How do you stop a new EU treaty?

[TheStinger]

Answer

Give the UK people a vote on it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3195016.stm

This could be interesting.

ONTOH it may just be a ploy so the UK doesn't have to concede to much. If the govt get what they want- no referndum if they don't the whole thing will be put to the vote, which will be lost and the whole treaty will be scuppered

[Az]

Why would you like to stop a new EU treaty?

[laurentius]

Get 10 000000 people to sign a petition, curse and later assassinate all pro new constitution campainers and politicians, nuke France and Belgium, throw salt to the ruins of EU parliament, convert to islam, burn yourself, contact aliens to destroy the earth....

Nah just kidding theres no way anyone can stop it

have a nice day

[TheStinger]

Well I didn't say I did.

[Az]

Go EU.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by laurentius
Get 10 000000 people to sign a petition, curse and later assassinate all pro new constitution campainers and politicians, nuke France and Belgium, throw salt to the ruins of EU parliament, convert to islam, burn yourself, contact aliens to destroy the earth....

Nah just kidding theres no way anyone can stop it

have a nice day

It would stop it, because these things have to be unanimously agreed. If it is not agreed by every member no treaty.

[Spiffor]

New EU treaties have the bad habit not to be 'stopped', because the politician-in-chief of each state is the one who decides. If the politician-in-chief is against (or his population is against), he'll get some concessions on other matters as a price of his agreement.

When the people is considered too hostile, the politician-in-chief may either stall the agreement (like what the UK is doing with the Euro - but you too will put your queen's face on Euro coins eventually), or it may simply disregard the public opinion: just see how many referendums there were for the Amsterdam treaty

[DanS]

Why not put it up to a vote no matter what happens? Is there something wrong with people voting or something?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Why not put it up to a vote no matter what happens? Is there something wrong with people voting or something?

In the EU, yes.

There is a joke running: "if the EU applied to be a member of the EU, it would be rejected because of its lacking democracy"

[VetLegion]

There is a joke running: "if the EU applied to be a member of the EU, it would be rejected because of its lacking democracy"

Ha! I knew it!

Anyway, what is the solution? Strengthening the Eropean Parliament?

[Az]

Yay EU
Boo Democracy

[The Andy-Man]

Tell the americans that there are weapons of mass destruction in spain. When they conquered spain, tell em they moved em into france....

[el freako]

But there are already WMD's in France, specifically nuclear weapons

[VetLegion]

But the WMD's never were the reason for action anyway.

I suggest mining the north sea, that's where the battleground is going to be

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by el freako
But there are already WMD's in France, specifically nuclear weapons

though true, it dosn't matter much. Bush is a silly person, the WMD line shoudl work to make him get rid of eurpe.

[Drogue]

I agree with Azazel. Most people look at the debates on the Euro and the new constitution and would vote against purely because they think the EU is trying to stop them from being 'British', not thinking about the issues, such as the effect the Euro will have on business, on jobs and on the UK economy, and the fact that this constitution will change so little to the common person. Letting the public have a referendum on things like an EU defence force, or voting measures in the EU parliament, things that 95% of the population have no idea what the effects will be and cannot make an informed decision, seems like a bad idea to me.

There are reasons for and against both the Constitution and the Euro. When more than 5% of the population can understand them, then maybe a referendum will be a good idea. Until then, leave it up to the people we elected to understand them.

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by Drogue
I agree with Azazel. Most people look at the debates on the Euro and the new constitution and would vote against purely because they think the EU is trying to stop them from being 'British', not thinking about the issues, such as the effect the Euro will have on business, on jobs and on the UK economy, and the fact that this constitution will change so little to the common person. Letting the public have a referendum on things like an EU defence force, or voting measures in the EU parliament, things that 95% of the population have no idea what the effects will be and cannot make an informed decision, seems like a bad idea to me.

There are reasons for and against both the Constitution and the Euro. When more than 5% of the population can understand them, then maybe a referendum will be a good idea. Until then, leave it up to the people we elected to understand them.

even if they are making the wrong decision

[Az]

There are reasons for and against both the Constitution and the Euro. When more than 5% of the population can understand them, then maybe a referendum will be a good idea. Until then, leave it up to the people we elected to understand them.

Yep, sadly.

I think you should start by actually making the European Parliament more important than national Parliaments. It saddens me to see Britain being the biggest hurdle on the way to a european superstate.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Anyway, what is the solution? Strengthening the Eropean Parliament?

The only way to strengthen democracy in the EU is to reduce as much as possible the weight of individual states, to have the general EU representing body having actual power.

As it stands, the EU is managed by a directorate of 15 (soon 25) countries. For every major issue such as the EU expansion, each country must agree, i.e everybody has a veto power. Only once we get rid of the power of individual states (such as the vote of one Luxemburger has the same weight as the vote of a German), we can have a serious democracy.
The EU constitution goes in that direction: so far, all fundamental texts are treaties between member states, i.e each State has the authority to agree on entering the treaty or not. With a one constitution in the EU, it makes it possible, that changes in the constitution become a thing of the EU.

It reads: it makes it possible in the future for the EU to move on, even if the majority inside one country is against it (if the majority of the whole EU population is in favor).

Only once the power in the EU stops to be in the hands of individual states, the descisions won't be taken by haggling between states anymore, but hopefully by an elected representative body, or by direct, europe-wide referendums

[Az]

The only way to strengthen democracy in the EU is to reduce as much as possible the weight of individual states, to have the general EU representing body having actual power.

[Odin]

Nationalism sickens me.

[Giovanni Wine]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The only way to strengthen democracy in the EU is to reduce as much as possible the weight of individual states, to have the general EU representing body having actual power.

As it stands, the EU is managed by a directorate of 15 (soon 25) countries. For every major issue such as the EU expansion, each country must agree, i.e everybody has a veto power. Only once we get rid of the power of individual states (such as the vote of one Luxemburger has the same weight as the vote of a German), we can have a serious democracy.
The EU constitution goes in that direction: so far, all fundamental texts are treaties between member states, i.e each State has the authority to agree on entering the treaty or not. With a one constitution in the EU, it makes it possible, that changes in the constitution become a thing of the EU.

It reads: it makes it possible in the future for the EU to move on, even if the majority inside one country is against it (if the majority of the whole EU population is in favor).

Only once the power in the EU stops to be in the hands of individual states, the descisions won't be taken by haggling between states anymore, but hopefully by an elected representative body, or by direct, europe-wide referendums

I think Spiffor said it all

Plus with a working EU body we would finally get rid of the stupid Italian politics and politicians (well unless the EU will keep electing Italian politicians as EU leader )

Saluti

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drogue
I agree with Azazel. Most people look at the debates on the Euro and the new constitution and would vote against purely because they think the EU is trying to stop them from being 'British', not thinking about the issues, such as the effect the Euro will have on business, on jobs and on the UK economy, and the fact that this constitution will change so little to the common person. Letting the public have a referendum on things like an EU defence force, or voting measures in the EU parliament, things that 95% of the population have no idea what the effects will be and cannot make an informed decision, seems like a bad idea to me.

There are reasons for and against both the Constitution and the Euro. When more than 5% of the population can understand them, then maybe a referendum will be a good idea. Until then, leave it up to the people we elected to understand them.

it would seem that if youre making anything like a permanent concession of sovereignty, it would make sense to put it to a referendum. If you dont trust the people to vote on it, dont do it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Giovanni Wine


I think Spiffor said it all

Plus with a working EU body we would finally get rid of the stupid Italian politics and politicians (well unless the EU will keep electing Italian politicians as EU leader )

Saluti

Presumably the majority if Italians who elect those politicians disagree.

[Az]

it would seem that if youre making anything like a permanent concession of sovereignty, it would make sense to put it to a referendum. If you dont trust the people to vote on it, dont do it.

When the founding fathers formed the Federation which is called the USofA, did they make a referendum?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

There are reasons for and against both the Constitution and the Euro. When more than 5% of the population can understand them, then maybe a referendum will be a good idea. Until then, leave it up to the people we elected to understand them.

Yep, sadly.

I think you should start by actually making the European Parliament more important than national Parliaments. It saddens me to see Britain being the biggest hurdle on the way to a european superstate.

why? maybe they like being an independent state. National sovereignty hasnt been quite the disaster for Britain that it has been for most of the continental states.

[Pekka]

Spit on it like you mean it. Spit on it, so that every human being from this planet knows you despice it.
Spit on it, and then stomp it. Stomp it like you wanted to get to the other side of the world, through Earth.
Stomp on it, stomp it with fury. But with elegant fury, not in rage like 6 year old kids. Show your anger, get angry.

Make fun of every person who disagrees with you. Give them subtle hints you'll kick their butts if they start making fun of you. Keep making fun of them. Make everyone next to you laugh nervously. Give subtle hint, that if they don't laugh with you, they'll all be going to hospital.

THAT'S how you deal with problems in life IN general.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

it would seem that if youre making anything like a permanent concession of sovereignty, it would make sense to put it to a referendum. If you dont trust the people to vote on it, dont do it.

When the founding fathers formed the Federation which is called the USofA, did they make a referendum?

I'll speak to the adoption of the Constitution, the most analogous moment.

They allowed each state to determine the means of ratification. Most (all) chose ratification conventions, elected for the sole purpose of voting on ratification. Effectively the elections for these conventions were ratification referendums. The Federalist Papers, considered some of the most important political documents in US history, were written to influence the public debate on ratification.

NOw Im not saying the ratification conventions were fully democratic - most states had property qualifications for voting, only white males (and in many states christians) could vote. But then that was also true of the state legislatures. America wasnt quite democratic in 1789. Presumably in 2003 expectations are somewhat different?

[Spiffor]

We should create two things: we should have, on the one hand, the "EEC", with all the nationalistic countries belonging to it (Britain, Denmark, and maybe even Norway or Switzerland).
And on the other hand, we should have somthing called the "real EU", where countries actually mature enough to transfer part of their sovereignity accept that the rules are defined by a superstatish body, rather than by unelected hagglers. The members of the "real EU" could have their own voice within the EEC, or they could speak as one voice. Needless to say, the nationalistic countries would quickly be vassalized if such was done.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

it would seem that if youre making anything like a permanent concession of sovereignty, it would make sense to put it to a referendum. If you dont trust the people to vote on it, dont do it.

When the founding fathers formed the Federation which is called the USofA, did they make a referendum?

also I would point out that at the time of the adoption of the constitution (1789) the states had only been independent of Great Britain for 13 years (since 1776) giving up such a shortlived sovereignty was presumably a lighter matter than giving up a sovereinty going back at least to 1066 (depending on your point of view) in the case of Britain. (valuing sovereignty more lightly makes more sense for states like Italy and Germany - late to be formed, and with largely negative consequences for their respective peoples)