The Lisbon Treaty

[Du Soleil.]

Have to add this. I don't really know much about the treaty since it's not something we're really told about here, but if this spells bad news for the Tories, then I suppose I can see that as a bit of a somewhat positive light. That isn't to say that Labour are any better, but if this screws up whatever plans the Tories have, then I'm okay with it. Regardless, the Tories will probably be our next government, but this is sure to hinder their plans. I hope to God that Labour gets a new representative or that David Cameron throws himself off a cliff because I do not want to live in this country when Tories get in power.

[Phoenix]

Not if the aim is to create a larger version of the US.

Even though Lisbon introduces a procedure to leave the Union for the very first time in its history?

Have to add this. I don't really know much about the treaty since it's not something we're really told about here, but if this spells bad news for the Tories, then I suppose I can see that as a bit of a somewhat positive light. That isn't to say that Labour are any better, but if this screws up whatever plans the Tories have, then I'm okay with it. Regardless, the Tories will probably be our next government, but this is sure to hinder their plans. I hope to God that Labour gets a new representative or that David Cameron throws himself off a cliff because I do not want to live in this country when Tories get in power.

The worrying part is that Labor and the Tories will both lose votes, but those votes will be gained by the UKIP and the BNP. If I were British, I'd prefer the Tories over the BNP.

[Alaude Drenxta]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Even though Lisbon introduces a procedure to leave the Union for the very first time in its history?

I think we can both agreed that just sounds like a concession made on moral ground. Legality is one thing, but I'd like to see how it works in practice. A kid CAN rat out his friends, but there will be non-legal consequences. Any country attempting to withdraw is going to face some hell.

[Phoenix]

I think we can both agreed that just sounds like a concession made on moral ground. Legality is one thing, but I'd like to see how it works in practice. A kid CAN rat out his friends, but there will be non-legal consequences. Any country attempting to withdraw is going to face some hell.

Not saying that it's impossible, but do you have any reason to believe this? I mean, with Nice, it was literally impossible to leave the EU, and Lisbon specifically outlines the procedure. Sound like it should've been easier to just never address this at all, especially considering that this wasn't an issue Eurosceptics had a problem with.

How exactly does the EU resemble the United States?

[Alaude Drenxta]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Not saying that it's impossible, but do you have any reason to believe this? I mean, with Nice, it was literally impossible to leave the EU, and Lisbon specifically outlines the procedure. Sound like it should've been easier to just never address this at all, especially considering that this wasn't an issue Eurosceptics had a problem with.

How exactly does the EU resemble the United States?

No real reason other than experience and knowledge of the way people think. My experience with politics IS admittedly small-scale, but both history and simple understanding tells us that Treaties are not easily broken, and even with this new addition, who would show respect to a country that backs out of its deals?


Only in that it seems they are aiming to conglomerate themselves under a single economic structure, and are suggesting central leadership and law. It may not be called "central leadership", but I think it's fair enough to say it comes as close as it will get without being just a "European Nation".

[Phoenix]

No real reason other than experience and knowledge of the way people think. My experience with politics IS admittedly small-scale, but both history and simple understanding tells us that Treaties are not easily broken, and even with this new addition, who would show respect to a country that backs out of its deals?

Leaving the EU would not be backing out of its deals. Breaking its law, however, would be.

And yes, there should be repercussions for this. Why would you enter into an international agreement if you had no intentions of fulfilling your part of the bargain?

Only in that it seems they are aiming to conglomerate themselves under a single economic structure, and are suggesting central leadership and law. It may not be called "central leadership", but I think it's fair enough to say it comes as close as it will get without being just a "European Nation".

What would be so bad about that?

[Alaude Drenxta]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Leaving the EU would not be backing out of its deals. Breaking its law, however, would be.

And yes, there should be repercussions for this. Why would you enter into an international agreement if you had no intentions of fulfilling your part of the bargain?

I agree absolutely, but making it out to be a saving grace of some sort, like I mentioned before, is just a ploy to sweeten the deal. Doubtful that they actually expect anyone to drop their testicles on the ground and try it out.

What would be so bad about that?

Nothing really, aside from an even more amassed tangle of bureaucratic nonsense that will hold off for months before action is taken. These countries are more independent than that, and have been for a couple thousand years in some instances. It's not likely they'll lie down and have that power taken from them when they need something done.

[Phoenix]

I agree absolutely, but making it out to be a saving grace of some sort, like I mentioned before, is just a ploy to sweeten the deal. Doubtful that they actually expect anyone to drop their testicles on the ground and try it out.

The UK might, depending on who wins the elections. Regardless, a ploy to sweeten the deal to who? It was included in Lisbon. Why? What eurosceptic was swayed over by this?

Nothing really, aside from an even more amassed tangle of bureaucratic nonsense that will hold off for months before action is taken. These countries are more independent than that, and have been for a couple thousand years in some instances. It's not likely they'll lie down and have that power taken from them when they need something done.

Say what you will about Lisbon, but you can't say it's more bureaucratic. The whole point of Lisbon is to streamline everything. Unanimity moved to qualified majority voting, a lot of vetoes were revoked, etc. Even if you think it's a move to make Europe a federalist state, it's much, much, much less bureaucratic.

[Alaude Drenxta]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

The UK might, depending on who wins the elections. Regardless, a ploy to sweeten the deal to who? It was included in Lisbon. Why? What eurosceptic was swayed over by this?

I can't claim to know exactly which nations decided this was a good enough reason to sign, not exactly something anyone would advertise, but if I was pressured into entering an agreement that I had reservations about, I'd like an escape clause if I didn't agree with how it worked in practice.

Say what you will about Lisbon, but you can't say it's more bureaucratic. The whole point of Lisbon is to streamline everything. Unanimity moved to qualified majority voting, a lot of vetoes were revoked, etc. Even if you think it's a move to make Europe a federalist state, it's much, much, much less bureaucratic.

It was the same with American, following the change from the Confederate States of America, a time where unanimous voting was required to pass a law. Majority rule dominates our federal system now, and yet it's still as stagnant as ever. Now bureaucracy really comes into play. Campaigning for sides, further segmenting of the voter base under even more strict lines, not sure if filibustering is a part of the system, I'll check on that, but it's very effective for pushing back the dates of voting so people can further their attempts to change another party's mind. They've simply moved from getting nothing to done, to getting something done in 6-8 months. Whereas independently no country has to rely on the good graces of another to look out for their best interests, which with the level of hostilities between them, and their heavy cultural differences, isn't likely to happen.

The easier it is for a new law/rule to be passed, the harder someone will be willing to fight to get their own ideas implemented. Before this, the idea is that either you fall in line, or you get nothing. Now, there is a chance to play the field and dig out some gold.

[Phoenix]

I can't claim to know exactly which nations decided this was a good enough reason to sign, not exactly something anyone would advertise, but if I was pressured into entering an agreement that I had reservations about, I'd like an escape clause if I didn't agree with how it worked in practice.

Whether that actually swayed anyone over, you must agree it's pretty fair.

It was the same with American, following the change from the Confederate States of America, a time where unanimous voting was required to pass a law. Majority rule dominates our federal system now, and yet it's still as stagnant as ever. Now bureaucracy really comes into play. Campaigning for sides, further segmenting of the voter base under even more strict lines, not sure if filibustering is a part of the system, I'll check on that, but it's very effective for pushing back the dates of voting so people can further their attempts to change another party's mind. They've simply moved from getting nothing to done, to getting something done in 6-8 months. Whereas independently no country has to rely on the good graces of another to look out for their best interests, which with the level of hostilities between them, and their heavy cultural differences, isn't likely to happen.

The easier it is for a new law/rule to be passed, the harder someone will be willing to fight to get their own ideas implemented. Before this, the idea is that either you fall in line, or you get nothing. Now, there is a chance to play the field and dig out some gold.

There's two things I want to address:

1. I think you're confusing America's representative democracy with Europe's parliamentary democracy. They don't work in the same way.
2. You're way overestimating the EU's power over the individual member states.

I'm going to quote parts of the article on Lisbon so you can see the pattern:

"The European Central Bank will gain the official status of being an EU institution."

"The European Council will officially gain the status of an EU institution, thus being separated from the Council of Ministers."

"In an effort to ensure greater coordination and consistency in EU foreign policy, the Treaty of Lisbon will create a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, de facto merging the post of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (currently held by Javier Solana) and the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy (currently held by Benita Ferrero-Waldner)."

"The person holding the new post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will automatically also be a Vice-President of the Commission."

"Under the existing treaties, the EU comprises a system of three legal pillars, of which only the European Community pillar has its own legal personality. When the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, the pillary system will be abolished, and the European Union be consolidated body with a legal personality."

Lisbon basically streamlines and consolidates the EU. Half of the Treaty is just eliminating redundancies, loopholes and bureaucracy.

[Alaude Drenxta]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Whether that actually swayed anyone over, you must agree it's pretty fair.

Very, but I believe it that in practice it will show itself to be nothing more than false hope.

There's two things I want to address:

1. I think you're confusing America's representative democracy with Europe's parliamentary democracy. They don't work in the same way.
2. You're way overestimating the EU's power over the individual member states.

I'm going to quote parts of the article on Lisbon so you can see the pattern:

"The European Central Bank will gain the official status of being an EU institution."

"The European Council will officially gain the status of an EU institution, thus being separated from the Council of Ministers."

"In an effort to ensure greater coordination and consistency in EU foreign policy, the Treaty of Lisbon will create a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, de facto merging the post of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (currently held by Javier Solana) and the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy (currently held by Benita Ferrero-Waldner)."

"The person holding the new post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will automatically also be a Vice-President of the Commission."

"Under the existing treaties, the EU comprises a system of three legal pillars, of which only the European Community pillar has its own legal personality. When the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, the pillary system will be abolished, and the European Union be consolidated body with a legal personality."

Lisbon basically streamlines and consolidates the EU. Half of the Treaty is just eliminating redundancies, loopholes and bureaucracy.

So you don't find the consolidation of power, while maintaining independence of rule within a nation under that governance to be similar to a federal governing body?

I may be just blindly skeptic, I'm pre-conditioned to detest a federal system where a separate body governs over a series of separate territories, all of whom have different interests in mind. I'll be honest, dictatorial rule has always seemed the best route to me, in theory. Socialism, in practice.

I wanted it known that I've found conflicting interests, and equal power within those parties, can throw a central system off-balance.

[Phoenix]

Very, but I believe it that in practice it will show itself to be nothing more than false hope.

Erm, how? Even if it were a concession, which by all accounts it isn't, how?

So you don't find the consolidation of power, while maintaining independence of rule within a nation under that governance to be similar to a federal governing body?

Except in a federation, the individual states are not self-governing, or partially so. To claim, say, Germany isn't self-governing would be silly, especially after it ruled that its own courts > European courts.

Also, whether its federalist or not, you must admit Lisbon is anything but bureaucratic. That's not to say that the EU isn't bureaucratic, but a post-Lisbon Union would be much, much less.

However, I'd like to go back to the question I had brought up. I asked what was so bad about EU becoming more federal, and you said it'd simply make it more bureaucratic. Lisbon is anything but, but even if you don't believe it is, let's say there was no such thing as bureaucracy in the EU. What's so bad about a federal system then?

I may be just blindly skeptic, I'm pre-conditioned to detest a federal system where a separate body governs over a series of separate territories, all of whom have different interests in mind. I'll be honest, dictatorial rule has always seemed the best route to me, in theory. Socialism, in practice.

Oh, a benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government, no doubt. However, benevolent dictators are scarce, and the risk of him not being benevolent is enough for me to prefer the republic.

But I digress. Not only can a state leave the EU (as opposed to the USA, in which this is illegal), but the EU only has as much power as the states allow it to have. Germany, for example, ruled that its own courts were higher than Europe's. The UK, Poland and the Czech Republics negotiated opt-outs for parts of Lisbon. The EU cannot force states to go to war, and indeed, almost half of its countries have declared themselves to be neutral.

I would agree that the EU is federalizing itself, but it's nowhere near enough to be called a federal system.

[Alaude Drenxta]

Erm, how? Even if it were a concession, which by all accounts it isn't, how?

Didn't we already agree that it is expected that no country would be brazen enough to try and back out?
I personally would find it the height of disrespect, dishonor, and would show a great lack of pride. I don't live in Europe, and haven't been in over 6 years, so maybe the EU is viewed with a different sort of power by the people that live there, but it seems to me to be quickly becoming less of an alliance between nations and increasingly more of a single government, a single country, as it were.

I would agree that the EU is federalizing itself, but it's nowhere near enough to be called a federal system.

I must have zoned out while reading it (often I read things more than once, ADHD and all), but it seemed to me that the agreement was a bit more binding, I'm ashamed to admit I wasn't even aware that single nations could choose which parts they'd like to agree to, it almost seems like cheating really.

If the EU council has no real power, what purpose is there for it? A place for people to gripe and hope they can get some aid? Share ideas?

Isn't that what the UN is for?

[Phoenix]

Didn't we already agree that it is expected that no country would be brazen enough to try and back out?
I personally would find it the height of disrespect, dishonor, and would show a great lack of pride. I don't live in Europe, and haven't been in over 6 years, so maybe the EU is viewed with a different sort of power by the people that live there, but it seems to me to be quickly becoming less of an alliance between nations and increasingly more of a single government, a single country, as it were.

You are aware that the UKIP (independence partyin the UK) campaigns for exactly that, right? Secession parties aren't exactly rare in the EU, even on the European party level.

I must have zoned out while reading it (often I read things more than once, ADHD and all), but it seemed to me that the agreement was a bit more binding, I'm ashamed to admit I wasn't even aware that single nations could choose which parts they'd like to agree to, it almost seems like cheating really.

It's negotiating. Any single member could've blocked Lisbon by not signing it, and so opt-outs are given. The reason you don't see all 27 members negotiating opt-outs if because the EU (and Lisbon) is effective and fair.

If the EU council has no real power, what purpose is there for it? A place for people to gripe and hope they can get some aid? Share ideas?

Isn't that what the UN is for?

They certainly have power. If you don't try to work from within it, you'll exclude yourself from shaping it. The UK could certainly ignore everything the EU says, and there's not a damn thing the Union could do about it. But then the UK would, as Lellouche put it, effectively castrate their voice in it.