In a previous thread the comparison was made between the US of A and the EU.

There is 50 states of the union and as seen recently, the pontificating and delays over the debt ceiling shows democracy at work. Then there is the issue of the states having differing sales tax, rules, regulations and local laws - What a mess.

Now take that mess and instead of states, change to countries, 28 of them, soon to be 30 if the EU Parliament gets it's way. 28 countries who's history between them leaves a lot to be desired. You really think that they will forget that history and love each other and allow themselves to be centrally controlled regarding every aspect of that country's life?

Democratically elected you state - care to tell one and all what the hell happened with the Lisbon Treaty? Did Ireland and it's people say NO or not? Why the further referendum until the answer of YES was returned?

That's not democracy but dictatorship!

---

In a previous thread the comparison was made between the US of A and the EU.

There is 50 states of the union and as seen recently, the pontificating and delays over the debt ceiling shows democracy at work. Then there is the issue of the states having differing sales tax, rules, regulations and local laws - What a mess.

Except that comparing the EU and the US is comparing apples and oranges.

Now take that mess and instead of states, change to countries, 28 of them, soon to be 30 if the EU Parliament gets it's way. 28 countries who's history between them leaves a lot to be desired. You really think that they will forget that history and love each other and allow themselves to be centrally controlled regarding every aspect of that country's life?

First of all, the EU does not centrally control every aspect of a countries life. The EU only has full authority in a select few fields. And mind you, those member states have willingly given the EU that authority, so yes, they clearly didn't mind. In all other fields the EU either has nothing to say, except maybe give polite suggestions that no one is bound to take seriously, or it has to share competences with member states, meaning that only when all member states decide that a specific issue is best regulated on a European level the EU handles it. So again, the member states clearly don't mind giving authority to the EU as they are the ones who decide when that happens.

As for countries history with each other, we will have to see. So far that history did not seem to matter much. France and Germany have been very closely cooperating while only a few decades ago they were still mortal enemies. And former communist countries have generally been cooperative as well, despite the fact that we used to have nukes pointed at all their capitals and they had nukes pointed at us.

So yes, I really think that governments are smart enough to try to get over the past and cooperate because it benefits everyone living here.

Democratically elected you state - care to tell one and all what the hell happened with the Lisbon Treaty? Did Ireland and it's people say NO or not? Why the further referendum until the answer of YES was returned?

That's not democracy but dictatorship!

Oh don't be absurd. They still voted yes in a referendum after some concessions were made. Their voice was heard.

That's not democracy but dictatorship!
Oh don't be absurd. They still voted yes in a referendum after some concessions were made. Their voice was heard.

Now who's being absurd? Brussels didn't like the NO answer so went out of their way to make the answer become a YES vote.

The point is that the referendum reply was a definite NO A second referendum was not needed as the first sent a message which did not go down well.

A second referendum provided because Brussels made concessions? That's bribery which brings into question democracy again does it not?

Edit: Some info on the Lisbon Treaty....

"Like most Europeans, Bulgarians were denied the opportunity to have a referendum, and the Lisbon Treaty was voted on in Parliament after 20 minutes of discussion. This is unacceptable.!

Svelta Kostadinova
Executive Director
Institute for Market Economics, Bulgaria

Concessions really? Then explain this: -

1.It is virtually identical to the EU Constitution which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005
2.Voters in most EU countries have not been given a say – instead, the Treaty has been pushed through parliaments with almost no debate
3.It significantly reduces the control of national parliaments over EU legislation, as confirmed by the German Constitutional Court
4.It abolishes the national veto in more than 60 areas of policy
5.It reduces Ireland’s ability to block laws it disagrees with by more than 40%
6.It does nothing to address the EU’s serious problems with fraud, waste and lack of accountability

People in Ireland are being made to vote on exactly the same text they rejected in a referendum last year. EU leaders admit that the text hasn’t changed by a single comma, and that it will apply in exactly the same way as before. Despite this, Irish politicians are pretending it is different. This is an extension of the deeply undemocratic attitudes which saw EU leaders conspiring to deny the rest of Europe a vote on the Treaty after the EU Constitution was rejected by French and Dutch voters.

I've said it before and will continue to state it: -

Show me an honest and truthful politician and I'll show you a damned liar!

Edit 2: - So just what concessions did Brussels give the Netherlands as you also rejected it?

---

Now who's being absurd? Brussels didn't like the NO answer so went out of their way to make the answer become a YES vote.

The point is that the referendum reply was a definite NO A second referendum was not needed as the first sent a message which did not go down well.

A second referendum provided because Brussels made concessions? That's bribery which brings into question democracy again does it not?

No, thats exactly how democracy is supposed to work. The government proposes something, people say no, government goes back to the drawing table and makes it so that the people say yes. People get their way, everyone is happy.

Edit: Some info on the Lisbon Treaty....

"Like most Europeans, Bulgarians were denied the opportunity to have a referendum, and the Lisbon Treaty was voted on in Parliament after 20 minutes of discussion. This is unacceptable.!

Svelta Kostadinova
Executive Director
Institute for Market Economics, Bulgaria

Bulgaria had no say on it because they weren't EU members when the treaty was drafted and discussed. For Bulgaria rejecting the treaty would have meant rejecting becoming an EU member.

Concessions really? Then explain this: -

1.It is virtually identical to the EU Constitution which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005
2.Voters in most EU countries have not been given a say – instead, the Treaty has been pushed through parliaments with almost no debate
3.It significantly reduces the control of national parliaments over EU legislation, as confirmed by the German Constitutional Court
4.It abolishes the national veto in more than 60 areas of policy
5.It reduces Ireland’s ability to block laws it disagrees with by more than 40%
6.It does nothing to address the EU’s serious problems with fraud, waste and lack of accountability

1. yeah that was kind of a dick move by the governments. A necessary one though. And in the case of the Dutch no, it was mostly because people were riled up against it for all the wrong reasons. Namely that the anti EU campaign had been stretching the truth to such a degree that it scared people into voting no, even though what they feared was total nonsense.
2. Only a few European countries are obliged to hold a referendum if they want to pass an international treaty. Whether that is the case depends on national rules.
3. No it does not.
4. Its called voting. In some cases voting means that a majority wins while not everyone agrees. Though all those fields you mention are mainly very technical, detailed fields, not the big issues that are important to countries.
5. Good, why should one nation be able to block laws that everyone else agrees on. Besides, Ireland has a bunch of opt outs anyways. Also, in practice the council seeks to achieve consensus. And again, the big important issues can always be veto'd.
6. Irrelevant. The treaty was never designed around combating waste and fraud. Separate initiatives exist for that purpose.

People in Ireland are being made to vote on exactly the same text they rejected in a referendum last year. EU leaders admit that the text hasn’t changed by a single comma, and that it will apply in exactly the same way as before. Despite this, Irish politicians are pretending it is different. This is an extension of the deeply undemocratic attitudes which saw EU leaders conspiring to deny the rest of Europe a vote on the Treaty after the EU Constitution was rejected by French and Dutch voters.

Its not undemocratic. People still get a vote, people can still educate themselves, people can still say no. They didn't. Shows how much they care, the camp with the flashiest campaign wins. First time it was the anti EU camp, the second time it was the pro EU camp.

Edit 2: - So just what concessions did Brussels give the Netherlands as you also rejected it?

Some of the more 'constitutional' aspects were removed, making it possible to sell this as a simple European treaty. There was no longer the need to consult the people in a referendum and the government got to pass what they had wanted to pass from the beginning.

Some of the more 'constitutional' aspects were removed, making it possible to sell this as a simple European treaty. There was no longer the need to consult the people in a referendum and the government got to pass what they had wanted to pass from the beginning.

Thank you. At long last we're getting somewhere. So no need for elections then as regardless of what the people desire, governments will continue to pass WHAT THEY WANT PASSING......

.....What a lovely example of democracy at work. The purpose of governments is to govern, not dictate.....

hence the word Government.

---

Thank you. At long last we're getting somewhere. So need for elections then as regardless of what the people desire, governments will continue to pass WHAT THEY WANT PASSING......

.....What a lovely example of democracy at work. The purpose of governments is to govern, not dictate.....

hence the word Government.

Indeed, a government needs to govern, which is what they did.

1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in.
2. To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate: a valve that governs fuel intake.
3. To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people.
4. To keep under control; restrain: a student who could not govern his impulses.
5. To exercise a deciding or determining influence on: Chance usually governs the outcome of the game.
6. Grammar To require (a specific morphological form) of accompanying words.

What they did was completely legal. Technically, they didn't even need to hold the first referendum in the Netherlands, they just thought that if they did it would look better. The government just did its job of taking a course of action that they deem to be in the best interest of the country. That is not always popular or something a lot of people see. And if they didn't like it, they could have punished the responsible parties during the next elections. Which didn't happen.

Thank you. At long last we're getting somewhere. So need for elections then as regardless of what the people desire, governments will continue to pass WHAT THEY WANT PASSING......

.....What a lovely example of democracy at work. The purpose of governments is to govern, not dictate.....

hence the word Government.

Indeed, a government needs to govern, which is what they did.

1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in. Slowly being eroded by Brussels.
2. To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate: a valve that governs fuel intake. Insufficient fuel currently due to greedy bankers - Cyprus slapped down, other countries?
3. To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people. Greek MP's fighting each other live on television - what an example of governing.
4. To keep under control; restrain: a student who could not govern his impulses. Yep, say one thing on impulse to suit the population and on gaining power change direction.
5. To exercise a deciding or determining influence on: Chance usually governs the outcome of the game. That's a new one. Governments gambling their country on the outcome of chance? Just who would have thought it?
6. Grammar To require (a specific morphological form) of accompanying words.The best people for that are the speech writers for politicians.

What they did was completely legal. Technically, they didn't even need to hold the first referendum in the Netherlands, they just thought that if they did it would look better. The government just did its job of taking a course of action that they deem to be in the best interest of the country. That is not always popular or something a lot of people see. And if they didn't like it, they could have punished the responsible parties during the next elections. Which didn't happen.

Yep. just like accountants using loopholes to avoid paying tax, nothing new here. Next?

---

A very interesting report

Come summer, we will know.

"The game is already under way in the corridors and friteries of Brussels: who will land the big jobs? The president of the Commission, the president of the European Council and the president of the Parliament are all up for grabs. Already the jockeying for position has begun. Like a roll-call of the European establishment, MEPs, commissioners and former senior ministers like Schulz, Rehn, Verhofstadt, Juncker, Barnier, Reding etc are all happy for it to be known they are available."

I bet they're happy!

Yep, and what a game! He played last time, so my turn this time.....

...but I didn't make enough money.....

...toughski s***ski, you had your chance, my turn now.

---

A very interesting report

Come summer, we will know.

If the Anti EU parties do get a majority hold in the parliament and disrupt
further Brussels policy initiatives then do expect behind the scenes policy
implementations that have side tracked the MEP's from being able to vote on.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Sounds like the Eurocrats have been schooled in American politics. If you cant get the votes, Go under the radar and do it by legislation.
Why the hell did you guys want to be like us? We cant keep 50 states from in fighting with a shared history. You really think you can pull disparent country's with uncommon goals and bad blood between each other to pull together?
You will be fighting each other again. I hope the US says sorry your on your own this time.

---

[/quote]

Old James

+1

That's the point I was trying to make earlier but got the comparison of apples and oranges.

Some people never see further than their nose.

---

Sounds like the Eurocrats have been schooled in American politics. If you cant get the votes, Go under the radar and do it by legislation.
Why the hell did you guys want to be like us? We cant keep 50 states from in fighting with a shared history. You really think you can pull disparent country's with uncommon goals and bad blood between each other to pull together?
You will be fighting each other again. I hope the US says sorry your on your own this time.

Oh please. We don't want to be like the US and we are not. As Ive stated, the EU looks nothing like the US. The EU in that sense is unique, there are no other organizations in the world that come even close to what the EU is at this moment.

Furthermore, the bad blood between most European countries is gone. The French are no longer pissed at the Germans and the Germans no longer hate the Polish and the French and the British, at least not on a political level. Everyone is cooperating. And to prove that, Europe currently has the longest consecutive period of peace since forever. No major or minor conflicts on the continent for over 69 years. For Europe, thats a record.

For Europe, thats a record.

...and like all records known to man, it eventually gets broken!

---

For Europe, thats a record.

...and like all records known to man, it eventually gets broken!

Perhaps. But I would prefer it if we do our best to avoid another major war.

For Europe, thats a record.

...and like all records known to man, it eventually gets broken!

Perhaps. But I would prefer it if we do our best to avoid another major war.

Totally agree with that sentiment, however, continue on the present track and the EU will eventually overstep the mark and there will be no pulling back.

---

For Europe, thats a record.

...and like all records known to man, it eventually gets broken!

Perhaps. But I would prefer it if we do our best to avoid another major war.

Totally agree with that sentiment, however, continue on the present track and the EU will eventually overstep the mark and there will be no pulling back.

I'm convinced that the presence of the EU will make it harder for European countries to wage war on each other. If they want war, they would first have to pull out of the EU (or be kicked out).

Not necessarily. The following is only an example, but who is to say that it cannot happen?

Take Spain and Gibraltar. Some time in the future, the European Parliament succeeds in having total control over the 28/30 countries and pass legislation that Gibraltar becomes part of Spain.

Or even worse, pass legislation that all EU nations are not permitted to hold territories outside of the European continent.....

Hmmmn, that's going to cause some international situations for a start.

Can't happen/Won't happen? Really? There will always be someone within an organisation that thinks they could improve on something that just does not need improving....

12" Ruler

Mason-Dixon Line

---

Not necessarily. The following is only an example, but who is to say that it cannot happen?

Take Spain and Gibraltar. Some time in the future, the European Parliament succeeds in having total control over the 28/30 countries and pass legislation that Gibraltar becomes part of Spain.

Or even worse, pass legislation that all EU nations are not permitted to hold territories outside of the European continent.....

Hmmmn, that's going to cause some international situations for a start.

Can't happen/Won't happen? Really? There will always be someone within an organisation that thinks they could improve on something that just does not need improving....

For now that can't happen as the EU parliament cannot pass legislation on its own. It can't even come up with legislation, only the Commission can do that. And for now all new legislation also needs to be passed by European council, which consists of ministers or heads of state of each member state. Finally, the EU does not have any competence in the field of territorial disputes. It may act like a mediator, but it can't pass legislation that compromises the territory of its member states.

In order to do so it would first require a massive treaty change, treaty changes need to pass with unanimity from the member state governments and that means its highly unlikely that such extremely controversial parts of a treaty would ever be accepted by the member states. In other words, its not going to happen. There are to many checks and balances and legal changes in the way before the EU could do such a thing.

Not necessarily. The following is only an example, but who is to say that it cannot happen?

Take Spain and Gibraltar. Some time in the future, the European Parliament succeeds in having total control over the 28/30 countries and pass legislation that Gibraltar becomes part of Spain.

Or even worse, pass legislation that all EU nations are not permitted to hold territories outside of the European continent.....

Hmmmn, that's going to cause some international situations for a start.

Can't happen/Won't happen? Really? There will always be someone within an organisation that thinks they could improve on something that just does not need improving....

For now that can't happen as the EU parliament cannot pass legislation on its own. It can't even come up with legislation, only the Commission can do that. And for now all new legislation also needs to be passed by European council, which consists of ministers or heads of state of each member state. Finally, the EU does not have any competence in the field of territorial disputes. It may act like a mediator, but it can't pass legislation that compromises the territory of its member states.

In order to do so it would first require a massive treaty change, treaty changes need to pass with unanimity from the member state governments and that means its highly unlikely that such extremely controversial parts of a treaty would ever be accepted by the member states. In other words, its not going to happen. There are to many checks and balances and legal changes in the way before the EU could do such a thing.

Preaching to the choir. The salient point highlighted in red.

---

Preaching to the choir. The salient point highlighted in red.

Sometime in the future, the British monarchy may topple to the British houses and establish a new dynasty of absolute kings. Civil liberties get suspended, corporal punishment for everyone who even mutters something about democracy and the army gets rebuild and Britain begins a war against those pesky French and that traitorous ex-colony at the other side of the pond. So, better get rid of the monarchy then, because before you know it Britain is once again ruled by an absolute monarch and we wouldn't want that to happen now do we?

Suuuuree, its almost impossible for the British monarchy to actually do such a thing, but that is irrelevant because I said 'somewhere in the future' and everything is equally likely to happen as long as you say its in the future.