Article

2003-09-10 Britain

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 Bulldog 2003-09-10 7:01:32 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Tony Blair indicated yesterday that the Government could drop opposition to giving legal force to an EU charter of fundamental rights, allowing European judges to overturn British laws.

Time for the Poms to kiss their sovereignty goodbye. A shame, but then a reasonable person could see this coming.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-10 11:02:55 AM|| 2003-9-10 11:02:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Is Tony cruising for a vote of no confidence?

Posted by Hiryu 2003-9-10 11:13:00 AM|| 2003-9-10 11:13:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Bulldog, I was just wondering....say that your government decides to ok this thing, and adopt the EU constitution. (Yeah, I know this makes you puke, but bear with me for a moment.) Is there any provision where a future British government can tell the EU to piss off, or is it an irrevocable decision like admitting a state to the union here in America?

Posted by Baba Yaga 2003-9-10 11:28:10 AM|| 2003-9-10 11:28:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Actually, sucession is supposed to be legal. I read somewhere that Texas has a special deal, as well, where it can split itself into four states.

I wouldn't think that ceeding British soverignity to the EU would be popular, but maybe it is and this move is an emergency move to increase backing. Gray Davis is cutting some deals too.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-9-10 11:33:40 AM|| 2003-9-10 11:33:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Hiryu, no one's talking about anything like that at the moment, but only because the final constitution has yet to be agreed. Once Blair's "red lines" get crossed, he'll find his 'no referendum' position untenable, I'm sure. According to this Telegraph opinion piece, that's happened already, with Blair's acceptance of a European Foreign Minister.

There has to be a referendum. It's utterly inconceivable that a responsible government would deny its citizens the right to vote on such an issue. Can you imagine Bush trying to pull off a stunt like this?

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-10 11:42:23 AM|| 2003-9-10 11:42:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 BY, The constitution has "no legal personality". AFAIK, there will be no repercussions should a nation decide to leave, at the moment. If you read it, or excerpts of it, it's a ream of platitudinous bumf, with various developments (including adopting a common foreign ministry), amendments and changes to voting, veto, and some "human rights" sanctimoniousness thrown in. It's more the symbolism of the document, and the future promises, than what it binds states to immediately that's the danger.

SH, Believe me, ceeding sovereignty to the EU is not popular. Hence Blair's attempts to play down to meaning of the Constitution.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-10 12:02:21 PM|| 2003-9-10 12:02:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 SH- I don't know about Texas splitting itself up into 4 other states, but the secession issue was pretty much resolved by the Civil War. The southern states tried and failed. Any other state attempting to do the same thing now would face the 21st century version of that.
Some Texans tried to base their secession rights on the fact that they were an independent country at one time and still retained the option to leave. Negatory on that, skipper. California was also, I believe, independent (look at their flag.....it still says "California Republic"), but as much as some Americans might want them to leave when they keep doing silly things, they don't have the right either. Same with Hawaii. Once you're in, you're in forever.

Posted by Baba Yaga 2003-9-10 12:05:07 PM|| 2003-9-10 12:05:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 "Actually, sucession (sic) is supposed to be legal."

A bit OT, but the last time that theory was tested it didn't work out so well. It wasn't explicitly dealt with in the Constitution, but the original ratification procedures offer insight. Once 9 states ratified the Constitution it went into effect for all 13 states - one or two of the 13 had not ratified it when the first session of Congress opened and Washington took office. The non ratifying states sent Congressmen and Senators and there was no controversy about whether the new system applied to them. If there was no opt out then, hard to see how secession could be legitimate 80 years later or now. Although if Lee had been less of a gambler, the CSA might have pulled it off anyway.

Posted by VAMark 2003-9-10 12:06:45 PM|| 2003-9-10 12:06:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Peshawar...
Yes, Texas can, with US Congressional approval (simple majority, I think), split itself into five states. It was part of the pkg when it joined the union as it was a 10 yr old bona-fide independent Republic at the time. Other goodies included, unlike any other state to my knowledge, Texas retained all her public lands - including offshore. Owned by the State, not the US. Guess why tuition at the Univ of Texas System is so cheap... While Pres of Republic of Texas, Mirabeau B Lamar ceeded the mineral rights for all the public lands to the State Education System. Oil. Black gold. Texas T. Derricks, pump jacks, and rigs all over those public lands. Big $. I have to add that Karen Ault, my Texas History teacher from the 6th Grade (I think it was) would be so goddamned proud right now she'd bust! She always seemed like she was gonna do some of that anyway. You see, she thought I wasn't listening when I was oggling her, uh, superstructure... Man, she filled a sweater just like Barbie...

Posted by .com (a.k.a. Abu This!) 2003-9-10 12:20:50 PM|| 2003-9-10 12:20:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Bulldog,
Was there any reaction in the British public last week when the French government adopted a fical policy that was not consistent with EU requirements.

With respect to sucession, I keep hoping that California will get pissed at the other states and try to suceed. We could even dynamite the San Andreas Fault so that they would no longer be Conus.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-9-10 12:25:32 PM|| 2003-9-10 12:25:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 SH, I doubt that many people got to hear of it, and those who did wouldn't have been surprised. Didn't help that the BBC wasn't exactly jumping all over the story. Perhaps if the media hadn't been so Hutton-obssessed at the time, it would have received more attention.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-10 12:36:31 PM|| 2003-9-10 12:36:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Is there any provision where a future British government can tell the EU to piss off, or is it an irrevocable decision like admitting a state to the union here in America?

Link

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-10 12:37:28 PM|| 2003-9-10 12:37:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Well that's just great...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-10 12:41:41 PM|| 2003-9-10 12:41:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 This is the Beeb's take on that:

"A new article outlines how a member states would leave the EU: "A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the Council of its intention... The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal."

There was never a formal way of leaving the EU, though in practice a state would simply have to repeal its legislation and go. This article is designed to show that the EU is a voluntary association which does not enforce membership. However, there is an implied threat that life might not be too comfortable outside as the departing member would have to negotiate an agreement for its trade and other relations. The clause is presumably designed never to be used."

Sorta like the deal at the Hotel California...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-10 12:48:04 PM|| 2003-9-10 12:48:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal.

That little clause makes it sound like conditions will be put forth on secession. What it doesn't say is if secession is even an option. What happens if "The Union" says no to any withdrawal proposal?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-10 2:32:05 PM|| 2003-9-10 2:32:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 a relevant example might be Canada and Quebec. Canada has made it fairly clear that it would NOT use force to keep Quebec in - but there are some very complex issues involving national assets, the national debt, etc. Before even addressing whether Quebec would be in Nafta (presumably the US would have something to say about that :) ) And there is the threat that native Canadians (IE indians) in the north would in turn secede from Quebec - Quebec says that would violate international law, but its disputed (causing Canadian international lawyers to become experts on Bosnia, among other places)
Suppose in 2020 UK secedes from the EU, and Scotland insists on staying?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-10 3:32:40 PM|| 2003-9-10 3:32:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Interesting point, LH. In that case it would be England and/or Wales and N Ireland seceding, not the UK. By 2020, after 15 yrs of EUnification, there probably wouldn't be a UK to speak of at all.

Pulling away from the EU octopus can't happen too soon. As you indicate, it will only become harder to do so in the future. This is not a policy of symbiosis of willing peoples. It's EUgoslavia, and eventually it will be a disaster on a much grander scale. At least that's the danger. The 'benefits' of a federalised, "homogenized" (you gotta laugh) Europe do not balance the risks.

No state would be coerced by the threat of force, into remaining in the EU, as things stand now. In the future, however, that may change. As for trade "punishment" upon withdrawl: trade's a two-way process. We can always find new markets. A price worth paying for independence.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-10 4:20:25 PM|| 2003-9-10 4:20:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 ...Of course there would already be areas of conflict. The UK gave up rights to much of her traditional fishing waters upon joining the EU. We'd want them back, and what's left of the criminally mismanaged fish stocks within them.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-10 4:38:43 PM|| 2003-9-10 4:38:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 After looking at what's been happening in Europe for the last ten years, all the US would have to do to destroy the European Union in about six months is to do a complete financial blockade of the EU. Money HAS to flow between countries to sustain trade. The EU cannot live based on its internal economic activity. Trade is not only essential, but CRITICAL, even for some things like food, oil, and spare parts. Cut the cord, and the EU crumples like the house of cards it is.

IF all else fails, Bulldog, know that at least ONE Rantburger will offer you asylum, even if you do have to sleep on the sofa for a few nights!

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-9-10 5:13:07 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-9-10 5:13:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 "What happens if "The Union" says no to any withdrawal proposal?"

The draft constitution says that if an agreement isn't reached, then the member state leaves the union two years after it first announced its decision.

"3. The Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
decides to extend this period."

And from the comments to the draft by the authors:
"The Praesidium considers that the Constitution must contain a provision on voluntary withdrawal from the Union. Although many consider that it is possible to withdraw even in the absence of a specific provision to that effect, the Praesidium feels that inserting a specific provision in the Constitution on voluntary withdrawal from the Union clarifies the situation and allows the introduction of a procedure for negotiating and concluding an agreement between the Union and the Member State concerned setting the arrangements for withdrawal and the framework for future relations. Moreover, the existence of a provision to that effect is an important political signal to anyone inclined to argue that the Union is a rigid entity which it is impossible to leave."

Also this comment:
"The Praesidium considers that, since many hold that the right of withdrawal exists even in the absence of an explicit provision to that effect, withdrawal of a Member State from the Union cannot
be made conditional upon the conclusion of a withdrawal agreement. Hence the provision that withdrawal will take effect in any event two years after notification. However, in order to encourage a withdrawal agreement between the Union and the State which is withdrawing, Article I-57 provides for the possibility of extending this period by common accord between the European Council and the Member State concerned."

Bomb-a-rama, I'm glad you posted that lying link of the Telegraph, whose propaganda where European matters are concerned seems to be about on the level of Hamas propaganda where the Jews are concerned. It shows the level of knowledge that several of the people here opposing the EU have.

It's also bitterly funny how people who are quick to find any small hint of bias in a BBC or Reuters report are also so quick to shallow and spread the enormous lies of the Telegraph. Just because said lies please them.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-10 5:17:38 PM|| 2003-9-10 5:17:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Old Patriot, if you really want to declare war on the EU just because it's a free and peaceful union of democratic peoples... well, you can also choose to mutilate puppies as well, though I understand you are more inclined to politically-motivated sadistic evil, than ordinary personal sadistic evil.

Go on spreading your hate and your lies, people. The more ignorantly you speak about EU, the more you are making me wonder why I am even bothering with you folk.

Anymore than EU should bother with Britain.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-10 5:26:47 PM|| 2003-9-10 5:26:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Thanks a lot, OP!

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-10 5:28:10 PM|| 2003-9-10 5:28:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 "...Telegraph, whose propaganda where European matters are concerned seems to be about on the level of Hamas propaganda where the Jews are concerned."

Stick with the Guardian then, Aris. Won't hear nasty things about the EU there, right?

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-10 5:34:30 PM|| 2003-9-10 5:34:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Aris, the European Union is beginning to look more and more like French quicksand every day. I cannot accept that any nation that has a truly democratic system of government that is representative of the wishes of the people would amalgamate themselves to this piece of rubbish called the "European Union Constitution". It isn't a constitution - it's a dictatorial power-grab by the people in Brussels. If Britain - or Greece, or any other member of the EU, once it actually "becomes a reality", wishes to leave, we, the FREE people of the United States will assist them. If that means destroying the economy of the European Union, so be it.

I've been in our military the majority of my life. I swore an oath to support and defend our Consitution, because it is the best way we know for people to live together in relative freedom. Nowhere in our Constitution can I find the kinds of chains the EU "constitution" forces on its signatories. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

People - any group of people - have the God-given right to determine what kind of government they wish to have. That includes the people of Europe. A government imposed upon those people - regardless of who imposes it, even if it's their own government - has no binding power, and should be anulled. From all that I've read about the so-called "EU Constitution", I find it depressive, confiscatory, and opressive. I will continue to feel that way until proven wrong, or when hell freezes over, whichever comes sooner.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-9-10 5:38:45 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-9-10 5:38:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Hello Aris:

You were right the other day--I HAD inferred (incorrectly it turns out) that you were Muslim. My apologies in that regard.

Old Patriot is right--one of the reasons our revolution began was over the issue of "representation". Once we (and in the bigger scheme, all sovereign peoples) have selected our elected representation, those elected representatives do NOT have either the inherent or implied ability to transfer their allegiance to some "larger" entity (whether the EU or the UN). Instead, those elected representatives owe their allegiance to US, the very same folks who elected them. Similarly, they pledged to uphold OUR rule of law, not a code designed by folks located thousands of miles away (regardless of how well-meaning that entity may see itself as being).

Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-9-10 6:11:09 PM|| 2003-9-10 6:11:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I asked a Polish citizen who was visiting Poland at the time they had their referundum, why she voted for EU membership. She said she was told to do so, perceiving it to be the right thing to do. This isn't the only story I heard about people voting 'yes' because they were told to do so by a favourite politician, neighbour, best friend, or priest (especially the priest).
Like OP said, people have the right to determine what system they wish to live under. I would respect the Polish people's decision to join the EU, if they made their decision knowing full well the facts and consequences. Unfortunately, I know this not to be the case and it gets my blood boiling when proponents like Aris proclaim the various poll results showing unwavering love for the EU as proof of how glorious the EU is and will be.
I'm sorry to break it to you like this Aris but in Poland's case the overwhelming support for joining is a reflection of the dissatisfaction with and failure of every government since 1990, and not because they love the EU so much. Moreover, timing is playing a big role as well. Poland for the first time since the 1920s, if ever, is experiencing a recession, just as every other country in Europe and the world for that matter. Poland is truly in economically bad shape, and in their minds the sky is falling. But had they waited for the economy to pick up, the polls that Aris likes so much would barely show a hint of love for the EU (atleast, they would think twice about joining, which in the current case, they didn't).
And how conveniant that by the time Poland becomes a full member of the EU, this constitution along with the details of 'how to leave the union', will become law. Keep dreaming Aris.

Posted by Rafael 2003-9-10 6:42:20 PM|| 2003-9-10 6:42:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Old Patriot> "If Britain - or Greece, or any other member of the EU, once it actually "becomes a reality", wishes to leave, we, the FREE people of the United States will assist them. "

Good for you. But if any member of the EU wishes to leave the EU, then *we*, the FREE people of the European Union will also assist them. Actually we'll even show them the way to the door.

So far people have been crowding to join, not been eager to leave. It doesn't seem as if the situation is likely to change in the near or far future.

"Similarly, they pledged to uphold OUR rule of law, not a code designed by folks located thousands of miles away (regardless of how well-meaning that entity may see itself as being)."

What do I care what *your* representatives pledged? *Our* representatives pledged to *our* constitution, which includes articles about the European unification.

And some other representatives of ours happen to be the members of the European Parliament, as democratically elected as the ones in the national parliaments, and no less worthy of our respect.

Rafael> Your ability to not only know the minds of your entire nation based on the handful of people you personally asked, but actually know *how* people would have voted *had* the situation been different in a handful of *hypothetical* years... well, that ability of yours continues to astound me. And if my grandmother had testicles she would have been my grandfather.

So far, the only thing that remains of your post is that you don't "respect" the democratic decision of your people, because you believe you know better than they do. What about the people in Britain who believe garbage such as the one linked by Bomb-a-rama above? If the British people took a vote against remaining in the EU, does that mean I would have the right to "not respect" that decision, because I believe them to have been misinformed. Nonsense.

Democracy demands that you respect democratic decisions regardless of how much cleverer than the majority you think you are, as long as individual human rights are respected.

Poland voted to join. Deal with it. It's your prerogative to consider it a mistake, but no matter how you fret about it, nobody *forced* them to join. It's Poland that asked to join. It's Poland that *voted* to join.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-10 6:59:26 PM|| 2003-9-10 6:59:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 And I'm not making mention of the polls as proof of how "glorious" the EU will be in the future. That would be stupid.

I'm making mention of all those polls (and referenda), so as to prove that the EU has *currently* huge amounts of public support, unlike in the Alternate Universe which people like Bulldog inhabit. In that Alternate Universe all the nations are quietly seething under the leash of Brussels tyranny and would leave it the moment anyone gave them the opportunity. The big bad EU there is somehow "coercing" those member states to remain in it.

There are no common points, thankfully, between that AU and reality. In our reality the most EU can be accused of doing is seducing, not coercing, nations into joining up.

But so far no nation has regretted this seduction enough to want to leave the union, it seems. Prognostications to the contrary about the new members, all seem to be based on a contempt for these people's intellectual abilities -- and thus their votes.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-10 7:14:45 PM|| 2003-9-10 7:14:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Aris, as a Polish citizen, one who keeps in touch with people living there, I feel I can say something about their mindset. My conversations with them permit me to do so, and that's what I base my conclusions on. Interpret it as you wish.

Posted by Rafael 2003-9-10 7:15:58 PM|| 2003-9-10 7:15:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 OK UK, here are these Fundamental Rights. Which one don't you like? Is it just that you want to keep your right to clone people and send them to death in the US or something else?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-9-10 7:19:44 PM|| 2003-9-10 7:19:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 I asked a Polish citizen who was visiting Poland at the time they had their referundum, why she voted for EU membership. She said she was told to do so, perceiving it to be the right thing to do. This isn't the only story I heard about people voting 'yes' because they were told to do so by a favourite politician, neighbour, best friend, or priest (especially the priest).

Appearently, most politicians, neighbors, best friends and priests support EU. I don't know what you think, but it seems a lot of people to me...

Posted by . 2003-9-10 7:24:47 PM|| 2003-9-10 7:24:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 In the last vesion of "Last of the Mohicans" Natie Bumpo's friend Jack, asks a British officer "Is the rule of English law to be replaced by absolutism?"

Posted by Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire 2003-9-10 7:30:24 PM|| 2003-9-10 7:30:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 On a broader issue... I don't think that "guilty by association" should apply to EU (yes, i'm referring to France). EU is a noble experiment (which is bound to fail, IMO, because it is getting too large to be a coherent political or economic animal).

Posted by . 2003-9-10 7:30:53 PM|| 2003-9-10 7:30:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Look, if it is such a terrific idea as Aris seems to think it is, why not put it to a vote by the British people? It's not like other countries haven't done the same. The only reason that seems to make sense as to why this hasn't been done is that the "for" camp doesn't think they have the votes.
In the end, I think it just boils down to "who's going to tell the Brits what to do"? Ok, I'm an outsider, so sue me, but it seems like even if the gang in Brussels would come up with a goofy idea that would be identical to a stupid idea from the gang in London, the Brits would resent the Brussels idea more, simply because someone else imposed it. We can argue all damn night if that makes sense or not, but that doesn't change a thing.

Posted by Baba Yaga 2003-9-10 8:11:37 PM|| 2003-9-10 8:11:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 "Look, if it is such a terrific idea as Aris seems to think it is, why not put it to a vote by the British people? "

Agreed. Assuming the British people also agree that they won't stop the *rest* of the EU from going ahead with the constitution or anything else they want done. In short if they agree to leave the EU, rather than sabotage it.

Or else we have nothing but a tyranny of the minority -- a British minority imposing its views on the rest of Europe.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-10 9:08:47 PM|| 2003-9-10 9:08:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Appearently, most politicians, neighbors, best friends and priests support EU. I don't know what you think, but it seems a lot of people to me...

My contention is that they were misled and not told the whole story concerning EU membership. If they were and they don't care, then that's their problem. I also contend that had they known a little more about what was involved, Aris wouldn't be as happy today. Lastly, I contend that if the people who knew nothing about the issue were excluded from voting (not because they're stupid, but because they usually don't care about politics) then Aris wouldn't be happy at all.
But... we'll see how it turns out.

Posted by Rafael 2003-9-10 9:19:37 PM|| 2003-9-10 9:19:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 --And some other representatives of ours happen to be the members of the European Parliament, as democratically elected as the ones in the national parliaments, and no less worthy of our respect. --

Well, Aris, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Do you know how phrench pols get on the ballot? Not by convincing the great unwashed of their worthiness, they get on by convincing the elitist pols of their worthiness.

As to a minority imposing its will on the majority, welcome to democracy. What, you think it's always the will of the majority? You should know, your country gave us democracy.

Now as to the seccession clause, I swear samizdata.net discussed this and it took 2/3 of the EU to give the go-ahead. That might have changed. In other words, doomed.

As to American secession, if they vote to seceed, and the way we now have a pomo tranzi mindset, they just might go.

BINGO! Unless it changed, from 4/3 posting (boy am I good sometimes!)

A follow up on the yesterday's article about the EU constitution. In today's Telegraph's opinion section, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is concerned that "while we liberate Iraq, Europe is busy planning to enslave us":

The EU will no longer be a treaty organisation in which member states agree to lend power to Brussels for certain purposes, on the understanding that they can take it back again. The EU itself will become the fount of power, with its own legal personality, delegating functions back to Britain. Draft Article 9 puts Brussels at the top of the pyramid. "The Constitution will have primacy over the law of Member States," it says.
The new order may also be irreversible. Article 46 stipulates that the terms of secession from the EU must be agreed by two thirds of the member states. In other words, one third can impose intolerable conditions...."

And there you go.

Give it the good fight, bulldog, but if it's time to come home, let us know. We're here to help.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-9-10 10:41:45 PM|| 2003-9-10 10:41:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 "Article 46 stipulates that the terms of secession from the EU must be agreed by two thirds of the member states. In other words, one third can impose intolerable conditions...." And there you go. "

Anonymous, again I'm glad that you show how ready you are to believe the pleasing lies of propagandists, INSTEAD OF FUCKING READING THE DAMN CONSTITUTION YOURSELF.

"In other words, one third can impose intolerable conditions...."

In other words the guy you are quoting is a liar, and you are an idiot. The country leaving doesn't need even *one* vote agreeing with it (let alone two thirds of them), it can just say "we're leaving", and after two years time they have nothing to do with the EU anymore. And no other country can do anything about it.

And no, nothing changed in the draft about this. It was so from the very initial draft to the very end. It's just that you (and samizdata.net and rantburg.com and any other place populated by people that like shallowing their propaganda whole without actually checking if it's true or not) are using the same lies that British newspapers have used from the very start.

Keep on repeating your damn lies and vile propaganda, idiot anonymous boy, I'll keep on revealing them for what they are.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-10 11:22:41 PM|| 2003-9-10 11:22:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Ooh, something more - Idiot anonymous boy, do go to that lying, phobic samizdata.net article you referred to ( http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003244.html#003244 ) and read the comments on it. In particular take note who was the one to post the last comment on that thread.

Just to make my point that I'm not joking when I'm saying I'll keep on revealing your lies. Almost 6 months later you've still not learned any better, have you now? Little lying idiot boy.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-10 11:32:31 PM|| 2003-9-10 11:32:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 ...after two years time they have nothing to do with the EU anymore. And no other country can do anything about it.

You're so fucking naive it's beyond belief.

Posted by Rafael 2003-9-10 11:38:14 PM|| 2003-9-10 11:38:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Excuse me Rafael, but the text is absolutely clear about this.
What it says is that a country can leave after two years if the remaining EU countries don't agree with that decision. If they agree it can leave even earlier.
People sign binding tenant's contracts longer than this.
The Telegraph is wrong on that one, period. Or rather it leaves out the essential.
Or what do you expect? Hastings the Sequel?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-9-11 12:13:09 AM|| 2003-9-11 12:13:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#42 It's also bitterly funny how people who are quick to find any small hint of bias in a BBC or Reuters report are also so quick to shallow and spread the enormous lies of the Telegraph. Just because said lies please them.

Sorry, but I have no personal interest in the UK's involvement with the EU other than the fact that I happen to like Poms generally. If they want to be beholden to some non-British entity, then that's their business. I only hope that they do what they feel is the right thing, whether it's EU membership or not.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-11 12:22:32 AM|| 2003-9-11 12:22:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#43 TGA, even you yourself said a while ago that it would be practically impossible. Now if I could only find the comment where you said so.

Posted by Rafael 2003-9-11 12:33:53 AM|| 2003-9-11 12:33:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#44 Whether we are stuck in the EU or can leave after a two year period is not relevant here.

What is relevant is that we, the British people, are not being allowed a vote on a piece of legislation that will erode a large proportion of our sovereignty (I wont say 'permanently', as we have still have our Armed Forces...).

This is unnacceptable.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2003-9-11 1:10:47 AM|| 2003-9-11 1:10:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#45 TGA, The point about the Human Rights is, we don't suddenly need someone else to teach us our morality. We can decide that ourselves, as we've always done, and are perfectly capable of doing. We don't need our 'Moral Policy' faxed from Brussels!

Aris, Hope you've calmed down a bit since last night. Is the Greek government going to offer their demos a referendum on the issue of adopting a new constitution? I hope so, out of respect for history, if nothing else...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-11 5:09:23 AM|| 2003-9-11 5:09:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#46 ...Of course the Council of Democracies won't solve the French Problem, but it will force far greater standards of responsibility upon members eligible to join. At present the UN is shot through with hypocrisy. Trying to argue the case for invading Iraq and overthrowing SH around a table with the likes of China and other dictatorships, whilst Libya heads a Human Rights commission down the corridor and starts criticising the US with a posse of third world dictatorships, is an absolutely ludicrous situation. And such a total lack of standards is what allows representatives of such countries as France (and, to a lesser extent, your own) to make such abominable and indefensible displays of cynicism, knowing they'll be supported by a large number of club members who are the 'bully boys' notionally representing entire countries but in fact representing only the interests of a few. There are enough democracies now to make such a global council possible. Something like the EU, but without the monstrous obssession with, and desire for, centralised control...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-11 6:59:12 AM|| 2003-9-11 6:59:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#47 Oops, that above was meant to be posted here. I've not gone completely bonkers, yet.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-11 7:02:31 AM|| 2003-9-11 7:02:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#48 Bulldog> Our current constitution (Article 28) allows all such treaties to be passed by a vote of the parliament alone.

"
1. The generally recognised rules of international law, as well as international conventions as of the time they are ratified by statute and become operative according to their respective conditions, shall be an integral part of domestic Greek law and shall prevail over any contrary provision of the law. The rules of international law and of international conventions shall be applicable to aliens only under the condition of reciprocity.

2. Authorities provided by the Constitution may by treaty or agreement be vested in agencies of international organizations, when this serves an important national interest and promotes cooperation with other States. A majority of three-fifths of the total number of Members of Parliament shall be necessary to vote the law ratifying the treaty or agreement.

3. Greece shall freely proceed by law passed by an absolute majority of the total number of Members of Parliament to limit the exercise of national sovereignty, insofar as this is dictated by an important national interest, does not infringe upon the rights of man and the foundations of democratic government and is effected on the basis of the principles of equality and under the condition of reciprocity.

** Interpretative clause:

Article 28 constitutes the foundation for the participation of the Country in the European integration process.
"

I would certainly have no problem with a referendum on the subject, but our constitution quite clearly says that it is not required for such a decision.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-11 12:34:15 PM|| 2003-9-11 12:34:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Is anyone likely to mount a legal challenge based on:

"...to limit the exercise of national sovereignty, insofar as this is dictated by an important national interest, does not infringe upon the rights of man and the foundations of democratic government..."

? I can see plenty of room for interpretation there...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-11 1:02:50 PM|| 2003-9-11 1:02:50 PM|| Front Page Top

19:12 new visitor
13:02 Bulldog
12:34 Aris Katsaris
07:02 Bulldog
07:01 Bulldog
06:59 Bulldog
05:16 Bulldog
05:09 Bulldog
02:47 R. McLeod
02:39 R. McLeod
02:05 Anonymous
01:10 Tony (UK)
00:48 Anonymous
00:33 Rafael
00:22 Bomb-a-rama
00:18 True German Ally
00:13 True German Ally
00:02 tu3031
23:59 Not Mike Moore
23:56 tu3031
23:38 Rafael
23:34 True German Ally
23:32 Aris Katsaris
23:28 VAMark