How do you stop a new EU treaty?

[Az]

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).

Oh, and regarding Israel and the EU: we've been given the same trading status as Switzerland, and Norway. arty:

I wish we could join the EU, some day, when it will become a superstate.

[Pekka]

What about us? We don't get into EEC?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

, rather than by unelected hagglers.

how are the govts of Denmark, UK etc not elected?

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.

Wont you get alot of bad boy points if you vassalize them ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka
What about us? We don't get into EEC?

dont fell bad Pekka, you can always join Nafta - we'd love to have y'all.

[Pekka]

that's good too. I just want us to join something...

[Drogue]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
even if they are making the wrong decision

What I am saying is that the politicians, the people who's job it is to know the effects of the Euro and the new constitution, are more likely to know what is the best decision than a public referendum when 95% of the population have no idea of the issues and will vote based on a simple "I like Europe" or "I want to remain as Britain", when really that's not the issue at hand. Quite simply, I would trust a bunch of well educated people, whoes jobs it is to know and understand these thing and who have been elected by the people, more than I trust a general poll of the people.

to referendum.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka
that's good too. I just want us to join something...

laska, canada, Finland.. we just cant get enough of those endless pine forests.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
how are the govts of Denmark, UK etc not elected?

Well, here's a short description of how the EU works. There are 3 main insititutions for decision making

- The Commission. It could be called the EU government, but it is not exactly that. It's job is too check that EU agreements are respected (that's why it is the commission which criticizes France for its deficit), and its job is to write new drafts of EU laws.

- The council of ministers. It represents the interests of the State. It modifies the law drafts through negociation -which I call haggling- and it decides (at the simple majority, qualified majority or unanimity). The members of this council are civil servants from the national governments, who are specialized in the discussed issue. Very rarely are actual politicians seating there. And very rarely said politicians, who are ministers, have been elected to the job: in elections, you chooses the party of a cabinet, not its individual members.
As a result, the decisions at the council of ministers are not related to elections, but are done by people who have no relationship with elections at all (civil servants). Said decisions are taken only with the country's interest in mind. Hence haggling between unelected people

- The European Parliament can give its opinion about laws during the whole elaboration process. In some cases, the Parliament's disagreement can even force the Council of Minister to bring changes to the law ! What a fantastic democracy !

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


laska, canada, Finland.. we just cant get enough of those endless pine forests.

An Organization of Pines Exporting Countries could corner the pines market.

[Pekka]

Yeah we have so much tree.. there's nothing BUT trees and lakes here, literally. I guess we're like miniature Canada in that sense. Also we both have a horrible winter

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

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).

Oh, and regarding Israel and the EU: we've been given the same trading status as Switzerland, and Norway. arty:

I wish we could join the EU, some day, when it will become a superstate.

what kind of status? Mind you that Norway and Switzerland don't have the same status, Norway has signed the EEA agreement and Schengen, while Switzerland AFAIK relies on a set of bilateral agreements.

btw didn't Berlusconi say he wanted Israel to join? I don't remember when but it wasn't too long ago

[Odin]

Originally posted by DAVOUT

An Organization of Pines Exporting Countries could corner the pines market.

[nitpick mode]
Spruce Forest would be more acurate. Most pines live in slightly warmer climates, such as the border between Coniferous and brodleaf forests and in the Appalachians.
[/nitpick mode]

[Az]

what kind of status? Mind you that Norway and Switzerland don't have the same status, Norway has signed the EEA agreement and Schengen, while Switzerland AFAIK relies on a set of bilateral agreements.

btw didn't Berlusconi say he wanted Israel to join? I don't remember when but it wasn't too long ago

Yeah, Berlusconi wants us to join. I want us to join, too.

On the issue of the economic agreements, it's not finalized yet, AFAIK.

[Spiffor]

Az:
But how will we have pro-Palestinian policies if you join ?
I guess we'll have to ostracize you, like if the Israelis were all having the mad cow disease

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Odin


[nitpick mode]
Spruce Forest would be more acurate. Most pines live in slightly warmer climates, such as the border between Coniferous and brodleaf forests and in the Appalachians.
[/nitpick mode]

You are certainly right, but that would ruin the OPEC joke. Would you accept piniferous ?

[Az]

I think that both the EU and the Israeli government will come around to reach a great common ground on the palestinian issue.

I think most Israelis would love to join the EU, had the EU invited us. Israelis aren't really nationalistic, they just want to live with people they can talk the same body language with, like the Italians.

[laurentius]

Hey man we would love for you to join....the problem is just your co-belligrentship with the Evil Americaines and the bad image you get from the issue with Pals...
Theyre your pals and they are our pals too, we must take care of each other just like real pals do

[laurentius]

Peace,Love,Unity and Respect

[Az]

Originally posted by laurentius
Hey man we would love for you to join....the problem is just your co-belligrentship with the Evil Americaines and the bad image you get from the issue with Pals...
Theyre your pals and they are our pals too, we must take care of each other just like real pals do

[laurentius]

It's true, isnt it

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

Why is it mature to transfer sovereignty to a superstate? Is wanting to decide your own laws really that immature an idea? We elect our leaders who decide our laws. To then be told that our laws have been superceeded by EU laws set in Brussels could well irk some people, especially given the quality of EU laws that have been inacted in the UK so far.

I'm for European integration, in as far as travel, trade, defence and other things. I'm even pro-Euro. However I do not want to live in a superstate. I do not want a standardized tax rate. Even though I'm pro-Euro, I can see there are problems with having one interest rate for Europe, that may not suit some nations. Some things are better devolved, and decided at a lower level.

Your idea may give us what we want too though. Free and easy trade and travel, but without having to conform to EU policies that may not work well in our respective nations.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

If it was a permanent concession of sovereignty then I would agree. I think we should vote on joining a European superstate, if that ever happens. However I don't think we should vote on this, since it is not at all a clear cut issue, and is far too complex for most voters to understand. We elect politicians precisely for the purpose of deciding on things on our behalf. I think we should elect them and then let them do their job. If they don't do well, then elect someone else.

But then I never was a fan of democracy. I think the quality of the decisions made should be more important than how they are made. Judge a government on it's actions not on the method of appointment.

[Az]

nah, the palestinians ( as a whole ) aren't "our" pals, and they aren't my pals.

I realize that you guys have to cuddle them, because you've got plenty of similarly-minded individuals living with you, and you've got to spite the americans, but why does that have to be on our expense.

Look, dude, e.g.: France, 6 million muslims: Le Pen, a pretty straightforward xenophobe gets ~20 percent of the vote, against a middle right candidate. Now you can't blame this on voter apathy, because it was second round, and Lepen got the same results. That means that one in 5 french people, doesn't like foreigners. And since AFAIK, most of Lepen's flames go against muslims, it's pretty clear who they don't like.

Of course, this doesn't, by itself, mean that Islam is bad. Just because a bunch of people hate something, doesn't mean it's bad. This, of course, doesn't mean that muslim people are bad. They're people, who're brought up in a certain way.

What it does mean, however, is that europeans don't like muslims. You could see the same attitude in the success of the Pym Fortuyn, who's certainly not a nazi, and neither is his list. He's got people of different ethnicities, and was himself openly gay. He was perhaps the only great example of a person who wasn't some sort of racist and bigot, and got in on the anti-islam wave "because muslims are dark", and to get votes.

However, in other countries, like Belgium, and France, it is this racist scum that is gathering support sadly.

Now, of course, to the final point. We've established that more and more europeans don't like Islamic society, that is brought by the muslim immigrants.

Now, the question arises, it is right not to like muslim society? I say, YES. This has nothing to do with racism. Israelis have no problem with different ethnicities. Hell, Israelis ARE themselves a mixture of ethnicities ( and so are palestinians, and "arabs". )

The issue here is values and culture.

It is also important to point out, that there is hatred of individuals. It is entire society which is, at this point of war, hated by the general Israeli public.

Another important thing to point our is that culture isn't cuisine, or music. Israel loves a lot of arab and muslim food, for example. But what it is, is how is society built, and generally, how people intercommunicate. In that, we and arab muslims are worlds apart.

[Az]

I'm for European integration, in as far as travel, trade, defence and other things. I'm even pro-Euro. However I do not want to live in a superstate.

That's the superstate, dummy.

If you want to have a EU Army, they you have got to get the tax to pay for it.

Sure you can leave lots of stuff to the states. Just look at the states, and how they do it.

[Spiffor]

Drogue:

I don't think the EU should hold all powers. Especially the mediocre undemocratic EU that we have now. One of the best things in the EU is the principle of subsidiarity: the EU makes laws (according to the system I depicted in my reply to LOTM), and the member States have all leeway to enforce it, i.e to get the required results. More than that, the role of the EU, the member States, and IIRC the regions are clearly outlayed and separated.

For example, the EU has no authority on everything police and justice, even though there are so many EUwide agreements between countries that such EUwide negociations are organised by the EU.

What I think, however, is that the definition of "what power belongs to whom" should be made by the EU as a whole (through its elected body), rather than by individual states haggling with each other.

For example, I think most Europeans will prefer having education and culture in the hands of their State rather than in the hands of the Union. However, many Europeans (or European representatives) would probably think research would be more efficient if transferred under the authority of the EU. What I'd want to see is that Europeans together decide what they want to manage together, and what they want to manage individually. This may end up in having common taxes; or this may end up in scraping the CAP and allowing each country to subsidize its farmers by itself.

About the tax rate: the relative Success of Britain in comparison to the other big European economies this year is partly explained because Britain ruled over both its monetary policy and its budgetary policy: i.e the policies of the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance (is "Chess Chancellery" the name ?) went along together.
In the Euro-Zone, we are suffering from an incredible stupidity: we have the same money and the same central bank, but the countries of the Euro Zone are let to compete against each other, and to play "who'll have the smallest tax?". It completely prevents us to have a responsible economic policies, where both the budgetary and monetary tool are used in unison. France and Germany, for example, are having a keynesian budgetary policy, whereas the ECB is having a monetarist (i.e completely opposite) policy. Of course, both the aims of Frangermany and of the ECB aren't well served
If we are to have a common money, we need a common tax rate

[Drogue]

Azazel:

Originally posted by Azazel
That's the superstate, dummy.

If you want to have a EU Army, they you have got to get the tax to pay for it.

Sure you can leave lots of stuff to the states. Just look at the states, and how they do it.

I said I did not want to pay tax directly to the EU. At the moment, Britain contributes much tax payers money to the EU. At the moment, if I want something done in the UK, I write to my MP. I do not want it to be that if I want something done it has to go to Europe. Scrap the CAP and that will pay for quite an army in itself. The state is about more than defence. I want us to be ruled by a national parliament, to have a national health, police, education and transport system. I don't want to pay tax that pays for the public services of other nations. I don't want the rate I pay to be decided by the EU. I would also like the highest court in the UK to be the High Court, or the House of Lords, and not the European Court of Human Rights.

Spiffor:

Originally posted by Spiffor
For example, I think most Europeans will prefer having education and culture in the hands of their State rather than in the hands of the Union. However, many Europeans (or European representatives) would probably think research would be more efficient if transferred under the authority of the EU. What I'd want to see is that Europeans together decide what they want to manage together, and what they want to manage individually. This may end up in having common taxes; or this may end up in scraping the CAP and allowing each country to subsidize its farmers by itself.

I think we need the option to opt out. It would be wrong, IMHO, for Europe as a majority to decide that it wanted a common tax, when a nation said it did not, and force that nation to comply. I think there should be the option to opt out and not collaborate on research, or tax, or other things, if that state did not want to.

Originally posted by Spiffor
About the tax rate: the relative Success of Britain in comparison to the other big European economies this year is partly explained because Britain ruled over both its monetary policy and its budgetary policy: i.e the policies of the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance (is "Chess Chancellery" the name ?) went along together.
In the Euro-Zone, we are suffering from an incredible stupidity: we have the same money and the same central bank, but the countries of the Euro Zone are let to compete against each other, and to play "who'll have the smallest tax?". It completely prevents us to have a responsible economic policies, where both the budgetary and monetary tool are used in unison. France and Germany, for example, are having a keynesian budgetary policy, whereas the ECB is having a monetarist (i.e completely opposite) policy. Of course, both the aims of Frangermany and of the ECB aren't well served

We too have our monetary policy decided by different people than our fiscal policy. The monetary police being decided by the Bank of England and the fiscal policy by the Chancellor's department. I think your example shows that on that large a scale, it does not work well. Different nations will have different economic philosophies. Some will want a more Monetarist system, some a mroe Keynesian. The fact there is one central bank means that it will always clash with someone. If Germany needs a lower interest rate, whereas France needs a higher one, there is a problem. That is my main reason why I am hesitant about the Euro.

Originally posted by Spiffor
If we are to have a common money, we need a common tax rate

In that case, we don't want a common money. Tax collection and expenditure should be firmly in the hands of the individual nations IMHO. It is far to inefficient to try to have blanket policies on tax over the whole of Europe. Different nations need different policies, and the ability to react to changes effectively. With a central tax system, and different conditions in different nations, that wouldn't be present. It is bad enough with a common interest rate, let alone having a common tax rate.

In the UK, many things are being devolved. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and (if they are) soon to be created Northern England Assemblies are getting more and more power. Local authorities, even down to the level of individual schools and hospitals, are getting powers to borrow, invest and set their own standards and tests. Most of Europe seems to be heading in the opposite direction. Unless a European superstate can accomedate having each nation setting it's own laws, it's own tax systems and public services, handle it's own expenditure, probably with a set of rules set down by teh superstate, then Britain will not be a part of it. Indeed, I am becoming less and less sure if we will join the Euro.

[Drogue]

Of course, remember when looking at my personal opinions, that for a Brit I am relatively pro-Europe. Most people are anti-Euro and anti-constitution (or so it seems, looking in most newpapers). I am slightly for both. Convincing the British public that a superstate is a good idea will be nigh-on impossible.

[Az]

if I want something done in the UK, I write to my MP.

do they answer?

All of your demands are pefectly adressed by a federal system.

Wouldn't you like a european federal police, european foreign policy? a european army, navy, air force, space program?

an all-european motorway, and railroad system?
an all european airtraffic?

Personally, I think that's what should be, and hopefully it's what will be.

That's why there could be state tax, and federal tax, for example.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

if I want something done in the UK, I write to my MP.

do they answer?.

Yes.

Originally posted by Azazel
All of your demands are pefectly adressed by a federal system.

No they aren't

Originally posted by Azazel
Wouldn't you like a european federal police, european foreign policy? a european army, navy, air force, space program?

No, yes, yes, yes, yes, no. You can't have a federal police force without some sort of federal law system, which I am against (even though we have the beginings of it). I don't see the need for a European space program at all personally. What we would do would be peanuts compared to the US, and I am not sure what we could contribute globally. The others all seem sensible, though I think we should keep national armies, and nations should be allowed to not send their own troops on EU missions if they do not agree with them.

Originally posted by Azazel
an all-european motorway, and railroad system?
an all european airtraffic?

No, no and possibly. Although I would budge on the first two somewhat, because France have shown they can do public transport far better than we can. However I think keeping our roads paid for by each individual nation, maintained by each individual nation, with laws decided by that nation, is best.

Originally posted by Azazel
Personally, I think that's what should be, and hopefully it's what will be.

I think it goes too far. Although if it was a choice between that or nothing at all, it would be a hard choice. But then, since the UK would not be part of that, I don't have to make that choice.

Originally posted by Azazel
That's why there could be state tax, and federal tax, for example.

We already pay council tax to local government, and income tax to national government. What is to be gained from a federal system? I like it as it is. Sure, some things are better at an EU level. Asylum and immegration for one. Indeed I'd quite like an EU defence force. But I don't mean giving up national defence forces. I mean for peacekeeping. Have smaller national forces, and a combined EU force. I'd also like to scrap some of the European laws. However I don't want a fundemantal change of the system we have. I don't think this consitution is too far a change, but I think it's far enough. I would be against any further integration after that.

Tax integration I am firmly against. It would wreck the economic system of many nations to have one overal tax system. Blanket policies such as that are not the best way to do many things IMHO. I think there is greater accuracy and efficiency if some things are done at a more local level.

[St Leo]

/me loves the Canadian Winter like a good patriot should