaty last year.
No campaigners conceded defeat within hours of ballot boxes being opened this morning as the extent of their defeat quickly became apparent.
Libertas leader Declan Ganley told reporters at the main Dublin counting centre in the RDS the result was “a very convincing win".
"I'm surprised how big the Yes vote is and it shows how scared people are," he said. "This is a very convincing win. It's a mandate of sorts. I wish him [Taoiseach Brian Cowen] the best of luck."
Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin said he was delighted and noted that the guarantees secured by the Government had played a crucial role, while Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan said the result was "an essential first step towards economic recovery".
Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore said the decision was secured “despite the anger and frustration people feel at a very unpopular Government. The biggest obstacle we had throughout this campaign was the unpopularity of the Government."
At the central count centre in Dublin Castle, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny said the people of Ireland had exercised their power in an enlightened way.
“It was a victory clearly for the people who rose above the anger of politics and the cynicism of politics to put their country first,” he said.
Sinn Féin vice-president and anti-Lisbon campaigner Mary Lou McDonald said the vote should not be seen as an indication of support for the Government parties. "This vote does not mean that the Government has a mandate for Nama or the upcoming budget and let them not think that or fall into that false sense of security. People still want change."
Pat Cox, a former president of the European Parliament who headed the Ireland for Europe group, claimed the voters of Ireland had put their country first. “This was a mature vote in which the Irish people rejected those voices telling them to make the referendum a verdict on the government and on national policies," he said.
In the first referendum on Lisbon on June 12th, 2008, the treaty was rejected by 53.4 per cent to 46.6 per cent.
In the previous EU referendum on October 19th, 2002, the Nice Treaty was approved by 62.89 per cent to 37.11 per cent. In an earlier referendum on June 7th, 2001, Nice was rejected by 53.87 per cent to 46.13 per cent.Final results! Once again Thank You Ireland! woot :hug:

[SHAM]

Final results! Once again Thank You Ireland! woot :hug:

Piss off. ...

[Herman the German]

Finally we can move on. Now Vaclav Klaus is the last stone in the way to progress...

[SHAM]

Its a sad day for the EU, democracy roled over and crushed.

Next vote in Ireland the general ellection, cheerio BIFFO!

[dava]

So when will the Irish get their heads chipped by the eurocrats?

[Derbedeu]

Piss off. ...


:hug:

:)

............

[hastati]

Finally we can move on. Now Vaclav Klaus is the last stone in the way to progress...

What progress?

[mrxyz]

This is so depressing. It's bad enough as it is with the EU pushing laws down the throats of our countries. It will only get worse.

Go Klaus!!

[Herman the German]

What progress?

German eurocrats ruling over poor Poles....:roll:
What do you think the EU is all about?

[Fenix]

German eurocrats ruling over poor Poles....:roll:
What do you think the EU is all about?

Bratwurst, lederhosen und bier.

[Derbedeu]

Bratwurst, lederhosen und bier.

Well, two out of three ain't that bad! ;)

[hastati]

German eurocrats ruling over poor Poles....:roll:


You said that not me - should i consider this words serious or you just pick up in discussion myths with which nor i nor i suppouse anybodyelse here has nothing common?


What do you think the EU is all about?I want to hear about this "progress" from you(including why Lisbon Treaty is needed to it) because i'm sick of repeting this "banners" without any details.

[Estopped]

Excellent news. I'm happy they voted yes. Now Cameron can't **** it up.

[Derbedeu]

You said that not me - should i consider this words serious or you just pick up in discussion myths with which nor i nor i suppouse anybodyelse here has nothing common?

I want to hear about this "progress" from you(including why Lisbon Treaty is needed to it) because i'm sick of repeting this "banners" without any details.

Well for one, it gives greater power to the EU Parliament, which is directly elected. For another, more decisions by majority vote, rather than unanimity. That means that ridiculous things like moving the EU Parliament to Strasbourg once a year at European taxpayer expense will finally be abolished. That's just two, out of many.

[Eye]

Finally we can move on. Now Vaclav Klaus is the last stone in the way to progress...
Klaus is not alone:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4455109#post4455109

[Derbedeu]

Um... Germany has ratified it. Currently it is just Poland and the Czech Republic who have yet to do so. Your President has already stated numerous times that he will sign it as soon as Ireland ratifies it, so Klaus is really the only stumbling block.

I'm interested as to why you seem so opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. Is it something specific about the Treaty?

[happyslapper]

The Irish 'yes' vote is highly disappointing. What a sad day for Irish and European democracy, that the Irish people felt the need to finally capitulate to the bullying of Brussels.

Personally I'd like to see the UK seriously reconsider it's relationship with the EU.

[Eye]

Um... Germany has ratified it.
No, they haven't, because The German Federal Constitutional Court commended to protect German sovereignty before it (in simplification).


I'm interested as to why you seem so opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. Is it something specific about the Treaty?
From the same reason like above - I think sovereignty is more important for development than illusionary progress.

[Derbedeu]

No, they haven't, because The German Federal Constitutional Court commended to protect German sovereignty before it (in simplification).

Yes they have:


Germany finalises ratification of Lisbon Treaty


Friday September 25 2009
Germany has finalised its ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
The ratification act was signed by President Kohler today and deposited in Rome by the German Ambassador.
Although the parliament had approved the treaty in May of last year the process had been delayed following a number of court challenges.http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/europe/germany-finalises-ratification-of-lisbon-treaty-1897283.html


From the same reason like above - I think sovereignty is more important for development than illusionary progress.You still have sovereignty. I suggest you check out how the EU actually works. Also, I guess EU regional aid to Poland is nothing but an illusion as well. :roll:

[gazell]

Irish Foreign Minister Michael Martin says a convincing yes for the Lisbon Treaty.

What a cock, after a campeign of trying to frighten people into voting yes (banners with yes for jobs up around the country) what does he expect.
There shouldnt have been a second referendum in the first place! Do we have a third one now because the no voters arent happy?

Well, Barosso also threatened them to vote 'yes', nice democratic process, here we go. And then they get hurt and whine like whore when someone calls them undemocratic.rofl

[Derbedeu]

Well, Barosso also threatened them to vote 'yes', nice democratic process, here we go. And then they get hurt and whine like whore when someone calls them undemocratic.rofl

Actually, it was a very democratic process. And the re-vote was after Irish concerns had been addressed through legally binding protocols. BTW, 7% more people voted this time than last time. :)

[mrxyz]

Actually, it was a very democratic process. And the re-vote was after Irish concerns had been addressed through legally binding protocols. BTW, 7% more people voted this time than last time. :)

And what about us here in Sweden? We never even got to vote for it.

[Derbedeu]

And what about us here in Sweden? We never even got to vote for it.

Your Parliament did. Either case, take it up with your government, not the EU. They're the ones who decided a Parliamentary vote was democratic enough, and a referendum unnecessary.

[SHAM]

Actually, it was a very democratic process. And the re-vote was after Irish concerns had been addressed through legally binding protocols. BTW, 7% more people voted this time than last time. :)

Oh now we are an example of a great democracy, and when it was a no vote, it was everything that was bad about democracy, holding up the greater good of EU progress.
What a load of horse shyte.

There was a sizeable campeign aimed at scaring people into voting yes and it succeeded.
The main point being there should not have been a second referendum at all. I dont recall the French and the others having a second referndum on the so called EU constitution.

Ask yourself what causes an entire population to flip flop from a sizeable no vote to a sizeable yes vote when nothing in the treaty has changed.
The "yes to jobs" campeign carried out by the government perhaps? when the number of lay offs and people signing the social welfare is growing.

[mrxyz]

Who the hell wants more power moved towards Brussels? That a EU majority will be able to stuff laws up our ass really sucks. It's bad enough as it is.

[Britishhawk]

Your Parliament did. Either case, take it up with your government, not the EU. They're the ones who decided a Parliamentary vote was democratic enough, and a referendum unnecessary.

Are you a Member of EU Parliament or something? What has it ever done for you to make you so Pro-EU?

The Irish decision like many have said is very disapointing, its a real shame.

[Derbedeu]

Are you a Member of EU Parliament or something? What has the EU ever done for you to make you for it so very much?

Nope, just someone who realizes the benefits that the EU has brought to the European Continent. :)

[IronFinn]

Bratwurst, lederhosen und bier.

Hah hah! I like two of mentioned but lederhosen is something I have not yet tried. :)

[mrxyz]

Nope, just someone who realizes the benefits that the EU has brought to the European Continent. :)
So what has the EU ever done that is positive, that couldn't have been done without it? I am all for open borders and all that, but it doesn't require some super EU government to do so.

[joka]

This is so depressing.

On the contrary, this is fantastic!

http://www.youtube.com/v/t66uuDdpwaU

[kalerab]

Your Parliament did. Either case, take it up with your government, not the EU. They're the ones who decided a Parliamentary vote was democratic enough, and a referendum unnecessary.

Yeah, we had that "democracy" for 40 years back in the second half of 20th century, but whatever. Klaus will sign it, he is currently under sh1tload of pressure from his party and even from opposition socialists. And as far as I remember he stated that if Irish will ratifie treaty so will he.

[happyslapper]

Oh now we are an example of a great democracy, and when it was a no vote, it was everything that was bad about democracy, holding up the greater good of EU progress.
What a load of horse shyte.

There was a sizeable campeign aimed at scaring people into voting yes and it succeeded.
The main point being there should not have been a second referendum at all. I dont recall the French and the others having a second referndum on the so called EU constitution.

Ask yourself what causes an entire population to flip flop from a sizeable no vote to a sizeable yes vote when nothing in the treaty has changed.
The "yes to jobs" campeign carried out by the government perhaps? when the number of lay offs and people signing the social welfare is growing.

Absolutely. I'm not one of these reactionary ''we want out of the EU'' types, but am seriously angered by what has happened. From a sentimentally patriotic poin-of-view, it disgusts me that after thousands of years of spilling blood to keep the continentals the other side of the English Channel, and after all the events of the 20th century, that we have had our sovereignty unilaterally diminished by our own elected government.
It makes me furious that we have, in name, been part of a malicious and corrupt 'process' of bullying and misinforming people into surrendering part of their national sovereignty.
This is completely against what the EU should stand for, and I'm certain that every right-minded european in this forum feels it's against what his/her country stands for.
It seriously makes me question what our direction should be, within a wider european framework.

[joka]

Seemed like a good idea at first. :oops:

[Derbedeu]

There was a sizeable campeign aimed at scaring people into voting yes and it succeeded.

There was a sizable campaign scaring people to vote NO as well, both times.


The main point being there should not have been a second referendum at all. I dont recall the French and the others having a second referndum on the so called EU constitution.Why not? Ireland had several referendums on the divorce issue. In this case, they were given several guarantees on issues such as Irish neutrality, keeping a commissioner (along with the other 26 states), taxation, and abortion, as these were several issues that concerned them in the first referendum. If these concerns have been addressed, why shouldn't the Treaty be presented again?


Ask yourself what causes an entire population to flip flop from a sizeable no vote to a sizeable yes vote when nothing in the treaty has changed.
The "yes to jobs" campeign carried out by the government perhaps? when the number of lay offs and people signing the social welfare is growing.Things have changed, as I pointed out above. Additionally, the Irish Banks were saved thanks to actions by the ECB:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0919/1224254861624.html

Look at what happened to Iceland, and then tell me that EU membership isn't beneficial to Ireland. Of course the Irish electorate realize these benefits, especially as these benefits have been driven home thanks to the state of the economy this past year. Hence their vote for the Treaty.


Absolutely. I'm not one of these reactionary ''we want out of the EU'' types, but am seriously angered by what has happened.
From a sentimentally patriotic poin-of-view, it disgusts me that after thousands of years of spilling blood tokeep the continentals the other side of the English Channel, and after all the events of the 20th century, that we have had our sovereignty unilaterally diminished by our own elected government.
It makes me furious that we have, in name, been part of a malicious and corrupt 'process' of bullying and misinforming people into surrendering part of their national sovereignty.
This is completely against what the EU should stand for, and I'm certain that every right-minded european in this forum feels it's against what his/her country stands for.
It seriously makes me question what our direction should be, within a wider european framework.

I honestly do not understand the vitriol to the Lisbon Treaty. It grants the EU Parliament more powers, which can only be a good thing since it it the only institution that is directly elected by the citizens. Petitions that garner 1 million signatures must be automatically reviewed by the Commission and the EU Parliament. All 27 countries now get to keep their commissioners. Hell, it even provides a formula for any state to secede from the EU!

I'll be the first to agree that the EU can undergo even further democratic reforms, no institution or government is perfect. However the Lisbon Treaty is at least a step in this direction. With all due respect happyslapper, I just do not see any evidence that anyone's national sovereignty is being limited by this Treaty.

I would be very interested to hear what exactly your opinions are, especially in regard to your last sentence.

-Cheers

[Estopped]

As a British person i'm extremely happy the Irish voted yes so that the treaty can finally be ratified. Europe is our future and I think we should stop standing on the sidelines and tutting, and take a fuller role in the EU and its development and reform.

[muttbutt]

Irish Foreign Minister Michael Martin says a convincing yes for the Lisbon Treaty.

What a cock, after a campeign of trying to frighten people into voting yes (banners with yes for jobs up around the country) what does he expect.
There shouldnt have been a second referendum in the first place! Do we have a third one now because the no voters arent happy?
Bollocks SHAM, we voted no, we renegotiated to get us a better deal, we did, we voted on that deal and passed.....how many referendums did we have on abortion various aspects of the abortion debate, from travel to information?


Frankly I would have voted yes if Satan was on the yes side advocating murdering kittens for sport, I would not/will not give Sinn Fein any sort of political capital nor credit by voting their way it only encourages them.

Never mind the religious nutters in coir ect who thnk Ireland in the 50's was some sort of golden age.

[Britishhawk]

Good news everyone!

''For the Czech President is playing a political game while claiming that he is only following legal procedures. And the reason why he wants time lies in Britain.
Last week, David Cameron wrote to Mr Klaus confirming his party’s promise to hold a referendum in Britain on Lisbon if the treaty is still unratified in at least one member state if – or most likely when – the Tories come to power.
There was intense interest in this letter in the Czech Press, but Mr Klaus has refused to publish it. He hopes that he can spin out the legal and political review process until there is a change of government in Britain and a referendum here''


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217973/Czech-leader-holding-door-open-UK-sink-Lisbon.html#ixzz0SxNIEOSQ

[muttbutt]

Good news everyone!

''For the Czech President is playing a political game while claiming that he is only following legal procedures. And the reason why he wants time lies in Britain.
Last week, David Cameron wrote to Mr Klaus confirming his party’s promise to hold a referendum in Britain on Lisbon if the treaty is still unratified in at least one member state if – or most likely when – the Tories come to power.
There was intense interest in this letter in the Czech Press, but Mr Klaus has refused to publish it. He hopes that he can spin out the legal and political review process until there is a change of government in Britain and a referendum here''


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217973/Czech-leader-holding-door-open-UK-sink-Lisbon.html#ixzz0SxNIEOSQ



On the other hand Klaus has said the UK shouldn't have waited so long to object and shouldn't be depending on him......remember he will do what needs to be done for domestic political reasons not to bail the UK out of it's problems. He's already under pressure from his own party neer mind the opposition.

[joka]

Good news everyone!

''For the Czech President is playing a political game while claiming that he is only following legal procedures. And the reason why he wants time lies in Britain.
Last week, David Cameron wrote to Mr Klaus confirming his party’s promise to hold a referendum in Britain on Lisbon if the treaty is still unratified in at least one member state if – or most likely when – the Tories come to power.
There was intense interest in this letter in the Czech Press, but Mr Klaus has refused to publish it. He hopes that he can spin out the legal and political review process until there is a change of government in Britain and a referendum here''


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217973/Czech-leader-holding-door-open-UK-sink-Lisbon.html#ixzz0SxNIEOSQ



Even better news for everyone is that this unelected douchebag won't be able to obstruct the will of the people for longer than 6 months at the most, by which time there will still be a Labour government in The UK. Game, set & match!

[kalerab]

On the other hand Klaus has said the UK shouldn't have waited so long to object and shouldn't be depending on him......remember he will do what needs to be done for domestic political reasons not to bail the UK out of it's problems. He's already under pressure from his own party neer mind the opposition.

On the other side this is what V. Klaus told during demonstration against Lisbon Treaty: "I accept results of Irish referendum. However it changes nothing on my opinion that Lisbon treaty is bad document, which limits competency of Czech republic in EU. It won´t bring us more freedom, neither more security or more social benefits and it won´t show the way out of the economic crysis. It is mistake which upholds authocracy of Brussels."


Even better news for everyone is that this unelected douchebag won't be able to obstruct the will of the people for longer than 6 months at the most, by which time there will still be a Labour government in The UK. Game, set & match!

Wrong, Vaclauv Klaus will be in the office till 2013.

[joka]

Wrong, Vaclauv Klaus will be in the office till 2013.

He can stay in office as long as he wants, The Czech Supreme Court will handle the complaint in 6 months at max (probably faster) after which Klaus will have to sign The Lisbon Treaty or be thrown out of office.

[kalerab]

He can stay in office as long as he wants, The Czech Supreme Court will handle the matter in 6 months at max (probably faster) after which Klaus will have to sign it or be thrown out of office.

? The Czech Supreme Court has nothing to do with it. It is indepent choice of president if he will sign it or not, it is one of his rights as president of republic.

By any chance - don´t you mistaken Czech president for Czech goverment and elections which are suspended because of the decision of Supreme Court?

edit: I understand now what you´re talking about but once again I have to say you´re wrong. If Czech Supreme court verdict will be that treaty is in accordance with Constitution nothing will change since president still have to sign it and that is just and only his choice. However if court verdict will be that it isn´t say goodbye to Lisbon.

[joka]

edit: I understand now what you´re talking about but once again I have to say you´re wrong. If Czech Supreme court verdict will be that treaty is in accordance with Constitution nothing will change since president still have to sign it and that is just and only his choice.

If The Lisbon Treaty is in accordance with The Czech Constitution and Klaus refuces to sign it he will likely be suspended by The Czech government. Klaus getting fired over this would be the icing on the cake. :)



However if court verdict will be that it isn´t say goodbye to Lisbon.
I wouldn't hold my breath, it's already passed just about every court in Europe and at the end of the day it's not really that revolutionary of a treaty.

[kalerab]

If The Lisbon Treaty is in accordance with The Czech Constitution and Klaus refuces to sign it he will likely be suspended by The Czech government. Klaus getting fired over this would be the icing on the cake. :)

Well I want to see either socialists or liberals to even try to suspened someone as popular as Václav Klaus.



I wouldn't hold my breath, it's already passed just about every court in Europe and at the end of the day it's not really that revolutionary of a treaty.

The worst thing in this treaty is, according to me, that it substitute the system where every country had right of veto with 2/3 majority system. I´ll give you an example - imagine that Union would vote if we will or we won´t let Kosovo join. Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus, Romania and Greece would be again but next 22 states would support that. Now we would have in Union country which is officialy not recognized by 5 of it´s members. Also when we join EU assured us that every country has same right during the votes - no matter if it is Germany, UK, France or small states like Slovakia, Slovenia or Czech republic. Other than that I don´t think it will affect our lives drasticly, but quotes like: "Ireland MUST accept treaty" (Nicolas Sarkozy) or next by either Angela Merkel or Gordon Brown makes me sick. So much for democracy.

[joka]

Well I want to see either socialists or liberals to even try to suspened someone as popular as Václav Klaus.

We'll see, I have a feeling Klaus will see the wrong of his ways and do the right thing when the time comes.



The worst thing in this treaty is, according to me, that it substitute the system where every country had right of veto with 2/3 majority system. I´ll give you an example - imagine that Union would vote if we will or we won´t let Kosovo join. Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus, Romania and Greece would be again but next 22 states would support that. Now we would have in Union country which is officialy not recognized by 5 of it´s members. Also when we join EU assured us that every country has same right during the votes - no matter if it is Germany, UK, France or small states like Slovakia, Slovenia or Czech republic. Other than that I don´t think it will affect our lives drasticly, but quotes like: "Ireland MUST accept treaty" (Nicolas Sarkozy) or next by either Angela Merkel or Gordon Brown makes me sick. So much for democracy.

Matters like membership will still be decided by unanimity. Sarkozy actually said that Ireland must vote again on the treaty, which, I don't think was an unreasonable thing to say. What's ludicrous is the notion that because a few points of contention we should have abandoned 10 years of work and ignore the 100's of millions of Europeans who wanted an agreement to be reached. Anyway, I'm glad that's all over with (almost).

[mrxyz]

Matters like membership will still be decided by unanimity.

That's not a very helpful answer to the huge issue of the 2/3 majority being able to force legislation down on unwilling countries. You provided one example that would still require unanimity, but ignore the thousands of examples to the contrary.

[Stevey1]

Excellent news. I'm happy they voted yes. Now Cameron can't **** it up.


What, by allowing the overwhelmingly anti-Lisbon UK public to decide their own destiny? I like Europe, but I don't want issues of UK sovereignty deferred to the EU without a vote. I also fail to see that the UK gets much out of the EU, while we put alot in (subsidising french farmers etc)

What galls me is that some in the media are saying that this is 'splitting the Tories' in the UK etc (I haven't seen any evidence so far), when they should be focussing on why Labour broke their promise to hold a referendum. I'm not massively pro-Tory, but al least they want the British people to have their say.

[Gammelpreusse]

The worst thing in this treaty is, according to me, that it substitute the system where every country had right of veto with 2/3 majority system. I´ll give you an example - imagine that Union would vote if we will or we won´t let Kosovo join. Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus, Romania and Greece would be again but next 22 states would support that. Now we would have in Union country which is officialy not recognized by 5 of it´s members.

I couldn't disagree more. You certainly did not understand what the EU is about. There is a certain idealistic background behind it, created of the expiriences in WW2. It's not just a juristical framework for economic and political standart setting. The EU stands for stability, peaceful negotiations and settlements based on common sense, not power politics. Now that certainly does not work all the time, but if the countries you mentioned should really have problems with that, or if it is about pride, they should have thought about joining in the first place. It's not just about "gimme money!!!111!" and then business as usual.

Replacing the veto powers with a 2/3 majority is the single best result of the treaty. If you imagine how even a tiny country could block the descision process of all others, as has already happend several times in the past, not only for understandable domestic reason but simply politics, then this poses a serious threat to democracy and the rule of majority it is founded upon. The Lsibon treaty may infringe upon the understanding of democracy in a couple countries individually, but in regards to the people within the EU as a whole it much improves it.




Also when we join EU assured us that every country has same right during the votes - no matter if it is Germany, UK, France or small states like Slovakia, Slovenia or Czech republic. Other than that I don´t think it will affect our lives drasticly, but quotes like: "Ireland MUST accept treaty" (Nicolas Sarkozy) or next by either Angela Merkel or Gordon Brown makes me sick. So much for democracy.Everybody complaining about not enough influence in the EU and thus a lack of democracy, give me a break. Per capita Germany has one of the lowest influence rates in the whole EU, 1 louxenburgian is worth 6 germans alone in the european electorate. This "lifts" the influence of smaller nations within the EU, and very considerably. One must question the democratic basis behind the European Union when some people in the EU are more equal then others already, but still want ever more power.

Finally, every election process has campaigns running on either side to support ones POV. That is the case wherever you look and nothing out of the norm within democratic frameworks. IF a country joins the EU, it simply has to expect not beeing able to completly stay alone anymore, especially when it decides on matters effecting the future of 500.000.000 people. It's not just a member of a trade organisations, but of people put together to follow certain values, most importantly debate and compromise. This appears to be unclear to a lot of people, despite there was never made a secret out of that. I am wondering about why so many countries want to join anyways, given these ideological resistrictions this means to certain countries, but I do not want to label them naive and childish.

[joka]

You provided one example that would still require unanimity, but ignore the thousands of examples to the contrary.

Uhh, I support the increase in majority decision making, why would I argue your case for you? :hug:

[CMN]

With regards to Cameron. He's got his angle. If the Czech legal challenge can be drawn out until after the elections here, Cameron has said he'll take a referendum to the people. Nice soundbite and fairly non-committal.

I personally think he'll use a referendum angle to pressure Liebour anytime from now on. There is, after all, a good reason why Our Dear Leader didn't go to the people.

[mrxyz]

Uhh, I support the increase in majority decision making, why would I argue your case for you? :hug:
I accept your point of view, but I saw your response to kalerab as a quick attempt to disarm his argument in favor of your view, that there is nothing to fear. Apparently that was easy in the case of membership matters, but that is just a tiny tiny part of matters passing through the EU.

I am not asking you to argue for my position, but what I would like are some arguments for your position. Why is it a good thing that a EU majority will be able to impose laws upon an unwilling country? Obviously the example you shot down, as it would still require unanimity, isn't enough to placate our concerns.

[joka]

Obviously the example you shot down, as it would still require unanimity, isn't enough to placate our concerns.

The beautiful part is that I don't have any need to placate your concerns, not anymore, the matter is already decided. I was simply trying to correct a misconception, I'm gonna try to stay away from political debates for a while now.

[mrxyz]

The beautiful part is that I don't have any need to placate your concerns, not anymore, the matter is already decided.

Debate isn't so interesting if you take that stance.



I was simply trying to correct a misconception,

That's all good.



I'm gonna try to stay away from political debates for a while now.
That's your prerogative, though I'm still interested in hearing some arguments that could calm me down a bit. All the gloating over victory isn't very helpful, when there are still millions of people concerned.

This is not directed at you specifically, but I have still not heard any good examples of how EU has benefited my country (Sweden in this case), but there are plenty of unwelcome things pushed down from Brussels that we could have done without, and with the Lisbon treaty, it will be even easier for Brussels to impose things on us.

[kalerab]

I couldn't disagree more. You certainly did not understand what the EU is about. There is a certain idealistic background behind it, created of the expiriences in WW2. It's not just a juristical framework for economic and political standart setting. The EU stands for stability, peaceful negotiations and settlements based on common sense, not power politics. Now that certainly does not work all the time, but if the countries you mentioned should really have problems with that, or if it is about pride, they should have thought about joining in the first place. It's not just about "gimme money!!!111!" and then business as usual.

Replacing the veto powers with a 2/3 majority is the single best result of the treaty. If you imagine how even a tiny country could block the descision process of all others, as has already happend several times in the past, not only for understandable domestic reason but simply politics, then this poses a serious threat to democracy and the rule of majority it is founded upon. The Lsibon treaty may infringe upon the understanding of democracy in a couple countries individually, but in regards to the people within the EU as a whole it much improves it.


Everybody complaining about not enough influence in the EU and thus a lack of democracy, give me a break. Per capita Germany has one of the lowest influence rates in the whole EU, 1 louxenburgian is worth 6 germans alone in the european electorate. This "lifts" the influence of smaller nations within the EU, and very considerably. One must question the democratic basis behind the European Union when some people in the EU are more equal then others already, but still want ever more power.

Finally, every election process has campaigns running on either side to support ones POV. That is the case wherever you look and nothing out of the norm within democratic frameworks. IF a country joins the EU, it simply has to expect not beeing able to completly stay alone anymore, especially when it decides on matters effecting the future of 500.000.000 people. It's not just a member of a trade organisations, but of people put together to follow certain values, most importantly debate and compromise. This appears to be unclear to a lot of people, despite there was never made a secret out of that. I am wondering about why so many countries want to join anyways, given these ideological resistrictions this means to certain countries, but I do not want to label them naive and childish.

And I couldn´t disagree more with your opinion. We joined EU when our vote was equal to those of the bigger countries - that was our condition and now poor Germany and others want to change it because they feel that they don´t have enought power. If you want to have real democracy than we have to copy US system where one chamber would be elected by citiziens of EU and second one by countries of EU. After ratification my country will have less power in EU parliament than frikkin London and that´s ok because you think that Luxembourgans have bigger word in parliament than Germans. It is the same thing as when the group in which you are decide by majority system that they are gonna take your money because they need some.

joka: Yeah, that was a bad example but you got my point.

[Steak-Sauce]

I couldn't disagree more. You certainly did not understand what the EU is about. There is a certain idealistic background behind it, created of the expiriences in WW2. It's not just a juristical framework for economic and political standart setting. The EU stands for stability, peaceful negotiations and ...
Outstanding post. Thanks!

[joka]

Debate isn't so interesting if you take that stance.

True, but on the other hand debate is also more interesting if you do it before a decission is made. It is what it is; either you can live with or you can't and thanks to The Lisbon Treaty the emergency exits will be clearly marked.

[MaverickCowboy]

i take it you all want europe to be "one" country.

[SkyUS]

i take it you all want europe to be "one" country.

Indeed. I am pretty happy about it.

[mrxyz]

True, but on the other hand debate is also more interesting if you do it before a decission is made. It is what it is; either you can live with or you can't and thanks to The Lisbon Treaty the emergency exits will be clearly marked.
A problem here is that we were never "allowed" to have the debate locally at any time. It was single-handedly ratified by the government without consulting the general population.

[Keshik]

What's ludicrous is the notion that because a few points of contention we should have abandoned 10 years of work and ignore the 100's of millions of Europeans who wanted an agreement to be reached. Anyway, I'm glad that's all over with (almost).

Well ,shall you put a REFERENDUM about it when you have such a awesome majority????
I mean hundreds of millions...rofl you live in china?

..... i seriously doubt it ,in ALOT of countries people are AGAINST this type of dictatorship!!!

and this kind of scare tactics .:backhand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLlqQXQCxyc&feature=related

[Estopped]

What, by allowing the overwhelmingly anti-Lisbon UK public to decide their own destiny? I like Europe, but I don't want issues of UK sovereignty deferred to the EU without a vote. I also fail to see that the UK gets much out of the EU, while we put alot in (subsidising french farmers etc)

What galls me is that some in the media are saying that this is 'splitting the Tories' in the UK etc (I haven't seen any evidence so far), when they should be focussing on why Labour broke their promise to hold a referendum. I'm not massively pro-Tory, but al least they want the British people to have their say.

I don't think the British public are right on this issue. It's that simple. I honestly tremble at the thought that the sun reading public will get to decide issue's that they have no understanding of.

[PeterG]

I don't think the British public are right on this issue. It's that simple. I honestly tremble at the thought that the sun reading public will get to decide issue's that they have no understanding of.

I tremble at the thought of people that think a democratic process is unecessary because the public is stupid and 'has no understanding' of the issue anyway..

[Estopped]

I tremble at the thought of people that think a democratic process is unecessary because the public is stupid and 'has no understanding' of the issue anyway..

We are a parliamentary democracy. We elect parliament to make the right decisions.

We didn't elect Murdoch and his merry journalists to decide for us. And I don't think its right that a bunch of people whos idea of the EU consists of stories on straight banana's and that ilk should decided on a treaty that is about reform of EU institutions so that Europe can work better.

[mrxyz]

We are a parliamentary democracy. We elect parliament to make the right decisions.

They generally aren't elected with the mandate to sign away their power to another entity.

[joka]

i take it you all want europe to be "one" country.

I'm not sure what you mean by "one country", but I think more political integration in Europe is needed to secure a state of peace and prosperity.

The Lisbon Treaty will do for now though. Around 2020 we can do this all over again. Good times. :D

[Estopped]

They generally aren't elected with the mandate to sign away their power to another entity.

We do that everytime we sign a treaty. The fact is that the EU needed to be reformed in its enlarged state. We are a member of the EU and we pay large amounts for its running. It's only right that there is less time wasting so that it can actually do more.

In a years time this will be old news and people will be back to complaining about inconsequential **** like straight banana's.

[Gammelpreusse]

And I couldn´t disagree more with your opinion. We joined EU when our vote was equal to those of the bigger countries - that was our condition and now poor Germany and others want to change it because they feel that they don´t have enought power. If you want to have real democracy than we have to copy US system where one chamber would be elected by citiziens of EU and second one by countries of EU. After ratification my country will have less power in EU parliament than frikkin London and that´s ok because you think that Luxembourgans have bigger word in parliament than Germans. It is the same thing as when the group in which you are decide by majority system that they are gonna take your money because they need some.

joka: Yeah, that was a bad example but you got my point.

Once you learn the difference between "absolute" and "relative", this may be worth discussing further with you. As long this blame goes on despite the obvious and already existing injusices in smaller nations "favor", I consider this whining nothing else then hybris and egoism. I should add that, when you talk about democracy in this relation, you talk about the people in the nation, not the nation as an unrelated entity.

That said I agree on the US system in this regard as a political compromise.

[kalerab]

Once you learn the difference between "absolute" and "relative", this may be worth discussing further with you. As long this blame goes on despite the obvious and already existing injusices in smaller nations "favor", I consider this whining nothing else then hybris and egoism. I should add that, when you talk about democracy in this relation, you talk about the people in the nation, not the nation as an unrelated entity.

That said I agree on the US system in this regard as a political compromise.

All what this treaty is doing is passing ball from smaller nations, where bigger nations felt injustice, to the bigger nations, where smaller nations feel injustice - it solves nothing. Now bigger nations are "whining" how the number of their citiziens in the end means nothing and after (if) treaty will be ratified in Czech republic smaller nations will do the same. That´s why I´m glad we agreed upon the US system which is compromise between these two systems and for some unknown reason not single one of the political leader ever thought about it. And European Union is Union composed of 27 sovereign states, not of 500 000 000 peoples, oterwise those who didn´t want their state to join the Union would not be included.

[Derbedeu]

The problem with every state getting a veto is that you then have nations like France, for example, who veto anything having to do with CAP reform, even though the rest of the Union calls for it. Even something as ridiculous as having the EU Parliament move to Strasbourg once a year at the expense of millions of euros of taxpayers money is possible, even though the Parliament itself voted against this wasteful move. Why? because one nation, in this case France (sorry France, it's just that you're what's jumped into my mind), vetoes any proposal to keep the Parliament in Brussels permanently. It's getting to the point that with 27 nations and possibly more, that you'll simply have deadlock on every other issue. 55% of nations comprising 65% of total EU populations is certainly a fair formula for ensuring that the smaller states are not ignored when it comes to QMV.

[mrxyz]

The problem with every state getting a veto is that you then have nations like France, for example, who veto anything having to do with CAP reform, even though the rest of the Union calls for it. Even something as ridiculous as having the EU Parliament move to Strasbourg once a year at the expense of millions of euros of taxpayers money is possible, even though the Parliament itself voted against this wasteful move. Why? because one nation, in this case France (sorry France, it's just that you're what's jumped into my mind), vetoes any proposal to keep the Parliament in Brussels permanently. It's getting to the point that with 27 nations and possibly more, that you'll simply have deadlock on every other issue. 55% of nations comprising 65% of total EU populations is certainly a fair formula for ensuring that the smaller states are not ignored when it comes to QMV.

Did it ever come to mind that the deadlocks are caused by letting the EU handle matters that should be left to the countries to handle by themselves, or in cooperation between the agreeing countries?

[Derbedeu]

Did it ever come to mind that the deadlocks are caused by letting the EU handle matters that should be left to the countries to handle by themselves, or in cooperation between the agreeing countries?

Deadlocks occur everywhere so long as politics are involved. Whether it's on the local, national, or international level.

[mrxyz]

Deadlocks occur everywhere so long as politics are involved. Whether it's on the local, national, or international level.
Still you haven't answered why the EU should be able to force laws upon other countries. I believe that the EU, in order to be acceptable, should be a forum for cooperation and discussion, but always based on consensus, not coercion and oppression.

I see no reason to want a EU superstate unless you have some hard-on for being part of a superpower. You can have open borders, free trade, and all that useful stuff without meddling in labor laws, intellectual property, data retention, government monopolies, etc, the list goes ever on.

[Derbedeu]

Still you haven't answered why the EU should be able to force laws upon other countries. I believe that the EU, in order to be acceptable, should be a forum for cooperation and discussion, but always based on consensus, not coercion and oppression.

EU doesn't force laws on anyone. Last I checked, your country as well as Ireland, got several opt-outs in regions that they simply do not wish to participate. Same with Denmark. There are however, some rules that have to be followed, but that's no different than other institutional organizations that nations sign up to, like the WTO, the Hague Court, etc. But those rules are spelled out clearly, and everyone is aware of them upon signing up. The EU doesn't coerce or oppress anyone, but go ahead and continue to imbue your arguments with as much hyperbole as you want. It only makes pointing out how ridiculous they are easier.


I see no reason to want a EU superstate unless you have some hard-on for being part of a superpower. You can have open borders, free trade, and all that useful stuff without meddling in labor laws, intellectual property, data retention, government monopolies, etc, the list goes ever on.See, the EU is a common market, something that seems to escape most Eurosceptics. As a common market, you need to have certain laws that regulate this stuff, otherwise the common market does not exist.

[mrxyz]

EU doesn't force laws on anyone. Last I checked, your country as well as Ireland, got several opt-outs in regions that they simply do not wish to participate. Same with Denmark. There are however, some rules that have to be followed, but that's no different than other institutional organizations that nations sign up to, like the WTO, the Hague Court, etc. But those rules are spelled out clearly, and everyone is aware of them upon signing up. The EU doesn't coerce or oppress anyone, but go ahead and continue to imbue your arguments with as much hyperbole as you want. It only makes pointing out how ridiculous they are easier.

I see you still evade my question of what positive things the EU has brought to my country. All I see is money disappearing into a black hole, ridiculous laws that our government becomes required to ratify, such as the data retention directive, and every citizen losing even more power over their own lives, as the power moves further and further away. Call it hyperbole, but having Germany and France et.al. dictate our law is just that to me.

What's ridiculous is how you seem to think the EU is all sunshine and flowers. The EU is not a requirement for a peaceful and prosperous Europe, it is just a tool of the large nations to control the others.

[Derbedeu]

I see you still evade my question of what positive things the EU has brought to my country. All I see is money disappearing into a black hole, ridiculous laws that our government becomes required to ratify, such as the data retention directive, and every citizen losing even more power over their own lives, as the power moves further and further away. Call it hyperbole, but having Germany and France et.al. dictate our law is just that to me.

What's ridiculous is how you seem to think the EU is all sunshine and flowers. The EU is not a requirement for a peaceful and prosperous Europe, it is just a tool of the large nations to control the others.

First off, I have no idea from what country you're even from. Secondly, I never stated that the EU is "all sunshine and flowers". It has it's faults like all governments or institutions, but at least the Lisbon Treaty will correct some of these faults. Thirdly, it's clear that you lack a fundamental understanding of not only how the EU works, but why it works like that.

Oh, and BTW, about the Data Retention Directive:


This paper examines a recent twist in EU data protection law. In the 1990s, the European Union was still primarily a market-creating organization and data protection in the European Union was aimed at rights abuses by market actors. Since the terrorist attacks of New York, Madrid, and London, however, cooperation on fighting crime has accelerated. Now, the challenge for the European Union is to protect privacy in its emerging system of criminal justice. This paper analyzes the first EU law to address data privacy in crime-fighting -- the Data Retention Directive. Based on a detailed examination of the Directive's legislative history, the paper finds that privacy--as guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Council of Europe's Convention on Data Protection--was adequately protected in the Directive. This positive experience can serve as guidance for guaranteeing other fundamental rights in the rapidly expanding area of EU cooperation on criminal matters. http://eprints.law.duke.edu/1602/1/8_Chi._J.__Int%27l_L._233_%282007%29.pdf

If you have freedom of movement, you need to be able to counteract possible abuses by criminals or terrorists.

I'm now guessing that you are from the UK, in which case I find it ironic that you would criticize the EU on anything when it comes to privacy, judging how London has some of the highest CCTV cameras per capita in all of Europe.

[Sada]

It´s true, EU is a common market first of all and never should be forgotten. Thinking about it like that, I doubt anybody here national of an EU country would dare to say EU it´s unesuful for his country. Now, the implicit will of the founders of this organization back in the 50s of last century of course had in mind furthering the competences of that common market for eviting a new war, WAR-WAR-WAR!! I´d think danish or belgic, just to mention random examples, would feel safer knowing that France, Italy and Germany are entangled in a profitable common market. Really I don´t know what other points are of interest for danish in being member of EU, maybe you should ask to your cousins of Iceland about a different point of view and at the same time explain to the rest of europe why so many danish politicians began to patronize the membership of Iceland this year.

[Sada]

Edit, repeated post.

[mrxyz]

First off, I have no idea from what country you're even from.

I am sorry, I thought I had the location field filled in. I am from Sweden.



Secondly, I never stated that the EU is "all sunshine and flowers". It has it's faults like all governments or institutions, but at least the Lisbon Treaty will correct some of these faults.

The Lisbon Treaty makes some improvements, but it's still too undemocratic to be taken as a constitution. They need to start over from scratch and make it better from the start.



Thirdly, it's clear that you lack a fundamental understanding of not only how the EU works, but why it works like that.

Care to explain some of my misconceptions then?



Oh, and BTW, about the Data Retention Directive:

http://eprints.law.duke.edu/1602/1/8_Chi._J.__Int%27l_L._233_%282007%29.pdf

If you have freedom of movement, you need to be able to counteract possible abuses by criminals or terrorists.

So you think it's right to record information regarding everybody's phone calls, e-mails, sms, and other communications for innocent citizens, for some dubious increase in safety? I really don't want to live in a surveillance society.



I'm now guessing that you are from the UK, in which case I find it ironic that you would criticize the EU on anything when it comes to privacy, judging how London has some of the highest CCTV cameras per capita in all of Europe.
I agree that they are one of the worst countries in that regard, and I really don't want that mentality to spread here more than it already has.

[Derbedeu]

I am sorry, I thought I had the location field filled in. I am from Sweden.

Oh.... I thought you were British for some reason.


The Lisbon Treaty makes some improvements, but it's still too undemocratic to be taken as a constitution. They need to start over from scratch and make it better from the start.But it's not taken as a constitution. I would also be very interested to know how exactly they can start from scratch. Personally speaking I don't see that as being tenable. The Lisbon Treaty at least sets us on a more democratic path, and hopefully (I see no reason why not) we will continue to see such improvements, such as a directly elected Commission.


Care to explain some of my misconceptions then?This part in particular caught my eye:


You can have open borders, free trade, and all that useful stuff without meddling in labor laws, intellectual property, data retention, government monopolies, etc, the list goes ever on.There is a significant difference between a common market, which the EU is, and a free trade organization such as NAFTA. Don't take this the wrong way, but that's what made me to believe that you don't realize how the EU works or what it's purpose is. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression it gave me. Just out of curiosity, how well do you know how the EU works? I used to be pretty ignorant about it myself until I took a course at University on it, and quite frankly it surprised me to find out how little I actually knew about its workings, its history, and its impact, even though I had always considered myself as keeping up to date on current affairs and politics.


So you think it's right to record information regarding everybody's phone calls, e-mails, sms, and other communications for innocent citizens, for some dubious increase in safety? I really don't want to live in a surveillance society.I don't know the particulars of the law, but I do know that the EU has some of the stringiest privacy laws in the world. Honestly speaking, I'm not to worried about the EU when it comes to privacy laws or human rights. Otherwise I doubt your country would ever sign up to it. EU citizens have a right to privacy and enjoy these rights:



Notice—data subjects should be given notice when their data is being collected;
Purpose—data should only be used for the purpose stated and not for any other purposes;
Consent—data should not be disclosed without the data subject’s consent;
Security—collected data should be kept secure from any potential abuses;
Disclosure—data subjects should be informed as to who is collecting their data;
Access—data subjects should be allowed to access their data and make corrections to any inaccurate data; and
Accountability—data subjects should have a method available to them to hold data collectors accountable for following the above principles.

Can data still be collected? Of course, but we live in a dangerous world with criminals and terrorists who unfortunately exist and ruin it for the rest of us. All the same, our rights on privacy are more than adequately protected.


I agree that they are one of the worst countries in that regard, and I really don't want that mentality to spread here more than it already has.That mentality never started from the EU, it originated there in the UK. Like I said, the EU has a good reputation (rightfully earned) when it comes to privacy.

[mrxyz]

Oh.... I thought you were British for some reason.

Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind, where are you from?



But it's not taken as a constitution. I would also be very interested to know how exactly they can start from scratch. Personally speaking I don't see that as being tenable. The Lisbon Treaty at least sets us on a more democratic path, and hopefully (I see no reason why not) we will continue to see such improvements, such as a directly elected Commission.

If they had the intention of a completely democratic institution, why settle for some half-baked thing as it is? Why not have an elected commission right away? I believe this treaty will block such further reform for a long time, and we'll be stuck with the abomination.



This part in particular caught my eye:

There is a significant difference between a common market, which the EU is, and a free trade organization such as NAFTA. Don't take this the wrong way, but that's what made me to believe that you don't realize how the EU works or what it's purpose is. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression it gave me. Just out of curiosity, how well do you know how the EU works? I used to be pretty ignorant about it myself until I took a course at University on it, and quite frankly it surprised me to find out how little I actually knew about its workings, its history, and its impact, even though I had always considered myself as keeping up to date on current affairs and politics.

What differences are you hinting at, and why do they call for an institution with such deep and far reaching powers as the EU is getting? I am generally positive to cooperation within Europe, but I just fail to see why this should sidestep consensus? If 10 countries agree on some provisions, let them implement that within that area, but why impose it on others? For the countries to retain real sovereignty, there should be no possibility of being overruled by a supernational entity. I think you said that the countries would still be sovereign, but I don't see how they can be if they are required to implement things against their will. This is the coercion I speak of. Foreign powers have taken control over a large part of our country. There is no European identity, and the countries are not homogeneous enough to be ready for something like this. It just feeds frustration. Scant few people associate themselves as European.

I do admit that I don't understand all the arcane details of EU's inner workings, and I am sure you do much better. This however also works as an argument against the Treaty, as I am quite sure most people don't even know exactly what it will entail. That goes both for nations that had the luck of a referendum, and the rest of us. It's very complicated and little understood among the people.



I don't know the particulars of the law, but I do know that the EU has some of the stringiest privacy laws in the world. Honestly speaking, I'm not to worried about the EU when it comes to privacy laws or human rights.
The human rights charter grants protection to things such as privacy, but in many peoples opinion, including mine, these directives run directly against the spirit of that document. I think it is highly intrusive to mandate recording of



to trace and identify the source of a communication;
to trace and identify the destination of a communication;
to identify the date, time and duration of a communication;
to identify the type of communication;
to identify the communication device;
to identify the location of mobile communication equipment.

For fixed and mobile telephone and internet communication (e-mail, skype, etc). I just don't see how this fits with the integrity clauses of the human rights charter. They even track the location of mobile phones fercrissake.



Can data still be collected? Of course, but we live in a dangerous world with criminals and terrorists who unfortunately exist and ruin it for the rest of us. All the same, our rights on privacy are more than adequately protected.

I haven't bought into the terrorism scare as many on this board have. I believe these measures will give only a minuscule increase of security, at a too high cost.



That mentality never started from the EU, it originated there in the UK. Like I said, the EU has a good reputation (rightfully earned) when it comes to privacy.
Yes, I understand that it comes from the UK, but I nonetheless fear an increased spread of this mentality. I mean.. we have nothing to hide right?

My main negativity comes from that rarely is there any good news regarding things the EU have brought. What we see is that we pay huge amounts of money, and get only a fraction back, we get laws imposed (our current government even is against the data retention directive, but will be forced to implement it against their will. Currently I think we are facing fines for not implementing it), and the risk of just becoming a little cold province in the north of another state.

A poll from a few months ago shows a 48% support of EU over here, which is probably why they do not give us the chance of a referendum. It really feels like the government is sneaking it through the back door to avoid complications. If they were confident in support, why not hold a referendum? Then it would clearly be legitimate.

[Derbedeu]

Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind, where are you from?

The Good Ol' US of A! :) (born in Romania though).


If they had the intention of a completely democratic institution, why settle for some half-baked thing as it is? Why not have an elected commission right away? I believe this treaty will block such further reform for a long time, and we'll be stuck with the abomination.Here's the thing though, when the EU first started off as the ECSC way back when, it lacked the jurisdiction that it now possesses on various matters. Then it became the EEC, then the EC, and finally the EU, which we have today. Throughout that time, as it's powers have expanded (powers that, I feel needs mentioning, come exclusively from the member states in the form of the EU Council), there has been an awareness that there needed to be a more direct involvement by the citizens of the EU. As a result you have had more and more powers granted to the EU Parliament over the years, powers that the Lisbon Treaty will help expand. The LT will also give citizens a right to petition the Commission directly for new laws. I feel it's also important to mention that the Ministers and governments of the EU member states, which are directly elected, hold the most power within the EU, as they are the ones who not only appoint the Commission (with approval required by Parliament) but also pretty much have a final say on most laws coming out of the EU.



hat differences are you hinting at, and why do they call for an institution with such deep and far reaching powers as the EU is getting? I am generally positive to cooperation within Europe, but I just fail to see why this should sidestep consensus? If 10 countries agree on some provisions, let them implement that within that area, but why impose it on others? For the countries to retain real sovereignty, there should be no possibility of being overruled by a supernational entity. I think you said that the countries would still be sovereign, but I don't see how they can be if they are required to implement things against their will. This is the coercion I speak of. Foreign powers have taken control over a large part of our country. There is no European identity, and the countries are not homogeneous enough to be ready for something like this. It just feeds frustration. Scant few people associate themselves as European.I'm assuming you mean the differences between a free trade area and a common market. Both are in fact different levels of economic integration. Complete economic integration is something that is found in nearly all countries, not something that you would find in a supranational institution or community. A free trade agreement is a step towards economic integration though very far off. A common market, and furthermore an economic and monetary union that you have in the form of the Eurozone, is a step closer towards full economic integration. Now, the theory behind a common market (and eventually economic integration) is that due to the interdependence that emerges due to globalization, a wide variety of economic and financial issues can no longer be limited to, and in fact in some respects, does not even bear much relationship to national boundaries.

Now the common market includes a free trade area. In addition to this, it also includes:

-A Common External Tariff (CET) so that goods that enter the area will do so on the same basis no matter what the entry point. This means that no member state would gain an upper hand at the expense of others. The CET also makes the Community not just a free trade area, but a Customs Union. It also sets the stage for a common commercial policy
-A common market prohibits a range of practices that helps to prevent competition between member states. A free trade area does not.
-A common market also entails measures that promote not just the free movement of goods between member states, but also the free movement of persons, services (which accounts for something like 70% of EU GDP), and capital. A free trade area lacks all this.

Now, what is needed to manage a common market (not to speak of a monetary union like the Eurozone) is some sort of center that would coordinate all of this. This is what the EU is, and what it still does. The common market and monetary union are still the major entities that the EU concerns itself with today.

You might be asking yourself why the hell you need all of this in the first place, and for that please see below.


I do admit that I don't understand all the arcane details of EU's inner workings, and I am sure you do much better. This however also works as an argument against the Treaty, as I am quite sure most people don't even know exactly what it will entail. That goes both for nations that had the luck of a referendum, and the rest of us. It's very complicated and little understood among the people.That's not an excuse though. Honestly speaking, how many people truly know how their governments run? Many people today are woefully ignorant of how their own government is set up, much less an institution such as the EU.


The human rights charter grants protection to things such as privacy, but in many peoples opinion, including mine, these directives run directly against the spirit of that document. I think it is highly intrusive to mandate recording of
For fixed and mobile telephone and internet communication (e-mail, skype, etc). I just don't see how this fits with the integrity clauses of the human rights charter. They even track the location of mobile phones fercrissake.I just provided you with a study from Duke University that shows that the directive does not contravene, and that in fact the directives are still in accord with our rights to privacy as subscribed in the ECHR and the Council of Europe on Data Protection! Duke University is a pretty unbiased source when dealing with European matters.



I haven't bought into the terrorism scare as many on this board have. I believe these measures will give only a minuscule increase of security, at a too high cost.You already have proof that terrorism is a prevalent threat to us Europeans. Look no further than the 7/7 bombing in London or the Madrid train bombings. Europe has taken preventive measures since they have become necessary, and it has worked:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6979295.stm

Yet, our rights are not being infringed on, as shown by the study. It's win-win in my book.


Yes, I understand that it comes from the UK, but I nonetheless fear an increased spread of this mentality. I mean.. we have nothing to hide right?I do not see that happening, as not only the European people, but also European governments have always been aware of the need to uphold the right to privacy.


My main negativity comes from that rarely is there any good news regarding things the EU have brought. What we see is that we pay huge amounts of money, and get only a fraction back, we get laws imposed (our current government even is against the data retention directive, but will be forced to implement it against their will. Currently I think we are facing fines for not implementing it), and the risk of just becoming a little cold province in the north of another state.Part of the problem is that national politicians love to bash the EU for pretty much anything they can get away with, and take all the credit for the good things. Sweden's participation in the Eu is beneficial, since it means that you are part of the biggest common market in the world. As a result, your interests are looked after and defended a lot better then they could be by themselves. Small nations such as Slovenia, Slovakia, my own Romania, your Sweden, and even bigger ones like the UK, Germany, and France, cannot voice their concerns on the world stage and be taken noticed of, unless they all speak through one voice, the EU. I realize that you've heard this before, but it's the truth, and it is often severely underestimated as a benefit.

I realize that it's frustrating not being on the receiving end of the EU funds, like my country is, but, I do believe that you are looking at this in the short term. Although you are not gaining any money back, you are gaining a new market. It's the same idea behind the Marshall Plan. The US gave Billions away to Europe, with the result being that they gained for themselves a large market onto which they could unload their goods. A stronger Eastern Europe (where most of the newer EU countries come from) would in turn mean a stronger Europe, which would benefit Sweden as well as other richer EU member states. And the time will come when these poorer countries will no longer be on the receiving end, but instead they will start contributing to the EU. I actually look forward to that day, since it would mean that we would be better off then we are today. Also, for what it's worth, I very much appreciate the monetary effort that Sweden, as well as the Dutch, the Germans, the Finns, the French, the British, the Italians, etc, are making for the newer members. :hug:


A poll from a few months ago shows a 48% support of EU over here, which is probably why they do not give us the chance of a referendum. It really feels like the government is sneaking it through the back door to avoid complications. If they were confident in support, why not hold a referendum? Then it would clearly be legitimate.It saddens me to hear that, but hopefully it's on the rise:

http://www.nrc.nl/international/europe/article2239661.ece

As for the referendum, well, I've never been a big fan of referendums especially when they deal with complex issues like the Lisbon Treaty. I might ask you, why do they not hold a referendum on every law that they wish to enable? Surely then it would make them more legitimate as well. There is a reason we elect governments to do these things for us.

Considering the fact that the Lisbon Treaty will only streamline the existing EU structures, I do not see a need for a referendum as it does not infringe on the sovereignty of the member states (as evidenced by the German Court's decision a month ago). I don't want you to think of me as a cold person, I can definitely sympathize with your viewpoint. However, when you have so many outrageous rumors on the Lisbon Treaty, coupled with mankind's propensity towards laziness and ignorance that would dispel them from checking out the facts for themselves, I'm kind of relieved that referendums weren't held.



I hope I haven't bored you to death. If I have, please forgive me. I've enjoyed this conversation of ours, and I have to say that it is refreshing to actually have a discourse on the EU with someone that doesn't simply shout crap at me, but instead takes a more thoughtful approach and is willing to listen. :)

[mrxyz]

First of all, thank you for the education, it's appreciated. I won't comment those parts directly though, but will jump ahead to the contentious points, as I don't dispute the presented facts.



You might be asking yourself why the hell you need all of this in the first place, and for that please see below.




That's not an excuse though. Honestly speaking, how many people truly know how their governments run? Many people today are woefully ignorant of how their own government is set up, much less an institution such as the EU.

I'll come back to this later.



I just provided you with a study from Duke University that shows that the directive does not contravene, and that in fact the directives are still in accord with our rights to privacy as subscribed in the ECHR and the Council of Europe on Data Protection! Duke University is a pretty unbiased source when dealing with European matters.

Thanks. I didn't read it at first but have skimmed it now and will give it a more thorough read later. I'll give my impressions though. First of all, the paper is written by an individual and the university source isn't enough to determine her personal bias. I have no illusions that the Directive can't be bent and pushed through the ECHR by means of legal wordplay, though I do not agree with the value judgments made by the professor in the study. At the same time I can't avoid a feeling of bias on her part, firstly as she dismisses criticism from national data watchdogs, by ignoring their requests for proof of the usefulness of the retained data, and secondly, her apparent disdain of the idea of requiring it to pass as Third Pillar, and her praise of the First Pillar choice, since it would have been more difficult to ratify otherwise. She seems to be of the opinion that other people's concerns do not matter in the proportionality evaluation, and doesn't want national governments to stand in the way.

The problem is that the issue of proportionality requires value judgments, and as long as you play down the concerns, and play up the usefulness of a law that infringes on personal integrity (which she admits it does), you can make anything appear to follow the ECHR, but still go against the spirit of the document. This is mainly where my objections enter.



You already have proof that terrorism is a prevalent threat to us Europeans. Look no further than the 7/7 bombing in London or the Madrid train bombings. Europe has taken preventive measures since they have become necessary, and it has worked:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6979295.stm

Well, if my understanding is correct here, this took place before the Data Retention Directive came into force in Germany, so apparently their instruments were already capable of combating that sort of crime, without the need for massive data recording. So it's not really a good argument for it. Also, the article doesn't explain what measures were used for the surveillance, but I would assume that it was regular investigative police work whereafter they obtained warrants for wiretaps etc., which I find acceptable since they require suspicion and is not a blanket infringement of EVERYBODYs integrity.



Yet, our rights are not being infringed on, as shown by the study. It's win-win in my book.

What the study claims is that rights are indeed infringed, but it's worth it, while still disregarding the watchdogs' requests for proof that it is.



I do not see that happening, as not only the European people, but also European governments have always been aware of the need to uphold the right to privacy.

Here I think you are being a bit naïve, if you excuse my expression (I am in many ways too p-) (oh, and I am a pirate)), and have an overly idealistic view of authority in general. Extra power such as this often does lead to abuse, it's almost inevitable. At the same time, these infringements set the stage for even more intrusive surveillance, and it's a very very slippery slope, as witnessed in the UK. Furthermore, you don't know who is in power in a few years, but the data will still be there for the taking.



Part of the problem is that national politicians love to bash the EU for pretty much anything they can get away with, and take all the credit for the good things.

This might be an explanation. As I said, from the news presented to me over the years, almost never has any positive point been brought up.



Sweden's participation in the Eu is beneficial, since it means that you are part of the biggest common market in the world. As a result, your interests are looked after and defended a lot better then they could be by themselves. Small nations such as Slovenia, Slovakia, my own Romania, your Sweden, and even bigger ones like the UK, Germany, and France, cannot voice their concerns on the world stage and be taken noticed of, unless they all speak through one voice, the EU. I realize that you've heard this before, but it's the truth, and it is often severely underestimated as a benefit.

I don't believe that other nations sincerely care about our interests to the extent that you believe it. We have many traditions and values that are different than those of the rest of Europe, take allemansrätten for example, the right of public access to the wilderness. In most countries this does not exist, though it is something that is very dear to us, and something that I am sure will be eroded by the corporate interests that guides EU's hand.

Secondly, I don't see how Norway has suffered by staying out of the EU. They enjoy the benefits of free travel by being part of the Schengen agreement, and cooperate in many other ways, despite not being members. That is the model I would like to see for my country. It is less intrusive in national policy, but with great cooperation and consensus based on mutual agreements. A common base might take longer to build that way, but I think consensus trumps some intangible progress.



I realize that it's frustrating not being on the receiving end of the EU funds, like my country is, but, I do believe that you are looking at this in the short term. Although you are not gaining any money back, you are gaining a new market. It's the same idea behind the Marshall Plan. The US gave Billions away to Europe, with the result being that they gained for themselves a large market onto which they could unload their goods. A stronger Eastern Europe (where most of the newer EU countries come from) would in turn mean a stronger Europe, which would benefit Sweden as well as other richer EU member states. And the time will come when these poorer countries will no longer be on the receiving end, but instead they will start contributing to the EU. I actually look forward to that day, since it would mean that we would be better off then we are today. Also, for what it's worth, I very much appreciate the monetary effort that Sweden, as well as the Dutch, the Germans, the Finns, the French, the British, the Italians, etc, are making for the newer members. :hug:

Well, you better appreciate it :D.



It saddens me to hear that, but hopefully it's on the rise:

http://www.nrc.nl/international/europe/article2239661.ece

As for the referendum, well, I've never been a big fan of referendums especially when they deal with complex issues like the Lisbon Treaty. I might ask you, why do they not hold a referendum on every law that they wish to enable? Surely then it would make them more legitimate as well. There is a reason we elect governments to do these things for us.

Considering the fact that the Lisbon Treaty will only streamline the existing EU structures, I do not see a need for a referendum as it does not infringe on the sovereignty of the member states (as evidenced by the German Court's decision a month ago).

Yes, the poll that I found did note that it has been rising, but I still think the figure is not strong enough to ignore the calls for a referendum. You see, I think referendums are necessary in issues as large as this one, that involve changes of power structures and the governance of a country, for the same reasons as you wouldn't allow a government to increase their own powers. To accommodate for that, the complexity of such a treaty needs to be kept in check, which goes hand in hand with my previous argument. I don't see why you would be against a referendum. If you are so sure of the benefits, you should not be afraid of putting it up for a vote. Saying that it's too complex for people to understand, and you better not let them have a say in the matter, is a very scary mentality. I don't think your argument about referendums about everything is relevant, as I agree that is not feasible. We held a referendum on the EMU, which was struck down, but I think the Lisbon Treaty is an even more widely reaching thing that deserves the same privilege. In fact, had we voted Yes to the Euro, I think the government would not have been afraid to have a referendum for this matter. They don't do it because they are afraid it might misfire.



I don't want you to think of me as a cold person, I can definitely sympathize with your viewpoint. However, when you have so many outrageous rumors on the Lisbon Treaty, coupled with mankind's propensity towards laziness and ignorance that would dispel them from checking out the facts for themselves, I'm kind of relieved that referendums weren't held.

I can't support this viewpoint, as I explained above. The onus is on you to show the benefits of the treaty, and to educate the population. If you withhold them to have a say, you are clearly taking an elitist stance, namely that you know better what's best for them. I can't agree with that mindset.



I hope I haven't bored you to death. If I have, please forgive me. I've enjoyed this conversation of ours, and I have to say that it is refreshing to actually have a discourse on the EU with someone that doesn't simply shout crap at me, but instead takes a more thoughtful approach and is willing to listen. :)

Not at all. I admit to being ignorant on many points regarding the EU and politics in general, but I don't mind education or widening my world view. I apologize for some hyperbole; it was borne out of frustration, but you quickly mellow out when you have to describe your views more clearly. I am really an amateur, but describing your views to others forces you to think them through more thoroughly, and either reinforces them, or replaces them when a better alternative is found.

In closing, I don't believe Sweden as a country would be any worse off if we had stayed out of EU in the first place, though I can clearly see the appeal for a country like Romania, who has less to lose, and more to gain, both by institutional improvement and financial aid.

[Derbedeu]

First of all, thank you for the education, it's appreciated.


Thank you for being so open-minded. Dignified arguments on forums are all too rare nowadays.


Thanks. I didn't read it at first but have skimmed it now and will give it a more thorough read later. I'll give my impressions though. First of all, the paper is written by an individual and the university source isn't enough to determine her personal bias.True enough. But my other option would have been to give you the EU's own explanation of the Data Retention Directive. I doubt that you would have been more amenable to that particular source! :)


I have no illusions that the Directive can't be bent and pushed through the ECHR by means of legal wordplay, though I do not agree with the value judgments made by the professor in the study. At the same time I can't avoid a feeling of bias on her part, firstly as she dismisses criticism from national data watchdogs, by ignoring their requests for proof of the usefulness of the retained data, and secondly, her apparent disdain of the idea of requiring it to pass as Third Pillar, and her praise of the First Pillar choice, since it would have been more difficult to ratify otherwise. She seems to be of the opinion that other people's concerns do not matter in the proportionality evaluation, and doesn't want national governments to stand in the way.The EU is technically not under the ECHR, though the rights are included within the EU. I wouldn't call her disdainful of the Third Pillar so much as I would practical. The Third Pillar of the EU deals with Judicial, Police and Criminal matters, something that is more sensitive to member states, as well as being a relatively new territory for the EU. The Commission recommended that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights be given jurisdiction over the Third Pillar, precisely to prevent the concentration of power in bureaucratic hands and make it a more open and accessible to the public. But it was the Member States, that shot that idea down, threatening to use their veto (something the Lisbon Treaty will rectify, through use of QMV).


The problem is that the issue of proportionality requires value judgments, and as long as you play down the concerns, and play up the usefulness of a law that infringes on personal integrity (which she admits it does), you can make anything appear to follow the ECHR, but still go against the spirit of the document. This is mainly where my objections enter.She also states that this problem is acknowledged by the EU. As the author mentions, the EU is an anomaly since it is a "nation-state in reverse chronology" as puts it. It is currently still a work in progress. The required legislation will pass eventually.


Well, if my understanding is correct here, this took place before the Data Retention Directive came into force in Germany, so apparently their instruments were already capable of combating that sort of crime, without the need for massive data recording. So it's not really a good argument for it. Also, the article doesn't explain what measures were used for the surveillance, but I would assume that it was regular investigative police work whereafter they obtained warrants for wiretaps etc., which I find acceptable since they require suspicion and is not a blanket infringement of EVERYBODYs integrity.Oops. I apparently forgot to look at the date of the BBC article. :oops:


What the study claims is that rights are indeed infringed, but it's worth it, while still disregarding the watchdogs' requests for proof that it is.Technically she states that "Will the Data Retention Directive adequately protect privacy? Overall, the answer is yes." She admits that there are still problems with it, but those do not stem from the EU side as much as it does due to the jealousy of some member-states to guard their powers in judicial areas. Will these shortfalls in the Data Retention Directive be rectified? I believe that they will, and so does the author. Hopefully the sooner the better.


Here I think you are being a bit naïve, if you excuse my expression (I am in many ways too p-) (oh, and I am a pirate)), and have an overly idealistic view of authority in general. Extra power such as this often does lead to abuse, it's almost inevitable. At the same time, these infringements set the stage for even more intrusive surveillance, and it's a very very slippery slope, as witnessed in the UK. Furthermore, you don't know who is in power in a few years, but the data will still be there for the taking.Perhaps I am. But I'm not too worried. If it's one thing that all of us Europeans excel at, it's rioting to get the governments attention when we are displeased with something. And when we Europeans riot, we really riot! Doesn't matter if it's protesting a G20 meeting or just getting a little raucous at a football match. :)

Oh, and I've been guilty of my share of piracy. p-)


This might be an explanation. As I said, from the news presented to me over the years, almost never has any positive point been brought up.Sadly, it's an all to common occurrence. One area in which I have found the EU lacking in is getting across to all EU citizens the benefits that it brings, not just the occasional project, like the funding of a highway or bridge, or a piece of legislature like limiting the use of harmful chemicals within the EU market, but also driving home the more common things that we now take for granted: Schengen, Erasmus program, the ability to live or work anywhere throughout the EU, even the right to vote and stand for office anywhere in the EU (local and European elections only)! All these things would simply not be possible without the EU.


I don't believe that other nations sincerely care about our interests to the extent that you believe it. We have many traditions and values that are different than those of the rest of Europe, take allemansrätten for example, the right of public access to the wilderness. In most countries this does not exist, though it is something that is very dear to us, and something that I am sure will be eroded by the corporate interests that guides EU's hand.I do believe that you are underestimating Sweden's importance. Or perhaps you're just naturally pessimistic? p-)

Seriously speaking though, Sweden carries a lot of clout within the EU. A large portion of legislation on climate change is spurred on by Sweden. Margot Wallstrom, the Vice President of the EU is from Sweden. Sweden currently holds the EU Presidency. Most importantly though, you contribute a significant percentage of the EU budget. That gets your voice heard.

At the end of the day, it's up to each individual member state on how involved they wish to be. If a state stays on the sidelines, content to not say anything, than of course it will have very little influence. If it speaks up, and takes advantage of the EU's instruments to further it's goals and interests, then it would find that it has the world's largest market backing it up.


Secondly, I don't see how Norway has suffered by staying out of the EU. They enjoy the benefits of free travel by being part of the Schengen agreement, and cooperate in many other ways, despite not being members. That is the model I would like to see for my country. It is less intrusive in national policy, but with great cooperation and consensus based on mutual agreements. A common base might take longer to build that way, but I think consensus trumps some intangible progress.Norway pays about a quarter of a billion euros a year to the EU without getting anything in return. In fact,


Norway now contributes more per capita to the new EU Member States than any of the original EU 15.http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=6509

(Thanks Norway! :))

Norway also has to accept legislation coming out of the EU, even though they have no input on any of the legislation. As the EU evolves, they have found themselves in a very precarious position, but they can't really do anything about it, if they wish to remain as part of the European Economic Area (EEA).



Norway frustrated over relationship with EU
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Non-EU member Norway is growing increasingly frustrated over its lack of influence over Brussels' decision making process, an internal document shows.
Oslo's interests are getting harder to defend, as the EU is expanding its competences beyond what the initial terms of the agreement regulating Norway's participation to the bloc's internal market covered, an internal note of the Norwegian ambassador in Brussels, obtained by Aftenposten, says.http://euobserver.com/15/28617


So why can Norway put up with all of this? For the simple fact that they have oil. Lots of it:



It is important to understand how special a case Norway is. Norway was the third largest exporter of oil in the world after Russia and Saudi Arabia in 2003. Norway derives so much income from energy that the Norwegian government has established a fund – now valued at $179 billion – to invest the proceeds abroad in order not to distort the Norwegian economy and so as to be prepared for the exhaustion of the energy reserves.Sweden unfortunately does not have any such reserves of oil. True, you could still be outside of the EU (The Lisbon Treaty provides such a formula for secession, another reason to hope it passes), but then you would literally be dictated to on legislative matters with no opportunity of your own to defend your interests. As you can see, the EU is more intrusive on Norway than any EU member state, simply because they must accept legislation that they have no input on.


Well, you better appreciate it :D. We very much do. :hug:


Yes, the poll that I found did note that it has been rising, but I still think the figure is not strong enough to ignore the calls for a referendum. You see, I think referendums are necessary in issues as large as this one, that involve changes of power structures and the governance of a country, for the same reasons as you wouldn't allow a government to increase their own powers. To accommodate for that, the complexity of such a treaty needs to be kept in check, which goes hand in hand with my previous argument. I don't see why you would be against a referendum. If you are so sure of the benefits, you should not be afraid of putting it up for a vote. Saying that it's too complex for people to understand, and you better not let them have a say in the matter, is a very scary mentality. I don't think your argument about referendums about everything is relevant, as I agree that is not feasible. We held a referendum on the EMU, which was struck down, but I think the Lisbon Treaty is an even more widely reaching thing that deserves the same privilege. In fact, had we voted Yes to the Euro, I think the government would not have been afraid to have a referendum for this matter. They don't do it because they are afraid it might misfire.


I can't support this viewpoint, as I explained above. The onus is on you to show the benefits of the treaty, and to educate the population. If you withhold them to have a say, you are clearly taking an elitist stance, namely that you know better what's best for them. I can't agree with that mindset.I used to be anti-elitist as well. After all, in this day and age, with information a few mouse-clicks away, to claim that the populace at large is uneducated seems far-fetched at best, or at least easily rectifiable.

Then Bush got reelected. :|

Ok, I'm only half joking, but the sad fact is that the one thing that has never failed to disappoint me is the propensity for people to just not care about educating themselves on the issues at hand, either because they are retarded, their lives are too busy to bother with politics, or they are too cynical to take anything at face value.


Not at all. I admit to being ignorant on many points regarding the EU and politics in general, but I don't mind education or widening my world view. I apologize for some hyperbole; it was borne out of frustration, but you quickly mellow out when you have to describe your views more clearly. I am really an amateur, but describing your views to others forces you to think them through more thoroughly, and either reinforces them, or replaces them when a better alternative is found.You've got absolutely nothing to apologize for. Even though I doubt we can ever see eye to eye on the EU, I am actually glad that people of your viewpoint exist and make themselves heard. All too often politicians get lost in the abstract (or just become disconnected from their constituents), and the voices of dissent helps to remind them why they embarked on such a path in the first place, namely to serve the people. Your recriminations, many of them well founded, serve as a reminder that we must always strive to perfect the democratic process within the EU.


In closing, I don't believe Sweden as a country would be any worse off if we had stayed out of EU in the first place, though I can clearly see the appeal for a country like Romania, who has less to lose, and more to gain, both by institutional improvement and financial aid.*Sigh* Well, I can only hope that one day you can change your mind when it comes to the EU.

After all, you're stuck with it. p-)

[joka]

The EU is not a requirement for a peaceful and prosperous Europe,


So we're in agreement that peace and prosperity in Europe is a good thing? Is it something that all Europeans are stakeholders in? Is it something that is beamed down from the heavens or something that requires continuous efforts?

If it is something we all have an inherent interest in and something that doesn't just happen on it's own, what do you think could be the best way of ensuring such state of affairs are enhanced?

Could it be some sort of arrangement where said stakeholders decide to pool their sovereignty and resources in certain fields where common action brings added value? Could we say that anything less would be irresponsible and under-utilized potential?



it is just a tool of the large nations to control the others.
So if Sweden wasn't in The EU you could do what you please and decisions made in Germany wouldn't affect you?

Coming from a small EU country myself, I'd much rather get to send MEP's, a Commissioner and ministerial representation to participate in decisions that affect me, rather than hoping that large countries wake up thinking about my best interests, because decisions will be made regardless, just in places where Swedes and Finns wouldn't get invited.

[mrxyz]

Crap, I had written a long reply only to have my browser freeze while I was answering your last points. I'll be somewhat more brief this time around.


Thank you for being so open-minded. Dignified arguments on forums are all too rare nowadays.

There are some boards with mostly intelligent and calm posters, with mostly dignified discourse. This board has a number of great posters as well, but sadly also a great amount of the opposite kind.



True enough. But my other option would have been to give you the EU's own explanation of the Data Retention Directive. I doubt that you would have been more amenable to that particular source!

Just to be clear, I do not merely dismiss it because of the source, but I disagree with some of her reasoning. The issue of proportionality is clearly a value judgment, and she declines to provide proof of the utility of the stored information (unless I missed something).



The EU is technically not under the ECHR, though the rights are included within the EU. I wouldn't call her disdainful of the Third Pillar so much as I would practical.

Well, I think it shows that she wants the legislation to pass regardless of the governments' possible concerns, as she calls the decision salutary. This is a bias that can't be ignored, and yet unnecessary for her analysis.



The Third Pillar of the EU deals with Judicial, Police and Criminal matters, something that is more sensitive to member states, as well as being a relatively new territory for the EU. The Commission recommended that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights be given jurisdiction over the Third Pillar, precisely to prevent the concentration of power in bureaucratic hands and make it a more open and accessible to the public. But it was the Member States, that shot that idea down, threatening to use their veto (something the Lisbon Treaty will rectify, through use of QMV).

I do not understand well how this would differ from the current state of affairs. Does the agency have any power anyway? I had the impression that it is mostly for consultation. Anyway, I will mostly disengage from the data retention aspect, as it is not the main subject of this thread, though I think it serves as a good example of something where the EU should not stick its nose.



She also states that this problem is acknowledged by the EU. As the author mentions, the EU is an anomaly since it is a "nation-state in reverse chronology" as puts it. It is currently still a work in progress. The required legislation will pass eventually.

It should be clear by now that I do not want EU to be a nation-state. I do not see a European United States as a goal in itself, nor something that we need to strive for.



Perhaps I am. But I'm not too worried. If it's one thing that all of us Europeans excel at, it's rioting to get the governments attention when we are displeased with something. And when we Europeans riot, we really riot! Doesn't matter if it's protesting a G20 meeting or just getting a little raucous at a football match.

Oh, and I've been guilty of my share of piracy.

I mean the kind of pirate that holds a seat the EU Parliament p-).



Sadly, it's an all to common occurrence. One area in which I have found the EU lacking in is getting across to all EU citizens the benefits that it brings, not just the occasional project, like the funding of a highway or bridge,

I have not heard of any such projects being funded by EU means around here. Fact is that here in the north we have many roads that are in a very bad state, while our Swedish Road Administration does not have the funds to make repairs until 2020. Maybe it is selfish, but it's much easier to appreciate progress when it happens close to home, rather than in a far away land.


or a piece of legislature like limiting the use of harmful chemicals within the EU market,

I didn't follow this debate very closely, but I seem to remember that the legislation was mostly sabotaged by corporate lobbies, and several of the important aspects were dropped. Maybe my memory fails me here.



but also driving home the more common things that we now take for granted: Schengen, Erasmus program, the ability to live or work anywhere throughout the EU, even the right to vote and stand for office anywhere in the EU (local and European elections only)! All these things would simply not be possible without the EU.

We enjoyed the Schengen agreement well before joining the EU. I am not familiar with the Erasmus program. I don't understand why the ability to work or live abroad is dependent on such an overarching interference in matters other than economical. The data retention directive is again a good example. It has no bearing on the previously mentioned aspects of the EU, and only serves to impose unwanted measures on other peoples. Our government claims to be against the directive, though I suspect is it a facade, but nonetheless we are sued by the EU commission for failure to implement it. I think it's none of their business what data we store.



I do believe that you are underestimating Sweden's importance. Or perhaps you're just naturally pessimistic?

We'll get what? 2% of the parliament?




Seriously speaking though, Sweden carries a lot of clout within the EU. A large portion of legislation on climate change is spurred on by Sweden. Margot Wallstrom, the Vice President of the EU is from Sweden. Sweden currently holds the EU Presidency. Most importantly though, you contribute a significant percentage of the EU budget. That gets your voice heard.

Does the presidency currently hold any power anyway? I don't think it affects what laws are passed and imposed upon us, and it is also a very temporary thing for us to hold.



Norway pays about a quarter of a billion euros a year to the EU without getting anything in return. In fact,

http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=6509

(Thanks Norway! )

I admit that this is news to me, though I don't understand how they can be forced to do this. It must be part of some agreement they have made. Is it part of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEA_and_Norway_Grants ? The numbers vaguely match, though I don't know if they are separate matters.



Norway also has to accept legislation coming out of the EU, even though they have no input on any of the legislation. As the EU evolves, they have found themselves in a very precarious position, but they can't really do anything about it, if they wish to remain as part of the European Economic Area (EEA).

http://euobserver.com/15/28617

To which extent compared to a full fledged member? Besides, I am not even sure that EEA membership is a necessity for us, as our growth figures have not really changed since becoming EU members. We did just fine without.



Sweden unfortunately does not have any such reserves of oil. True, you could still be outside of the EU (The Lisbon Treaty provides such a formula for secession, another reason to hope it passes), but then you would literally be dictated to on legislative matters with no opportunity of your own to defend your interests. As you can see, the EU is more intrusive on Norway than any EU member state, simply because they must accept legislation that they have no input on.

Can you explain why we would have to accept EU laws if we are not members? Are you saying that they would use coercion to impose their laws upon us?



I used to be anti-elitist as well. After all, in this day and age, with information a few mouse-clicks away, to claim that the populace at large is uneducated seems far-fetched at best, or at least easily rectifiable.

Then Bush got reelected.

Ok, I'm only half joking, but the sad fact is that the one thing that has never failed to disappoint me is the propensity for people to just not care about educating themselves on the issues at hand, either because they are retarded, their lives are too busy to bother with politics, or they are too cynical to take anything at face value.

I do see your point and it is very tempting to think in those circles about many issues. I don't see it as morally defensible though. Besides, I'd like to think that we can do better than the US ;).



*Sigh* Well, I can only hope that one day you can change your mind when it comes to the EU.

Who knows, maybe one beautiful day it will all be revealed to me, and there will be much rejoicing. Don't hold your breath though :).



After all, you're stuck with it.
I hold no illusions about that. I'm aware it's unlikely to change.

[mrxyz]

So we're in agreement that peace and prosperity in Europe is a good thing? Is it something that all Europeans are stakeholders in? Is it something that is beamed down from the heavens or something that requires continuous efforts?

Of course, I do not wish harm upon anybody. Though we have managed well during the last 200 years while being independent and neutral until roughly the last decade.



If it is something we all have an inherent interest in and something that doesn't just happen on it's own, what do you think could be the best way of ensuring such state of affairs are enhanced?

As I said before, I believe in consensus-building, not imposing things on unwilling nations.



Could it be some sort of arrangement where said stakeholders decide to pool their sovereignty and resources in certain fields where common action brings added value? Could we say that anything less would be irresponsible and under-utilized potential?

That could very well be the case. Fact is that the EU is much more than that, and is moving towards usurping even more power. I do not mind economical and environmental cooperation, for example, which I believe are the two areas that possibly brings the most composite value. I see the EU as too much controlled by lobbyists and corporations, and sooner or later this will remove several institutions and freedoms where values differ between nations. Again I will use allemansrätten as an example. With more and more EU land ownership over here, the EU will soon react to the landowners complains and remove these universal freedoms. The values are not the same across all of Europe, and this needs to be acknowledged and accepted. For that reason, I think consensus is the only reasonable choice.



So if Sweden wasn't in The EU you could do what you please and decisions made in Germany wouldn't affect you?

To a greater extent, yes. As far as I understand the world, they wouldn't be able to regulate matters to the extent they are now. Of course we are affected by others decisions, but that is not the same as having laws imposed.



Coming from a small EU country myself, I'd much rather get to send MEP's, a Commissioner and ministerial representation to participate in decisions that affect me, rather than hoping that large countries wake up thinking about my best interests, because decisions will be made regardless, just in places where Swedes and Finns wouldn't get invited.
I admit to not having a great geopolitical understanding, so therefore I ask you to explain what kind of decisions you are referring to.

[gazell]

I used to be anti-elitist as well. After all, in this day and age, with information a few mouse-clicks away, to claim that the populace at large is uneducated seems far-fetched at best, or at least easily rectifiable.

Then Bush got reelected. :|

Ok, I'm only half joking, but the sad fact is that the one thing that has never failed to disappoint me is the propensity for people to just not care about educating themselves on the issues at hand, either because they are retarded, their lives are too busy to bother with politics, or they are too cynical to take anything at face value.

There is no need to worry about simple people even. Political propaganda will trick them but only for a while. They just rather make empirical judgements and these can be very valid, realistic judgements based on what they feel on their skin.

The farmer will go: the French farmers get so much more support than me, how could I be competitive; another sees his business ending as his product got banned in the EU and before was trading with several countries, etc.

They get a good picture of how things work out for them in practice.

[Derbedeu]

Just to be clear, I do not merely dismiss it because of the source, but I disagree with some of her reasoning. The issue of proportionality is clearly a value judgment, and she declines to provide proof of the utility of the stored information (unless I missed something).


Well, I think it shows that she wants the legislation to pass regardless of the governments' possible concerns, as she calls the decision salutary. This is a bias that can't be ignored, and yet unnecessary for her analysis.


I do not understand well how this would differ from the current state of affairs. Does the agency have any power anyway? I had the impression that it is mostly for consultation. Anyway, I will mostly disengage from the data retention aspect, as it is not the main subject of this thread, though I think it serves as a good example of something where the EU should not stick its nose.

True, it's not the main point of this topic, but if anything the study shows that the EU is not an entity that can superimpose its wishes over the member states if those member states do not wish it. This is a very important fact that often gets misconstrued by eurosceptics (and IMO on purpose) so that it can be used as a scare-tactic.



It should be clear by now that I do not want EU to be a nation-state. I do not see a European United States as a goal in itself, nor something that we need to strive for.It's not so much that it will be a nation-state, but it will have certain nation-state characteristics to which she is referring to.



I mean the kind of pirate that holds a seat the EU Parliament p-).
[/URL]

(http://img17.imageshack.us/i/ohmyb.gif/)


I have not heard of any such projects being funded by EU means around here. Fact is that here in the north we have many roads that are in a very bad state, while our Swedish Road Administration does not have the funds to make repairs until 2020. Maybe it is selfish, but it's much easier to appreciate progress when it happens close to home, rather than in a far away land."The North Mid-Sweden programme which started in 2007 is a good example of a well-functioning cohesion policy programme. Over 50% of its EU funding is already committed to concrete projects. In total, the region will benefit from €195 million from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) until 2013. It plans to create 6000 new jobs across all sectors and 3000 new businesses. Support to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), renewable energy, broadband networks and transport are among the regional priorities."

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1388&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

That's just one example that I could find. Keep in mind that Sweden is a key member of various important EU-wide projects that will benefit it as well as the EU as a whole.

As for your last sentence, well, that is human nature. But keep in mind that it is to everyone's benefit when an EU member prospers. If Romanians or Bulgarians get richer, that will mean that we'll be more able to afford buying IKEA furniture, a new Saab or Volvo, some new Gripen planes for the air force, etc.


I didn't follow this debate very closely, but I seem to remember that the legislation was mostly sabotaged by corporate lobbies, and several of the important aspects were dropped. Maybe my memory fails me here.I was only using that as an example to show that the EU deals with a great amount of legislation that is geared towards streamlining the common market and looking out for the safety of consumers and citizens alike.



We enjoyed the Schengen agreement well before joining the EU. I am not familiar with the Erasmus program. I don't understand why the ability to work or live abroad is dependent on such an overarching interference in matters other than economical. The data retention directive is again a good example. It has no bearing on the previously mentioned aspects of the EU, and only serves to impose unwanted measures on other peoples. Our government claims to be against the directive, though I suspect is it a facade, but nonetheless we are sued by the EU commission for failure to implement it. I think it's none of their business what data we store.How is it not? Getting a job in another EU country is not just an economical issue. It's also political and social one as well.

As for Schengen, the point is that it was an EU construct, which would not have existed were it not for the EU. Also, Sweden signed in '96 and implemented it in '01. Since you joined the EU in '95, I do not see possible how you were in Schengen before you were in the EU. In fact Schengen was first implemented in '95 after a decade of negotiations/haggling.


We'll get what? 2% of the parliament?I didn't do the math, but that's seems about right. You're forgetting though that Parliament works on the basis of political parties, and therefore party blocs. Not all Swedish MEPs look eye-to-eye on economical, justice, climate change, and other issues. They find allies among other like-minded Parliamentarians from other countries. Also, you are forgetting that Sweden keeps its Commissioner (along with every other nation) and most importantly still shows up at the EU Council of Ministers, where the majority of power within the EU is concentrated.


Does the presidency currently hold any power anyway? I don't think it affects what laws are passed and imposed upon us, and it is also a very temporary thing for us to hold.The Presidency does hold certain advantages. It allows the countries who holds it to bring to the forefront their most pressing agenda. For example, when Germany held the Presidency two years ago, they're the ones who declared that it was time to move on from the EU Constitution debacle, and they were key in bringing about the Lisbon Treaty.

I should mention that the Presidency will be changed under Lisbon from a 6 month country chairmanship to a 2.5 year term with the Presidency being invested in one person for that time period. Not the leader of whichever country holds it as it is now.


I admit that this is news to me, though I don't understand how they can be forced to do this. It must be part of some agreement they have made. Is it part of this: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEA_and_Norway_Grants ? The numbers vaguely match, though I don't know if they are separate matters.I believe That they are the same figures. As to why Norway is forced to do this is very simple: over 70% of their exports goes to the EU. If they want to have access to this market, then they need to play by the EU's rules.


To which extent compared to a full fledged member? Besides, I am not even sure that EEA membership is a necessity for us, as our growth figures have not really changed since becoming EU members. We did just fine without.You were part of EFTA, a competitor to the EC (European Community) at the time. Considering the fact that over a large percentage of Sweden's exports go to the EU, I very much doubt that Sweden can do without the EU or EEA. Also, you are ignoring the benefits in savings to Swedish companies and businesses in being within a common market. Of course, this benefit would be even greater if you adopted the euro. ;-)


Can you explain why we would have to accept EU laws if we are not members? Are you saying that they would use coercion to impose their laws upon us?It's not coercion, it's simply a fact of life. If a country wants access to the EU and it's large market (one of the three largest in the world along with the US and China) it has to play by its rules. If a Swedish company wants to invest in America, or launch a product there, it has to conform to US laws. Look at Google in China. There was a massive uproar a couple of years ago as to how Google is upholding censorship by the CCP:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm

Yet it Google had no choice because if it wanted access to the huge Chinese government, then it had to follow Chinese laws.

This is why the EU is so important for Europeans. Individually, we are nobodies. Together, the rest of the world has to take notice of us. Look at the failed Honeywell-GE merger 8 years ago. The US anti-Trust Commission was perfectly fine with allowing the merger to go ahead, even though it would create a monopoly in aviation technology to the detriment of European companies like SAAB, EADS, Alenia, BAE, Finmeccanica etc. The EU anti-Trust Commission stopped the merger, even though it was under immense pressure from the US President and Congress to let it go through. In the end Jack Welch, the CEO of GE, recognized that he couldn't ignore the EU and so the merger collapsed. Why couldn't he ignore it? Because if he did, it would have meant a loss of a market of 500 million people, and a huge chunk of GE's market (i.e. profits). Now, if the EU hadn't existed, then the merger would have gone through. The loss of one market, even a "big" one like Germany, is not enough to dissuade other countries or companies from going ahead with whatever they want. Can you imagine if Sweden or Romania were individually opposed to such a merger? Do you think GE would have cared about losing Sweden or Romania as a market?


I do see your point and it is very tempting to think in those circles about many issues. I don't see it as morally defensible though. Besides, I'd like to think that we can do better than the US ;).Quoting from a favorite film of mine: "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity"


Who knows, maybe one beautiful day it will all be revealed to me, and there will be much rejoicing. Don't hold your breath though :).I hope so. If you ever do wish to at least learn more about the EU, I highly recommend the following two books:

http://www.amazon.com/Government-Politics-European-Union/dp/082233870X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254804258&sr=1-1

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-United-States-of-Europe/T-R-Reid/e/9780143036081/?itm=1&usri=the+united+states+of+europe

The first is boring, I'll admit. In fact it's very boring. But it's one of the most comprehensive books written on the European Union, from its history, to its politics, and to its scopes. If you ever want to have a good understanding of how the EU works, that would be the book for you.

The second book is a lot lighter read, but very informative as well. I actually think you'd enjoy it as it's very well written and very moderate in length. It took me about 4 hours to finish.


I hold no illusions about that. I'm aware it's unlikely to change.And don't you forget it! p-)

[CMN]

Christ guys, your 10,000 word thesis replies are killing me. Can we not all just get back to flame and troll?

[Derbedeu]

Christ guys, your 10,000 word thesis replies are killing me. Can we not all just get back to flame and troll?

**** off you asshole!


Better? p-)

Just joking of course.

[mrxyz]

I don't have time for a complete response at the moment, but I want to apologize for this part:


As for Schengen, the point is that it was an EU construct, which would not have existed were it not for the EU. Also, Sweden signed in '96 and implemented it in '01. Since you joined the EU in '95, I do not see possible how you were in Schengen before you were in the EU. In fact Schengen was first implemented in '95 after a decade of negotiations/haggling.

That's what I get for reading the Wikipedia article too quickly, and picking up the 1985/1990 dates for some reason. It was not intended as deliberate misinformation, so I concede on that specific point. Besides, I wasn't too politically interested back then either ;).

[Keshik]

instead of kilometer posts ill post a video it starts interesting at 1:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj5lqJbpdqg

[Eye]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFbHTWzjUR8

[joka]

:D He is a fine orator, I got to give him that.

[kalerab]

According to Czech newspapers, Sweden stepped back and will accept Klaus demand according to which Sudet Germans can´t have any compensations of what happened to them during expell in 45-48 under the Benes decreets. Slovak PM also asked Sweden to add Slovakia to same list but it looks like none gives a damn about him :fork:

[gazell]

According to Czech newspapers, Sweden stepped back and will accept Klaus demand according to which Sudet Germans can´t have any compensations of what happened to them during expell in 45-48 under the Benes decreets. Slovak PM also asked Sweden to add Slovakia to same list but it looks like none gives a damn about him :fork:

Hey, Slovakia has signed it already, so that's a different stuff.

[kalerab]

Hey, Slovakia has signed it already, so that's a different stuff.

I know it, you know it, but explain that to our PM...

[gazell]

I know it, you know it, but explain that to our PM...

You do that, do not leave it to me, please.:lol:

[Derbedeu]

Czech president wins EU demand

HONOR MAHONY (hm@euobs.com)
Today @ 00:39 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU leaders say they have come a step closer to full ratification of the Lisbon Treaty after they managed to agree to a sensitive demand by the Czech Republic on the new institutional rules without upsetting other countries.
"The European Council has been able to take a decision and agree on what has been asked for by the Czech Republic," said Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, currently heading the EU, at the end of the first day of a two-day summit in Brussels on Thursday (29 October).
The institutional debate, which elbowed other issues such as climate change from the negotiating table, centred around a recent surprise move by Czech President Vaclav Klaus to make obtaining an opt-out from a rights charter a condition for his signature of the Lisbon Treaty.
Mr Klaus said the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a part of the treaty, would expose the country to property claims by the 2.5 million Germans and their descendants who were expelled from the then Czechoslovakia after World War II under the so-called Benes Decrees.
His mentioning of the emotive issue and linkage with the rights charter raised alarm bells in Hungary as ethnic Hungarians were also expelled, Austria and Germany, where many of those expelled settled and Slovakia, who feared an imbalance in legal protection between it and the Czech Republic. The two countries separated peacefully from one another in 1993 but Slovakia was also covered by the Benes Decrees at the time.
After intense discussions between all of these countries, and plenty of back and forth diplomacy by the Swedes, the Czechs received an opt out similar to one already obtained by Poland and the UK, and no mention was made of the Benes Decrees or anything to do with the past.
The Slovaks got a declaration that simply confirmed that the Charter is "addressed ...to the member states only when they are implementing Union law." The solution pleased both Bratislava and Budapest, who both sold it as a victory at home. The opt-out will be ratified after the Lisbon Treaty has gone into place and probably as part of a future EU accession treaty.
The Czech president, the instigator of the political headache, is apparently also happy with the deal.
"Vaclav Klaus was content with the text. He has been informed about all modifications ...and does not have a problem with it," Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer said after the meeting.
Mr Klaus, an ardent eurosceptic who dislikes the Lisbon Treaty, has been holding out against signing it, a move that would complete ratification and allow it to enter into force across the European Union. But his sheer unpredictability, typified by his 11th-hour charter demand, had made some in Brussels fear he would continue to dig in his heels anyway.
His signature cannot take place before Tuesday when the Czech Constitutional Court is due to rule on the treaty's compatibility with national law. But the court is widely expected to approve the treaty.
"The road to ratification stands open," said Mr Reinfeldt. If Mr Klaus signs the treaty in November, it can come into force on 1 December.
With the last hurdle to ratification apparently out of the way, the discussions on what implementing the treaty will mean can begin in earnest. The most prominent of these issues is the new posts it creates, including a president of the European Council and a new foreign minister.
"These very interesting discussions await," said Mr Reinfeldt.

http://euobserver.com/9/28913

Good news! :grin:

[kalerab]

http://euobserver.com/9/28913

Good news! :grin:

I´m just curious how they want to accept that exception, since there are two successors state after Czechoslovakia, not one....We´ll see.

[Derbedeu]

^^^


The Slovaks got a declaration that simply confirmed that the Charter is "addressed ...to the member states only when they are implementing Union law." The solution pleased both Bratislava and Budapest,

It looks as if the Slovaks and Hungarians are fine. What's important is that this treaty finally comes into effect. 8+ years of navel gazing by the EU has meant that more important issues have fallen by the wayside. Time to finish these institutional reforms and concentrate on what matters, i.e. the economy, climate change, nuclear proliferation, etc.

[Telmar]

Good news indeed.

Good going by the Swedish presidency. Klaus does not lose face, and that was important.

[Eye]

^^^


Time to finish these institutional reforms and concentrate on what matters, i.e. the economy, climate change, nuclear proliferation, etc.
As it goes in socialism we will fight with problems not known in normal countries. 100W lamp bulbs for start :)

[gazell]

Good news indeed.

Good going by the Swedish presidency. Klaus does not lose face, and that was important.

It was good diplomacy indeed.

[Derbedeu]

Breaking news: Czech Court gives go ahead to the Lisbon Treaty!! :D




Czech court clears Lisbon Treaty
The Czech constitutional court has ruled that the Lisbon Treaty is in line with the constitution, clearing the way for President Vaclav Klaus to sign it.
The Czech Republic is the only EU member yet to ratify the treaty, and the decision removes one of the last hurdles for its passage.
Mr Klaus had been waiting for the decision of the court before deciding whether to sign it.
The reform treaty is seen as crucial to making the EU work more efficiently.






http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8339464.stm

[muttbutt]

Breaking news: Czech Court gives go ahead to the Lisbon Treaty!! :D




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8339464.stm

Let the Empire arise......


p-)




About time though.

[Derbedeu]

About time though.

True that! I'm giving Klaus a week to finally sign the Treaty. Of he comes up with another delaying tactic or just procrastinates, things are going to get ugly [/URL]

Edit: Here is the official Czech ruling: [url]http://www.concourt.cz/view/2136 (http://img515.imageshack.us/i/gunz.gif/)

[MagnusTacitus]

Wohoo
New Superpower arises p-)

[Derbedeu]

^^^

[dies irae]

Time to invade somebody p-)

[futurepilot2004]

Time to invade somebody p-)

we`ll have to start small, maybe with Andorra or Monaco.

[Herman the German]

True that! I'm giving Klaus a week to finally sign the Treaty. Of he comes up with another delaying tactic or just procrastinates, things are going to get ugly [/URL]

Edit: Here is the official Czech ruling: [url]http://www.concourt.cz/view/2136 (http://img515.imageshack.us/i/gunz.gif/)

Seems he just signed it!

[muttbutt]

we`ll have to start small, maybe with Andorra or Monaco.
How are we supposed to invade them, they don't even show up on maps......a couple of leo II tanks would cover them....

[kalerab]

Seems he just signed it!

Indeed he did and thus Lisbon Treaty is ratified by all member states.

[Keshik]

How are we supposed to invade them, they don't even show up on maps......a couple of leo II tanks would cover them....
shamefull indeed ,that europe is no better than soviets or amerika....
and if we couple that to german cancelor merkel talking about 1 seat in security counsil for E.U. , Soviet oooops Europe union looks like just another evil empire.
Lets hope it wont last long!

[StormzSTA]

shamefull indeed ,that europe is no better than soviets or amerika....
and if we couple that to german cancelor merkel talking about 1 seat in security counsil for E.U. , Soviet oooops Europe union looks like just another evil empire.
Lets hope it wont last long!

Where are you from?

[Telmar]

Where are you from?

I think he's from South Park.

[StormzSTA]

I think he's from South Park.

Hey!!! We've got Eric Cartman here!!! ;)

[Keshik]

Its all about territory and resources. it seems we haven't evolved much from wild animals after all.

[Eye]

Lets hope it wont last long!
I hope it will not split up in Balkan way.

[Harry Henkel]

we`ll have to start small, maybe with Andorra or Monaco.

Hell no, we'll start off big: invasion of Russia in 6 months! p-)

On a more serious note though: it's good Klaus finally signed the bill. Now we can really start truly uniting the continent.

[joka]

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/XmXKM02NKHY woot

[Jµµso]

Shameful. We are giving our independence to some EU byrocrats.

[gazell]

shamefull indeed ,that europe is no better than soviets or amerika....
and if we couple that to german cancelor merkel talking about 1 seat in security counsil for E.U. , Soviet oooops Europe union looks like just another evil empire.
Lets hope it wont last long!

Lighten up, man, it was a joke.:)

[gazell]

Seems he just signed it!

I used to like the man but this was tooooooooo much of a farce, I wonder if he gone insane or some other old age stuff.

[StormzSTA]

Shameful. We are giving our independence to some EU byrocrats.

Yeah man, first our independence, then our money, then our womenz!!!! Them "byrocrats" will take everything form us!

[Jµµso]

Yeah man, first our independence, then our money, then our womenz!!!! Them "byrocrats" will take everything form us! My grandfather was in two wars (and killed lot of people) so Finland can make it's own decisions. Now see where we are going... shameful.

[StormzSTA]

Did you just edit your post?
What a shame!!!!
I was ready for a flamewar.
;)

[gazell]

Did you just edit your post?
What a shame!!!!
I was ready for a flamewar.
;)

Who believes that?:lol:

[StormzSTA]

Who believes that?:lol:

Wut???????

[gazell]

Wut???????

That you were about to start a flamewar. Not funny any more, but there we go.

[BAF]

well lets see how this goes. i have decided to think positive, and hope that this brings all Europeans close togheter, and stop the egoism between the countries.

[StormzSTA]

That you were about to start a flamewar. Not funny any more, but there we go.

Well, it wasn't me who was about to start a flamewar. Jµµso posted his comment and part of it was disrespectful towards me but then he edited his post. So now it's all good and my post wasn't really serious.

[gazell]

Well, it wasn't me who was about to start a flamewar. Jµµso posted his comment and part of it was disrespectful towards me but then he edited his post. So now it's all good and my post wasn't really serious.

No, much less of an issue, I meant it was so unlikely, you of all people starting a flame war that it was in itself funny. :lol:

[saturnin]

Time to invade somebody p-)

didn´t get the memo, we are now the good guy. Humanitarian help, apologies for own media, etc. Even germans lost their war temperament, future is lost.:|

btw. I vote for Arktida. I know this would stress our forces to limit, but it is only near "country" with no population to show suffer on TV, which is basic neccesary to keep once occupied territory.

[joka]

My grandfather was in two wars (and killed lot of people) so Finland can make it's own decisions. Now see where we are going... shameful.

So did mine, I wouldn't presume to think I could speak on his behalf though.

[Keshik]

I hope it will not split up in Balkan way.



http://www.eutimes.net/2009/11/1000-gypsies-screamed-in-a-small-hungarian-town-by-tomorrow-we-will-kill-all-hungarians/

as for england its becoming western pakistan...2-3 decades go by in a flash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1b9J8D3tOg&feature=player_embedded