Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old May 26th, 2003, 08:11 PM        An EU president?
Quote:
The idea of renaming the EU the "United States of Europe" has also been banished from the text.


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Print...677021,00.html

Blueprint for an EU president

Staff and agencies
Monday May 26, 2003
The Guardian

Plans were published today for a controversial new European constitution with an elected president and foreign minister.

The latest proposals from the convention on the future of Europe would also commit member states to "unreservedly" backing an EU common foreign policy, if approved unanimously at an intergovernmental conference.

The draft, unveiled in Brussels today, says the EU shall in future have "legal personality" and incorporates a legally binding charter of fundamental rights, including labour and social policies.

All reference to a federal Europe was dropped, however, after heated talks last week between the prime minister and former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who has been drawing up the new blueprint.

The idea of renaming the EU the "United States of Europe" has also been banished from the text.

The draft constitution is part of an effort to streamline the EU in readiness for the accession of 10 new member states in May 2004 and marks the end of more than a year's work by a 105-strong convention of national government ministers, MEPs, MPs and the European commission.

Peter Hain, the Welsh secretary and UK representative on the convention welcomed the new document.

"This is good progress for Britain. We are burying once and for all the fantasies of a Brussels superstate," he said.

"Europe will remain a union of sovereign nation states with governments such as Britain's in charge. By deleting the word 'federal' it is a clear signal that the rest of Europe shares Britain's views.

He continued: "We have important battles still to fight including on cross-border social security measures, ensuring the proposed new foreign secretary remains firmly under the control of governments and not the commission and getting a rigid fire break preventing the charter of rights from changing our domestic law.

"There is still months of negotiation to go after the convention ends in June and we are determined to protect our red-lines before the treaty is agreed a year from now."

In contrast, the Conservatives immediately condemned the latest version of the document.

Timothy Kirkhope, a Conservative MEP and representative on the convention said: "The British government is pulling the wool over the eyes of the British people.

"Mr Blair may have convinced Giscard that the UK should retain control over its taxation and defence policy but these concessions have been won at the expense of other key areas.

"If the charter of fundamental rights does become a legally-binding text, the NHS would be forced to employ doctors and nurses who may not speak English, trade unions would find it easier to take strike action and Britain would be forbidden from extraditing mass murderers such as Osama bin Laden to the United States and other countries where they may face the death penalty.

Mr Kirkhope added: "Tony Blair has also betrayed the British people in the area of justice and home affairs. Qualified majority voting is set to become the norm in this area, a move which will result in the loss of the British right of veto. The UK will have to subscribe to a European asylum and immigration policy and the creation of a European public prosecutor."

But the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Dr Vince Cable, welcomed the draft, saying: "It is entirely right that, with 10 new countries about to join the EU, we should have a proper written agreement of how Europe will operate.

"The Tories want a referendum because they think the British people will vote to leave Europe entirely. This is simply not the case. What the British people do want, is to control their own destiny, via parliament and the ballot box at every general election.

"The Liberal Democrats want a full debate on the draft convention when parliament returns next week. It is for our parliament - elected by the people of this country - to decide whether the new convention requires a referendum of the people.

He added: "The Liberal Democrats would support a referendum if the Convention proposes significant constitutional change.

"Unlike the Conservatives we have every confidence of winning a referendum on Europe because the British people are level-headed and pragmatic and recognise the benefits of being at the heart of Europe."

The future Europe, as envisaged by the 105-strong convention, would have a new president elected by EU leaders to serve as the EU's figurehead for at least two-and-a-half years. He or she would be a serving or former prime minister of one of the member states.

In addition, EU leaders would also elect a foreign minister to conduct the union's common foreign policy and carry out any foreign policy mandates agreed by the member states. Defence and security policy initiatives undertaken by the EU would also come under his or her remit.

On foreign policy the document declares: "Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from action contrary to the union's interests or likely to undermine its effectiveness."

This does not answer British and other concerns about any repeat of the situation of the Iraqi crisis, where there was no hope of any common EU line, or any chance of a spirit of "loyalty and mutual solidarity".

If similar circumstances arose again, say EU insiders, the EU "foreign minister" would simply have to sit on the sidelines with no "common" policy to coordinate.

The commission, meanwhile, would get a president elected by the European parliament rather than by EU leaders, a move to satisfy those wanting to see the commission's autonomy reinforced as a counterweight to national influence in the EU .

On running the economy, the draft text has been diluted to state: "The union shall coordinate the economic policies of the member states, in particular by establishing broad guidelines for these policies."

The section of the proposed constitutional treaty on the economy does now include a reference to coordinating employment policies - offering more scope for argument over whether new inroads are being made into national sovereignty.

The aim is no longer stated that the EU should function in some areas "on a federal basis", although when the draft's "preamble" is published later this week, it will still commit the member states to an "ever-closer union".

Today's "revised draft of the first part" of the constitutional treaty will be reviewed once more by the full convention later this week, then given its first assessment by EU leaders at a summit in Greece next month, according to Mr Giscard's spokesman.

The spokesman said other parts of the draft text would be delivered later this week, but there was still some discussion in the convention: "This is a text that is still open to improvement. It can be improved. It is not the final version".

Mr Blair has emphasised that new treaty requires the unanimous agreement of all EU leaders, and that anything not in Britain's interest will be vetoed.

But the Eurosceptic campaign is expected to intensify in the next few months as today's convention's proposals are thrashed out in an intergovernmental conference. A sustained campaign is already underway by the Conservative party and the rightwing press for the government put the issue to a national referendum.

Mr Giscard yesterday tried to win over sceptics in the UK, insisting he was not "destroying Britain".

However he also said he would be "very pleased" to see a referendum in the UK on his ideas.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
Reply With Quote
  #2  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old May 26th, 2003, 09:20 PM       
Very interesting. Now there are fifteen nations in the EU currently yes? Or have I missed some headlines?

Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, Portuga, Austria, Finland, and Sweden.

Now what are the ten countries they refer to, because I understood there were twelve, namely: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Turkey.

I don't like it. . .If they continue merging patterns as they have since the EU's conception in 1950, we may begin to see a rather confrontational and unfriendly economic superpower emerging over the next 35 years. This could be disasterous for the future of American influence. With the introduction of a less economically based, and more politically based, governing body, those countries comprising the EU may be relegated into a similar relationship as our states enjoy with the Government.

Not a pretty picture for the future of democracy. A polity like that would be too vast and encompassing to reflect the will of the people. Democracy works best when it is limited. The greater multiplicity in viewpoints offered, the more slowly and mismanaged the polity becomes.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old May 26th, 2003, 09:21 PM       
I think it's only natural that this happens. The EU is already an economic union, and political union is the only step left in integration.

There'll be a lot of resistance, but I think that within a couple decades Europe will be one big country.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old May 27th, 2003, 06:10 AM       
I don't think it will go quite that fast. You have to remember that the EU is made up of countries that all have their own cultural mindset and history, some of which will occasionally clash. With the exception of a federal union, which no doubt the greater part of Europe would protest to (I hope!), I think an EU president would have so little power his role would be trivial.

The main reason why a news story like this concerns me is the concept that my country might one day have to adapt laws from another that, over here, are considered outdated or would never have passed.

I've always mainly seen great benefit in the economical cooperation of the EU, but the thought of what an EU president could grow into under the right conditions disturbs me. I'd rather leave that big change up to the next generation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old May 27th, 2003, 11:20 AM       
You are part of the next generation, FS.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old May 27th, 2003, 12:50 PM       
I meant that perhaps my kids will be better used to a unified Europe to make proper judgement on this, monkeyman.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old May 27th, 2003, 07:31 PM       
It is a sad day when problems arise too grevious for us to deal with that we must pass them off to our as yet unborn progeny.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old May 27th, 2003, 08:56 PM       
Rorschach: This could be disasterous for the future of American influence.

This could be the reason why Europe thinks we're arrogant assholes.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Zosimus Zosimus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Zosimus is probably a spambot
Old May 28th, 2003, 03:50 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
Not a pretty picture for the future of democracy. A polity like that would be too vast and encompassing to reflect the will of the people. Democracy works best when it is limited. The greater multiplicity in viewpoints offered, the more slowly and mismanaged the polity becomes.

WTF?! OMG, for someone who patronizes others so sharply, I am very surprized by you, and I am so short on words that this is all I will "remind" you of at this time:


Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Edit added:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

Unknown author
__________________
~I doubt, therefore I might be~
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old May 28th, 2003, 06:48 PM       
I think this will result in lots of protests, riots and eventually war.

People will begin to feel that they don't have a voice and reject this attempt by a small group of men to gain political power. But once they have it, they will not give it up and they will grip tight to hold power thus destroying the personal freedom of the masses.

.....at least that's what the magic mirror said.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #11  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old May 28th, 2003, 07:14 PM       
I don't think that it will lead to war. Protests, definitely, but not war. The only thing that people will be protesting about is the fact that they'll be losing "control" over their future and potentially their culture as well.

The U.S. was essentially an amalgamation of independent colonies, and it seems to have worked okay. The states still have relative independence regarding local matters, but there's a big warm blanket wrapped around everyone. Same goes for Canada, and any other country that used to be a bunch of smaller entities.

It's just a natural progression for things to have enveloped entire nations.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:48 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.