A little help I need on a treaty.

[Howlin0001]

 

This time the public will be told what the treaty is, how it will affect us etc. For the sake of us, I hope it's no again.

 

 

 

So your one of the few(well very few) who read/knows the treaty and understands it 100% and your still saying No?

 

 

 

Yes, very much so. I'm siding with Sinn Féin on this one.

 

 

 

Ok fair enough(we can't confirm or denie that part).

 

Since you read/know the treaty can you list out

 

ALL the GOOD and then ALL the BAD stuff in the treaty.

[Satenza]

 

See, here's a difficult situation. What is Democracy here? What if, in total, the majority of Europeans actually agree with the new Treaty, but a majority in some countries such as Ireland and the UK (which make up a minority of the EU overall) refuse to accept it? Surely, it should be the majority of Europeans overall that decide whether or not the new European Treaty is worth putting into place, not a majority of those living in a few conservative countries.

 

 

 

The fact is this - only those who vehemently oppose this Treaty care about this whole referendum thing. The rest of us are perfectly happy letting the people we've voted to represent us make that decision on our behalf.

 

 

 

I don't want a refurendum for many reasons. What you're suggesting in a tyranny of the majority. Its important for all member states to agree because otherwise the EU would not work, its not a country after all. My post did not reflect my views on the treaty it reflected exactly what the EU will do to continue to attempt to ratify this treaty.

[l0l0lpur32]

Oh and the "there shouldn't be a referendum because people won't understand it" stuff is elitist rubbish

 

Just to clarify on this, all dictatorships where founded on the idea of that a few elites know better which is why the "people won't understand, so noone should have a say" stuff is very dangerous attitude.

 

 

 

The reason I think there should be referendums is because of the major changes to the constitutional framework, and loss of sovereignity. Politicians are elected to operate within the constitutional framework - I'm sure people would agree that it'd be unjust for elections to be abolished via a parliamentary vote - although an extreme example, it's the same concept (major change in constitutional framework, and also moves power away from the electorate). Because of EU law having supremacy over national law, national elections are redundant in areas in which the EU can legislate where nation states no longer have the veto, removing the ability for the electorate to hold the legislative body to account, because no matter who they vote for in the national election, the EU law is supreme. (Of course there is always the option of voting in a party which will withdraw from the EU, but that shouldn't be the only option) I'd go as far as saying, with each loss of veto, the EU comes closer to being a single European state.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Oh and the "there shouldn't be a referendum because people won't understand it" stuff is elitist rubbish

The reason I think there should be referendums is because of the major changes to the constitutional framework, and loss of sovereignity.

 

That argument would have some validity if the Lisbon Treaty actually meant any loss of sovereignty. We've been over this countless times - it doesn't.

 

 

 

Just to clarify on this, all dictatorships where founded on the idea of that a few elites know better which is why the "people won't understand, so noone should have a say" stuff is very dangerous attitude.

 

You make it sound like there's only two points on this dichotomy - total democracy or total autocracy. If what you're saying is people should have a referendum because anything less would be nearing dictatorship, then what's the point in representation at all? Instead of just constitutional affairs, why not put everything to a referendum?

 

 

 

There have been several examples in the past where a few elites have known better than the public. The decision not to immediately retaliate to German bombing after the Blitz during WWII would be one such example. Had the opinion of the elites not overruled public opinion there, we may not have had the liberty to hold this discussion. In many cases, the public doesn't know best.

 

 

 

I'd go as far as saying, with each loss of veto, the EU comes closer to being a single European state.

 

Such a claim is the result of scaremongering by sensationalist Eurosceptics. There is nothing in this Treaty about vetoes, and anyone studying Europe from any point of view would see that total unification of Europe is impossible given the huge differences each country has with each other.

 

 

 

The EU is a way for the whole of Europe to unite and have an influence in the world. Otherwise, we'd be 28 tiny, insignificant countries incapable of questioning the US or China. For example, look at Zimbabwe. The opposition has taken refuge in the Dutch embassy. If Mugabe even attempts to raid the embassy, the whole of the EU instantly has a right to march in with troops, not just the Dutch. That is why the EU is needed.

[l0l0lpur32]

You make it sound like there's only two points on this dichotomy - total democracy or total autocracy. If what you're saying is people should have a referendum because anything less would be nearing dictatorship, then what's the point in representation at all? Instead of just constitutional affairs, why not put everything to a referendum?

 

I think major changes which change the constitutional framework should be put to a referendum, everything else done by representatives.

 

 

 

There have been several examples in the past where a few elites have known better than the public. The decision not to immediately retaliate to German bombing after the Blitz during WWII would be one such example. Had the opinion of the elites not overruled public opinion there, we may not have had the liberty to hold this discussion. In many cases, the public doesn't know best.

 

 

Stupid example, I don't know why I'm even quoting this part of the post.

 

 

 

Such a claim is the result of scaremongering by sensationalist Eurosceptics. There is nothing in this Treaty about vetoes, and anyone studying Europe from any point of view would see that total unification of Europe is impossible given the huge differences each country has with each other.

 

Oh the treaty says nothing about vetos? None of the treaties actually use the word "veto", but needing unanimity is effectively a veto. The new treaty creates 4 new competencies (all QMV) and replaces unanimity with QMV in 40 already-existing competencies (I'll go get the page and article numbers of each of these later)

 

 

 

Here is a link to the treaty: http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/Fi ... NC_002.pdf

 

 

 

The EU is a way for the whole of Europe to unite and have an influence in the world. Otherwise, we'd be 28 tiny, insignificant countries incapable of questioning the US or China. For example, look at Zimbabwe. The opposition has taken refuge in the Dutch embassy. If Mugabe even attempts to raid the embassy, the whole of the EU instantly has a right to march in with troops, not just the Dutch. That is why the EU is needed.

 

 

 

Which is why I support the existance of the EU, but don't support the direction in which it seems to be going (a militarised single European state)

[Howlin0001]

 

I'd go as far as saying, with each loss of veto, the EU comes closer to being a single European state.

 

Such a claim is the result of scaremongering by sensationalist Eurosceptics. There is nothing in this Treaty about vetoes, and anyone studying Europe from any point of view would see that total unification of Europe is impossible given the huge differences each country has with each other.

 

Well in Ireland I think we would of lost a veto or two(one in farming, not sure of anything else)

 

 

 

 

 

The EU is a way for the whole of Europe to unite and have an influence in the world. Otherwise, we'd be 28 tiny, insignificant countries incapable of questioning the US or China. For example, look at Zimbabwe. The opposition has taken refuge in the Dutch embassy. If Mugabe even attempts to raid the embassy, the whole of the EU instantly has a right to march in with troops, not just the Dutch. That is why the EU is needed.

 

 

 

That's another reason why I think the treaty didn't pass. People picked it up/the result of scaremongering that Ireland would loose it's neutrality and if Europe went to war(or something like what you stated above) we would have to join them. But that's not the case with Ireland or any of the neutral countries if it was passed.

[Ginger_Warrior]

You make it sound like there's only two points on this dichotomy - total democracy or total autocracy. If what you're saying is people should have a referendum because anything less would be nearing dictatorship, then what's the point in representation at all? Instead of just constitutional affairs, why not put everything to a referendum?

 

I think major changes which change the constitutional framework should be put to a referendum, everything else done by representatives.

 

You've completely evaded my question by repeating yourself. Where is the difference between constitutional matters and any other matters involving the state?

 

 

 

There have been several examples in the past where a few elites have known better than the public. The decision not to immediately retaliate to German bombing after the Blitz during WWII would be one such example. Had the opinion of the elites not overruled public opinion there, we may not have had the liberty to hold this discussion. In many cases, the public doesn't know best.

 

 

Stupid example, I don't know why I'm even quoting this part of the post.

 

Stupid because you can't argue against it? Strange logic.

 

 

 

I was merely providing a historical example of where public opinion has been wrong in the light of elitism. I'm not suggesting elitism is the way to go forward in all walks of life, or even that it's 'nice', but it exists (however much you might deny it) and does so for a very good reason. Do you honestly believe that if a country had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the majority of people would even be able to understand it? If you do, you're delusional, quite frankly.

 

 

 

I also find it very strange you campaign to uphold your vetoes, which traditionally have always blocked the will of smaller countries against larger countries, and then wave the 'elitism' card at anyone who opposes the concept of referendum. Highly hypocritical.

 

 

 

The EU is a way for the whole of Europe to unite and have an influence in the world. Otherwise, we'd be 28 tiny, insignificant countries incapable of questioning the US or China. For example, look at Zimbabwe. The opposition has taken refuge in the Dutch embassy. If Mugabe even attempts to raid the embassy, the whole of the EU instantly has a right to march in with troops, not just the Dutch. That is why the EU is needed.

 

 

 

Which is why I support the existance of the EU, but don't support the direction in which it seems to be going (a militarised single European state)

 

I said each country had a right to march into Zimbabwe, not an obligation.

 

 

 

If Ireland is so proud of its neutral stance, then why didn't it follow the direction that Switzerland took, and withdraw from the EU altogether? Joining the EU itself isn't neutral, therefore, any argument against the EU involving sacrifice of neutrality becomes very weak.

[l0l0lpur32]

You make it sound like there's only two points on this dichotomy - total democracy or total autocracy. If what you're saying is people should have a referendum because anything less would be nearing dictatorship, then what's the point in representation at all? Instead of just constitutional affairs, why not put everything to a referendum?

 

I think major changes which change the constitutional framework should be put to a referendum, everything else done by representatives.

 

You've completely evaded my question by repeating yourself. Where is the difference between constitutional matters and any other matters involving the state?

 

 

 

Maybe the fact that politicians are elected to work within the constitutional framework, not to alter it?

 

 

 

There have been several examples in the past where a few elites have known better than the public. The decision not to immediately retaliate to German bombing after the Blitz during WWII would be one such example. Had the opinion of the elites not overruled public opinion there, we may not have had the liberty to hold this discussion. In many cases, the public doesn't know best.

 

 

Stupid example, I don't know why I'm even quoting this part of the post.

 

Stupid because you can't argue against it? Strange logic.

 

 

 

No because that's a stupid comparison and I shouldn't have to explain why.

 

 

 

I was merely providing a historical example of where public opinion has been wrong in the light of elitism. I'm not suggesting elitism is the way to go forward in all walks of life, or even that it's 'nice', but it exists (however much you might deny it) and does so for a very good reason. Do you honestly believe that if a country had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the majority of people would even be able to understand it? If you do, you're delusional, quite frankly.

 

 

 

The "people won't understand the treaty" stuff wouldn't be an issue if it was explained properly rather than done behind the curtain. The "yes" campaign in Ireland consisted of a combination of scaremongering, slogans and things which have nothing to do with the treaty, and the "no" campaign wasn't much better - neither campaign used hard facts like that the veto dissapears in 40+ areas, effectively meaning whoever is voted for in national elections, they can't legislate in that area if the EU disagrees.

 

 

 

I also find it very strange you campaign to uphold your vetoes, which traditionally have always blocked the will of smaller countries against larger countries, and then wave the 'elitism' card at anyone who opposes the concept of referendum. Highly hypocritical.

 

 

 

I campaign to keep the vetos because each one which goes away is a step towards a centralised European state, and makes national governments become obselete in that area of legislation.

 

 

 

The EU is a way for the whole of Europe to unite and have an influence in the world. Otherwise, we'd be 28 tiny, insignificant countries incapable of questioning the US or China. For example, look at Zimbabwe. The opposition has taken refuge in the Dutch embassy. If Mugabe even attempts to raid the embassy, the whole of the EU instantly has a right to march in with troops, not just the Dutch. That is why the EU is needed.

 

 

 

Which is why I support the existance of the EU, but don't support the direction in which it seems to be going (a militarised single European state)

 

I said each country had a right to march into Zimbabwe, not an obligation.

 

 

 

If Ireland is so proud of its neutral stance, then why didn't it follow the direction that Switzerland took, and withdraw from the EU altogether? Joining the EU itself isn't neutral, therefore, any argument against the EU involving sacrifice of neutrality becomes very weak.

 

 

 

If you can't see that each EU treaty is a stepping stone towards a centralised, militarised, bureaucratic single European state run by unelected people (I don't remember ever voting for an EU comissioner), then you are deluded. As I said before, I support there being an EU - just not this one.

[Will H]

 

 

 

So your one of the few(well very few) who read/knows the treaty and understands it 100% and your still saying No?

 

 

 

Yes, very much so. I'm siding with Sinn Féin on this one.

 

 

 

Ok fair enough(we can't confirm or denie that part).

 

Since you read/know the treaty can you list out

 

ALL the GOOD and then ALL the BAD stuff in the treaty.

 

Yes, yes, please do. This thread may actually get somewhere if someone just tries to simplify the Treaty and breaks it down, because our government and the EU seems to have conveniently neglected it.

[Howlin0001]

 

 

 

Yes, very much so. I'm siding with Sinn Féin on this one.

 

 

 

Ok fair enough(we can't confirm or denie that part).

 

Since you read/know the treaty can you list out

 

ALL the GOOD and then ALL the BAD stuff in the treaty.

 

Yes, yes, please do. This thread may actually get somewhere if someone just tries to simplify the Treaty and breaks it down, because our government and the EU seems to have conveniently neglected it.

 

 

 

What I believe(I don't care if you disagree with me here) is that the EU(in whole) do want the best but it's the individual people who has there own agenda(weather for money or power or w/e) that brings everyone else down(it's the same with life really)

[Ginger_Warrior]

Maybe the fact that politicians are elected to work within the constitutional framework, not to alter it?

 

Politicians can altar the constitutional framework as they see fit. There may be certain safeguards, such as the Irish reliance on referenda, but of course a politician can change the constitutional framework. Where on Earth do you get that this case is otherwise?

 

 

 

No because that's a stupid comparison and I shouldn't have to explain why.

 

OK, it's clear you can't explain a fairly simple point. I'll drop this one here.

 

 

 

The "people won't understand the treaty" stuff wouldn't be an issue if it was explained properly rather than done behind the curtain. The "yes" campaign in Ireland consisted of a combination of scaremongering, slogans and things which have nothing to do with the treaty, and the "no" campaign wasn't much better - neither campaign used hard facts like that the veto dissapears in 40+ areas, effectively meaning whoever is voted for in national elections, they can't legislate in that area if the EU disagrees.

 

Surely, the lack of truth in either campaign shows how the public can be so easily influenced, thus showing how unable they were at understanding the Treaty for themselves in the first place!

 

 

 

If you can't see that each EU treaty is a stepping stone towards a centralised, militarised, bureaucratic single European state run by unelected people (I don't remember ever voting for an EU comissioner), then you are deluded. As I said before, I support there being an EU - just not this one.

 

There is little, if not no evidence, of any shift in power moving to Brussels with this Treaty. Its main priority is to set in stone common values between all members of the EU, and to reduce the amount of 'red tape' in the EU's decision processes (far from your claim of it making the EU more bureaucratic).

 

 

 

Is it not the case that we still have the right to set our own laws, we still have the right to govern ourselves, we still have the right to elect our own representatives, and we still have full control of our own Armed Forces?

 

 

 

Where is the evidence of the EU turning into the centralised, militarised bureaucratic machine that you are so adamant is coming without rejection of this Treaty?

[l0l0lpur32]

 

The "people won't understand the treaty" stuff wouldn't be an issue if it was explained properly rather than done behind the curtain. The "yes" campaign in Ireland consisted of a combination of scaremongering, slogans and things which have nothing to do with the treaty, and the "no" campaign wasn't much better - neither campaign used hard facts like that the veto dissapears in 40+ areas, effectively meaning whoever is voted for in national elections, they can't legislate in that area if the EU disagrees.

 

Surely, the lack of truth in either campaign shows how the public can be so easily influenced, thus showing how unable they were at understanding the Treaty for themselves in the first place!

 

The lack of truth in the "yes" campaign was deliberate - the plan was that people would just vote with politicians they vote for in general elections, and it ended up failing - no clue what the "no" campaign was trying to do though.

 

 

 

If you can't see that each EU treaty is a stepping stone towards a centralised, militarised, bureaucratic single European state run by unelected people (I don't remember ever voting for an EU comissioner), then you are deluded. As I said before, I support there being an EU - just not this one.

 

There is little, if not no evidence, of any shift in power moving to Brussels with this Treaty. Its main priority is to set in stone common values between all members of the EU, and to reduce the amount of 'red tape' in the EU's decision processes (far from your claim of it making the EU more bureaucratic).

 

Want evidence there is a power shift? the fact that the veto goes away in 40+ areas - so therefore making national governments unable to legislate in them areas.

 

 

 

Is it not the case that we still have the right to set our own laws, we still have the right to govern ourselves, we still have the right to elect our own representatives, and we still have full control of our own Armed Forces?

 

We DON'T have the right to set our own laws in areas the EU controls them.

 

 

 

Where is the evidence of the EU turning into the centralised, militarised bureaucratic machine that you are so adamant is coming without rejection of this Treaty?

 

The fact that a few articles of the treaties are essentially a path towards a common EU army? (look at page 27 of the Lisbon treaty for a start)

 

The fact that a lot of people with power in the EU are unelected? I don't remember ever voting for an EU comissioner.

 

Not to mention the 100,000+ EU regulations, which a sizeable amount of would probably be better off repealed - not only to save the money spent enforcing them, but to reduce the economic damage caused by overregulation.

[meol]

May I cite Wikipedia to make a point?

 

European Commissioners[/url]":2g9fvugz]In simple terms they are the equivalent of national ministers.

 

The Commissioners are appointed by the member-states together with the President, who decides upon their portfolio. The Commission in its entirety then seeks the approval of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers (by qualified majority).

 

 

 

It should be noted however that although Commissioners are allocated between member-states they do not represent their states; instead they are to act in European interests. "

 

European Commission[/url]":2g9fvugz]The European Commission (formally the Commission of the European Communities) is the executive branch of the European Union.

 

I am under the impression that in many parliamentary systems (like in Germany or the United Kingdom), the people can't directly elect the head or the members of the executive branch (i.e. your Prime Minister and the other Ministers). Why should you be able to elect one for the whole of Europe, then? However, you still can directly choose the Members of the European Parliament, so I would say you still have your democracy.

 

 

 

Also, could you please cite the Lisbon Treaty on building a common European Army or anything similar?

[l0l0lpur32]

May I cite Wikipedia to make a point?

 

European Commissioners[/url]":3a30gb88]In simple terms they are the equivalent of national ministers.

 

The Commissioners are appointed by the member-states together with the President, who decides upon their portfolio. The Commission in its entirety then seeks the approval of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers (by qualified majority).

 

 

 

It should be noted however that although Commissioners are allocated between member-states they do not represent their states; instead they are to act in European interests. "

 

European Commission[/url]":3a30gb88]The European Commission (formally the Commission of the European Communities) is the executive branch of the European Union.

 

I am under the impression that in many parliamentary systems (like in Germany or the United Kingdom), the people can't directly elect the head or the members of the executive branch (i.e. your Prime Minister and the other Ministers). Why should you be able to elect one for the whole of Europe, then? However, you still can directly choose the Members of the European Parliament, so I would say you still have your democracy.

 

 

 

Also, could you please cite the Lisbon Treaty on building a common European Army or anything similar?

 

Although the European parliament increases in power in each treaty, the comission still has more power than the parliament.

 

 

 

From the end of page 36 (which is titled "common security and defence policy")

 

3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union

 

for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the

 

objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish

 

multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence

 

policy.

 

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The

 

Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and

 

armaments (hereinafter referred to as the European Defence Agency) shall identify

 

operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall

 

contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to

 

strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in

 

defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in

 

evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

 

 

There is more... also if a common EU army ends up being made, it will probably end up being used to police the world.

[Howlin0001]

Every person who was able to vote got a booklet called The Lisbon Treaty which was ment to help with deciding about the treaty. I know there was something about the defence forces that would be there if the Lisbon treaty was passed but I can't find the book of it atm(If I do I will edit this page).

[Ginger_Warrior]

Every person who was able to vote got a booklet called The Lisbon Treaty which was ment to help with deciding about the treaty. I know there was something about the defence forces that would be there if the Lisbon treaty was passed but I can't find the book of it atm(If I do I will edit this page).

 

Instead of thinking the EU as some sort of massive organisation, think of it as a series of inter-related alliances between multiple countries, which is essentially how it started life out as.

 

 

 

A common defence force is a sensible part of any alliance, made so that in the event of a war, the countries within the alliance can react immediately to the foreign presence. It doesn't mean the armies are going to join up as one and attack with the same unanimous objectives though, as proven by the fact there is no mention of a common army in the part of the Treaty l0l0lpur32 specified.

 

 

 

If we're opposing the EU because of this, then let's also withdraw from NATO and the UN.

[l0l0lpur32]

Every person who was able to vote got a booklet called The Lisbon Treaty which was ment to help with deciding about the treaty. I know there was something about the defence forces that would be there if the Lisbon treaty was passed but I can't find the book of it atm(If I do I will edit this page).

 

Instead of thinking the EU as some sort of massive organisation, think of it as a series of inter-related alliances between multiple countries, which is essentially how it started life out as.

 

 

 

A common defence force is a sensible part of any alliance, made so that in the event of a war, the countries within the alliance can react immediately to the foreign presence. It doesn't mean the armies are going to join up as one and attack with the same unanimous objectives though, as proven by the fact there is no mention of a common army in the part of the Treaty l0l0lpur32 specified.

 

 

 

If we're opposing the EU because of this, then let's also withdraw from NATO and the UN.

 

How is "3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union" not effectively making a common army?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Every person who was able to vote got a booklet called The Lisbon Treaty which was ment to help with deciding about the treaty. I know there was something about the defence forces that would be there if the Lisbon treaty was passed but I can't find the book of it atm(If I do I will edit this page).

 

Instead of thinking the EU as some sort of massive organisation, think of it as a series of inter-related alliances between multiple countries, which is essentially how it started life out as.

 

 

 

A common defence force is a sensible part of any alliance, made so that in the event of a war, the countries within the alliance can react immediately to the foreign presence. It doesn't mean the armies are going to join up as one and attack with the same unanimous objectives though, as proven by the fact there is no mention of a common army in the part of the Treaty l0l0lpur32 specified.

 

 

 

If we're opposing the EU because of this, then let's also withdraw from NATO and the UN.

 

How is "3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union" not effectively making a common army?

 

Because that line in itself doesn't explain what for. Would you care to point out where this bit of the Treaty is so I can actually read up on the context it's placed in?

[tameelf]

Ginger_Warrior wrote:

 

Instead of thinking the EU as some sort of massive organisation, think of it as a series of inter-related alliances between multiple countries, which is essentially how it started life out as.

 

 

 

exactly how america started out 51 states amalamated under one leader who in turn is controled by (well if ya dont know by now your still assleep)

 

that in my opinion symplyfies this treaty .

[RichieMcD]

Ginger_Warrior wrote:

 

Instead of thinking the EU as some sort of massive organisation, think of it as a series of inter-related alliances between multiple countries, which is essentially how it started life out as.

 

 

 

exactly how america started out 51 states amalamated under one leader who in turn is controled by (well if ya dont know by now your still assleep)

 

that in my opinion symplyfies this treaty .

 

 

 

Uhmm last time I checked America originally formed from the 13 colonies who rebelled from Britain? :-w The 51 states came to be over time through conquering and purchasing land areas.

 

 

 

Making the member states of the EU form a joined army is quite unfair, Ireland is a neutral country, the most we do is peace-keeping missions. Ireland having any involvement in an army would have fierce opposition from the public, Shannon airport was nearly brought to a halt when American army planes landed there on their way to Iraq due to protests from the public.

[Howlin0001]

Making the member states of the EU form a joined army is quite unfair, Ireland is a neutral country, the most we do is peace-keeping missions. Ireland having any involvement in an army would have fierce opposition from the public, Shannon airport was nearly brought to a halt when American army planes landed there on their way to Iraq due to protests from the public.

 

 

 

That is where most people are wrong. Ireland's neutrality WILL NOT BE AFFECTED by the treaty. That was just some rumour that was started.

[l0l0lpur32]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nored.html

 

 

 

More proof the EU is heading towards being a highly dangerous dictatorship which only pays lip service to democracy?

 

 

 

 

How is "3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union" not effectively making a common army?

 

Because that line in itself doesn't explain what for. Would you care to point out where this bit of the Treaty is so I can actually read up on the context it's placed in?

 

 

 

was somewhere on page 36, in the section about a common security and defence policy.

[l0l0lpur32]

Nothing to do with the treaty, but stuff like this is another reason I'm not a fan of the current EU:

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... small.html

 

 

 

Hopefully the rules are changed soon to stop perfectly good food being wasted - especially during a time when food prices are soaring. Also maybe save some money due to not having to hire as many quangos.

[chris20085]

In reply to the "it doesn't affect sovereignity" argument which has being used on this topic, under international law the only way to get out of an international treaty is with another one. In other words, at this current time, even if a member state wanted to leave the EU, unless the EU let them leave, they would be trapped inside, just like Hungary was trapped inside the Warsaw Pact in 1956. - so yeah, combine that with the fact that EU law is supreme to national law and it does affect sovereignity. The Lisbon treaty includes a withdrawal mechanism though - article 50, under my interpetation, means that unless the member state and the European council agree together to extend the period, if a request to leave is sent in then it's possible to withdraw 2 years later.

 

 

 

Anyway there will probably be more votes till the answer is "yes", just like with the treaty of Nice. The referendum is pointless anyway because of the disinformation from both sides of the campaign meaning people don't know what they are voting for, although a lot of the politicians probably don't know either.

[chris20085]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2200026/EU-Constitution-author-says-referendums-can-be-ignored.html

 

 

 

More proof the EU is heading towards being a highly dangerous dictatorship which only pays lip service to democracy?

 

 

I am also disgusted by this, but the real threat to democracy isn't the EU, it's globalisation.