The Lisbon Treaty

[Alaude Drenxta]

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

Very, but I believe it that in practice it will show itself to be nothing more than false hope.

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.

So you don't find the consolidation of power, while maintaining independence of rule within a nation under that governance to be similar to a federal governing body?

I may be just blindly skeptic, I'm pre-conditioned to detest a federal system where a separate body governs over a series of separate territories, all of whom have different interests in mind. I'll be honest, dictatorial rule has always seemed the best route to me, in theory. Socialism, in practice.

I wanted it known that I've found conflicting interests, and equal power within those parties, can throw a central system off-balance.

 

[Phoenix]

Very, but I believe it that in practice it will show itself to be nothing more than false hope.

Erm, how? Even if it were a concession, which by all accounts it isn't, how?

So you don't find the consolidation of power, while maintaining independence of rule within a nation under that governance to be similar to a federal governing body?

Except in a federation, the individual states are not self-governing, or partially so. To claim, say, Germany isn't self-governing would be silly, especially after it ruled that its own courts > European courts.

Also, whether its federalist or not, you must admit Lisbon is anything but bureaucratic. That's not to say that the EU isn't bureaucratic, but a post-Lisbon Union would be much, much less.

However, I'd like to go back to the question I had brought up. I asked what was so bad about EU becoming more federal, and you said it'd simply make it more bureaucratic. Lisbon is anything but, but even if you don't believe it is, let's say there was no such thing as bureaucracy in the EU. What's so bad about a federal system then?

I may be just blindly skeptic, I'm pre-conditioned to detest a federal system where a separate body governs over a series of separate territories, all of whom have different interests in mind. I'll be honest, dictatorial rule has always seemed the best route to me, in theory. Socialism, in practice.

Oh, a benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government, no doubt. However, benevolent dictators are scarce, and the risk of him not being benevolent is enough for me to prefer the republic.

But I digress. Not only can a state leave the EU (as opposed to the USA, in which this is illegal), but the EU only has as much power as the states allow it to have. Germany, for example, ruled that its own courts were higher than Europe's. The UK, Poland and the Czech Republics negotiated opt-outs for parts of Lisbon. The EU cannot force states to go to war, and indeed, almost half of its countries have declared themselves to be neutral.

I would agree that the EU is federalizing itself, but it's nowhere near enough to be called a federal system.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

Erm, how? Even if it were a concession, which by all accounts it isn't, how?

Didn't we already agree that it is expected that no country would be brazen enough to try and back out?
I personally would find it the height of disrespect, dishonor, and would show a great lack of pride. I don't live in Europe, and haven't been in over 6 years, so maybe the EU is viewed with a different sort of power by the people that live there, but it seems to me to be quickly becoming less of an alliance between nations and increasingly more of a single government, a single country, as it were.

I would agree that the EU is federalizing itself, but it's nowhere near enough to be called a federal system.

I must have zoned out while reading it (often I read things more than once, ADHD and all), but it seemed to me that the agreement was a bit more binding, I'm ashamed to admit I wasn't even aware that single nations could choose which parts they'd like to agree to, it almost seems like cheating really.

If the EU council has no real power, what purpose is there for it? A place for people to gripe and hope they can get some aid? Share ideas?

Isn't that what the UN is for?

 

[Phoenix]

Didn't we already agree that it is expected that no country would be brazen enough to try and back out?
I personally would find it the height of disrespect, dishonor, and would show a great lack of pride. I don't live in Europe, and haven't been in over 6 years, so maybe the EU is viewed with a different sort of power by the people that live there, but it seems to me to be quickly becoming less of an alliance between nations and increasingly more of a single government, a single country, as it were.

You are aware that the UKIP (independence partyin the UK) campaigns for exactly that, right? Secession parties aren't exactly rare in the EU, even on the European party level.

I must have zoned out while reading it (often I read things more than once, ADHD and all), but it seemed to me that the agreement was a bit more binding, I'm ashamed to admit I wasn't even aware that single nations could choose which parts they'd like to agree to, it almost seems like cheating really.

It's negotiating. Any single member could've blocked Lisbon by not signing it, and so opt-outs are given. The reason you don't see all 27 members negotiating opt-outs if because the EU (and Lisbon) is effective and fair.

If the EU council has no real power, what purpose is there for it? A place for people to gripe and hope they can get some aid? Share ideas?

Isn't that what the UN is for?

They certainly have power. If you don't try to work from within it, you'll exclude yourself from shaping it. The UK could certainly ignore everything the EU says, and there's not a damn thing the Union could do about it. But then the UK would, as Lellouche put it, effectively castrate their voice in it.