Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Democracy my B0lllox!!!
Options
Comments
-
Yeah, there is no intelligent reason for anyone not being 100% behind the Yes campaign to some. We had this before with McCreevy's statements a month or so ago. With those who support a Yes vote automatically blaming misquoting journalists, to attcking McCreevy's credentials etc - sure, what would he know.
I also have a serious problem with the other canard trotted out, about the French have democratically reversed their beliefs on Lisbon by voting in Sarkozy.
Sure, if the greens pulled out of govt in the morning it is a long long shot that Gerry Adams would be elected Taoiseach. If Cowan, Kenny, Gilmore, Gormley all said that if elected they would ratify Lisbon without a referendum (Constitution be damned) it is still likely that the core votes of each party would defeat SF.
As the OP said, "Democracy me b0llix". Whatever gets the job done.
What does any of that have anything to do with Lisbon, though?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Interesting point Scofflaw.
France has ratified Lisbon democratically because it was presented in the form of a presedential manifesto rather than a referendum (as the constitution was) This is pointed out constantly - as it was on the first page of this thread - by those supporting a Yes vote. Means to an end, would only there was some way to bypass the pesky constituion in Ireland.
As it was stated at the OP "Democracy me b0llix"
The idea from those vehemently supporting the yes side that all queries regarding lisbon/EU project raised by europhiles can be ignored as journalists miquoting/misreading the context etc annoys me. Yet is a part of the debate.
You dont hear the same people decrying the state of journalism when Iceland is brought into the argument, as if Lisbon has anything to do with Ireland leaving the EU* and the currency.
*wiating patiently for the 'if you want Ireland to leave the EU vote yes for Lisbon' arguement.0 -
Interesting point Scofflaw.
France has ratified Lisbon democratically because it was presented in the form of a presedential manifesto rather than a referendum (as the constitution was) This is pointed out constantly - as it was on the first page of this thread - by those supporting a Yes vote. Means to an end, would only there was some way to bypass the pesky constituion in Ireland.
As it was stated at the OP "Democracy me b0llix"
The idea from those vehemently supporting the yes side that all queries regarding lisbon/EU project raised by europhiles can be ignored as journalists miquoting/misreading the context etc annoys me. Yet is a part of the debate.
You dont hear the same people decrying the state of journalism when Iceland is brought into the argument, as if Lisbon has anything to do with Ireland leaving the EU* and the currency.
*wiating patiently for the 'if you want Ireland to leave the EU vote yes for Lisbon' arguement.
I'm sure that's all very annoying, but what does it have to do with Lisbon? All of the above seems to boil down to "I don't like the way politicians talk", or possibly "I don't like politicians". I don't like politicians either - ours are inept, Sarkozy is an arrogant loudmouth in the best French tradition of political bombast, Berlusconi is grotesque, etc etc - but so what? None of that has any more to do with Lisbon than it has to do with Bunreacht na hÉireann.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Hardly apropros of nothing, and a somewhat inept reading of my posts I think.
I have questioned how those on the yes camp view any europhile questioning any element of Lisbon as being misreported/misreading the context, yet happily allow the various red herrings to go by as being immaculately reported.
This has nothing with how people/politicians speak, how journalists work, its the way the Yes side is happy to skew the debate.
It has everything to do with how those who vote No to Lisbon are portrayed. For instance, you seemed to question Demot Ahern and Bertie Ahern's statements provided by FutureTaoiseach as lacking context when it is a generally accepted truisms.
To those on the yes side, all journalists who file reports supporting the Yes side are great, regardless of credentials, all those who quote europhiles in some way being somehow negative about the treaty are deliberately misrepresenting the politicians or skewing the context in some way - McCreevy interview being one of the latest examples.
It is ok to have some questioning voices on the yes side.0 -
I have questioned how those on the yes camp view any europhile questioning any element of Lisbon as being misreported/misreading the context, yet happily allow the various red herrings to go by as being immaculately reported.
Almost completely offtopic but this is bugging me, but are you using this term correctly?To those on the yes side, all journalists who file reports supporting the Yes side are great, regardless of credentials, all those who quote europhiles in some way being somehow negative about the treaty are deliberately misrepresenting the politicians or skewing the context in some way - McCreevy interview being one of the latest examples.
Door swings both ways sadly
I can give you example of someone from the *no side* doing the exact same thing:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60916369&postcount=11
Not to mention earlier in this very thread someone said the UN general secretary went on TV and told irish people to vote yes. Again I found the sources posted them up and that was proven to be completely skewed aswell.
So excuse me if personnally when someone quotes someone that I'd like to see it in context.
Though personnally I havnt checked the latest batch people are commenting on, but if people on both sides really feel its important to get these quotes on context, I'm willing to spend the rest of my day hunting down these quotes...
But frankly if its like the last batch that were hunted down and checked on, it will end up being irrelevent in the end because either side will just simply stop using the quote and find new ones.0 -
Advertisement
-
I use the term Europhile as the antonym of eurosceptic. In the same way Anglophile or Francophile are used. I dont see it being wrong and is fine as short-hand. Willing to stop using the term should be proven otherwise.
And I agree. Its admirable and right to quote everything in context in the debate but not accepting that leading politicans say that they believe the Lisbon treaty to be 90% of the EU constitution borders on petty. THe whole debate should have moved forward from that level by now.
The list of reasons why for instance McCreevy said what he said about a month ago "On the other hand, I think all of the politicians of Europe would have known quite well that if a similar question had been put to their electorate in a referendum the answer in 95 per cent of countries would have been 'No' as well," as reported in the IT was mindblowing. He was said to have been misquoted until the tapes were produced or the context was incorrect, or that what would McCreevy know.
It just strikes me that there are far fewer questioning supporters of the treaty than appear on this forum. (I voted Yes last time round) It appears to me that you are either a madman loony No voter or a rabid Yes voter. You are eitehr going to say No to the very best treaty possible or your are going to say Yes to the very worst treaty possible. Very few on the Yes side are willing to accept that there are any grounds for saying No, or any merit in any of the No sides arguments. The journalist is always blamed first when someone on the Yes side questions any aspect of the treaty.0 -
I use the term Europhile as the antonym of eurosceptic. In the same way Anglophile or Francophile are used. I dont see it being wrong and is fine as short-hand. Willing to stop using the term should be proven otherwise.
And I agree. Its admirable and right to quote everything in context in the debate but not accepting that leading politicans say that they believe the Lisbon treaty to be 90% of the EU constitution borders on petty. THe whole debate should have moved forward from that level by now.
The list of reasons why for instance McCreevy said what he said about a month ago "On the other hand, I think all of the politicians of Europe would have known quite well that if a similar question had been put to their electorate in a referendum the answer in 95 per cent of countries would have been 'No' as well," as reported in the IT was mindblowing. He was said to have been misquoted until the tapes were produced or the context was incorrect, or that what would McCreevy know.
It just strikes me that there are far fewer questioning supporters of the treaty than appear on this forum. (I voted Yes last time round) It appears to me that you are either a madman loony No voter or a rabid Yes voter. You are eitehr going to say No to the very best treaty possible or your are going to say Yes to the very worst treaty possible. Very few on the Yes side are willing to accept that there are any grounds for saying No, or any merit in any of the No sides arguments. The journalist is always blamed first when someone on the Yes side questions any aspect of the treaty.
I think the 90% is generally accepted, but again, it's context. Berties quote has a different meaning to D'Estaings eg.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
BlitzKrieg wrote: »
Not to mention earlier in this very thread someone said the UN general secretary went on TV and told irish people to vote yes. Again I found the sources posted them up and that was proven to be completely skewed aswell.
Yes, thanks for doing that. I was throwing my hands up in despair after I had earlier responded to another poster commenting on the UN sec. gen. pushing a Yes vote. The guy you replied to said "I saw it with my own eyes"... but never came back to explain how his eyes and ears had deceived him. Mind you I am not saying it was done deliberately, I figure the guy did really convince himself that the sec gen. told us to vote yes, but it goes to show how we really do need the full context of a quote. Without you placing the links up it might have decended into I heard him say this... oh no you didn't... oh yes I did...
Ix0 -
It just strikes me that there are far fewer questioning supporters of the treaty than appear on this forum. (I voted Yes last time round) It appears to me that you are either a madman loony No voter or a rabid Yes voter. You are eitehr going to say No to the very best treaty possible or your are going to say Yes to the very worst treaty possible. Very few on the Yes side are willing to accept that there are any grounds for saying No, or any merit in any of the No sides arguments. The journalist is always blamed first when someone on the Yes side questions any aspect of the treaty.
Actually there is a lot of merit in what you are saying here. It seems unfortunately the norm these days that people make the most extreme argument possible in order to make their point. You can even see this in Prime Time where someone like Mark Little will take a comment from one side of the table and ramp it up to the max before passing it to the other side as a statement and not a question... I found it very funny recently when he interviewed Peter Bacon and took a rather agressive tone leading Bacon to say "are you asking me or telling me?".
However to lean back to my rabid Yes ways... I think the problem from my point of view is that a no point of view has to in general point to problems in the future, and so these are generally portrayed as disasters. There are no disasters in the past of the EU. Some non-ideal things to be sure, but surely success must be indicated by the lack of any drive during the Lisbon negotiations to repeal parts of Nice. So the no side has to be more speculative.
I think there are valid reasons to vote no, but in my opinion they boil down to trust and I don't want to live life in a paranoid manner. In any case I would argue that we have had decades of EU behaviour to indicate there is trust there.
On the matter of quotes, I actually find this to be unfair to the yes side. It's unfair to start with to take any one comment by any one individual and point to it as a reason to vote no, no matter who they are. Then when yes debaters might point to a comment by a No person of influence they are often told that that individual is a fringe element who does not represent the No side.
McCreevy is our commissioner but could hardly be called a passionate European. Even if he were he is just one guy. He might be right about the result of referendums across the EU, but that's in some ways that's a different question (which would be worth another thread). The question there is how to get people involved enough in politics to vote in national and EU elections, and be knowledgable about what they are voting on. Or perhaps they are happy to be represented by their politicans for some issues. However while debatable that doesn't really affect the question of whether Lisbon is good for Ireland.
Ix0 -
Hardly apropros of nothing, and a somewhat inept reading of my posts I think.
I have questioned how those on the yes camp view any europhile questioning any element of Lisbon as being misreported/misreading the context, yet happily allow the various red herrings to go by as being immaculately reported.
This has nothing with how people/politicians speak, how journalists work, its the way the Yes side is happy to skew the debate.
It has everything to do with how those who vote No to Lisbon are portrayed. For instance, you seemed to question Demot Ahern and Bertie Ahern's statements provided by FutureTaoiseach as lacking context when it is a generally accepted truisms.
To those on the yes side, all journalists who file reports supporting the Yes side are great, regardless of credentials, all those who quote europhiles in some way being somehow negative about the treaty are deliberately misrepresenting the politicians or skewing the context in some way - McCreevy interview being one of the latest examples.
It is ok to have some questioning voices on the yes side.
Hm. Personally, I'm opposed to the whole idea of "argument by quotation" - it's a form of argument from authority, and it should be as dead as the Scholastics who advocated it.
It's a form of argument that, as far as I can see, is being used far more extensively by the No proponents, and in a very debased way. As the other posters have pointed out, it's not uncommon to find that quoted remarks, in context, mean something entirely different from what is claimed for them.
Now I say it's used mostly by the No side, but it's perfectly possible I'm biased, so you're welcome to point out if I'm uncritically using context-free quotes myself.
As to the particular examples - I've no objection to the statement that 90% (or 95%) on the Constitution is in Lisbon. I've never argued otherwise. However, No proponents like to quote it as some kind of admission, which it isn't - it was a point of pride, because it was largely due to the efforts of the Irish government that so much of the Constitution survived into the Treaty. In respect of McCreevy, yes, I have no problem dismissing what he says - even going on the vote on the Constitution, it's obvious that he's wrong, and I see no reason why he should in any case have some special insight that makes his comment worth listening to. Certainly I wouldn't have had any respect for McCreevy's analyses at any previous time, and I somehow doubt 5 years as a Commissioner have changed him particularly - and I doubt very strongly whether any of those now quoting would usually have any respect for his opinions either.
The point, overall, is simply my objection to the pretense that when people from the "Yes side" say something europhobes agree with, then it's obviously true, while claiming that everything else they say is equally obviously false. To claim someone's opinion is authoritative only when you agree with it, and to use that opinion in discussion, is a pathetic substitute for meaningful debate.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you're using it the wrong way around. There is 'philias' and 'phobias'.
quoting Wikipedia
So a Europhil would be someone who likes Europe.
He's using it correctly, he's talking about when 'pro-Europeans' or 'pro-Lisbon' people say something 'negative' about Lisbon, it's reasonably correct to call those people Europhiles.0 -
I think you're using it the wrong way around. There is 'philias' and 'phobias'.
quoting Wikipedia
So a Europhil would be someone who likes Europe.
It would normally be "phile" in English, as in paedophile - and personally, I suspect the fact that "paedophile" springs to mind as the obvious analogue is the reason why normally only No proponents use the term. As you say, though, the correct antonym is europhobe, not eurosceptic, which, again, makes the term inappropriate.
I wouldn't classify describe myself as a "europhile", because it suggests an uncritically positive attitude to the EU. I'd consider myself, perhaps, as a positively eurocritical anti-federalist...
pedantically,
Scofflaw0 -
A europhile is someone who likes the EU. That is what I was intending to say. It is interesting that the No side is assumed to have a monopoly on red herrings.
Also. I agree with Scofflaw that argument by quotation is a pretty ugly unedifying way of going about things.0 -
It would normally be "phile" in English, as in paedophile - and personally, I suspect the fact that "paedophile" springs to mind as the obvious analogue is the reason why normally only No proponents use the term.
You have found me out Scofflaw. I think all people who voted Yes, including me, are paedophiles. You got me.0 -
-
A europhile is someone who likes the EU. That is what I was intending to say. It is interesting that the No side is assumed to have a monopoly on red herrings.
Also. I agree with Scofflaw that argument by quotation is a pretty ugly unedifying way of going about things.
Not a monopoly, but certainly a greater supply (of course, I would say that). On the Yes side, there are people trying to tie economic recovery to a Yes vote, although I find it hard to think of anyone who has been sufficiently blatant to stick out. Also, pretty much the entire official yes campaign last time consisted of, if not red herrings, then irrelevancies, platitudes, and distractions.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The idea that all of these are out of context is equally wrong. Not sure why none of them can be taken at face value.
To point out the obvious, many of the leading No campaigners, plus many No posters here, have a track record of quoting articles or parts of articles from the EU Treaties out of context.
Such an occurrence might be dismissable as simple human error were it a one-off occurrence, but when they repeat these "errors" on a regular basis - even after their relevant articles have been clarified/set in context - then it is reasonable to conclude that this is done with the deliberate intention of misleading the general public.
As such, it is perfectly reasonable to wonder about the veracity of any of their out-of-context quotations. When the context of a "quotation" is seen, it does reveal a lot about the worth of the quotation. Set in context, it might be clear that a quotation comes from a passage where the person quoted is being highly ironic which would, of course, totally change how a reader would interpet the quotation selected. Likewise, if the source of a quotation is revealed to be - not the person quoted - but rather a political opponent making an unsupported claim that the person "quoted" said something, this also alters how a reasonable observer would view the relevant "quotation".0 -
I hope you have read all my posts on the thread, as I dont think I needed the education you are willing to provide in the last post. Thanks all the same though.0
-
I'm amazed how many of the Lisbon supporters are simply in denial about where the EU is heading. A new European federal superstate. And every time I bring up that I don't like the Lisbon Treaty aka Constitution, because it steers that development into such a superstate onto a path that bears serious democratic deficiencies, it's simply being ignored. While all the while people continue arguing about petty stuff like guarantees on neutrality or abortion. Are you guys blind or something? Head in the sand policy? The EU is not what the Irish punter would want it to be. The EU is what it is and since the beginning it was only going to go in the one direction. How can you guys not see that? Ask the average 'punter' in Germany or France, it's fairly obvious to them. It's taught in their bloody schools like that. Why is it not obvious to ye? What more than the obvious writing on the wall do you need to even entertain that thought? And if you did entertain that thought, would that not change how you feel about Lisbon?0
-
Join Date:Posts: 9866
I'm amazed how many of the Lisbon supporters are simply in denial about where the EU is heading. A new European federal superstate.
An in what way does Lisbon go down the road towards a federal superstate. Since we are blind you may need to spell it out for us step by step.And every time I bring up that I don't like the Lisbon Treaty aka Constitution, because it steers that development into such a superstate onto a path that bears serious democratic deficiencies, it's simply being ignored.
Trust me you won't be ignored here, feel free to make your case for the highlighted part.While all the while people continue arguing about petty stuff like guarantees on neutrality or abortion. Are you guys blind or something?
because certain no campaigners keep throwing these red herrings into the mix.Head in the sand policy? The EU is not what the Irish punter would want it to be.
What is that then, free money machine? Nor should it be it be, the EU is what all the members states agree it is.The EU is what it is and since the beginning it was only going to go in the one direction.
Now we are getting somewhere, you just don't like the concept of European Intregration full stop.How can you guys not see that? Ask the average 'punter' in Germany or France, it's fairly obvious to them. It's taught in their bloody schools like that. Why is it not obvious to ye? What more than the obvious writing on the wall do you need to even entertain that thought? And if you did entertain that thought, would that not change how you feel about Lisbon?
Lost me now sorry.0 -
Advertisement
-
marco_polo wrote: »An in what way does Lisbon go down the road towards a federal superstate. Since we are blind you may need to spell it out for us step by step.
The Lisbon Treaty is an obvious stepping stone towards this federal superstate. That was not my point to begin with, but now that you bring it up - yes, it is. My point to begin with is that the EU was heading for such superstate before Lisbon. Lisbon is just manifesting this.marco_polo wrote: »Trust me you won't be ignored here, feel free to make your case for the highlighted part.
My case is that that the Lisbon treaty is a stepping stone towards a political system which makes the executive way too powerful, parliamentary controls too marginal. Independent judiciary is also not guaranteed. To name but a few. It just isn't what a democracy in the sense of the philosophers of the Era of Enlightenment should be. A bunch of ideas that most modern democracies are modeled after. It's implementing the backbone of a watered down democracy.marco_polo wrote: »Now we are getting somewhere, you just don't like the concept of European Intregration full stop.
Now I am being misunderstood. That is not the case at all. I think European Integration is a great idea. I think a European Federation even is a great idea as a long term goal. I just don't think a neo-liberal, corporate-controlled, pseudo-democratic European Federation is a place I'd like to live in.0 -
I disagree with the idea that there will be this EU superstate anytime soon or that lisbon is the start to that road. The first and biggest obstacle is the massive cultural differences between all the nations, the many languages, traditions and attitudes. Another massive problem is the fact that the European countries are at different stages of economic development meaning that economic integration is difficult to achieve.0
-
Realcam,
Whether you are right or wrong (and I personally think you are wrong) you are still just relating what you think is the case without offering any evidence to support your position.
It's not good enough to simply state that it's 'obvious' that Lisbon is a stepping stone towards a federal superstate. It's completely non-obvious to me. Can you please list the contents of Lisbon that have led you to this conclusion, so that we can judge whether we agree or disagree with your analysis. 'It's obvious' is not a proof of anything, you'll have to be more specific.
How does it make the 'executive' more powerful against the 'parliamentary controls', it is my understanding that Lisbon does the exact opposite!
Please provide the reasons that led you to your conclusions, rather than just presenting your conclusions as self evident, and therefore inarguable.0 -
I'm amazed how many of the Lisbon supporters are simply in denial about where the EU is heading. A new European federal superstate. And every time I bring up that I don't like the Lisbon Treaty aka Constitution, because it steers that development into such a superstate onto a path that bears serious democratic deficiencies, it's simply being ignored. While all the while people continue arguing about petty stuff like guarantees on neutrality or abortion. Are you guys blind or something? Head in the sand policy? The EU is not what the Irish punter would want it to be. The EU is what it is and since the beginning it was only going to go in the one direction. How can you guys not see that? Ask the average 'punter' in Germany or France, it's fairly obvious to them. It's taught in their bloody schools like that. Why is it not obvious to ye? What more than the obvious writing on the wall do you need to even entertain that thought? And if you did entertain that thought, would that not change how you feel about Lisbon?
It's a risk, certainly - there are people who would like the EU to become a federal state. Then there is the majority, who wouldn't, and which includes a lot of people like myself who are pro-EU and pro-Lisbon. The reason I don't regard Lisbon as a step on the way to a federal state is the same reason I don't go shouting at people walking on the beach that they're inevitably going to drown.
Lisbon doesn't create a federal state, and it doesn't come anywhere near creating a federal state (see, for example, the German judgement). A huge amount would have to change before the creation of such a federal state became possible, and, frankly, while there's usually a couple of federalists amongst Europe's senior politicians, there is no political will to do so.
Short of defining absolutely everything apart from pure national sovereignty as "federalism" - something which people like Freeborn John do - the EU isn't a federal state, or anything like one, and won't become one. There are plenty of people who support a Yes without supporting a federal Europe, and who are just as aware of the potential danger but - to be blunt - more realistic about it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
if we had of voted yes the first time and they asked us the same question would we be voting again?
the lisbon treaty is how many pages long?
the average voter is never going to understand it.
how many of the no voters will understand it by the next vote?
it says alot that the only country that had a vote on it voted no.i sure if all of europe had a vote the majority would vote no!
to the layman like me it just does'nt seem fair at all.
This country is run by scumbags. That document was put together in such a way, to make sure the average person wouldnt understand it. Why did they go to such great lenghts.... anyone? This will be one one the greatest scams ever, if pulled off. Our hero's of 1916 must be turning in their graves, at the shower of yellow bellied sell outs that represent us now. Shame on you.0 -
If the men of '16 slept soundly through nearly a hundred years of partition, I think they'll be alright with us clubbing together to negotiate some cheaper gas off Russia...0
-
It's a risk, certainly - there are people who would like the EU to become a federal state. Then there is the majority, who wouldn't, and which includes a lot of people like myself who are pro-EU and pro-Lisbon. The reason I don't regard Lisbon as a step on the way to a federal state is the same reason I don't go shouting at people walking on the beach that they're inevitably going to drown.
Lisbon doesn't create a federal state, and it doesn't come anywhere near creating a federal state (see, for example, the German judgement). A huge amount would have to change before the creation of such a federal state became possible, and, frankly, while there's usually a couple of federalists amongst Europe's senior politicians, there is no political will to do so.
Short of defining absolutely everything apart from pure national sovereignty as "federalism" - something which people like Freeborn John do - the EU isn't a federal state, or anything like one, and won't become one. There are plenty of people who support a Yes without supporting a federal Europe, and who are just as aware of the potential danger but - to be blunt - more realistic about it.
cordially,
Scofflaw
With all due respect, your talkin shi.te. Did we already say no? Would we be asked to vote again if we'd said yes. There is your answer on the EU.0 -
-
This country is run by scumbags. That document was put together in such a way, to make sure the average person wouldnt understand it. Why did they go to such great lenghts.... anyone? This will be one one the greatest scams ever, if pulled off. Our hero's of 1916 must be turning in their graves, at the shower of yellow bellied sell outs that represent us now. Shame on you.
As has been explained to death on other threads on this forum treaties are written legalese to avoid loopholes. They are not meant for the average person to understand. We live in a totally different age to 1916. Europe wants to move on and we can either move on with it or stand still, possibly go backwards.
If the result of Lisbon 1 had been Yes the treaty would have been ratified. It wouldn't be as simple as just holding another referendum to get a No vote. I still stand by my position that there should have been no referendum in the first place.0 -
Advertisement
-
...since it's such a nice summary...CIA factbook wrote:Following the two devastating World Wars in the first half of the 20th century, a number of European leaders in the late 1940s became convinced that the only way to establish a lasting peace was to unite the two chief belligerent nations - France and Germany - both economically and politically. In 1950, the French Foreign Minister Robert SCHUMAN proposed an eventual union of all Europe, the first step of which would be the integration of the coal and steel industries of Western Europe. In 1957, the Treaties of Rome created the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), and the six member states undertook to eliminate trade barriers among themselves by forming a common market. In 1967, the institutions of all three communities were formally merged into the European Community (EC), creating a single Commission, a single Council of Ministers, and the European Parliament. Members of the European Parliament were initially selected by national parliaments, but in 1979 the first direct elections were undertaken and they have been held every five years since.
In 1973, the first enlargement of the EC took place with the addition of Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The 1980s saw further membership expansion with Greece joining in 1981 and Spain and Portugal in 1986. The 1992 Treaty of Maastricht laid the basis for further forms of cooperation in foreign and defense policy, in judicial and internal affairs, and in the creation of an economic and monetary union - including a common currency. This further integration created the European Union (EU). In 1995, Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined the EU, raising the membership total to 15.
A new currency, the euro, was launched in world money markets on 1 January 1999; it became the unit of exchange for all of the EU states except the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark. In 2002, citizens of the 12 euro-area countries began using the euro banknotes and coins. Ten new countries joined the EU in 2004 - Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia - and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania joined, bringing the current membership to 27. In order to ensure that the EU can continue to function efficiently with an expanded membership, the Treaty of Nice (in force as of 1 February 2003) set forth rules streamlining the size and procedures of EU institutions. An effort to establish an EU constitution, begun in October 2004, failed to attain unanimous ratification. A new effort, undertaken in June 2007, calls for the creation of an Intergovernmental Conference to form a political agreement, known as the Reform Treaty, which is to serve as a constitution. Unlike the constitution, however, the Reform Treaty would amend existing treaties rather than replace them. In June 2008, the Irish rejected the Reform Treaty in a referendum.
How is this not going towards a United Europe eventually? And how is Lisbon not a significant step towards it? We have political bodies in Europe that govern our governments in many respects. Are in fact responsible for a significant number of the laws we already adhering to. We have a European parliament whose members are elected by us. We have the same money. We have practically no borders. We are about to ratify a document that has constitutional character in many ways. As a matter of fact, the first attempt of nearly the same document was actually called constitution. The CIA calls it a constitution. Look at how it started in 1957 and what the intentions were then. Look at what we have today and what we are about to do. So now imagine what it will be like in another 50 years.
This what I mean with obvious. If this is not obvious, I don't know what is.
I don't get you.0
Advertisement