A 'Convincing Win' in Ireland for Europe Treaty (Constitution) (Europe now one Country!!!)

You need to stop making excuses for Britain & Europe.

What is politics in Britain? Nothing. The people don’t even know what the issues are.

I thought you understood what I was talking about.
retribution is the basic tool for tyrants.

the ones using this tool in this case is the EU. They have not shown major aggression yet other then against Serbia we got a glimpse of it but it is only a matter of time.

my question is how long do you think it will be before they show their real tyrannical face?

I knew what you meant. Sorry ‘bout that. But we have a tyrant of our own and I just can’t resist pointing it out every chance I get.

As for EU, they will show their teeth as soon as whoever takes over in their UN-elections gets what they perceive to be a frim grip on all the loose ends, Then, it will be what is mine is mine, and what’s YOURS is mine, and THAT’S the trouble really begins.
Most people do not like what’s theirs stolen from them.

I can’t speak for the rest of Europe, but you’re quite right about Britain. The level of ignorance about core issues is very high. Even that which is known tends to get smothered in self-interest. The only bright spot I can see is that the old tribal loyalties to the main political parties seem to be breaking down a bit.

HOWEVER, from what I have read, and from the comments on these boards, I don’t think the USA is in that much better a position. This is the weakness of any democratic system, a weakness that our enemies know only too well. A government by the people is dependent on the people taking an effective interest. If they cannot (or will not) bother to understand the issues, or can be deflected by temporary economic appeals, then the system begins to break down.

“the weakness of any democratic system”

And that’s why you’ll read conservatives talk up the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Democracy becomes populism, every time.

Populism becomes tyranny, every time.

Which is most likely to occur first, if the European Union becomes a country:

It implodes and breaks apart.

Secession, by peaceful means.

Secession, by civil war/revolution.

The EU becomes authoritarian.

The EU becomes the European Empire.
1, 2 and 3 seem very unlikely, unless individual countries become strong enough to overcome the fear that EU propaganda has put over their people.

4 and 5 are part and parcel of the purpose of the EU.

Otto von Habsburg said back in 1989 that the EU "is living largely by the legacy of the Holy Roman Empire"; Jose Manuel Barroso called the EU an "empire" in 2007. Helmut Kohl stated that the "future will belong to the Germans . . . when we build the House of Europe" and that EU integration would become "irreversible", back in 1995; he also said that "(a) European army and a European police force lie at the end of the road to European Union" . . . and everything said by these people agree with what Konrad Adenauer said about a united Europe back in 1951, compiled in a book titled Germany Plots With The Kremlin written by T.H. Tetens (copyright 1951).
The EU is already authoritarian: its parliament (the only elected body in Brussels) has no power to make laws; only the unelected Commission can (and they're supposed to be the executive branch). The unelected Council of Ministers holds whatever executive and legislative power they wish, in addition.
The aforementioned EU military is enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon; member states are obliged to give their civilian and military might up to the Union for the realization of this purpose. Furthermore, there's a "mutual solidarity" clause that obliges all member states to come to the aid of any single member state that's been attacked either by terrorists or outside armies.
Look up the so-called "principle of subsidiarity" that is in every EU "accession treaty". This is something from Catholic social teaching, and the EU likes to throw that phrase around as though it were some kind of democratic principle. It's actually thorougly antidemocratic, since the definition of being a subsidiary implies top-down government. It's the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution stood on its head!

(Never mind that "ever closer union" phrase.)

If ratified, the EU will have a parliament, president, court, military, central bank, and currency.

The EU already has most of these things: A parliament since 1952 (directly elected since 1979), a rotating presidency (currently Sweden as represented by minister Cecilia Malmström), a high court, a common currency (the Euro) and a (n independent) central bank in Frankfurt, Hesse, Germany.

If it walks like a country and talks like a country...it sounds as if Great Britain, France, Ireland, Germany, and Italy...all once great empires of their own, will come to an end.

Why should they? Did the US end with NATO? Or when Saudi Arabia pegged its currency to the Dollar? First of all, the reform treaty - even an earlier draft called constitutional treaty - is not a constitution in the sense the US has a constitution. First of all, all power emanates from the member nations, which are free to secede from the union anytime they like.

If ratified, the EU will have a parliament, president, court, military, central bank, and currency.

The EU already has most of these things: A parliament since 1952 (directly elected since 1979), a rotating presidency (currently Sweden as represented by minister Cecilia Malmström), a high court, a common currency (the Euro) and a(n independent) central bank in Frankfurt, Hesse, Germany

Why not go more in-depth? The Commission (appointed) is the actual executive, but writes the laws; the Parliament has no legislative power although it's called a legislature. The Council of Ministers (appointed) is a wild card, who can make laws and pass them if they feel like it. The "rotating presidency" is to be replaced by an appointed permanent president who shall have a 2½-year term.

The buildup of a EU military is laid out in several paragraphs of the Treaty of Lisbon, as is a mandatory requirement to show "mutual solidarity" in the case of an attack on one member state (all the other member states have to respond using all of the military and civilian resources at its disposal).

And in case people missed it, the German Constitutional Court ruled earlier this year that all EU laws have to pass through Berlin and conform to Germany's Basic Law by being approved by the Bundestag and Bundesrat. So now Germany has become the de-jure ruler of the EU.

If it walks like a country and talks like a country...it sounds as if Great Britain, France, Ireland, Germany, and Italy...all once great empires of their own, will come to an end.

Why should they? Did the US end with NATO? Or when Saudi Arabia pegged its currency to the Dollar? First of all, the reform treaty - even an earlier draft called constitutional treaty - is not a constitution in the sense the US has a constitution. First of all, all power emanates from the member nations, which are free to secede from the union anytime they like.

No, that's not true at all. The "principle of subsidiarity" means that the powers "conferred" on the EU's government consist of all political power, to be doled out at Brussels' sole discretion, and anything that Brussels feels "can be done better at EU level" will never make it back down to the member state governments.

Many political leaders in Europe have already called the EU an empire, most poignantly Jose Manuel Barroso, who has been re-"elected" President of the EU Commission by the EU Parliament.

Member states can secede "whenever they like"? Better re-read that treaty. The language is not very clear, and all decisions thereof are up to Brussels, which means that the member state in question can be put into a very uncomfortable position if it "decides to withdraw".

The Lisbon Treaty is a Constitution. It may differ markedly from the US Constitution in principles and laws, but it's a binding constitution. In addition to founding the EU's military in earnest, it also imposes the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights upon all member states. Habeas corpus is absent; free speech is absent; even freedom of the press is absent. Even worse, the current government in Brussels has a strong far-right (fascist) influence within it. The EU is not going to any good place.

And in case people missed it, the German Constitutional Court ruled earlier this year that all EU laws have to pass through Berlin and conform to Germany's Basic Law by being approved by the Bundestag and Bundesrat. So now Germany has become the de-jure ruler of the EU.

That is complete nonsense. What the ruling actually meant was that the Federal Government cannot negotiate on the EU level without involving the states (or Bundeslaender), as that would infringe on their rights. So the states have to be involved in writing the law and have to be respected when implementing EU law, i.e. rewriting EU law into national law.

No, that's not true at all. The "principle of subsidiarity" means that the powers "conferred" on the EU's government consist of all political power, to be doled out at Brussels' sole discretion, and anything that Brussels feels "can be done better at EU level" will never make it back down to the member state governments.

To be blunt: I am right, you are wrong. The difference between a nation like the US and the EU is that powers conferred to the EU can be revoked, whereas US states cannot secede from the union. In some cases that takes the form of opt-outs (e.g. not all EU member states use the Euro), otherwise by simply leaving the European Union, because ultimately the souvereignty and legitimacy lies with the nation states. Of course, leaving the EU would be an endlessly messy affair with a huge fallout (due to the close economic integration of the EU member states), but it is within the nations' rights. That's also why the reform treaty specifically features a secession clause.

Better re-read that treaty. The language is not very clear, and all decisions thereof are up to Brussels, which means that the member state in question can be put into a very uncomfortable position if it "decides to withdraw".

I'm not denying that. But the EU will never wage a "civil war" against a member that decides to leave. What you call uncomfortable position results from the close integration of the economies and legal systems, which partly goes for non-EU members, too. Switzerland for example adopts a lot of EU legislation and has become a de-facto member of the common market without being a member of the EU. If the surrounding EU countries were to close the borders, the Swiss economy would suffer as well.

Habeas corpus is absent; free speech is absent; even freedom of the press is absent.
To quote from the source:
11.1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
11.2 The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
47. Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

In other words: so it's freedom of the media (not only press) and of expression (not only speech, but also blogs), different wording, same meaning.

I'm not saying the reform treaty is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'm just saying that your statement is incorrect.

Many political leaders in Europe have already called the EU an empire, most poignantly Jose Manuel Barroso, who has been re-"elected" President of the EU Commission by the EU Parliament.

The US has often referred to itself as an empire ("imperial presidency" etc.) without ever having had an emperor. Of course the EU is an empire in the sense that it's the world's largest integrated economy and that this economic might / heft of course influences its neighbors, just like 2000 years ago all roads (i.e. infrastructure) led to Rome. But that's just semantics.

Wasn’t the referendum on membership and not the new Treaty? But they count it as the latter?

And in case people missed it, the German Constitutional Court ruled earlier this year that all EU laws have to pass through Berlin and conform to Germany's Basic Law by being approved by the Bundestag and Bundesrat. So now Germany has become the de-jure ruler of the EU

That is complete nonsense. What the ruling actually meant was that the Federal Government cannot negotiate on the EU level without involving the states (or Bundeslaender), as that would infringe on their rights. So the states have to be involved in writing the law and have to be respected when implementing EU law, i.e. rewriting EU law into national law

No, that's not what the decision means.

This article from der Spiegel features several quotations from other German publications that explicitly state that the meaning is as I have claimed. (Because it's what they claim.) Why else would Peter Gauweiler have been so pleased about "losing"? All EU legislation now has to conform to Germany's Basic Law.

No, that's not true at all. The "principle of subsidiarity" means that the powers "conferred" on the EU's government consist of all political power, to be doled out at Brussels' sole discretion, and anything that Brussels feels "can be done better at EU level" will never make it back down to the member state governments.

To be blunt: I am right, you are wrong. The difference between a nation like the US and the EU is that powers conferred to the EU can be revoked, whereas US states cannot secede from the union. In some cases that takes the form of opt-outs (e.g. not all EU member states use the Euro), otherwise by simply leaving the European Union, because ultimately the souvereignty and legitimacy lies with the nation states. Of course, leaving the EU would be an endlessly messy affair with a huge fallout (due to the close economic integration of the EU member states), but it is within the nations' rights. That's also why the reform treaty specifically features a secession clause

How can you revoke something you've given up, especially if it's your sovereignty? Member states can't get their powers back, unless they do what Germany did. Brussels had a brief period of protestation, but then acceded to their masters' wishes. To all other states that do not have the political and military might that Germany possesses, the "principle of subsidiarity" means that their powers are taken away for good.

Did you ever read what you call the "secession" clause? The word "secede" is not in there; instead is the unclear words "withdraw from the Union". Member states are not allowed to unilaterally withdraw; furthermore, they are subject to a waiting period of two years, if the Council of Ministers decides to make them wait through deliberate delay, and they get no say in their own fate during the time they declare their "decision to withdraw". After that, they say that the "treaties shall cease to apply" without defining what that means—it could mean that the member state could be reduced to a vassal state, e.g. French Guiana.

As for the "principle of subsidiarity, it's the Union that defines where "competences" (powers) lie, not the member states. Look at this condescending language in the Treaty:

Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

"Better achieved"? Declaring member states "incompetent" to perform certain tasks? Having exclusive control over foreign, economic and military policy? The USA doesn't do this to its own states.

But the EU will never wage a "civil war" against a member that decides to leave. What you call uncomfortable position results from the close integration of the economies and legal systems, which partly goes for non-EU members, too. Switzerland for example adopts a lot of EU legislation and has become a de-facto member of the common market without being a member of the EU. If the surrounding EU countries were to close the borders, the Swiss economy would suffer as well

Any "de-facto" member of the so-called common market is a de-facto EU member as well. Also, there's the whole "tax haven" debacle, where Switzerland, Luxembourg and Austria were taken off the "blacklist"; they had to give up something there.

To quote from the source: 11.1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 11.2 The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. 47. Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial In other words: so it's freedom of the media (not only press) and of expression (not only speech, but also blogs), different wording, same meaning

Same meaning how? The Soviet Union's constitution also guaranteed "freedom of speech" (using the same three words as the USA), but was that ever put into practice? The EU doesn't even use the phrase "freedom of speech"—"freedom of expression" does not have a similar meaning (one can never assume that from different wording at any time).

And again, practice is not the same as application, otherwise the Stockholm Program would not be proceeding.

The US has often referred to itself as an empire ("imperial presidency" etc.)

False. That term was coined by political scientists, historians and authors (particularly Arthur M. Schlesinger); the US government never used this term to define itself whatsoever, whether officially or unofficially. The EU has indeed put the term "empire" on itself.

Of course the EU is an empire in the sense that it's the world's largest integrated economy and that this economic might / heft of course influences its neighbors, just like 2000 years ago all roads (i.e. infrastructure) led to Rome. But that's just semantics

No, it's not semantics. The politicians of the EU have christened it an empire, and one in particular, Otto von Habsburg, referred to it as "the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire". Empires have a specific character.

I’m betting on 1) personally. None looks likely at the moment, but 1) seems the most likely to me.

But the republic still works on democratic lines. People vote for politicians who make promises to them, and they pass laws on that basis. How many laws have been passed in the US recently which, if not breaking the constitution, are certainly bending it significantly.

I dont want to put a dampener on it, but it seems to me that the vaunted constitution, at best, just puts another stage between freedom and tyranny.

Republic becomes democracy.
Democracy becomes populism.
Populism becomes tyranny.

All EU legislation now has to conform to Germany's Basic Law.

That's the same for all other member states and their constitutions - also one of the reasons why European law isn't decreed "as is", but translated into national law. But as you rightly noted, Germany does not have a constitution, but a basic law in lieu of a constitution. The German states however have constitutions (That's also why legally there has never been a German reunification. Instead, 5 states declared their independence from the German Democratic Republic and then formally joined the FRG under the provisions of the Basic Law.), 16 of them. So the difference between Germany and the other EU member nations is that German Bundeslaender are states in their own right and have to be treated as such by the federal government.

Declaring member states "incompetent" to perform certain tasks?

Actually the operative words are "only if and insofar as", i.e. limiting the cases where this applies. And yes, some EU states on their own might be incompetent to perform certain tasks like e.g. defending the EUs eastern or southern borders against illegal immigration. In this case the EU operates in concert with the respective nations. Or do you think New Mexico is responsible for its southern border alone without federal involvement?

Having exclusive control over foreign, economic and military policy? The USA doesn't do this to its own states.

Please explain how the US states have a foreign policy independent of Washington? So Vermont could opt out of operation Iraqi Freedom?

False. That term was coined by political scientists, historians and authors (particularly Arthur M. Schlesinger); the US government never used this term to define itself whatsoever, whether officially or unofficially. The EU has indeed put the term "empire" on itself. No, it's not semantics. The politicians of the EU have christened it an empire, and one in particular, Otto von Habsburg, referred to it as "the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire". Empires have a specific character.

ROFL. So Otto von Habsburg speaks for the EU as whole? The context was a completely different one: Habsburg lobbied for Catholicism and a Christian EU when he said that the EU was the heir to the Habsburg empire.

All EU legislation now has to conform to Germany's Basic Law

That's the same for all other member states and their constitutions - also one of the reasons why European law isn't decreed "as is", but translated into national law. But as you rightly noted, Germany does not have a constitution, but a basic law in lieu of a constitution. The German states however have constitutions (That's also why legally there has never been a German reunification. Instead, 5 states declared their independence from the German Democratic Republic and then formally joined the FRG under the provisions of the Basic Law.), 16 of them. So the difference between Germany and the other EU member nations is that German Bundeslaender are states in their own right and have to be treated as such by the federal government

Karlsruhe doesn't see it that way. Remember that the Constitutional Court (they don't have that name for no reason) recently stopped the Sunday shopping days in Berlin, using the Grundgesetz as supreme law?

And you're wrong once more. Read this Spiegel article, where it quotes Die Tageszeitung:

(The Karlsruhe verdict is) also a verdict that matches the moods of other nations. The danger is that courts in other countries follow Karlsruhe's example and make themselves overseers of the EU too. They need to be aware that too much sand in the motor can stop even the most robust engine ...

No other EU member state requires that the Lisbon Treaty conforms to its constitution; only Germany. Frankly, all the other countries to some degree have modified their national laws and constitutions to accommodate the Treaty of Lisbon and prior treaties, along with the decisions, directives and regulations out of Brussels.

And it's not remotely bothersome that the Grundgesetz is so accommodating of a "treaty" of law that resembles the Soviet Constitution and the Constitution of the People's Republic of China so closely?

Declaring member states "incompetent" to perform certain tasks?

Actually the operative words are "only if and insofar as", i.e. limiting the cases where this applies. And yes, some EU states on their own might be incompetent to perform certain tasks like e.g. defending the EUs eastern or southern borders against illegal immigration. In this case the EU operates in concert with the respective nations. Or do you think New Mexico is responsible for its southern border alone without federal involvement?

The words "only if" and "insofar as" do not limit anything. Limits have to be spelled out; otherwise it's left to the government at the top (the only entity that has "exclusive competences"; and with the Karlsruhe decision, that's Germany) to decide where such applies. Who watches the watchdog?

By comparing New Mexico arbitrarily to unnamed EU member states, are you saying that the EU is indeed a "United States of Europe", like some EU-defenders deny? The US military is not the chief entity patrolling the Mexican border, FYI.

Please explain how the US states have a foreign policy independent of Washington? So Vermont could opt out of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Where is there a Vermont military force being forced to participate against its will? Last I saw, there was no declaration of war by Congress, so there is nothing to "opt out" of, as it were.

You should read the "advice and consent" clause of Article 2 Section 2. The US has actual representative democracy (versus the politburo/Supreme Soviet relationship between the EU's Commission and Parliament), and there is no shutting out of states' wills (and/or that of their people) as under the "exclusive competence" clauses in the Treaty of Lisbon. So please don't cite "opt-outs" when they're not available to any EU member states, but US states can indeed avail of them via assertion of their rights through Congress.

So Otto von Habsburg speaks for the EU as whole? The context was a completely different one: Habsburg lobbied for Catholicism and a Christian EU when he said that the EU was the heir to the Habsburg empire

Did you miss the bit about Catholic social teaching actually being in the Treaty of Lisbon, never mind prior treaties regarding the European Union?

It's not unusual for one voice to speak for a whole entity, besides, even if it's one voice at a time; and if several of these voices at the top agree, that spells policy. Does the name Franz Josef Strauß ring a bell? the "Strong Man of Europe"? (He and Helmut Kohl differed on the EU only with regards to what "wing" should govern, Kohl clearly on the left. Kohl was the fellow responsible for destabilizing Yugoslavia, BTW.)

Karlsruhe doesn't see it that way. Remember that the Constitutional Court (they don't have that name for no reason) recently stopped the Sunday shopping days in Berlin, using the Grundgesetz as supreme law?

Yeah, it's the same of supremacy clause that can also be found in the US constitution. That's why the federal government / federal legislature in the US can e.g. tax all citizens but cannot pass an amendment to the constitution without the states ratifying it, as such would infringe on the states' rights. US states have constitutions, too. E.g. some have the death penalty, some don't.

One (supremacy of the federal la) doesn't exclude the other (statehood). You misunderstood the concept of a federal state.

(The Karlsruhe verdict is) also a verdict that matches the moods of other nations. The danger is that courts in other countries follow Karlsruhe's example and make themselves overseers of the EU too. They need to be aware that too much sand in the motor can stop even the most robust engine ...

So you want me to respond to a quote of a quote? No, thanks. I'd prefer you to refer to the actual text of the treaty or the actual verdict as the source material. Everything else is Chinese whispers, i.e. useless.

No other EU member state requires that the Lisbon Treaty conforms to its constitution; only Germany.

Most other EU countries' courts had legal challenges to the Lisbon Treaty and have found it to be constitutional.

Frankly, all the other countries to some degree have modified their national laws and constitutions to accommodate the Treaty of Lisbon and prior treaties, along with the decisions, directives and regulations out of Brussels.

Which is exactly what the verdict does say, namely that the Lisbon Treaty can conform to the Basic Law, if the states are given sufficient participation in the process. If not it would be unconstitutional, but only in this case of federal government overreach.

And it's not remotely bothersome that the Grundgesetz is so accommodating of a "treaty" of law that resembles the Soviet Constitution and the Constitution of the People's Republic of China so closely?

Claims without actual references to the source are pointless for the sake of educated discussion. If you want to make these claims, please elaborate how so.

The words "only if" and "insofar as" do not limit anything. Limits have to be spelled out; otherwise it's left to the government at the top (the only entity that has "exclusive competences"; and with the Karlsruhe decision, that's Germany) to decide where such applies. Who watches the watchdog?

Now you're reversing what the text actually says (namely that "otherwise" it's left to the national or regional government). In your case the burden of proof (that it's competent) lies with the national or regional government, when it's the other way round.

By comparing New Mexico arbitrarily to unnamed EU member states, are you saying that the EU is indeed a "United States of Europe", like some EU-defenders deny? The US military is not the chief entity patrolling the Mexican border, FYI.

I was talking about a system of information sharing, aid to countries that cannot afford elaborate border installations on their own etc.. It simply means that when Bulgaria wanted to join the EU it had to prove that it could either defend its (and hence the EU) borders or that it was willing to cooperate with Brussels on the issue. Not more, not less.

Same meaning how? The Soviet Union's constitution also guaranteed "freedom of speech" (using the same three words as the USA), but was that ever put into practice? The EU doesn't even use the phrase "freedom of speech"—"freedom of expression" does not have a similar meaning (one can never assume that from different wording at any time).

Actually, freedom of expression is a broader term, it covers more than simple freedom of speech (which stems from a time before YouTube and FreeRepublic). And now you're saying that some constitutions aren't worth the paper they were printed on. Color me shocked, shocked I tell ya! Seriously, it's blatantly obvious that for a constitution to work it also needs to have a democratic tradition. Sectarian strife in Iraq didn't end the minute they passed their constitution. But modern Europe does have a tradition of democracy and the rule of law, be it for centuries like in Britain or like in Poland where people had to fight for it. And yes, Europe does have a troublesome tradition of bureaucracy, too, just like the US has a sclerotic political system (see:http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001/american-decline). No system is perfect and to believe that a simple constitution could decree a perfect society is ludicrous. In the end, it's the big picture that counts.