Article

2003-06-08 Europe

EU: British walk-out over Giscard âtrickâ

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2003-06-08 09:51 am|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Europe is going to pieces. I love it!

Posted by RW 2003-06-08 10:23:11|| 2003-06-08 10:23:11|| Front Page Top

#2 UK is the constant saboteur of the Union. Never willing to leave it, never willing to let the other countries move forward, that we allowed it in the EU was the biggest mistake Europe ever made. Now the UK wants each of 25 countries to have the power to veto any progress of the union forward.

May Westminster roast in an eternal hell. May Scotland and Wales seek back *their* independence, let *them* be members of the EU, and let us drop England who does nothing but spout xenophobic and racist nationalisms against the EU.

And you, RW, who loves a voluntary union of democracies "going to pieces", find comfort in alliances between tyrannies instead. Such that you are, I'm sure that you don't see how the fall of the one will lead to the strengthening of the other.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-08 10:39:48|| 2003-06-08 10:39:48|| Front Page Top

#3 Thanks for a good laugh Aris! It must be comforting to be so in love with the idea that European integration, as a forced marriage of cultures and nations, will work, as we watch it careering juggernaut-like towards its final, Utopian, destination. You just sit in the back and enjoy the ride while it lasts.

You criticise the "English" as xenophoobic and racist. Interesting and revealing remark. We Brits may seem unenthisiastic to you, but I'd call it simple pragmatism. Note that we weren't alone in walking out of this meeting when the French delegation were discovered trying to dishonestly shoehorn clauses into the Constitution. Does that make the others xenophobes and racists too? Or just similarly outraged victims of deceit? I'd be interested to know how this incident was reported in the Greek press.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-08 11:44:00|| 2003-06-08 11:44:00|| Front Page Top

#4 RW does have a point. Brussels is way out of control. I love the story about EU beaurocrats running all over the continent and England to make sure that childrens swing sets meet the newly established height requirements as laid down by Brussels....and there's nothing the EU members can do but bend over. Sure this case is trivial, but it's symptomatic of the overall disease: socialism. Aris refers to 'democracies' , but with unelected EUrocrats running the show - how is that democracy?

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-06-08 11:48:10|| 2003-06-08 11:48:10|| Front Page Top

#5 "May Westminster roast in an eternal hell."

That was my favourite bit. Are you reading the works of al Sahaf, or the Juche propaganda manual?

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-08 11:48:11|| 2003-06-08 11:48:11|| Front Page Top

#6 What are you talking about Aris?

The UK joined the EU (then called the 'Common Market' - my how things
have changed) to be involved in the 'inevitable' trade increase that
would happen with a single market without borders. We sold out our
fishing industry, we betrayed countries who had fought alongside us when
our backs were against the wall fighting fascism in Europe. Countries
such as Australia and New Zealand (in particular - their economy was
very dependent on exports to the UK - all of which were then subject to
tariffs from the Common Market).

We did not sign up to be railroaded into a EU constitution. One that is
designed by a committee, behind closed doors, with people adding parts
designed to remove the power of elected governments by subterfuge. I'm
assuming from your name (and forgive me if I'm wrong), that you're
Greek? If so, then I'm sure your own country signed up for the treaty of
Rome on the premise of better and more open trade deals? Surely not to
have your own democracy becoming subservient to an unelected group of
bureaucrats?

You are familiar with the truly colossal levels of fraud in the EU?

Nothing would give me and many many other people in the UK more pleasure
than to leave the EU altogether. Give us ten years of true capitalist
growth, interference free from those elites in Brussels and Paris and
we'll wipe the floor with Germany and France and any other economy in
Europe (actually we're already the fourth largest economy in the world,
after the US, Japan and Germany, and the German economy is a
basket-case, with structural problems that are not going to go away).

The nature of the world is changing Aris, the large blocs are showing
their age. They belong to another time. That was never so evident as
when the 'coalition of the willing' was formed to do something that the
elites in the EU found utterly distasteful - doing the right thing
(remember Kosovo?).

I don't see why we have to give away our freedoms to unelected officials
who 'know better than we do'. Particularly when they're shown to be
corrupt.

Posted by Tony 2003-06-08 11:56:46|| 2003-06-08 11:56:46|| Front Page Top

#7 Bulldog, forced marriage of cultures and nations? Yes, those 90% of Slovenians were all "forced" to vote YES. Same with the Slovaks, the Hungarians, the Estonians and all those other peoples that voted overwhelmingly in favour of integration. Indeed all those countries whose populations want things that are constantly vetoed by the UK..

"Note that we weren't alone in walking out of this meeting when the French delegation were discovered trying to dishonestly shoehorn clauses into the Constitution."

How can you "dishonestly" present clauses? The UK has been consistently been *much* more dishonest, e.g. wanting the removal of the accurate word "federal" to describe the way competences are administered in the Union. The f-word is anathema for them, even when it's the sincere one. So is the word "constitution" which UK has also hated. And the word "citizen" for that matter. Read some of the amendments that the UK representatives have suggested for the constitution - they are a *riot*.

"Note that we weren't alone in walking out"

Yes, you were. Read the text again.

"Aris refers to 'democracies' , but with unelected EUrocrats running the show - how is that democracy?"

Which unelected Eurocrats? Is that the elected members of the European Council, or the elected members of the European Parliament you are referring to?

Oh, you must be referring to the unelected House of Lords you Brits still have. I agree, they are a disgrace.

"there's nothing the EU members can do but bend over. "

Bullshit.

"May Westminster roast in an eternal hell. That was my favourite bit. "

You've prayed for the destruction of my homeland, Europe. If you are going to be that way, why should I not pray for the destruction of yours?

The treaties aren't allowing us to kick you out, unfortunately. The constitution *does* allow you to leave (despite outrageous lies spewed by several people here), but UK is never going to do so voluntarily. UK allow democratic nations to progress and strengthen ties between them? Never!

Idiots.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-08 12:04:11|| 2003-06-08 12:04:11|| Front Page Top

#8 Tony, have you read in the press that Blair's apparently leaning towards the "nuclear" solution to the constitution referendum issue, i.e. making it an "in or out" of Europe vote, one which apparently would cause many eurosceptics to either shut up or campaign for us to stay in the EU. Seems like your (and it would be mine in that situation) wish to leave the EU might conceivably come true...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-08 12:11:55|| 2003-06-08 12:11:55|| Front Page Top

#9 As a Merkin I don't get a vote here (if there are going to be any votes, which is more or less the question) but I will say that I read as much of the draft constitution as I could before lapsing into a coma. Three reactions. First, I have no idea what the words mean. What is "solidarity" and why is it a "value"? Can you be hailed into court for not promoting "solidarity"? Second, anyone who tells the British people that they're not giving up their national sovereignty is just plain wrong. You might as well rename the Coldstream Guards "Chirac's Own" and put the Union Jack in the back of the Imperial War Museum. Third, the whole thing envisions the creation of a vast bureacracy that I think will make Washington look like a small town council.

Posted by Matt 2003-06-08 12:22:44|| 2003-06-08 12:22:44|| Front Page Top

#10 "The UK joined the EU (then called the 'Common Market' - my how things have changed) to be involved in the 'inevitable' trade increase that
would happen with a single market without borders. "

We are not to blame for your self-blindedness.
Common Market? You mean the "European Economic Community". Which like the European Union and all its predecessors from its very start, had "ever closer union" scorched in the treaties as the guiding principle, and clearly said that the economic union was done for political objectives, like peace and unity in the continent. Peace between former enemies.

-----Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,
-----Resolved to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
----Intending to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

And so on, and so on, and so on...

"One that is designed by a committee, behind closed doors, with people adding parts designed to remove the power of elected governments by subterfuge. "

Check the website of the European Convention. The progress is much more transparent than that of any other constitution ever drawn.

"If so, then I'm sure your own country signed up for the treaty of Rome on the premise of better and more open trade deals? "

We signed up for European integration. A common defense and a common foreign policy is currently our number one desire in the union --- something which UK is ofcourse constantly sabotaging.

"You are familiar with the truly colossal levels of fraud in the EU?"

"Nothing would give me and many many other people in the UK more pleasure than to leave the EU altogether."

Nothing would give me and many other people in the EU more pleasure for the UK to leave the EU either.

So why don't you? Is it because you are a bunch of hypocrites who benefit from the EU, even as you whine about your supposed losses?

And you are not only behind US, Japan and Germany, you are also behind France, in GDP, and GDP per capita, also.

"The nature of the world is changing Aris, the large blocs are showing their age. "

The EU is not a "bloc", it's a growing union. And if it's "showing its age", then the way it's doubling its size and greatly enlarging its population, with more and more countries wanting to enter it (except the UK that *pretends* to want to leave it), is a funny way of showing it.

"That was never so evident as when the 'coalition of the willing' was formed to do something that the elites in the EU found utterly distasteful - doing the right thing"

Yet somehow all those "willing" never showed any belief that this was the "right thing" before the US promised them money and aid for doing the "right thing". Indeed it's funny how the populations in all those "willing" states, were somehow *against* doing the "right thing"...

It's funny how the *people* of the EU (with the exception of the Brits yet again) were indeed speaking with one voice, and that the division between the attitudes of the *government* was a division between conservative and socialist government (conservatives in Spain, Portugal, Denmark) or between rich and poor countries (aka countries that needed the US aid countries that didn't.)

But despite the governments differing reactions, all the polls showed that the *peoples'* attitude in the EU was common.

--"We must now build a kind of United States of Europe... the first steps must be a partnership between France and Germany"
Winston Churchill

Somehow "a kind of United States of Europe" seemed to you to indicate "common market and free trade"? Again, don't accuse us for your own blindness.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-08 12:25:35|| 2003-06-08 12:25:35|| Front Page Top

#11 Matt>

"What is "solidarity" and why is it a "value"?"

Solidarity means that when Osama Bin Laden attacks New York, Texas attacks Osama Bin Laden.

Weirdly enough "solidarity" is the one clause UK wants to see remain, though UK wants to limit it to terrorist attacks, and not expand it to cover more conventional kinds of attack.

"Second, anyone who tells the British people that they're not giving up their national sovereignty is just plain wrong."

One retains national sovereignty as long as one has the right to bail out. And the constitution will *reinforce* that right, saying that even if no agreement is reached, each country has the option of leaving the Union after only a two years' notice.

But obviously "sharing competences" and "sharing sovereignty" is one and the same thing.

"making it an "in or out" of Europe vote,"

Yay! UK, out!

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-08 12:31:54|| 2003-06-08 12:31:54|| Front Page Top

#12 Aris, firstly, I'll refrain from the personal insults - that's interesting territory but you can have it to yourself.

OK I concede the other delegates didn't physically "walk out" but you're exploiting semantics to avoid addressing the issue. The UK wasn't alone in its disgust at Estaing's underhand tricks. Not reading my post properly, however, you accuse me of having "prayed for the destruction of my homeland". This is odd. I am not generally in the habit of praying for things, and especially not the destruction of continents, and certainly not ones I happen to live in. Who told you I did this?

If you're talking examples of dishonesty then yes, you're right to point to the British government's word-plays. This is a deliberate attempt to delude the public over the true direction of Europe and the ambitions of those at the heart of the project. This will only succeed as a delaying-ploy, and will probably eventually contribute to the demise of the Labour government, or at least its policies regarding to Europe.

An example of "forcing" by Europe? Today's Telegraph comments on the effects of Malta's recent EU membership: broken promises from the EU regarding their representation and influence (of course both have turned out to be far less that they were promised. You don't have to "force" physically. You can coerce, with false promises, outright lies, blackmail...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-08 12:35:27|| 2003-06-08 12:35:27|| Front Page Top

#13 "however, you accuse me of having "prayed for the destruction of my homeland". "

No, I accuse RW of praying for the destruction of my homeland. Or atleast saying that he'd love to, which amounts to the same thing.

"Today's Telegraph comments on the effects of Malta's recent EU membership: broken promises from the EU regarding their representation and influence (of course both have turned out to be far less that they were promised."

If you believe such lies from the Telegraph, that's your problem.

"Instead of six MEPs, the Maltese will have only four. They won't have a Commissioner."

Bullshit, and bullshit. The Nice Treaty says that they do, and if things change in the European Constitution, then they still won't change until about 2009, and in that case *every* country's MEPs will be decreased.

This is beyond the level of holding a different opinion. The Telegraph outright lies and distorts. The Nice Treaty says exactly how many MEPs Malta will have. If this one day changes, then it's no different from France and Italy (and other countries) losing more than 10 MEPs each, when a rearrangement was made to keep their number to a manageable level...

"With a full-time President of the Council, the chances of a Maltese presidency are nil."

Oh, my, that's even more amusing, given how the UK is one of the countries urginf for a full-time President of the Council, and federalists tend to be the ones that oppose it...

Is this the best you have to show me, Bulldog of European "deceit"?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-08 12:48:18|| 2003-06-08 12:48:18|| Front Page Top

#14 "Solidarity means that when Osama Bin Laden attacks New York, Texas attacks Osama Bin Laden."

Aris, I'd ask for some kind of explanation (if there is one), but fear yet another lengthy and self-contradictory tirade. For someone educated like yourself your attempts at logical argument are seriously flawed. You say national sovereignty isn't threatened by European integration yet desire the formation of a homogenous superstate where Greece relies on a European army. You accuse the English of being racist, a racist remark if ever I heard one. You state blantant untruths such as your assertion that the constitution drafting process is transparent when this whole thread originated from an article illustrating how even national delegations are tried to be deceived regarding its contents. Your delusional thinking is an example of what's currently so wrong within continental Europe.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-08 12:51:38|| 2003-06-08 12:51:38|| Front Page Top

#15 Hmmmm Aris, as a Merkin I also have no dog in this fight, but will have to live with the results. I would have to say your personal attacks on RW and Bulldog are inappropriate at best in a policy discussion, and hysterical at worst. I don't see the reason why sovereignty would be deeded over voluntarily to unelected bueaucrats. I could see a successful EU only if it were similar to a U.S. system with a federal government as well as state governments. I see dishonest people with no accountability writing nanny state rules as intolerable, but hey, that's just me. Good thread though guys

Posted by Frank G 2003-06-08 12:55:54|| 2003-06-08 12:55:54|| Front Page Top

#16 I strongly objected to RW's initial comment and was about to fire a reply but the weather was just too beautiful... now thunderstorms are here.

Well Aris did my job. Yet I think he overstepped the line when roasting the British Parliament. Only the Iraqi information minister has the license to roast anything!

I must say though that I'm strongly irritated with the (rather new?) US hostility towards a greater European Union. Before Iraq that never seemed much of an issue and was actually applauded. But now the Euro has raised its ugly head, right?

United Europe is still an utopy for now. But so was a common market in the 50s, so was French-German friendship before de Gaulle pushed it, so was a common currency. The European Union is a plan, an idea to peacefully and democratically unite countries that might be very different but share common values and know they have to give up some sovereignty for a greater thing. Sovereignty doesn't really mean a lot in this globalized world. What power does a country like Malta really have? They could have opted to stay outside and then? They'd have to follow EU rules anyway in order to sell their products, without having a say.

Could a Maltese ever be president of an European Union? Why not? He or she could very well be a compromise candidate when the big nations can't agree on a French, German or Brit.

Forced marriage of cultures and nations? Nothing is forced and if one country really decided to leave the EU, who could stop it? You thing French or German troops would invade Poland if Poland says, we're better off outside the EU?

If hundreds of cultures and nationalities can live together in New York, why not in Europe? The national borders will lose importance, grown cultural regions will stick closer together, the Catalans with the Languedociens, the Bavarians with the Tyrolese, the Alsacians with Alemannic Germany and Switzerland. People will study, work and live where they like. They and not politicians will make real Europe possible.

Europe without the EU (political and economical) would be a bunch of jealous nations, with petty (or not so petty) conflicts, entirely dependent on the goodwill of America.

And as much as I appreciate the United States.., here is the limit. Germany, Luxemburg or Poland give up sovereignity in order to gain a superior European sovereignty.

The Giscardien project still has a long way to go and Europe will need thorough democratic and bureaucratic reforms. But this means people all over Europe need to care about the European idea.

American hostility actually plays in the hands of the staunchest pro-Europeans. A common identity is most easily sought against a common adversary. The United States would politically and economically dominate 30something split European nations. So much for sovereignty.

The wisest move the United States can make: Accept European unity and form a strong alliance with it on eye level. That's a relationship both sides of the Atlantic can only benefit from.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-08 13:43:24|| 2003-06-08 13:43:24|| Front Page Top

#17 "You say national sovereignty isn't threatened by European integration"

Actually, I think I said that it's not "surrendered", as long as one retains the right to get it back. "Loaned" perhaps, though I prefer the use of the word "shared".

"yet desire the formation of a homogenous superstate where Greece relies on a European army."

"Homogenous"? No.

"Relies"? 80% of my countrymen desire a common defense and foreign policy. Download the EuroBarometer here and see how the Europeans tend to have a common attitudes about most these matters, and only the British oppose them. Also how the British tend to be among the most ignorant about European matters, and at the same time those who don't believe they need to be any more informed than they already are...

"You accuse the English of being racist, a racist remark if ever I heard one."

Actually I think I accused "England" of doing "nothing but spout xenophobic and racist nationalisms against the EU." Which is true for most of the objections to the EU I've heard, and them evil Germans/French/Belgians that want to shallow up the brave UK nation inside their new Napoleonic/Hitleric dreams of domination, etc, etc...

"You state blantant untruths such as your assertion that the constitution drafting process is transparent when this whole thread originated from an article illustrating how even national delegations are tried to be deceived regarding its contents."

Given how we're not told exactly what happened (other than that the British MP had "a plane to catch") you can hardly claim that this article "illustrates" the deception. Those issues tried to be "snuck in"? It was a discussion from the beginning what would happen if about 4/5 of the member states ratified changes in the constitution but the rest objected. The article in the draft already says:
"If, two years after the signature of the
Constitutional Treaty, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council."

But this is obviously weak!! What does "referred to" mean?? What power of decision does the European Council have? Can the countries that aren't ratifying it be let go from the Union, so that the remaining other nations procede?

"Your delusional thinking is an example of what's currently so wrong within continental Europe."

Awww, didn't you say you'll refrain from personal attacks?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-08 14:13:34|| 2003-06-08 14:13:34|| Front Page Top

#18 Frankly, I couldn't give two seconds to the mess Europe is heading into, if it didn't affect me, personally. The French vision of the European Union is one diametrically opposed to the United States, simply on principle that anything the US does is not good for Europe (or more precisely, France). France has taken the European Union and attempted to turn it into a wholly-owned French subsidiary, with the avowed intent of undermining United States influence everywhere in the world, whether that action is good for Europe or anyone else. Such egotism is the source of three major wars in the last 100 years, and dozens of smaller ones. I'm getting a bit old to be fighting another idiot's wars - again.

The French have shown, through their actions, that they intend to dominate the European Union, regardless of what anyone else might wish. That is tyranny, pure and simple. The best thing Europe could do is to pull out of the EU, and form something else - without French membership, period. I'm sure the Danes, the Swedes, the Norweigans, the Italians, and perhaps even Germany and Switzerland, have seen enough to know which way the wind is blowing. Surrendering to the French is the first step to total destruction, and the collapse of all of Europe.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-06-08 14:30:11|| 2003-06-08 14:30:11|| Front Page Top

#19 From another Merrican, here's another two bits worth.

The whole idea of calling a system 'democratic' (ask o kyrios Katsaris about the original version of that idea) is pretty funny when a citizen:

votes for a party which writes its own list of candidates, who then

vote for a sort of national legislature, which then

votes for various EU fonctionaires, who then

vote for yet another supranational body who make the decisions and write the decrees.

Howinell is an ordinary citizen to vote to remove any of these rarified members of a governing quasi-nobility if said member turns out to be dealing in bribery and corruption or some other example of moral turpitude (not unheard of in Continental Europe)?

Posted by Insufficiently Sensitive 2003-06-08 14:39:26|| 2003-06-08 14:39:26|| Front Page Top

#20

voluntary union of democracies

ROTFLMAO
Thanks. I needed the laugh.

Posted by Celissa 2003-06-08 14:45:24|| [www.celissasblog.com/] 2003-06-08 14:45:24|| Front Page Top

#21 Insufficiently Sensitive> In your Greek, you've used nominative when you should have used accusative.

And I don't know what system you are describing but it's not the EU. The members of the European Council are the democratically elected heads of governments of each of the states. And the members of the European Parliament are also democratically elected and have to vote and approve each piece of legislation. The Commission is the only governing institution which is appointed (by the Council) and approved by the Parliament, instead of elected.

As for your "how in hell is an ordinary citizen to vote to remove" etc, etc, that's why need the President of the Commission to be elected, whether by the European Parliament or the people directly, as several possible amendments have suggested, right?

Are you in favour of such a thing? Because democratization of the Union is one of the things that UK *never* pushes forward...

Old Europe> Can you give us some *concrete* examples of how France plans to dominate the European Union? Concrete examples, please. The vague fearmongering bores me.

After all France has no more votes anywhere than UK does... How can France "dominate" (unfairly) when the UK can't?

Don't see domination, where others see leadership.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-08 14:54:06|| 2003-06-08 14:54:06|| Front Page Top

#22 Celissa> Yes, "it's funny because it's true". ;-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-08 14:59:06|| 2003-06-08 14:59:06|| Front Page Top

#23 Aris Katsaris:
So is this.

Not long after the September 11th attack, some 30,000 Greek soccer fans, attending a Uefa match against a Scottish team in Athens, jeered through the moment's silence held in honour of the terror victims.

The Scots looked on aghast as they then tried to burn the Stars and Stripes in the stands.

[...]

Successive opinion polls have showed the Greeks to be, by far, the least sympathetic of all Euro-Alliance nations to post-attack America.

They have also been the least willing to take action against countries harbouring terrorists.

From the Beeb...

But obviously "sharing competences" and "sharing sovereignty" is one and the same thing. "making it an "in or out" of Europe vote," Yay! UK, out!

I agree.
UK out of the EU!
God knows we don't want one of our strongest allies to fall in any further with this bunch of "fair-minded" EUrocrats.

Posted by Celissa 2003-06-08 15:11:23|| [www.celissasblog.com/] 2003-06-08 15:11:23|| Front Page Top

#24 Aris, it's your continent and the Europeans can organize it as you like. But consider:

The French already refuse to play by EU trade and governance rules that they don't like. Witness their repeated violation of monetary rules, deficit rules and import/export rules. The French are pushing a "United Europe" precisely because 1) they think they can dominate it and 2) they won't obey any rules they don't like.

Further, "United Europe" is going to have massive financial problems in the next 30 years -- the birthrate is low in most European countries, pension funds are coming due, and social benefits are very generous. Who pays for all this? Countries that currently have reasonable financial prospects (e.g., UK) are going to be dragged down by the likes of France and Germany. "United Europe" becomes a ploy by which the UK and eastern Europe pay for the social welfare benefits of France, Italy and Germany.

You ask how France will dominate? Look at how the rules are being set up. Having a superfunctionary council that is essentially unelected allows the member states to be dominated by the beaurocracy. Who has the largest proportion of EUcrats in Brussels right now? Why, France and Germany of course. See where this is going? You don't really think Greece is going to have any option other than to shut up and do as it's told, do you?

Enjoy "United Europe." We in the USA will avoid the socialism and post-modernism that has infested Europe, and in thirty years we'll be so far ahead of Europe (economically and morally) you'll barely be able to see us.

Posted by Steve White 2003-06-08 15:14:51|| 2003-06-08 15:14:51|| Front Page Top

#25 This thread has gotten pretty complicated (and as we all know us Merkins like to keep things simple) so let me just respond to TGA briefly. I don't oppose (as if I could) the formation of the EU and will gladly shake its hand at the appropriate moment. I am interested in the technicalities of drafting, however, and it is not clear to me how the Giscard draft will work in practice. A constitution is not a contract and imprecision has its purposes; but for whatever's it's worth I think the Giscard draft, among other things, is just not tight enough for people reasonably to decide on it. Your New York analogy has merit, but I know you do not underestimate how long the formation of the USA really took and how difficult that process was.

Posted by Matt 2003-06-08 15:18:52|| 2003-06-08 15:18:52|| Front Page Top

#26 Yes Bulldog, I read about Blairs 'nuclear' option. He'd better watch out
on that, because looking at Aris' link to EuroBarometer shows that's
it's not certain that he will get his mandate.

Aris, it may say in the fine print 'ever closer union', but is that
phrase ever really explained to the electorates in the various
referenda to join? In that, it means you will lose your sovereignty, you
will lose control over your budgets, which will then be essentially
dictated by the ECB. You may even lose control of your armed forces.

People who voted to join 'The Common Market', 'European Union' or
whatever it calls itself, were voting for better trade and access to the
EU 'single market'. Simple as that (IMHO).

If Greece joined for a common defence and foreign policy then surely the
events since 9/11 and of the last few months in particular must have
been an eye-opener. Greece is part of NATO and that organisation
has guaranteed the integrity of the borders of all countries in Western
Europe over the last 50+ years. Well, that means Americans and I for one
am very pleased and grateful for that. I don't know how well I could
have learnt Russian, but because of NATO and the Americans, I never
needed to find out.

There is much talk about common foreign policies and EU armed forces,
but when you have bureaucrats more interested in making sure that
childrens swings are a regulation height all across Europe, can you
honestly trust these people with the defence of Europe?

'Insufficiently Sensitive' has it right - people making decisions who
are four levels of voting removed from the hundreds of millions (of
effectively serfs) who 'voted' for 'them'.

That is not democracy.

Posted by Tony 2003-06-08 15:21:29|| 2003-06-08 15:21:29|| Front Page Top

#27 OT but... European defence is an interesting issue. Currently, it's a joke, but what does the future have in store? Multi"national" divisions, or national units? Brussels would no doubt prefer the former. A single language will need to be adopted, and the logical choice would be English (which would be ironic were England to be not involved). Would there be conscription?

Would airlift services be provided by the Ukrainians, or the Russians? Cents for Rantburgers' thoughts...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-08 16:18:58|| 2003-06-08 16:18:58|| Front Page Top

#28 It is extremely difficult to bring so many nations together under one roof. Why is the process so difficult. Because every nation wants its fair share and not be crushed by overwhelming majorities.

Sure we could have it the simple way: One man, one vote, majority rules. Problem is, THAT would really favor Germans and French. Thats where it gets complicated. The US had the same problem, that's why you still can't elect your president directly (with interesting side effects as we know now).

Yes Matt, you are right: It's a long and difficult process. Should we give it up because of that? Why didn't North and South just call it a day in 1861? Couldn't California manage on her own? Hawaii??

I had to live (for a while) in a forced union of states (Warsaw Treaty) before I jumped the fence. No Tony, I don't see the serfdom you envision in the EU.

I don't agree with Giscard's draft but we are a long shot from voting yet.

A lot of American criticism is actually directed at the French (the favorite whipping boy right now). The French do NOT dominate Europe, at least not in the way many Rantburgers think). And the French will have their own reforms in the next years. Bureaucracy... well you'll find a lot of it in Brussels but also in Washington.

Steve, you name some crucial problems Europe has. But people are starting to see them and Germany is on the way to reforms (too slowly given we have a red/green government but that will change). And the more united Europe is the less possibilities for France to play her own games. France does NOT have the majority in Europe, with the UK on board even less so.

And a final word: The word "sovereignty" is thrown around here like we still lived in the 19th century. But we live in the 21st. What does "sovereignty" really mean for a medium sized European country? Economically? Militarily? What can such a country really do on its own (and against others)? European defense could save billions just by streamlining the militaries of so many countries. How many submarine fleets does Europe need?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-08 16:25:17|| 2003-06-08 16:25:17|| Front Page Top

#29 "Aris, it may say in the fine print 'ever closer union' "

The preamble isn't "fine print". European unity has been a clear objective from the start.

"In that, it means you will lose your sovereignty, you will lose control over your budgets, which will then be essentially dictated by the ECB."

So instead of being dictated by the dollar fluctuations, it'll be dictated by a European instrument? I'll go for that.

"You may even lose control of your armed forces."

Same as with NATO you mean? Except that we don't have any control over NATO which is "dominated" by the US, but we do have some control over EU decisions (which are far *less* dominated by Germany and France).

"People who voted to join 'The Common Market', 'European Union' or whatever it calls itself, were voting for better trade and access to the EU 'single market'. Simple as that (IMHO)."

Then what is the EEA for? And if people who currently vote for the EU just want a common market, then why is Norway and Icelands members of that common market without being members of the EU?

"Who has the largest proportion of EUcrats in Brussels right now? Why, France and Germany of course. "

If you are talking about the Commission (which is the usual instrument that the word "EUcrats" refers to), then no, you are wrong. France and Germany have each always had as many Commissioners as the UK. Once upon a time the number was "two", nowadays it'll become "one".

The High Representative is Solana, a Spaniard. The President of the Commission is Italian. The European Ombudsman is Greek. The President of the Parliament is British, I believe.

Is this French domination? The only Frenchman in a position of authority currently is, I believe, Giskard d'Estain.

And as for France sometimes violating rules, it's then dragged to the European court for it --- and if the Court takes a while to reach its decisions, that's again because the *UK* has from the start always opposing the idea of the European Court being able to easily impose fines on member states! (Because it goes against "sovereignty" see, to have a European court impose fines on member states -- oh, the irony!)

"Greece is part of NATO and that organisation has guaranteed the integrity of the borders of all countries in Western Europe over the last 50+ years. "

Hah! Yes, well, check out the keywords "Imia", "Cyprus", "Denktash", "violations of Greek airspace" and other such nice tidbits... Integrity of borders? Against the Soviet block, once upon a time, yes -- but if ever Turkey moves against us, NATO is immediately dissolved and we're on our own. And since the USA "needs" Turkey more than it needs us... eh, I'll just leave it at that.

So very sorry, if we don't consider NATO alone to be sufficient protection.

"Insufficiently Sensitive has it right - people making decisions who are four levels of voting removed from the hundreds of millions (of effectively serfs) who 'voted' for 'them'."

But they are simply *not* four levels of voting removed. They are just *one* level of voting removed. Insufficiently Sensitive is either insufficientely knowledgeable or insufficiently truthful.

"You don't really think Greece is going to have any option other than to shut up and do as it's told, do you? "

LOL!!! Yes, I do think that Greece is gonna have a lot of options... Greece has increased its power and influence tenfold since it entered the union... It's *outside* the Union that small countries don't have any power whatsoever... Do you think that Bulgaria is currently more potent to forge its own destiny than Greece is?

Greece, that most anti-American of EU countries in its public opinion, nonetheless found the power to weave threads of moderation throughout the EU debates about Iraq - to the extent that alongside Netherlands and (to a lesser extent) Italy, it's probably considered to have been the only moderate powers in this crisis. Where is the prediction for that? Where is the domination, from either side of the equation?

What did Bulgaria did on the other hand? Just fall in line with the poor eastern bloc that seeks EU entry, even as it desires additional American assistance... Do you call *that* independence and sovereignty?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-08 16:28:41|| 2003-06-08 16:28:41|| Front Page Top

#30 Since I started this whole thing... I want to add something: first and foremost I am a Canadian, but I am also a Polish citizen. This weekend Poland voted overwhelmingly to join the EU. They had to. There was no other choice, as TGA likes to point out. We'll see what the future brings. (Perhaps, TGA, I should start learning German???)
Let me just paste in a quote, that succinctly describes how many Poles feel:
"We must join the European Union," said Kazimierz Gorka, clutching two Polish newspapers. "Of course, it is not such a happy situation, but we have no other choice because all of Europe will be united."

Posted by RW 2003-06-08 18:11:24|| 2003-06-08 18:11:24|| Front Page Top

#31 ""You may even lose control of your armed forces." Same as with NATO you mean? Except that we don't have any control over NATO which is "dominated" by the US, but we do have some control over EU decisions (which are far *less* dominated by Germany and France)."

You are willing to subject yourselves to a common foreign policy decided by majority decision in Brussels, and you think this represents less lack of control over your armed forces than membership of NATO?

"And if people who currently vote for the EU just want a common market, then why is Norway and Icelands members of that common market without being members of the EU?"

They have no decision making powers, being outside the EU. That does not mean all nations within the EU want superstatedom.

Why was Greece a NATO member if it was so useless? Surely Warsaw Pact membership would have been given Greece tenfold more power?

"Do you think that Bulgaria is currently more potent to forge its own destiny than Greece is?"

Of course. What can be more capable of forging its own destiny than that which is independent? Unless, that is, it is threatened by an overbearing hostile neighbour. But the EU wouldn't be in the business of intimidation, surely?

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-08 18:16:51|| 2003-06-08 18:16:51|| Front Page Top

#32 RW I meant there was no other reasonable choice for Poland. Join the bandwagon or be left behind, it's that easy. But Poland DID have the choice. 82% said yes to Europe.
Or do you think Europe has to stop uniting because Poland doesn't feel comfortable with it?
Should you learn German? It never hurts to know the language of important trading partners (and your neighbor), right? But nobody forces you (yet you know English already and as a Canadian a bit of French, too?).
Do you know that Germans weren't very happy about the Euro a few years ago? Now many can't even remember which color the 10DM bill had.
Poland might want to ask Portugal or Ireland about what the EU did for them.
And re Bulgaria: What does "independence" mean today? Can you explain, Bulldog?
Even rich Switzerland will join one day. If they were allowed to keep their anonymous bank accounts they would probably have already. Because economically they have to follow Brussels if they want to do business with the EU. They might as well have a say in the decisions.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-08 18:40:57|| 2003-06-08 18:40:57|| Front Page Top

#33 "Re Bulgaria: What does "independence" mean today?"

In their case, the freedom to choose when to sacrifice their independence at the altar of Union.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-08 19:01:20|| 2003-06-08 19:01:20|| Front Page Top

#34 No, explain me, how "independent" Bulgaria would fare? What great things could independent Bulgarians achieve for their country which they cant achieve inside the EU?

BTW they can have all the US bases they want either way.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-08 19:23:46|| 2003-06-08 19:23:46|| Front Page Top

#35 "You are willing to subject yourselves to a common foreign policy decided by majority decision in Brussels, and you think this represents less lack of control over your armed forces than membership of NATO?"

I'm not certain whether by "you" you mean "you" singular or "you" plural.

Either way, it all depends on what this common defense policy will entail, doesn't it? The way it's being drafted now, every country has the right to not participate in actions it doesn't approve of.

"Why was Greece a NATO member if it was so useless?"

Oh, it wasn't useless. Protected us from invasions from the north, for example. And it helped us with military capabilities, training, so on... Not to mention that it'd be a disaster if Turkey was part of NATO and Greece wasn't.

But that it ain't useless does not mean it is *enough*.

"Surely Warsaw Pact membership would have been given Greece tenfold more power?"

We wanted to remain capitalists, thank you very much?

"Of course. What can be more capable of forging its own destiny than that which is independent?"

And do you really think any nation is "independent" in the modern day world? You make me laugh. Weak countries are never really independent -- but since you are British, I suppose I can't expect you to understand that....

"Unless, that is, it is threatened by an overbearing hostile neighbour."

Or unless its currency becomes a target for speculators? Or unless it's poor and can't maintain proper levels of industrialization and development? Or unless tyrannical forces take it over, binding a nation to the wheel of some twisted ideology, be it nationalism or fascism or whatever?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-08 19:42:22|| 2003-06-08 19:42:22|| Front Page Top

#36 Poland might want to ask Portugal or Ireland about what the EU did for them.

Yes and they should also read the article Rules are made to be bent, aren't they? in the July 25th 2002 issue of The Economist. Thanks to the "rule" that no country in the Euro-zone can run a deficit over 3% of its GDP, Portugal is now following its European friends into a recession, not to mention risks losing transfer payments from Brussels as a punishment. Not that the big-three (Germany, France, Italy) aren't breaking the same rules themselves, and in the case of France, threatening not to abide by them altogether.

A simple free-trade zone with a common currency would have sufficed economically. I don't know what all this United States of Europe is supposed to be about... the emergence of Homo Europaeus? (a term from the Economist, btw)

Posted by RW 2003-06-08 20:01:58|| 2003-06-08 20:01:58|| Front Page Top

#37 "What great things could independent Bulgarians achieve..."

Careful, TGA, you're beginning to sound like Chirac... And do you think "all the American bases they want" really fits in with federalists' plans for Europe's future?

As an independent state Bulgaria would be taking a gamble, but would staying out of Europe would by no means guarantee future economic failure. East Europeans are already complaining about double standards applied by the EU regarding Eastern and Western members.

"Or unless tyrannical forces take it over, binding a nation to the wheel of some twisted ideology, be it nationalism or fascism or whatever?"

Sounds familiar. Europe's best were especially keen on protecting Iraq's independence.

For your information, I have nothing in principle against the EU as a trading bloc. I see no benefit, only undesirable consequences, to be gained from ever closer political integration. I am not, Aris, one of those who live in "England who does nothing but spout xenophobic and racist nationalisms" (who is not a racist). I would have no hesitation in encouraging those from other nations to join if I thought it would be in their long term interests.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-08 20:23:07|| 2003-06-08 20:23:07|| Front Page Top

#38 It never hurts to know the language of important trading partners (and your neighbor), right?

:) So how's your Polish coming along? (And I don't mean the maid that cleans your house)

Posted by RW 2003-06-08 20:25:13|| 2003-06-08 20:25:13|| Front Page Top

#39 "...it would be in their long term interests."

The key being long term economic interests. In the long run, I see the politics interfering with the economics in the EU. And that's where my objection lies, as a Polish citizen looking from across the Atlantic. BTW, if Poland is now part of the EU, does that make me a citizen of the EU as well? I fear another trip to the local consulate in the coming months.

Posted by RW 2003-06-08 20:33:19|| 2003-06-08 20:33:19|| Front Page Top

#40 Bulldog, you make a fundamental mistake to believe that the European Union (ex European Community) was founded just for economical reasons. From the start there was a desire to politically and culturally unite as well. You might want to read the Treaty of Rome (1957) again.

And don't misquote me, Bulldog: I said "What great things could independent Bulgarians achieve for their country which they cant achieve inside the EU?" Notice the difference? No cheap Chirac insults, please.

The European Union has made wars or armed conflicts between members unthinkable. I can travel from Spain to Finland without even showing my passport, I pay in the same currency and if I like a place I can settle down there.

I remember the "Europhoria" that the entente between de Gaulle and Adenauer sparked: That was only 18 years after WW2. Many dreams have not been fulfilled, true, but I don't want to imagine Europe without the EU.

RW, my Polish sucks, I could make myself understood with my Russian (acquired in Siberia). But Germany does have many neighbors (more than Poland) and after I jumped the fence I learned English and French. It's true that Germany and Poland do not have the same relationship (yet?) as Germany and France do. One reason might be that in the West the friendship was voluntarily while in the East (East Germany and Poland) it was forced upon us. And the history between the two countries has more tragic moments as well.

And sorry, I don't have a Polish maid.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-08 20:56:29|| 2003-06-08 20:56:29|| Front Page Top

#41 Not yet, RW, only in 2004. And no extra trips to your consulate, but your next Polish passport will be red and have European Union written on it (along with your country name and symbol). You'll survive it.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-08 21:00:01|| 2003-06-08 21:00:01|| Front Page Top

#42 Well my apologies then TGA, I thought your "great things" comment was a sarcastic reference to the limited potential, and hence ambitions, a small nation state like Bulgaria should foster. I suppose no one will tell them they're too small to make a "great" impact alone.

"The European Union has made wars or armed conflicts between members unthinkable."

You think? Which wars did the EU prevent? The existence of the EEC/EU did perhaps limit armed conflict over fish stocks by imposing woefully inadequate quotas on member states, but what other conflicts do you think it prevented?

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-08 21:22:44|| 2003-06-08 21:22:44|| Front Page Top

#43 "Poland might want to ask Portugal or Ireland about what the EU did for them."

Well, Ireland's net annual gain from the EU is approximately the same as the UK's net contribution. We could simply send a cheque to Dublin once a year and cut out the middle man. Ireland is expected to become the eurozone's most expensive country this year.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-08 21:39:47|| 2003-06-08 21:39:47|| Front Page Top

#44 your next Polish passport will be red
Oh great, how fitting. Let the jokes begin...

Posted by RW 2003-06-08 22:05:08|| 2003-06-08 22:05:08|| Front Page Top

#45 Bulldog asks, "Which wars did the EU prevent?"

In concert with NATO, we've had a Pax Europa from 1945 to the present day in Western and Central Europe. It's one of the longest war-free epochs on the continent. As an American, I appreciate that. By building trade and common interests, the EU helped bring that about.

I have no dog in this fight. I would suggest that the Europeans here re-read the proposed EU constitution: in contrast to the American one, where the people decide what rights the state will have, the EU constitution has the state deciding what rights the people will have. Bass-ackwards if you ask me.

Aris notes that Greece has increased its influence substantially in the EU as it stands. Only it's going to change with the new EU constitution -- smaller countries will find themselves increasingly subservient. Chirac wasn't kidding when he told the eastern states to shut up and do as their told.

Posted by Steve White 2003-06-08 23:32:01|| 2003-06-08 23:32:01|| Front Page Top

#46 I have a special fondness for Greeks, being half-Greek myself. We invented western democracy, medicine etc, etc.

But I am shocked, Celissa, to hear of that soccer-stadium event. Don't forget there are more Greeks living outside Greece than there are in it, and the majority of the expat community certainly doesn't feel that way (in Australia anyway).

Greeks certainly hold no truck with Islamofascists.

But on the topic of the EU: OK, it's good for the little states to get a trading bloc and defence covered. It's good for travellers to not have to apply for 20 visas and hold 20 currencies when visiting Europe.

But they are way out of control with their restrictions. It's beaurocracy run MAD. They demand all their cucumbers be straight. You are not allowed to sell bendy cucumbers. And they have to be sold wrapped in plastic.

Rules such as this are stupid.

The only food that tastes any good now is food grown outside the 'rules' that is organic and local. I had a great big juicy-looking EU peach when I was in England. I so looked forward to taking a huge bite, and when I did I found it was tasteless, woody and dry with a consistency of powdery rottenness.

The tastiest piece of fruit was an organically grown apple, from the UK that conformed to no EU rules.

The UK needs to co-operate with Europe but for godsake keep your autonomy and keep away from having a superstructure of expensive UN-style beaurocrats who will syphon every penny and wrap business in a coffin of red-tape.

Posted by Anon1 2003-06-09 01:02:40|| 2003-06-09 01:02:40|| Front Page Top

#47 Let me see if I understand this correctly.
Aris you state that the UK(if it joined the EU)would not lose it's soverighnity,because it would have the option of leaving the EU with"a 2 year notice".Now,Aris,correct me if I am wrong.
But that sounds an awfull lot like"indentured servitude"to me.

Posted by raptor 2003-06-09 08:48:36|| 2003-06-09 08:48:36|| Front Page Top

#48 As Aris and the rest of Europe run to urinate away any last shred of human freedom and dignity, we'll get to clean up the mess resulting from their statist corporatism (fascism).

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm

Posted by Ernest Brown 2003-06-09 10:46:58|| [saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2003-06-09 10:46:58|| Front Page Top

#49 Notice that Aris has transferred his nationalism to "Europe." The whole idea behind the EU is to promote conflict (economic, diplomatic and, eventually, military) between non-member states (specifically the US) and the Union.

cf:

Jurgen Habermas yearns to destroy freedom and liberalism

Andrew Sullivan's warning

Posted by Ernest Brown 2003-06-09 11:16:52|| [saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2003-06-09 11:16:52|| Front Page Top

14:44 Ptah
14:36 Ptah
11:16 Ernest Brown
10:46 Ernest Brown
09:19 raptor
08:48 raptor
02:16 Dan Darling
01:32 Anon1
01:29 Watcher
01:24 Anon1
01:24 Anonymous Troll
01:02 Anon1
00:31 Liberalhawk
00:22 Liberalhawk
00:04 Anon1
23:54 Becky
23:37 Becky
23:32 Steve White
22:35 Alaska Paul
22:05 RW
21:39 Bulldog
21:22 Bulldog
21:00 True German Ally
20:56 True German Ally