The Lisbon Treaty

[Mr. Wilhelm]

Not really sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase?

The Referendum was an act. Its results was set in stone since the No of last year.

Referendum or opinion poll? There's a difference.

Referendum.

Be that as it may, you're not really addressing my point. The entire country could disagree with a Supreme Court decision, so what? It's not up for opinion.

In theory that's true. In the facts, as far as France is concerned at least, a jurisprudence rejected by a majority of people who make it knows, doesn't last long. But that's beside the point.

Also you are aware that, by law, such a minute change to the law didn't require a referendum, right? The only country where it did was Ireland.

So, you don't consider that there is a problem when 27 governments vote a text, with maybe more than half peoples disagreeing with said text? For you, it's the absolute expression of perfect democracy?

Like I said, dictatorship makes itself clear on the 'freedom to chose' all those democracy claim peoples have.

I'm not sure what Treaty you're referring to, just keep in mind it has to be a legally binding referendum and not just an opinion poll.

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. French rejected it in 2005 (as well as Dutch), and it was legally binding, the treaty died beside. That is, until the Treaty of Lisbon, which is basically a rewritten version of this very treaty with a few change. My main issue is that basically they took the rejected treaty, remixed it to make it look fully new, and voted it discarding the votes of peoples before.

Again, you must really hate every government apart from Switzerland's, since things like streamlining an organization's enlargement are usually never put to vote. Should slavery have been put to vote? Women's rights? Balls no. Is it undemocratic for a government to illegalize slavery without consulting a referendum?

Freedom being a main point of democracy, any country still using slaves or not allowing women to vote is by definition not a democracy. A government who allows woman to vote is in this sense not democratic yet, so if we were to push the reasoning, this was an anti democratic decision because the country wasn't a democracy in before it. Bad decision? No, at the contrary.

But this doesn't compare with the vote of a treaty in a modern democracy.

In regards to direct democracy, no thank you. Switzerland lacks a complete separation of church and state because the majority voted against it. I think I'll keep my representative democracy.

We're speaking of the same Switzerland, right, the one that has no official religion? Now if you want to speak on the cantons and stuff, we can go on how the Bible is used for about anything official in the US. Not to add, Switzerland, the (or at least one the) country with the highest quality of life in the world. Not saying direct democracy is its cause obviously, although I wonder how it'd be with a 'representative democracy'.

Beside they have universal health care. The US don't, and I start to wonder if Obama ever will go until doing something near of it. Just trying to say, direct democracy is not the heaven, neither is representative one, maybe even worst.

 

[Phoenix]

The Referendum was an act. Its results was set in stone since the No of last year.

Now is this a conspiracy theory, or can you back this up?

So, you don't consider that there is a problem when 27 governments vote a text, with maybe more than half peoples disagreeing with said text? For you, it's the absolute expression of perfect democracy?

Like I said, dictatorship makes itself clear on the 'freedom to chose' all those democracy claim peoples have.

I have to bring up, yet again, that unless you live in a direct democracy, most of government decisions are made without consulting the will of the people.

How is it that you consider Lisbon a problem, yet every single other government decision that is made without putting it to a referendum (more than 99.9% of them) is a-ok? What is it about a Treaty that is designed to streamline enlargement makes people so nervous?

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. French rejected it in 2005 (as well as Dutch), and it was legally binding, the treaty died beside. That is, until the Treaty of Lisbon, which is basically a rewritten version of this very treaty with a few change. My main issue is that basically they took the rejected treaty, remixed it to make it look fully new, and voted it discarding the votes of peoples before.

Couple of things. First, really bad example since the treaty establishing Constitution of Europe, as you said, died. Secondly, it's a bit hypocritical to say Ireland referendum wasn't going to kill Lisbon when France's referendum killed the Constitution.

Lastly, are you implying that because a Treaty gets rejected, they should never make any more treaties ever? The Constitution changed the law in such a way that France, by law, had to put it to a referendum. The Lisbon Treaty does not. They spent more than a decade making Lisbon. That's a very long time to spend "remixing" an existing treaty.

Freedom being a main point of democracy, any country still using slaves or not allowing women to vote is by definition not a democracy. A government who allows woman to vote is in this sense not democratic yet, so if we were to push the reasoning, this was an anti democratic decision because the country wasn't a democracy in before it. Bad decision? No, at the contrary.

But this doesn't compare with the vote of a treaty in a modern democracy.

Answer my question, though: is he government correct in ignoring the will of the voters (in issues such as slavery, women's rights, or if you prefer, homosexual rights, etc.) if it determines the issue should legally not be put to a referendum?

If, for example, the issue of whether atheists should be eligible for President or not is put to vote in America, what do you think would happen?

We're speaking of the same Switzerland, right, the one that has no official religion? Now if you want to speak on the cantons and stuff, we can go on how the Bible is used for about anything official in the US. Not to add, Switzerland, the (or at least one the) country with the highest quality of life in the world. Not saying direct democracy is its cause obviously, although I wonder how it'd be with a 'representative democracy'.

Pointing out USA's bullshit does not excuse Switzerland's refusal to allow full separation of church and state. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. And of course they have a high quality of life; it's Europe. I'm not saying they don't live well (I think Norway's e top one, btw), I'm simply saying that direct democracy has some gaping holes I don't feel comfortable with.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill

By the same token, what is the well-grounded objection to Lisbon? If it's not, as you say, simply fueled by paranoia, ultra-nationalism and xenophobia, what are the objections to it?

Beside they have universal health care. The US don't, and I start to wonder if Obama ever will go until doing something near of it. Just trying to say, direct democracy is not the heaven, neither is representative one, maybe even worst.

Fair enough, then let's go with parliamentary democracy then, as opposed to a direct democracy.

 

[Mr. Wilhelm]

Now is this a conspiracy theory, or can you back this up?

Let's say that when during one year the medias brainwash peoples to vote Yes, that every single country (or nearly) of Europe looks down on them for having voted No, and some leaders obsessed with the treaty like Sarkozy do everything they can for the treaty be voted Yes everywhere, I've difficulty to see how this referendum was a threat, the result was obvious. Not conspiracy, more like how elections are easilly manipulated.

Explain me where is the democracy in that election. Sending 'brainwashed' peoples to vote is the definition of democracy?

I have to bring up, yet again, that unless you live in a direct democracy, most of government decisions are made without consulting the will of the people.

How is it that you consider Lisbon a problem, yet every single other government decision that is made without putting it to a referendum (more than 99.9% of them) is a-ok? What is it about a Treaty that is designed to streamline enlargement makes people so nervous?

The treaty is about Europe, and a big step for the union. In a country like France where most treaty were voted by Referendum, it's a problem. And I never said every decision were a ok with me either.

Couple of things. First, really bad example since the treaty establishing Constitution of Europe, as you said, died. Secondly, it's a bit hypocritical to say Ireland referendum wasn't going to kill Lisbon when France's referendum killed the Constitution

.
Ireland could have killed the treaty with a second No (though, looking at what Sarkozy said when he was President of Europe, he'd do anything for the treaty still pass, and he won). Things is that everyone knew there would never be a second no, thus why I said they couldn't kill it.

Lastly, are you implying that because a Treaty gets rejected, they should never make any more treaties ever? The Constitution changed the law in such a way that France, by law, had to put it to a referendum. The Lisbon Treaty does not. They spent more than a decade making Lisbon. That's a very long time to spend "remixing" an existing treaty.

They spent a decade for Lisbon? Mind to back up? Because between 2005 and 2007 I see only two years. Also, not really forced, change in the french constitution don't need peoples opinions at the origin (what I disagree with but whatever). But it's a tradition since De Gaulle twisted the constitution, and it came to somehow using referendum for Europe stuff, that is, before Sarkozy got elected.

And obviously they have to keep making treaty. But coming out with a remix of a treaty rejected two years earlier? Meh.

Answer my question, though: is he government correct in ignoring the will of the voters (in issues such as slavery, women's rights, or if you prefer, homosexual rights, etc.) if it determines the issue should legally not be put to a referendum?

Yes they are because in this case the will of the voters is against the very definition of democracy. To preserve democracy, they have to ignore their will.

Voting No to the treaty isn't against the definition of democracy on the other hand.

If, for example, the issue of whether atheists should be eligible for President or not is put to vote in America, what do you think would happen?

Then a Atheist President will never be elected, but as I said before, this would change the American Democracy into a false, or limited democracy, what shouldn't happen.

Pointing out USA's bullshit does not excuse Switzerland's refusal to allow full separation of church and state. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. And of course they have a high quality of life; it's Europe. I'm not saying they don't live well (I think Norway's e top one, btw), I'm simply saying that direct democracy has some gaping holes I don't feel comfortable with.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill

He forgot to point out the average voter elected him. What leads to the idea that if voters aren't smart enough to vote laws and stuff, they aren't smart enough to vote for the 'good' leader, same leaders who male decisions.

By the same token, what is the well-grounded objection to Lisbon? If it's not, as you say, simply fueled by paranoia, ultra-nationalism and xenophobia, what are the objections to it?

As I said, I'm for the treaty, not against, so I'm not the good person to ask for this. I am merely against the way the treaty was 'voted'.

But I thin, if I had to say personally, that the flaws of the text (they were presented many times and even those for the yes admitted its flaw) is a big argument against. They say "It's better than the one we already have", and it's totally true, but I'd prefer they don't rush and make a better treaty.

Also, from many peoples opinions, when there is things like Europe forbidding to help with money some kind of jobs because it would be unfair compared to others country and stuff, and that said peoples were used to have that help, it can make you anti Europe in this way. I understand the Europe viewpoint, but I understand too that you're pissed off when suddenly Europe cuts off all the helps, or refuse to do anything to help. Heard the recent milk crisis? Not really a good image of the union's efficiency given there.

Fair enough, then let's go with parliamentary democracy then, as opposed to a direct democracy.

I know that this system is flawed too, the worst one possibly. Although parliamentary and representative democracy shouldn't even be called democracy.

 

[Phoenix]

Let's say that when during one year the medias brainwash peoples to vote Yes, that every single country (or nearly) of Europe looks down on them for having voted No, and some leaders obsessed with the treaty like Sarkozy do everything they can for the treaty be voted Yes everywhere, I've difficulty to see how this referendum was a threat, the result was obvious. Not conspiracy, more like how elections are easilly manipulated.

Explain me where is the democracy in that election. Sending 'brainwashed' peoples to vote is the definition of democracy?

Again, you are aware that the issues the Irish were concerned with were neutrality, taxation and abortion, right?

Is it hard to accept that legally binding guarantees that Lisbon didn't touch these issues might have changed their minds?

The treaty is about Europe, and a big step for the union. In a country like France where most treaty were voted by Referendum, it's a problem. And I never said every decision were a ok with me either.

It's about Europe and the Union. That's too broad. What part of the treaty do you think merits a referendum?

Ireland could have killed the treaty with a second No (though, looking at what Sarkozy said when he was President of Europe, he'd do anything for the treaty still pass, and he won). Things is that everyone knew there would never be a second no, thus why I said they couldn't kill it.

To the contrary, everybody was nervous about this result. I'm not sure why you keep asserting that there wouldn't be a second No.

They spent a decade for Lisbon? Mind to back up? Because between 2005 and 2007 I see only two years.

My mistake, I meant to say a treaty to improve on Nice was in the works for a decade (or to be more specific, 8 years).

Also, not really forced, change in the french constitution don't need peoples opinions at the origin (what I disagree with but whatever). But it's a tradition since De Gaulle twisted the constitution, and it came to somehow using referendum for Europe stuff, that is, before Sarkozy got elected.

And obviously they have to keep making treaty. But coming out with a remix of a treaty rejected two years earlier? Meh.

I'm not sure what you expect.

"You rejected this Treaty? Ok. We changed the objectionable parts. How about now?"

It's just common sense.

Yes they are because in this case the will of the voters is against the very definition of democracy. To preserve democracy, they have to ignore their will.

Voting No to the treaty isn't against the definition of democracy on the other hand.


Then a Atheist President will never be elected, but as I said before, this would change the American Democracy into a false, or limited democracy, what shouldn't happen.

But you do agree that, in certain cases, the voter's will is not to be followed, correct?

He forgot to point out the average voter elected him. What leads to the idea that if voters aren't smart enough to vote laws and stuff, they aren't smart enough to vote for the 'good' leader, same leaders who male decisions.

So he ran a good campaign. If you actually think that the average voter is competent enough to know what's good for the country, and selfless enough to know bread prices might go up for a good reason, then I'm not sure what idyllic land you hail from.

As I said, I'm for the treaty, not against, so I'm not the good person to ask for this. I am merely against the way the treaty was 'voted'.

But I thin, if I had to say personally, that the flaws of the text (they were presented many times and even those for the yes admitted its flaw) is a big argument against. They say "It's better than the one we already have", and it's totally true, but I'd prefer they don't rush and make a better treaty.

Also, from many peoples opinions, when there is things like Europe forbidding to help with money some kind of jobs because it would be unfair compared to others country and stuff, and that said peoples were used to have that help, it can make you anti Europe in this way. I understand the Europe viewpoint, but I understand too that you're pissed off when suddenly Europe cuts off all the helps, or refuse to do anything to help. Heard the recent milk crisis? Not really a good image of the union's efficiency given there.

Which is exactly why voters can't be trusted with these decisions, and therein lies the flaw of a direct democracy. Your average voter can't really see past his own, personal reality.

I know that this system is flawed too, the worst one possibly. Although parliamentary and representative democracy shouldn't even be called democracy.

Wait, you think direct democracy is more effective than parliamentary and representative democracy? Are you serious?

 

[Mr. Wilhelm]

Again, you are aware that the issues the Irish were concerned with were neutrality, taxation and abortion, right?

Is it hard to accept that legally binding guarantees that Lisbon didn't touch these issues might have changed their minds?

To the height of 20% in less than one year? yes, it is. It's like if Bush said "I'll stop war in Iraq if you vote for me again" and got elected back (in considering he could have been elected three time, what we know he can't).

It's about Europe and the Union. That's too broad. What part of the treaty do you think merits a referendum?

I don't know it in the details, but about everything. Europe limits each countries power to give more to the Europe. Today if a country is against one big decision of the union they can stop it. Tomorrow, France, Britain and Germany can be against a decision, and it can still be voted yes by all others. From the viewpoint of the country's inhabitant, it deserve to be put in referendum if they accept this.

To the contrary, everybody was nervous about this result. I'm not sure why you keep asserting that there wouldn't be a second No.

Anyone good in politics saw the results coming. When you brainwash peoples for one year, except i you do it very badly there's few chance the results don't be the one expected. Now of course everybody looked anxious, they had to play their roles.

I'm not sure what you expect.

"You rejected this Treaty? Ok. We changed the objectionable parts. How about now?"

It's just common sense.

I said what I think for Irish earlier on the change. As far as France go, how can we know since Sarkozy refused to do a referendum?

But you do agree that, in certain cases, the voter's will is not to be followed, correct?

You obviously know my answer, that is yes.

So he ran a good campaign. If you actually think that the average voter is competent enough to know what's good for the country, and selfless enough to know bread prices might go up for a good reason, then I'm not sure what idyllic land you hail from.

I don't think they can, but I think they could be taught the different stuff to take into account when to vote, (not just that NO is evil like for the Irish for example).

Which is exactly why voters can't be trusted with these decisions, and therein lies the flaw of a direct democracy. Your average voter can't really see past his own, personal reality.

Except if they 'enlightened' the voters so to say.

Wait, you think direct democracy is more effective than parliamentary and representative democracy? Are you serious?

In theory it is. I know in fact it's nearly impossible to have enough smart voters to have a direct democracy. What gives birth to the horrors that are called democracy today.

 

[Phoenix]

To the height of 20% in less than one year? yes, it is. It's like if Bush said "I'll stop war in Iraq if you vote for me again" and got elected back (in considering he could have been elected three time, what we know he can't).

Once again, is it that hard to believe that once the main issues were addressed (taxation, abortion and neutrality) the Irish would overwhelmingly vote yes? Yes there was fear mongering, and yes the recession had a giant impact on the vote, but credit where credit's due. The Irish didn't really care about the sovereignty thing, like the British; they were worried about different things.

I don't know it in the details, but about everything. Europe limits each countries power to give more to the Europe. Today if a country is against one big decision of the union they can stop it. Tomorrow, France, Britain and Germany can be against a decision, and it can still be voted yes by all others. From the viewpoint of the country's inhabitant, it deserve to be put in referendum if they accept this.

While I'm no expert in EU law, there are, and have always been, opt-outs. No one can force you to do something you don't want to do. What the Treaty does is that you can't force the entire Union to stop everything on a whim. It's mainly directed at enlargement.

But yes, I'm aware you don't necessarily disagree with Lisbon, just with the way it's being addressed. I'm nitpicking, I know.

I said what I think for Irish earlier on the change. As far as France go, how can we know since Sarkozy refused to do a referendum?

I would need to read both of the treaties, and I admit I'm wholly ignorant on the Constitution, but have you considered that neither actually legally needed a referendum and one was just provided for completeness' sake? Or that the part that may have required a referendum was removed in Lisbon?

You obviously know my answer, that is yes.

I don't think they can, but I think they could be taught the different stuff to take into account when to vote, (not just that NO is evil like for the Irish for example).

Except if they 'enlightened' the voters so to say.

In theory it is. I know in fact it's nearly impossible to have enough smart voters to have a direct democracy. What gives birth to the horrors that are called democracy today.

I'm going to be honest with you. Sad as it may be, as it stands, I'd rather have the moderately corrupt government making international deals than the common voter weighing in the merits of Lisbon vs. Nice.

Parliamentary and Representative democracy is a way to cater to the public will, but not have completely retarded decisions every day.

 

[Phoenix]

Double post with substance:

The Czech President said that he would sign if he could opt-out of a part of the Treaty. But there's a dark side to it:

"It is the government, not the president, who negotiates international treaties and the Czechs did not ask for an opt-out when the Lisbon Treaty was drawn up, our correspondent says.

Some Czech politicians believe Mr Klaus has now stepped well beyond his constitutional remit. One party leader said on Friday proceedings to impeach the president should start immediately. "

BBC NEWS | Europe | Czech leader wants treaty opt-out

I don't think he can afford to buy time anymore.

EDIT:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Polish leader ratifies EU treaty

Poland ratified. Only the Czechs (or to be more exact, their President) are left now.

 

[Nirv]

It's mainly misinformation that lead Ireland to voting No the first time anyways, the No campaign destroyed the Yes with information and getting their point across while the government waddled along barely even knowing how to explain what the treaty meant for the country so I don't think it was really to do with nationalism or isolation at all

 

[Phoenix]

BBC NEWS | Europe | EU reform treaty passes last test

Klaus signed it. That was the last obstacle to the Treaty.

I cannot wait to see what the Tories' position is. They're stuck between a rock and a really, really hard place.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

So you would say that there aren't legitimate concerns over it and it's just stupid paranoia, right?

Not if the aim is to create a larger version of the US.

If the system worked, I'd say go for it; but it doesn't.

 

[Ehres]

Have to add this. I don't really know much about the treaty since it's not something we're really told about here, but if this spells bad news for the Tories, then I suppose I can see that as a bit of a somewhat positive light. That isn't to say that Labour are any better, but if this screws up whatever plans the Tories have, then I'm okay with it. Regardless, the Tories will probably be our next government, but this is sure to hinder their plans. I hope to God that Labour gets a new representative or that David Cameron throws himself off a cliff because I do not want to live in this country when Tories get in power.

 

[Phoenix]

Not if the aim is to create a larger version of the US.

Even though Lisbon introduces a procedure to leave the Union for the very first time in its history?

Have to add this. I don't really know much about the treaty since it's not something we're really told about here, but if this spells bad news for the Tories, then I suppose I can see that as a bit of a somewhat positive light. That isn't to say that Labour are any better, but if this screws up whatever plans the Tories have, then I'm okay with it. Regardless, the Tories will probably be our next government, but this is sure to hinder their plans. I hope to God that Labour gets a new representative or that David Cameron throws himself off a cliff because I do not want to live in this country when Tories get in power.

The worrying part is that Labor and the Tories will both lose votes, but those votes will be gained by the UKIP and the BNP. If I were British, I'd prefer the Tories over the BNP.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

Even though Lisbon introduces a procedure to leave the Union for the very first time in its history?

I think we can both agreed that just sounds like a concession made on moral ground. Legality is one thing, but I'd like to see how it works in practice. A kid CAN rat out his friends, but there will be non-legal consequences. Any country attempting to withdraw is going to face some hell.

 

[Phoenix]

I think we can both agreed that just sounds like a concession made on moral ground. Legality is one thing, but I'd like to see how it works in practice. A kid CAN rat out his friends, but there will be non-legal consequences. Any country attempting to withdraw is going to face some hell.

Not saying that it's impossible, but do you have any reason to believe this? I mean, with Nice, it was literally impossible to leave the EU, and Lisbon specifically outlines the procedure. Sound like it should've been easier to just never address this at all, especially considering that this wasn't an issue Eurosceptics had a problem with.

How exactly does the EU resemble the United States?

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

Not saying that it's impossible, but do you have any reason to believe this? I mean, with Nice, it was literally impossible to leave the EU, and Lisbon specifically outlines the procedure. Sound like it should've been easier to just never address this at all, especially considering that this wasn't an issue Eurosceptics had a problem with.

How exactly does the EU resemble the United States?

No real reason other than experience and knowledge of the way people think. My experience with politics IS admittedly small-scale, but both history and simple understanding tells us that Treaties are not easily broken, and even with this new addition, who would show respect to a country that backs out of its deals?


Only in that it seems they are aiming to conglomerate themselves under a single economic structure, and are suggesting central leadership and law. It may not be called "central leadership", but I think it's fair enough to say it comes as close as it will get without being just a "European Nation".

 

[Phoenix]

No real reason other than experience and knowledge of the way people think. My experience with politics IS admittedly small-scale, but both history and simple understanding tells us that Treaties are not easily broken, and even with this new addition, who would show respect to a country that backs out of its deals?

Leaving the EU would not be backing out of its deals. Breaking its law, however, would be.

And yes, there should be repercussions for this. Why would you enter into an international agreement if you had no intentions of fulfilling your part of the bargain?

Only in that it seems they are aiming to conglomerate themselves under a single economic structure, and are suggesting central leadership and law. It may not be called "central leadership", but I think it's fair enough to say it comes as close as it will get without being just a "European Nation".

What would be so bad about that?

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

Leaving the EU would not be backing out of its deals. Breaking its law, however, would be.

And yes, there should be repercussions for this. Why would you enter into an international agreement if you had no intentions of fulfilling your part of the bargain?

I agree absolutely, but making it out to be a saving grace of some sort, like I mentioned before, is just a ploy to sweeten the deal. Doubtful that they actually expect anyone to drop their testicles on the ground and try it out.

What would be so bad about that?

Nothing really, aside from an even more amassed tangle of bureaucratic nonsense that will hold off for months before action is taken. These countries are more independent than that, and have been for a couple thousand years in some instances. It's not likely they'll lie down and have that power taken from them when they need something done.

 

[Phoenix]

I agree absolutely, but making it out to be a saving grace of some sort, like I mentioned before, is just a ploy to sweeten the deal. Doubtful that they actually expect anyone to drop their testicles on the ground and try it out.

The UK might, depending on who wins the elections. Regardless, a ploy to sweeten the deal to who? It was included in Lisbon. Why? What eurosceptic was swayed over by this?

Nothing really, aside from an even more amassed tangle of bureaucratic nonsense that will hold off for months before action is taken. These countries are more independent than that, and have been for a couple thousand years in some instances. It's not likely they'll lie down and have that power taken from them when they need something done.

Say what you will about Lisbon, but you can't say it's more bureaucratic. The whole point of Lisbon is to streamline everything. Unanimity moved to qualified majority voting, a lot of vetoes were revoked, etc. Even if you think it's a move to make Europe a federalist state, it's much, much, much less bureaucratic.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

The UK might, depending on who wins the elections. Regardless, a ploy to sweeten the deal to who? It was included in Lisbon. Why? What eurosceptic was swayed over by this?

I can't claim to know exactly which nations decided this was a good enough reason to sign, not exactly something anyone would advertise, but if I was pressured into entering an agreement that I had reservations about, I'd like an escape clause if I didn't agree with how it worked in practice.

Say what you will about Lisbon, but you can't say it's more bureaucratic. The whole point of Lisbon is to streamline everything. Unanimity moved to qualified majority voting, a lot of vetoes were revoked, etc. Even if you think it's a move to make Europe a federalist state, it's much, much, much less bureaucratic.

It was the same with American, following the change from the Confederate States of America, a time where unanimous voting was required to pass a law. Majority rule dominates our federal system now, and yet it's still as stagnant as ever. Now bureaucracy really comes into play. Campaigning for sides, further segmenting of the voter base under even more strict lines, not sure if filibustering is a part of the system, I'll check on that, but it's very effective for pushing back the dates of voting so people can further their attempts to change another party's mind. They've simply moved from getting nothing to done, to getting something done in 6-8 months. Whereas independently no country has to rely on the good graces of another to look out for their best interests, which with the level of hostilities between them, and their heavy cultural differences, isn't likely to happen.

The easier it is for a new law/rule to be passed, the harder someone will be willing to fight to get their own ideas implemented. Before this, the idea is that either you fall in line, or you get nothing. Now, there is a chance to play the field and dig out some gold.

 

[Phoenix]

I can't claim to know exactly which nations decided this was a good enough reason to sign, not exactly something anyone would advertise, but if I was pressured into entering an agreement that I had reservations about, I'd like an escape clause if I didn't agree with how it worked in practice.

Whether that actually swayed anyone over, you must agree it's pretty fair.

It was the same with American, following the change from the Confederate States of America, a time where unanimous voting was required to pass a law. Majority rule dominates our federal system now, and yet it's still as stagnant as ever. Now bureaucracy really comes into play. Campaigning for sides, further segmenting of the voter base under even more strict lines, not sure if filibustering is a part of the system, I'll check on that, but it's very effective for pushing back the dates of voting so people can further their attempts to change another party's mind. They've simply moved from getting nothing to done, to getting something done in 6-8 months. Whereas independently no country has to rely on the good graces of another to look out for their best interests, which with the level of hostilities between them, and their heavy cultural differences, isn't likely to happen.

The easier it is for a new law/rule to be passed, the harder someone will be willing to fight to get their own ideas implemented. Before this, the idea is that either you fall in line, or you get nothing. Now, there is a chance to play the field and dig out some gold.

There's two things I want to address:

1. I think you're confusing America's representative democracy with Europe's parliamentary democracy. They don't work in the same way.
2. You're way overestimating the EU's power over the individual member states.

I'm going to quote parts of the article on Lisbon so you can see the pattern:

"The European Central Bank will gain the official status of being an EU institution."

"The European Council will officially gain the status of an EU institution, thus being separated from the Council of Ministers."

"In an effort to ensure greater coordination and consistency in EU foreign policy, the Treaty of Lisbon will create a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, de facto merging the post of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (currently held by Javier Solana) and the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy (currently held by Benita Ferrero-Waldner)."

"The person holding the new post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will automatically also be a Vice-President of the Commission."

"Under the existing treaties, the EU comprises a system of three legal pillars, of which only the European Community pillar has its own legal personality. When the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, the pillary system will be abolished, and the European Union be consolidated body with a legal personality."

Lisbon basically streamlines and consolidates the EU. Half of the Treaty is just eliminating redundancies, loopholes and bureaucracy.