PDA

View Full Version : Lisbon treaty - ratified?


jonathan7
10-05-2009, 10:37 PM
This upsets me! (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6861173.ece)

I love the fact, we've never had a referendum on it - thanks Gordon, what a great democracy we live in, wait is that bureaucracy? As that's what the EU is!

Totenkopf
10-06-2009, 12:13 AM
Seems like the inexorable march toward one world govt, done in stages. Say goodbye to your sovereignty. Unfortunately we're not too far behind either at the rate we're going.

Darth Avlectus
10-06-2009, 02:09 AM
Aw man... Yeah, we're in debt up to our eyeballs and as wide as a sea. USA is not exactly in a position to negotiate.

I always got uneasy when talk of international relations (even nafta) were brought up in economics or civics classes. How so many embraced the ideology of an international government the world over though it was left unsaid. Like sovreignty was taboo and evil or just plain outdated.

We sit here and watch it all unfold.

mur'phon
10-06-2009, 04:08 AM
Like the treaty for the most part, don't like the fact that it wasn't implemented through more direct democracy, instead of the indirect way of having goverments make the decision. Now, lets hope they make the European parliament more powerfull and acountable to voters to partially make up for it.

As that's what the EU is!

In adition to being a shared market that has benefitted every country economicall, a way of making eastern Europe more respecting of human rights as well as fantastic economic growth in said places, doing more for poverty reduction than just about any other organisation/country. Sure it commes with bureacrasy, but in my oppinion, that's a price worth paying.

Seems like the inexorable march toward one world govt, done in stages.

I'd call the EU as much of a step towards a world goverment as I'd call my fart a step towards global warming.

I always got uneasy when talk of international relations (even nafta) were brought up in economics or civics classes. How so many embraced the ideology of an international government the world over though it was left unsaid. Like sovreignty was taboo and evil or just plain outdated.

Help me here, are you saying supporters of NAFTA=supporters of a world government.

Darth Avlectus
10-06-2009, 04:40 AM
Help me here, are you saying supporters of NAFTA=supporters of a world government.

Not universally, but indeed the ones in charge where I'm at who think they will rule the world someday.

mur'phon
10-06-2009, 04:47 AM
You're not helping too much :P
When you talk about "those in charge", who do you mean? (and I asume they are not=those who support NAFTA as that'd be an awfull lot of rulers). In adition, how is NAFTA suposed to bring about a world goverment? It's a small free-trade deal for crissakes.

Totenkopf
10-06-2009, 07:13 AM
I'd call the EU as much of a step towards a world goverment as I'd call my fart a step towards global warming.


Shh..Don't give the climate crazies ideas. :xp:

I'd say that barring a major global catastrophe, the imposition of a global govt will be done in stages. How successful it will ultimately be or how long it will take is another matter altogether. Seems they will have to continue to dumb down populations, engineer crises and make false promises of security till they make people maleable enough to reach that goal. Who the "they" are is the ruling elites (well heeled mega-rich and high placed politicians and rulers). Even in America you have people in govt that view the US Constitution as a "living document" and seek answers to legal questions not based on our own legal traditions but also foreign ones (iirc Ginsberg and Breyer have expressed that viewpoint). Even the founding fathers of the US knew that keeping a republic would be a challenge. We are increasingly living in a system where more and more people are becoming dependent on the govt for their sense of well being. That comes with a price. He with the gold makes the rules. So we're clear, though, I ain't Nostradmaus and am not making any predictions as to when the crap hits the fan. Just noticing disturbing trends.

Astor
10-06-2009, 07:23 AM
This upsets me! (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6861173.ece)

I love the fact, we've never had a referendum on it - thanks Gordon, what a great democracy we live in, wait is that bureaucracy? As that's what the EU is!

Hoping the Czechs would stall till after our election was a long-shot anyway. But still, it is upsetting.

I too would really like a referendum on Europe - unfortunately, I think that the General Election will take its place (and act as a referendum on a good few other things too).

Furthermore, I don't agree with the plans of installing Tony Blair as president of Europe, although it might be good to have a Briton in place to make sure we don't get the short shrift, there surely must be someone better than him.

Arcesious
10-06-2009, 09:14 AM
I'm not European so this is new to me. Sure, I knew there was a sort of European Union, but I haven't heard of the Lisbon Treaty until now. But if we're basically talking about what would happen if Europe had one government... I don't think that any country on Earth has leaders trustworthy enough to justly manage such a system. It's too easy for something to go wrong. Too easy for a corrupt politician to break everything worse than things can already be broken.

ForeverNight
10-06-2009, 01:51 PM
Eh, looking over the EU's website this makes a partial bit of sense to make the EU more responsible as a governing body... so I'm wondering what it really means. I'll get a copy of the text and read over it tonight and offer my opinion then. However, it does seem to be a step towards World Government.

Or, at least, a step towards Mega-Countries

"We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia" :xp:

Darth InSidious
10-06-2009, 02:32 PM
If Tony Blair becomes President of Europe I may move out of it.

Possibly to Japan.

jonathan7
10-06-2009, 04:22 PM
If Tony Blair becomes President of Europe I may move out of it.

Possibly to Japan.

Can I come with you?

Jae Onasi
10-06-2009, 09:58 PM
I'd call the EU as much of a step towards a world goverment as I'd call my fart a step towards global warming.


Shh..Don't give the climate crazies ideas. :xp:


Yeah, they'd give new meaning to the admonition "Put a cork in it!"

El Sitherino
10-07-2009, 01:38 AM
I don't think that any country on Earth has leaders trustworthy enough to justly manage such a system.

Then clearly you're not a proponent of the US, considering my state, New Mexico, Arizona, California, parts of Oregon, Nevada, and even some of Utah were once Mexico. As well Louisianna and Arkansas were French territory.
Even Canada is a confusing mix of previous owners.

Not that I'm saying Europe will be all sunshine and lollipops, but clearly better thinking would be required before speaking out against a unified government of states. Because really, that's all the European countries are, infact for a long time countries were referred to as "The State".

cire992
10-07-2009, 05:13 AM
Wait, why is Tony Blair not in retirement?

Pavlos
10-07-2009, 06:04 AM
Wait, why is Tony Blair not in retirement?
Because he's impossible to kill. He just keeps on coming back, like a cockroach.

Not that he's not an incredibly important man; can you imagine what would happen if he stopped trying to keep the peace in the Middle East? Oh.

Not that I'm saying Europe will be all sunshine and lollipops, but clearly better thinking would be required before speaking out against a unified government of states. Because really, that's all the European countries are, infact for a long time countries were referred to as "The State".
European nations may have a unified cultural base but the variation from that foundation is immense; I'm not entirely sure how a unified "European Nation" would work in anything other than theory. You only have to look at the trouble with which people from Glasgow understand people from Dorset in Britain to see how much worse this could get on a larger scale.

Edit: That said, I am actually pro-Europe >_<

Miltiades
10-07-2009, 08:04 AM
If Tony Blair becomes President of Europe I may move out of it.

Possibly to Japan. I heard it's either him or Jan Peter Balkenende. I don't think Japan is far enough. The Moon is what I was thinking of.

Darth InSidious
10-07-2009, 08:12 AM
I heard it's either him or Jan Peter Balkenende. I don't think Japan is far enough. The Moon is what I was thinking of.
Sounds good, but it would have to be a hydraulic society, of course. I can haz dual kingship? :p

Astor
10-07-2009, 02:39 PM
Czechs 'to back treaty this year' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8294050.stm')

The Czech PM, Jan Fischer, has told EU leaders he fully expects his country to ratify the EU's Lisbon Treaty by the end of this year.

Better book those tickets to Tokyo soon, Gentlemen.

SW01
10-07-2009, 03:11 PM
What is it with this government and being anti-democratic? I suppose when you can more or less expect to lose the practice is to avoid the people at all costs. First the appointment without popular vote of a new 'leader', then more than once refusing to put a controversial treaty to the vote.

Rather annoying that parts of my law course may be out of date not long after I graduate. And I really dislike the idea of doing away with unanimity for some issues. It may 'streamline' the EU's business, but it gives Sovereignty another heavy blow.

Arcesious
10-07-2009, 03:21 PM
I'm a dumb American, so could someone explain to me why it seems that everyone here has a strong dislike of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? I've heard of leaders making bad decisions and being corrupt pretty much everywhere, but what's the history behind Europe getting like this where everyone hates their governments?

Zwier Zak
10-07-2009, 03:44 PM
Like the treaty for the most part, don't like the fact that it wasn't implemented through more direct democracy, instead of the indirect way of having goverments make the decision. Now, lets hope they make the European parliament more powerfull and acountable to voters to partially make up for it.



In adition to being a shared market that has benefitted every country economicall, a way of making eastern Europe more respecting of human rights as well as fantastic economic growth in said places, doing more for poverty reduction than just about any other organisation/country. Sure it commes with bureacrasy, but in my oppinion, that's a price worth paying.



I'd call the EU as much of a step towards a world goverment as I'd call my fart a step towards global warming.



Help me here, are you saying supporters of NAFTA=supporters of a world government.

I agree.

Astor
10-07-2009, 03:54 PM
I'm a dumb American, so could someone explain to me why it seems that everyone here has a strong dislike of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? I've heard of leaders making bad decisions and being corrupt pretty much everywhere, but what's the history behind Europe getting like this where everyone hates their governments?

Much of the dislike stems from the Labour Party's unequivocal promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and that promise was largely responsible for them getting a third term in Government.

Many people voted Labour simply because of the promise of a referendum, but it never materialised. The Tony Blair left, handing the reins to Gordon Brown, who then went ahead and signed the treaty a few months after becoming PM.

Of course, there are many more reasons to dislike the both of them, but that's one of them in regards to the Lisbon Treaty and the inevitable 'United States of Europe'.

mur'phon
10-07-2009, 05:59 PM
Tot: sorry but the whole conspiracy thing seems a wee bit outside the scope of this thread, so if you want that discussion you might want to start a new one.

Arc: The EU, even with Lisbon, is nowhere close to being a state, it's mainly a trade/monetary union focusing on the fredom to move capitall, goods and people freely within it. Only a microscopic amount of money is channeled through the EU for projects, and the different branches have very little direct controll over governments.


Originally posted by FN
Eh, looking over the EU's website this makes a partial bit of sense to make the EU more responsible as a governing body... so I'm wondering what it really means. I'll get a copy of the text and read over it tonight and offer my opinion then. However, it does seem to be a step towards World Government.

This is a joke, correct? Lisbon is the kind of treaty that nobody but technocrats are expected to read as it's, designed to be hard to understand.
As for the world goverment bit, it's much less of a step towards a "world government" than when the US came into existence.

As for Tony Blair, I support him for the job simply because the job has so little power (thing UN secretary general light), that the heavier the politican, the better if the job is to be something more than a retirement home for politicans.

Totenkopf
10-07-2009, 06:13 PM
Tot: sorry but the whole conspiracy thing seems a wee bit outside the scope of this thread, so if you want that discussion you might want to start a new one.

Last I checked, a conspiracy is usually undercover and illegal. If the people that make the rules change the rules using legal means (if barely), it's not really a conspiracy, nor illegal. The Lisbon Treaty is just one more blow to national sovereignty. It's debatable whether it will prove worth such a sacrifice.

Also, the problem w/treaties (or any legislation) being too "arcane to understand" usually results in the politicians getting away with squirrelly acts b/c nobody takes a close look at what they are doing for fear they are too stupid or will be bored to death w/the verbosity of the language.

Pavlos
10-07-2009, 07:49 PM
What is it with this government and being anti-democratic? I suppose when you can more or less expect to lose the practice is to avoid the people at all costs. First the appointment without popular vote of a new 'leader', then more than once refusing to put a controversial treaty to the vote.
Under the constitutional settlement in the United Kingdom (after the Glorious Revolution of 1688), you vote for your individual parliamentary candidate. Modern British Politics has been dominated by parties (be they the Whigs, Tories, Liberals, or Labour, or something) so generally a candidate will run under the banner of a party, supporting a centrally agreed-on manifesto for office (which that party will push for regardless of whether or not it is in government). The formation of a government after a general election is down to the MPs (and, formally, the Lords but they're a bunch of yes-men these days) that have been elected and not to the people; generally that means the party with the largest number of seats (but not necessarily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_general_election,_1923)). The selection of who will be the Prime Minister (a position not outlined properly in law, it must be said) of that government, is a decision for the MPs of that "winning" party; the job commonly goes to the leader of the party; although he can, rather embarrassingly, lose his seat in the election. The decision as to who leads the party is a decision for the members of that party, not the citizens (or subjects as we used to be known) of the United Kingdom. You did not vote for or against Tony Blair unless you were registered on the electoral roll as voting in Sedgefield at the time of the last election. In the age of personality-driven politics that can become a little obscured (the media don't do anything to help that).

Now, we -- of an age in which the Prime Minister wields unprecedented power -- may dispute whether or not this is the correct way of doing business but until people actually kick up a fuss and cause the law to be changed (so as to separate the Prime Minister from the legislature or formally outline and limit the powers of the PM) nothing has been done wrong; the Labour party were perfectly within their rights, as were the Tories when John Major became another "unelected" Prime Minister. But educating people as to the way politics works in this country would run contrary to what politicians want: it would give them the ability to change the status quo.
Rather annoying that parts of my law course may be out of date not long after I graduate. And I really dislike the idea of doing away with unanimity for some issues. It may 'streamline' the EU's business, but it gives Sovereignty another heavy blow.
More to blame would be the governments of the past thirty years who all seem to be under the mystifying illusion that passing hundreds of short-sighted laws to appease readers of the tabloids is the same as running the country.

Now, in this economic mess, when they do actually seem to have a long-term view of the situation, people have no idea what to make of it.

I'm a dumb American, so could someone explain to me why it seems that everyone here has a strong dislike of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? I've heard of leaders making bad decisions and being corrupt pretty much everywhere, but what's the history behind Europe getting like this where everyone hates their governments?
I can't speak for Europe as a whole but people in Britain have always had a healthy distrust for politicians. Interviewers are little horrors here (and I believe the same is true of Ireland); the question is, do you want to be ripped apart by Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys. Here's Paxman making John Bolton squirm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuqNWG9sbuE); or the famous Michael Howard interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI).

Totenkopf
10-07-2009, 09:31 PM
I can't speak for Europe as a whole but people in Britain have always had a healthy distrust for politicians. Interviewers are little horrors here (and I believe the same is true of Ireland); the question is, do you want to be ripped apart by Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys. Here's Paxman making John Bolton squirm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuqNWG9sbuE); or the famous Michael Howard interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI).

I'd like to see Paxman face himself.:p I'll have to take a look at Humphrys next.

..the news is supposed to be impartial. Particularly the BBC, but it is interesting to note that they only advertise jobs in The Guardian, which is notoriously left-wing.

Why am I not surprised. :D

Darth InSidious
10-07-2009, 09:39 PM
Look, it's remarkably simple.

The country is divided into constituencies. For each constituency, one or more candidates stand, some of whom are selected by and stand for a party, whose manifesto they in theory support.

The candidate is elected according to the first-past-the-post system; that is to say, the person who wins the majority of the votes in that constituency. They are now the Member of Parliament for that constituency, and their party has one seat in the House of Commons.

The leader of the party with the most seats in the Commons then goes to Buckingham Palace (the 'h', incidentally, is silent) and is asked by the Queen to form a government. He then selects his ministers. In theory, he can choose from either the Lords or the Commons; in practice, he tends to choose members of the Commons,.

This man is then the 'Prime Minister'. Legally, however, there is no such position, and he is the First Lord of the Treasury, a somewhat archaic position which only has any significance when he sits in the Lords, in which case the Chancellor of the Exchequer represents the Treasury in the Commons.

The 'Prime Minister' is a non-existent title. It was first used as an insult to First Lords who had rather too much power. It is an historical anomaly that should not exist. But it does. He operates from No. 10 Downing Street, SW1.

He runs the government and sets policy, and in theory must answer questions from the rest of the Commons weekly. In practice, Blair cut the amount of time in half, and most of the answers consist of blaming the Opposition for the last time they were in power.

While it is usual nowadays for the Leader of a party to be in the Commons there is no legal bar on a member of the Lords from being Leader of a party or Prime Minister. However, since Prime Minister's Question Time takes place in the Commons, this does cause rather a strain, and he cannot debate in the lower house; the Lords cannot enter the Commons, and, except in unusual circumstances such as the opening of Parliament, neither can the Commons enter the Lords' chamber.

In recent years, the Commons has gained disproportionate power, and the Prime Minister has gained almost presidential powers.

Our parties are more-or-less arranged like yours; blame Benjamin Disraeli (no, really). Except not. The only really significant difference (aside from the totally different electoral system, traditions, and political culture) is, our politicians are expected to tell the truth, and the news is supposed to be impartial. Particularly the BBC, but it is interesting to note that they only advertise jobs in The Guardian, which is notoriously left-wing.

Pavlos
10-08-2009, 04:53 AM
Particularly the BBC, but it is interesting to note that they only advertise jobs in The Guardian, which is notoriously left-wing.
It's also the only paper to have a specific "media" section, so their decision to advertise there may not be as anomalous as it seems.

Edit: Where else would they advertise? The Murdoch papers don't allow the mention of the BBC in a positive light; the Mail is not read by the sort of person you'd want working at the state broadcaster; perhaps the Telegraph but I never associate the Tory with media-types. Also, the Beeb's political editor was a Tory before he entered the media (the previous one having been a socialist >_>).

ForeverNight
10-08-2009, 01:21 PM
This is a joke, correct? Lisbon is the kind of treaty that nobody but technocrats are expected to read as it's, designed to be hard to understand.

Nope, no joke. Just a deficiency of time on my hands.

Downloaded the PDF finally last night and it's only ~398 pages. So, assuming I can stomach the legalese long enough, I might be able to finish it over a weekend. As for the EU's website, I wish they didn't merge their area to download the PDF and ordering the hard copy of the treaty.