Ireland votes NO on EU

[Evak]

Man, I wasn't expecting that, not after the huge sums of money the EU gave to bolster Ireland and rebuild. I'm really happy because I don't believe in the EU and its unelected parliament stealing sovereignty.

Out of 27 nations only Ireland have been allowed a referendum.

This is the second time that the EU has tried to force a constitution on the public. First time several countries had a vote on it and France and Holland rejected it. Spain approved but without France and Holland they decided to drop the whole thing.

Second time around, they basically tried again with a thinly disguised version of the old constitution. Only Governments decided to not let their population vote (so much for democracy). Only Ireland got to vote, and they turned down the new consti *cough* treaty.

This is a big result for those who don't want the EU controlled by an elitist group of failed politicians working behind closed doors. I hope this leads to more public involvement in the decision making process. I do believe in Europe but not in the EU as it is being run now.

862,415 against
752,451 in favour

Meaning a majority of 109,964 for those rejecting the treaty.

[mirlix]

I agree with you on some points, but one of the biggest point of this constitution was to give the directly elected parlament the power to pass new laws and stop laws created by the European Council, which atm holds all the power and every country has a veto-right.

The constitution has bad points as well, a big list even, but this was a good idea to make the EU a democratic institution and not a playground for politicians, so im sad it fails, but maybe the next try will be more successfull.

[Evak]

I'm just happy that someone got to say how the majority seem to feel. Will be interesting to see if they simply renegotiate with Ireland and leave the rest as is. Or will they start considering a more democratic EU.

It seems to me that currently the EU politicians are in a hurry to grab ultimate power and take on the US, China etc as some kind of leading force in the world. But their hasty approach is treading all over long established rules of law that in many ways created the freedoms we have today.

Take too much away and we look no better than the dictatorial governing bodies of the Middle East, China and Zimbabwe even. The quick rush so far has done nothing but produce sceptism and turned the people away from what should have been a good idea. Probably would have been better to have planned the whole thing slowly and methodically from the start.

[sinbad]

This is precisely why they won't let a referendum happen in the UK - if the generally pro-Euro Irish don't want it, you can bet your life British people don't!

Eurocrats have lots of grand visions of how a unified Europe could work and challenge the US and China, but it ignores a number of major, fundamental differences between the countries involved. I'm generally pro-European but I do think that these things can be pushed too hard, and this treaty is one of them.

[haffax]

Man, I wasn't expecting that, not after the huge sums of money the EU gave to bolster Ireland and rebuild. I'm really happy because I don't believe in the EU and its unelected parliament stealing sovereignty.

EU parliament is elected. Maybe you confuse it with the EU commission?

While I was once in favor of the new EU contract, I recently changed my mind after trying to actually read the text.
It is a mess dragged out on 287 pages. The language is mostly vague and all kind of aspects are intermingled into a single paragraph. Second degree short/mid term goals (armament, illegal immigration prevention, etc) are happily placed next to structural definitions (council, parliament, etc.)

A constitution should be a timeless document, a base something can be built upon, that doesn't have to be changed every few years. A constitution should also be easily understandable by its people.

Neither is the case here, so maybe a solution is break this monster apart into easily understandable pieces sorted by purpose. Structures, rights of the sovereigns, and basic goals (the ones that matter not the ones today ruling people believe are means to it) in one document.

The rest in different contracts. One for military aspects, one for border control, one for agriculture and so on. This way we can't have deals like Country A wanting more €€€ for chicken eggs and cow milk in exchange of agreement to a special case veto right in service sector decisions for Country B. This kind of horse-trading on every single convent so far is just embarrassing and undermining the very purpose of the EU.

[warmi]

Take too much away and we look no better than the dictatorial governing bodies of the Middle East, China and Zimbabwe even.

Nah .. that's pushing a bit too far.
EU strikes me more like a much gentler , nanny style type of totalitarianism - they won't kill or imprison you , they will just shackle you with their love and make sure that everything you do is for your own good.

[xavier]

Take too much away and we look no better than the dictatorial governing bodies of the Middle East, China and Zimbabwe even.

Nah .. that's pushing a bit too far.
EU strikes me more like a much gentler , nanny style type of totalitarianism - they won't kill or imprison you , they will just shackle you with their love and make sure that everything you do is for your own good.

Sounds like the trend in the States...

[haffax]

Take too much away and we look no better than the dictatorial governing bodies of the Middle East, China and Zimbabwe even.

Nah .. that's pushing a bit too far.
EU strikes me more like a much gentler , nanny style type of totalitarianism - they won't kill or imprison you , they will just shackle you with their love and make sure that everything you do is for your own good.

Err no. EU has done more for freedom of its people than for the opposite. I don't deny that there are unnecessary rules, but they pale compared to the rights offered. I can go to any EU country I like, live there, buy property, start a business. This is my basic right.
There is also the EU court of appeal. If you have an EU guaranteed right that you see violated by your country, you can go to the EU court. This has broken up many local restrictions already. For instance in Germany women were not allowed to serve in fighting companies in our armed forces. Now they can after one went to the EU court. Note that while this thwarts sovereign rights of the individual countries' legislation and jurisdiction, this court can only be used to widen rights of the individual people and corporations against the countries but not the other way around.

[xavier]

In other words, it's the United States of Europe...

[haffax]

Nope. More a meta country. Our country Germany already has states with their own constitutions and parliaments. It is more as if USA's neighbors were allowed the same. Like a Mexican going over to Arizona or Texas without having to show his/her passport and starting to work there. Ok they do already, but I mean legally.

Edit: After rereading, I think I didn't get your drift. So yes, basically you're right.

Though there is a democracy deficit on the top layer in EU still if compared to USA. The commission is too strong and only voted for with two layers of indirection. Directly voted EU Parliament may veto though.
The new Contract of Lisbon would have strengthened the parliament compared to currently valid Contract of Nice.

[xavier]

So currently it's a governing body without actual representation. It sounds actually like the United States *used* to be organized, over 100 years ago. Until the Senate was elected directly by the people, it was literally a pair of representatives delegated by each member state (usually appointed by the state's governor), and taxes to fund the federal government were apportioned from each state directly (instead of the govt being funded by income taxes on income-earning legal entities such as individuals, corporations and partnerships). I actually wish it were still apportionment, because that would prevent a lot of the pork-barrel spending going on in Washington -- but I digress.

[Evak]

I can go to any EU country I like, live there, buy property, start a business. This is my basic right.

Unless your from one of the new eastern block EU countries. Where its almost impossible to find work in many European countries. Only England and Ireland embraced the rules correctly, Ireland stopped after a while and so theres a huge tidal wave of easter block immigration to the UK. The only country that properly followed the EU rules on immigration and employment.

[haffax]

I can go to any EU country I like, live there, buy property, start a business. This is my basic right.

Unless your from one of the new eastern block EU countries. Where its almost impossible to find work in many European countries. Only England and Ireland embraced the rules correctly, Ireland stopped after a while and so theres a huge tidal wave of easter block immigration to the UK. The only country that properly followed the EU rules on immigration and employment.

These are transition rules negotiated by the individual countries, nominally in order to have a grace period to enable employment market to adopt to the changes. Of course nothing has been done in this regard, it is even unclear what those enabling changes might be specifically. In any way, in Germany the grace period ends in 2009 if not renewed for the ultimately last two years. So latest in 2011 we have the free employment market for countries members since 2004.
Funnily German's farmers complain that there are not enough farm hands coming over to work here, simply because they just go to UK or elsewhere , where they earn more with less hassle, so the rule might well be pointless as there are better opportunities elsewhere.

[warmi]

Unless your from one of the new eastern block EU countries.

They are not exactly "new" countries you know

For instance ... Romania exists as a country since 1800s.
Poland since about 950 , same with the Czech Republic.

etc.. etc

[Evak]

I know, meant new to the EU. I'm half Polish myself

[steven]

In other words, it's the United States of Europe...

I would say the Union of Soviet States of Europe.

A few years back there was a proposal on creating a Secret European Police with trendemous power. It almost passed. It was blocked because one deleagte read the proposal and warned the parlement.
The scary part is that they tried to find who wrote this proposal and couldn't trace it. AFAIK they didn't found .

[haffax]

Spooky
Any references?

[Frenetic]

Yeah... I'm gonna need to see some sources for that one. Otherwise, no offense, we're just going to assume it was something you heard "somewhere", or read in a supermarket tabloid next to an article about how Elvis is still alive (albeit a little shorter and greyer and with a peculiar interest in certain human orifices.)

[steven]

Well... the reference dates back to when Switzerland voted on entering or not the EU. So apart of paying access to newspapers archives I am not sure I will find it free on the internet.

You know not all is on the Internet...
And I don't want to file my house with reference and papers "for references".

I tried to find it but stumbled only on this which is also bad.
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/apr/10dataret.htm
http://www.ifex.org/fr/content/view/full/31137/

That said I don't care if someone is listening my conversations about ogre

[syd]

In other words, it's the United States of Europe...

I would say the Union of Soviet States of Europe.

A few years back there was a proposal on creating a Secret European Police with trendemous power. It almost passed. It was blocked because one deleagte read the proposal and warned the parlement.
The scary part is that they tried to find who wrote this proposal and couldn't trace it. AFAIK they didn't found .

First of all, if this is true, as you say "It was blocked because one delegate read the proposal and warned the parlement".
This sounds to me a like pretty democratic reaction.
Secondly, regarding History, any major country, willing to domine the world; has a powerful police, AFAIK this is not the case yet in Europe.
Now concerning your links, those proposals of telecommunication surveillance have been rejected; while The patriot Act has been accepted: it would have been wise mention that 2002 was while the world was shaken by the 9/11 attacks.
To me, those stories shows Europe a lot closer to democracy, with its counter powers, than totalitarianism. Mentioning something like "the Union of Soviet States of Europe" in this forum, with all what the term implies, would imply much stronger argument also.

[steven]

First of all, if this is true, as you say "It was blocked because one delegate read the proposal and warned the parlement".
This sounds to me a like pretty democratic reaction.

I agree

My reaction was merely to point that any centralised type of government seems historically to have the tendency to become too... powerful. And without constant watch be people like this politician there is a real risk of tyranny. Nearly all countries and all political movements have showed those behaviors - from left to right.

I come from Switzerland - not a powerful state- which has a very diluted repartition of power across state, cantons, communes and individual people. For example there is not one Prime Minister but seven.
So no group was able until now to take the control of the country.
Of course this means very slow decisions making but allowed stability.
The lose of sovereignty by the people was the main reason Switzerland didn't join the EU.

Secondly, regarding History, any major country, willing to domine the world; has a powerful police,

I agree. This is why talking about politics is always difficult because you must first now the underlying goal of those discussing.
If I was for a world domination of the EU I would push for a secret police

Now concerning your links, those proposals of telecommunication surveillance have been rejected;

Yes - again it was only to point to the ease that the EU could go wrong.
IIRC there are 10'000 laws voted each year by the EU parliament... From the own admissions of the delegates they don't have time to read all the proposals... they relay on the public to warn them about proposal containing flaws. This was on a TF1 emission (a French TV channel) 5 or 6 year ago.

Europe a lot closer to democracy, with its counter powers, than totalitarianism.

I agree that the EU is not a totalitarian state.

Mentioning something like "the Union of Soviet States of Europe" in this forum, with all what the term implies, would imply much stronger argument also.

What I meant by it is that the EU has too much political power and decisions that is concentrated in Brussels.

My hope was for a Federal Europe where as less as possible power is given to Brussels. With most of the power remaining to the states.

You should read Rise and Fall of the Great Powers from Paul Kennedy. It describes very clearly why a fragmented Europe was a gift and the danger of centralisation the actual EU could lead to. If you need to read only one historical book I can't recommend you more this book.
With the rise of China, India, the centralisation of the EU this book is even more relevant.

[syd]

IIRC there are 10'000 laws voted each year by the EU parliament...

That makes 27 laws a day, including saturday and sunday, one law would be voted every 20 minutes for a day of 8 hours. It's simply not possible. you won't ever find a country voting a tenth of that amount.

they relay on the public to warn them about proposal containing flaws. This was on a TF1 emission (a French TV channel) 5 or 6 year ago.

the lesson is never watch TF1! you'd get a free brain wash.
also they have a big responsibility in the election of our brilliant president... which I allow you to say that he is a totalitarian

To come back to the original topic, the european Constitution is simply not a constitution. In a constitution, you'll find definitions of the institutions, with their respective roles, the organization, the core of a democratic nation.
In that constitution there are economic rules, on agriculture also, so many rules that are so specific, that this doesn't makes a constitution. A constitution should stand for centuries, not a few decades. It should be there even when the era of capitalism ends (which may be sooner than we think, IMHO) Nobody is even able to read it, with its elitist vocabulary.
France and Netherland said "no" in 2005; it seems today they took the same texts, changed the title, and prefer not even ask the people.
You might be right steven, about the Union of Soviet States of Europe

[steven]

IIRC there are 10'000 laws voted each year by the EU parliament...

That makes 27 laws a day, including saturday and sunday, one law would be voted every 20 minutes for a day of 8 hours. It's simply not possible. you won't ever find a country voting a tenth of that amount.

My wife worked at the Swiss Supreme Court and I at a Swiss Office which dealt with Social Security and I can assure you administrations are very prolific My work consisted in establishing a system expert to verify that the instruction of dossier where respecting the laws.

You don't vote for each law this is not how it works.

For example my wife tells me there is 5000 to 6000 "arrêts du Tribunal Fédéral" (decisions by the Supreme Court) per year. Not all lead to law revisions and she doesn't now know which percentage. But still... those law revisions are not voted (except -in Switzerland- if the people do a referendum).

Most EU Acts are not voted and when you vote on laws they are usually done in "packs". But entering in the mechanisms of Parliament, Council, Court, COREPER and other commissions is a life-time subject. After 5 years in it I had only a grasp of it... and I run away before it was too late.

About the 10'000 per annum it depends on the definition of laws. I agree that I use it in a broad term:

Code: Select all

laws = laws + directives + regulations + amendments + addendum + procedures + revisions

I don't count in it the international treaties, protocols, technical decisions, accords, ...

Btw revisions have the nasty habit of being valid at the same time as the original text but at different time frame. For example Rev 1 for people born between 1956 and 57, rev 2 for all the others except those born the 12 jun 1956 in which case the addendum 32c will apply. "WHERE is this &/&*(!! addendum 32c ?". But the rev 3 says that the 32c must be modified by 15% if the salary is more than the revenue of a person born in 1944. The medium salary based on the profession can be found in the table... etc. etc.
So a revision can more than double the interpretations of the original text. Which often lead to the Supreme Court being obliged to fix the inconsistence between the texts... hence a new Arrêt.

As I want to program and not searching the web I just found this reference. Some excerpts: "2,663 new (UK) laws were added every year under Blair", "There were over 2,100 European Regulations in 2006 ... All became law here without our legislators having to lift a finger." Those are only laws in the strict term

A "funny" article I stumbled on The Rule of Law in the EU: What the Numbers Say:
"Since the inception of the ECSC, there have been close to 14,000 infringement cases brought before the Court. During the past decade or so the Court had to deliver about 300 judgments per year, dealing with infringements and interpretation of Member State obligations."

"Does it pay to break EC law? ... The formula for daily penalties is as follows: Daily penalty = € 600/day [basic amount] x seriousness of infringement [measured on a scale from 1 to 20] x duration of infringement [measured on a scale from 1 to 3] x n factor [that reflects ability to pay and varies between 0.36 for Malta and 25.40 for Germany]."

the lesson is never watch TF1! you'd get a free brain wash.

It was interviews of delegates so I hope they didn't lie.