I’m just wondering, how would you vote on it, if you had the chance?
If you’re wondering what it is: click and look around, or do your own research. Wikipedia I’m sure will have some stuff on it.
Now, I’m wondering because I actually respect the opinions of a lot of people on this board (though I’m sure most of them either weren’t aware of the treaty or didn’t care) and I’d like to hear their views, since both the Yes and No side of the campaign here in Ireland have being pretty superfluous with their arguments. So far I plan to vote no, I’ve heard one semi-convincing argument to vote yes and after doing research decided on no myself, but I’m definitly open to swaying.
I’m particularly interested in what the Europeans would think if we DID vote No on the referendum.
-The world needs to get used to globalization. Its not going away. Swallow the fucking pill already. Some pretty big countries are industrializing and that means things are going to change.
-Europe needs to get its ass together if it is to be considered seriously. You guys need to unite the fuck up. There is a lot of diversity right now and the fact of the matter is, there isn’t a single politician that is looking at the bigger picture. Every single minority worker group that whines is rewarded, which is a problem particularly in France, but is more significantly representative of Europe than any place else. Everyone wants to think that they are a unique fucking snowflake. Grow the fuck up, stop behaving like children. You’re on your way to obsolescence.
The whole globalisation thing is fairly annoying. The political party I support is excellent in all regards except that they MASSIVELY oppose globalism and a united europe. The closest party that is in favour of it is filled with a bunch of useless cockbags. God.
Several years ago I voted against the referendum for this, based simply on the fact that the proposed constitution was a bloated piece of shit at the time. I haven’t kept up too well with how it’s developed since then, but we likely won’t have another vote about it anyway, so it’s kind of a moot point.
That said, I’m all for a united europe with a common constitution and less power for individual countries assuming we can whip up a decent document.
What TD said is basically why I’m considering voting no, Sin. When reading it, I see somethings that are beneficial for Europe (mainly the closer ties) but I see so much bullshit in it as well, and some things I would consider bad for Europe as a whole, and certainly will make it more inefficient. If you want, I could look through it again to find the exact points for each that I see.
Yes, ideally that is how it would happen. A short, concise document without a shitload of jargon which the average joe sixpack can understand. If they did that I’d vote yes immediately.
Then you should model your treaty on the US constitution.
I think the federalist powers of the treaty are actually quite low.
The fear is that what the treaty does is essentially put the member states in the control of a central government that will probably have its own power and survival, rather than the welfare of each state, as its ultimate goal. I’ve also read complaints that Germany will inevitably dominate any European superstate, twisting the aims of the superstate for its own welfare first. Not sure how true these things are, quite frankly.
The problem faced with getting Europe to truly join up is past. We’re not like the US where the history is made up of a hotchpotch of mixing nationalities through immigration and building a country from there. Every country in Europe is very different from the others in some ways, and it’ll take a long time to iron those differences out.
Bah! I dink Europe should just fraggin’ unite! It would protect it from anydin’ like WWI and WWII from happenin’ again where da US went in to put a stop to da wars. Also, wid a united country made out of Europe, dey could become a major superpower agains. Currently it is only da US and China dat are superpowers.
Dere are bad din’s about dis treaty, so dey should change it and have ratified through the group dat made da Euro da money fo’ most of Europe. Dey would probably ratify it.
Dat is my current opinion, I’ll do sum mo’ readin’ on da situation in Europe later today.
We ARE uniting, and the EU started as a trade alliance between France and Germany, that would spin so many trade connections that it would be neigh impossible for them to ever make war on each other again. It’s just that it’ll take time for everyone to unite, and we’re careful about our individual independence. Imagine you’ve lived in a small house your entire life, and then all of a sudden a bunch of people shows up and start adding rooms to your house with the intention of moving in. Not the best metaphor, but it comes close.
It’s not just technical things, it’s mindsets that won’t go away very easily - for example, if we stereotype:
A Swede says: “Well, in all honesty this coffee is a little bitter, but I’ll just add a bit more sugar and it’ll be fine.” (Translation: This means anything between “it’s okay” and “Goddammit, are you trying to poison me?”)
A German says: “Ew! I’m sorry, I can’t drink this coffee.”
The honesty would be extremely rude to a Swede, while we can appear either wishy-washy or dishonest in our desperate wish not to offend anybody.
Eventually we’ll probably become just Europe with a bunch of states, but it’s not going to happen soon. Perhaps not even within our lifetimes.
And if you think that uniting Europe will forever prevent another World War, eh, not so much. It only means another huge country to join in the fun. That both wars started here doesn’t mean that it won’t start anywhere else, not in this globalizing world.
The problem (and success) of the EU is that it’s a result of compromises and opposing views, so I wouldn’t expect a 100% perfect text. I didn’t mind when the proposed Constitution was burnt, because plenty of concerns weren’t heeded and the democratic deficit of the EU was quite clearly highlighted.
Positive points of the Lisbon Treaty:
-More power granted to the European Parliament. The EUP is elected, whereas the Commissioners are appointed, so this shift in the balance of power produces more accountability.
-EU President and a foreign minister with a fancy title. Obviously, a lot depends on who gets the posts (hopefully not a third choice like Baroso again), but a unified front gives more bargaining power and brings better results.
-More majority voting. If you feel strongly for an issue, make sure you can communicate your POV to the other states or begin using those diplomats.
-The Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding to the EU.
-Fewer Commissioners. Having 27 of them would slow things down and probably produce a few Commissioners without any raison d’être.
-The solidarity clause is a good step to putting to rest some E. European countries’ worries about Russia and their newly gained freedom.
A second no may empower the “UK alternative” of a common market without political ties. However, the economic success of the EU is not unrelated to the political process and wasting the political and economic potential of a more unified EU doesn’t sound like a smart move to me. In the end, it’s your vote, your call.
I didn’t means dat dere couldn’t be anoder, US and China are jus’ about set on goin’ all out on eachoder. If Nord Korea attacks Taiwan, or anyone in dat area for a fact, dey will start a war wid dem. Which will draw da US and a few oder countries in, which will draw in China, which will draw in all of Europe, which will draw in da entire world basically.
I don’t think its gonna happen. The more you study history, the more you realize that old habits die hard. Like individual people, nations have temperaments that rarely change despite experience. Just look at the U.S., and how we’ve repeated the same mistakes over and over again. And how in large part this is still a bigoted, provincial, superstitious nation. I mean, Christ, 90 years after the Scopes trial and there’s still a nation-wide political movement to not teach Darwin!
The countries of Europe vied bitterly and frequently with each other for 500 years over dominance and wealth. They may be disarmed now, but that doesn’t change the impetus for conflict and rivalry that seems to have always existed amongst European nations.
They may be disarmed now, but that doesn’t change the impetus for conflict and rivalry that seems to have always existed amongst European nations.
Say what? France and Germany, who have been behind the main European conflicts from 1870-1945 are nowadays buddies. Weiila already mentioned it, but a a big part of the EU is creating common interests. The intra-EU trade constitutes a big part of many members’ exports (e.g. the wiki has old data showing France as the main trade partner of Germany both in exports and imports. China is nowadays higher in the exports list) and the members of the EU have been coordinating politically for many years. Aside from the catastrophic economic ramifications, should something like this happen, each generation raised in the EU further removes the possibility of intra-EU wars. When you pass through three borders to go on holidays holding just a VISA and your ID, you don’t even consider the possibility of a war.
Also, many of the European wars were based on the importance of soil and armies. The second factor is more or less put into background by NATO and nuclear weaponry as a last-ditch solution, and noone cares about conquest anymore; not when you can buy the raw materials on it and sell your stuff to the natives.
By the way, the more China opens its borders, the less likely a war with them becomes. We do get all our e-stuff from them and they do get our money. Without advocating a worldview where the economy absolutely overrides politics, the economy is quite an important factor. I think the Clinton years are quite educative about all that, in many aspects.
I never said that Europe is going to literally erupt in war anytime soon. The point is that the basic mistrust of each other and desire to maintain independence is still sort of there.
Globalization is not the most powerful force in the world. There’s also tribalism. As the economy becomes more global, ethnicities are becoming more and more divided and entrenched in their own culture’s, languages, and religions.
Old habits really do die hard, unfortunately. I can remember it wasn’t so much as 5 years ago that everyone in one of my poly-sci classes was totally convinced that Russia was going to join NATO and usher in a new age of cooperation with the West. Talk of a Euro superstate sounds a lot like that to me. They’ve been talking about this since 1990, and it still hasn’t happened.
Also, many of the European wars were based on the importance of soil and armies. The second factor is more or less put into background by NATO and nuclear weaponry as a last-ditch solution, and noone cares about conquest anymore; not when you can buy the raw materials on it and sell your stuff to the natives.
This doesn’t erase the pursuit of wealth, which is the basis of conflict, war or otherwise.
I hear you loud and clear.
A few years ago, Nicolas Sarkozy said that no true European and responsible politician could carry on as if nothing had happened after the French said no to the European constitution. Well, now he squeezed a slightly modified/improved version through parliament. I just want to quote a few comments made by politicos concerning the Lisbon Treaty vs. its predecessor.
Valéry Giscard d’Estaing: “The tools are largely the same. Only the order in which they are arranged in the tool-box has been changed”
Britain’s Foreign Affairs Committee: “…there is no material difference between the two texts”.
In his speech to the Parliament, after passing the Lisbon treaty bill, Sarkozy used the term “simplified” five times.http://www.ambafrance-ph.org/newsfromfrance2.php?article_id=1156
The treaty contains 356 amendments of earlier treaties, accompanied by 13 protocols, 65 declarations and an annex.
That’s funny. I remember that in my state nursery school # 256, sometime between potty training and learning happy songs about Uncle Lenin, our Politruk (Political [STRIKE]commander[/STRIKE] science teacher) would tell us that in the not too distant future all European countries will join the Warsaw Pact, the capitalist system will collapse, and USSR together with our USSA (United Socialist States of America) friends will colonize Mars and the satellites of Jupiter.
Maybe this could still happen … in some alternate reality
Finland has gotten so screwed by the EU thus far (they’ve pretty much driven all native food production to the ground over here) and even if we’re one of the smaller countries, we still pay ridiculous fees and sums which the other bigger countries have refrained from paying.
If our interests are run down, of course I don’t see any point in trying to be understanding of the whole situation.
Weiila - Ever met an honest-to-blue-eyes and straight to the facts Finn? The blunt truth can hurt XD
Globalization is not the most powerful force in the world. There’s also tribalism. As the economy becomes more global, ethnicities are becoming more and more divided and entrenched in their own culture’s, languages, and religions.
Surely, they needn’t be opposite though. The EU’s motto is “United in diversity” with no recognised religions (though they have offices in Brussels) and 23 official languages. For once, the promise of a 500 million people market and low military spending is a factor in current independence movements. Economy and culture aren’t unconnected, anyway. I won’t be surprised if (more of) the new generation is running all over my lawn, speaking Chinese.
This doesn’t erase the pursuit of wealth, which is the basis of conflict, war or otherwise.
But that’s the plan, the EU is more or less beneficial to most of its members. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t opposing interests.
