Posted on 12/16/2007 11:20:57 AM PST by BGHater
Is the last 2/3 the "clarifying" waeasel words....or is the first third the "pre-amble"....
In any case is too long by far.
He is not sovereign over England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
Hang onto that picture. I have a hunch it just might attain the notoriety of the Chamberlain “Peace In Our Time” photo - and for the same reason.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Sir Winston Churchill.
maybe Mr. brown read this too much.
It's probably like any other modern instruction manual:
"Teh furst of tree thirdiths are Englisher; hte secondest fo tree thirdiths are Francey; lustiest of tree thirdits insert to Spanners."*
*Printed in China
bump
“I’m sure this will be reflected in the UN - and Security Council - as soon as the papers are signed....No?”
That’s what I have been wondering. Now that Britain and France have signed this treaty, thereby effectively eliminating their national sovereignty, they should no longer hold seats as iondepednent nations on the UN Security Council, nor should they be able to have an indepednent vote in any UN process. The EU will have one vote, just as the US has one vote and the USSR had one vote when it was in existence. The UN Security Council should now be the US, China, Russia, the EU, and India.
some time ago there was a discussion about this in EU. that britain and france should give their UN seat to the EU. but i lost track. don´t know if this is still up to date. but it would make sense. Eu allready uses the french or the british veto in the UN . i wouldn´t make a difference if EU would veto it down or if the EU tells france to veto it down.
China?
“China?”
Well, yes. China is already on the Security Council. How are you going to kick it off?
“There will always be an England!” How wonderfully assuring that motto was, and how badly it has been betrayed by none other than the Brits.
I may be wrong, but I always thought that the USSR was allowed votes for all of its constituent parts...Did they really only have one?
“There will always be the province of Old England, the province of Old Scotland, and the province of Old Wales, and the province of Northern Ireland.” Let us hope they retain their local flavor for the tourist trade.
“I may be wrong, but I always thought that the USSR was allowed votes for all of its constituent parts...Did they really only have one?”
No, the Soviet Union had its own vote. Ukraine didn’t have its own vote, nor did Chechnya (for two examples of Soviet “Republics”). None of the so-called Soviet republics had their own vote in the UN until they seceded and/or the USSR dissolved.
Then there is not much difference to the American constitution. This new treaty was written by Europeans from all current nations. Then it was signed by elected heads of states that acted as representatives of their voters.
The problem might be that we Europeans copied too much from America. I.e. the representative democracy, which is for sure not the best system after all. There are far better alternatives like the Swiss direct democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Direct_democracy
I know. The truth is hurting sometimes.
I see you drink the “I am God” snob koolaid. When do you get your cut of the money from the masses of the “little people” who rejected this?
Your assertion is simply, flatly untrue.
This new treaty was written by Europeans from all current nations. Then it was signed by elected heads of states that acted as representatives of their voters.
No, they did not "act" as representatives of their voters, they simply "posed" as representatives. They actually "acted" in defiance to and contrary to the wishes of their people.
This is definitely wrong. They are indeed the representatives of the people who gave them majorities in the national votes. Because of the national constitutions those representatives have the duty to protect the national interests and to decide about such matters. Since a EU membership is in the direct interest of practically all European nations, the practical decision for the European leaders is easy. Democracy is a relative concept. Such contrary concepts like communist "democratic centralism" and direct democracy are labeled as democracy. Many people in the western word are in the dumb belief that their own national concept would be the one that provides the maximal possible freedom, although such simplification is usually wrong. Due to the fact that we Europeans (btw. just like you Americans) do not have the better direct democracies fixed in our constitutions (except of Switzerland) we are forced to live and work with the existing body. Direct democracy would delegate the decision about such fundamental matters directly to the sovereign, the people of a nation. In a imperfect representative democracy the decision about those matters is given to the elected representatives. Exactly this happened in Europe concerning the new EU treaty.
You see - all of us still have to work and fight for more freedom. BTW - do not be offened. I know that the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law. Things are complex, but i.e. the decision whether a comparable treaty would be signed or not by the US lies in the hands of your president as the representative of your people. Therefore your system would not be better in this concern than the systems in Europe.
As I said - freedom and democracy are relative concepts.
P.S.
More European solutions in all concerns are from my point of view simply a basic exigence. You may think different here, but the practical needs within Europe are facts and can not be delayed just because we are unable to find perfect national solutions for democracy. This means we have to deal with the existent structures. It might be possible that there are areas in Europe that are not that dependent to a greater Europe like the quarter I live in. We Germans in the south-west are closely interwoven with the Swiss, the Austrians and the French in all concerns. Our neighbors are ethnically closer to us than i.e. Germans from Berlin or Magdeburg. The German national concept does not fit into our needs anymore. Therefore it is quite logical to us to look over the boarders. Believe it or not but within western Europe there are indeed majorities for a closer relationship. The thing is that most people there are afraid of the Europeans from the east and their impact on our societies. The recent vote against the EU-constitution in France i.e. was more a vote against Chirac and his plan to associate the Turks.
The EU gives me open boarders, a common currency and the right to vote i.e. in other European countries if I have my residence there. Furthermore we established a powerful common market that makes us far more independent from other nations than we ever were before. More than 50% of the German exports go to other European countries. Furthermore we were able to find European solutions to reestablish large scale industries and technologies what would have been impossible for a sole nation. Airbus, ESA, EADS, Eurofighter, GALILEO or ARIANE might not be in the interest of the US, but they are for sure in our well understood own interest of European nations. I could extend this list for hours but I am aware that such is not political correct in a conservative US forum. ;)
The EU as a direct counterpart to the US: That was the whole point of it, after all. The US is so 'big' and 'bad', and the whole world is so afraid of us, that Europe wanted to merge all their separate powers into one big superpower, just to be able to contend with us. I don't know whether to feel sorry for them or not. We're obviously the whole reason for the EU's existence. This obviously has bad ramifications for us, specific ramifications that we are unaware of at this time. It also has bad ramifications for them (being overrun by the Muslim hordes, for one). But the European nations were willing to give up their sovereignty in order to become a superpower, to be able to match our power. That's why nations are clamoring to get in to the EU. It's sad, for the individual nations' loss of power, and for the eventual Muslim takeover (that's the way I think it's headed). I feel more sorry for them, at this point, than I do for us. When the US and the EU start having clashes, then I'm sure that will change.
The Ukranian SSR and the Byelorussian (sp) SSR as well as the USSR each had a vote in the General Assembly. Stalin insisted on getting three votes at the UN. He may have wanted all the “republics” to get one and got bargained down to only three, but he did get extra votes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.