If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
I actually find the idea of Europe as a country rather an exciting and nice one when taken in theory and without context. In reality I'm not so keen - a common currency, common foreign policy and so on seem pretty much impractical within today's climate. The idea of a European superstate is essentially utopian and I get a sense that there are a lot of bureaucrats in Brussels who have decided that it's all a great idea and are dragging hundreds of millions of people towards something that those people don't really want atm. I find that all rather frightening.
What really fascinates me though is the way Europe is simultaneously becoming ever closer and ever more divided. In the 20 years, we've seen the creation of the EU and a certain amount of sovereignty being lost to Brussels at the same time as we've devolved powers to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments. It's a strange paradox of European politics - something similar is happening in Spain, is it not?
Originally posted by alilaw:
It's far far too easy for the media to hype this up into 'WE'RE LOSING OUR SOVEREIGNTY OMFG' because of the use of the word 'constitution' in the original treaty. Hell, even the French didn't like it then. But the Reform Treaty, which is what the amended version is called that they're debating now, goes a long way towards clearing up some fundamental inefficiency in the organisation while at the same time giving Britain pretty much all the opt-out clauses we've wanted.
It won't mean a common foreign policy, we won't be subject to supranational judicial laws, while at the same time it will involve national parliaments more, tweak the voting procedures to make it a fairer system and generally make the EU a much more democratic institution (which I agree s_i, it largely isn't atm).
:thup: can you tattoo that onto every foaming at the mouth little englander kthx?
Originally posted by Retro:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Retro:
I don't want a referendum as I don't trust the majority of the British public to bother to find out what they are actually voting on.
How authoritarian of me.
Certainly. It'd lose by a landslide. Mostly because people have little confidence in the EU rather than knowing anything about the constitution.
But tbf, it's the EU that's to blame for that. </BLOCKQUOTE>
And too many people have "little Englander" attitudes and can't see beyond that. It's not that they lack confidence, it's just that they're ignorant of what's going on.
The people I think you're talking about are those who do know a bit about the EU, but they are in a minority imo.
I agree with imps. I think there's a lot wrong with the way the EU is currently organised and run... but we should still be moving towards it. </BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd agree with that too. I take a rather Burkean view on this in that I'm not convinced it's our generation's 'right' to just remove ourselves from a union that does benefit us. Evolution, not revolution and all that. Let's work to improve what has the potential to be a pretty effective organisation rather than just throw it out because of what are temporary institutional issues that can be solved.
Originally posted by alilaw:
It's far far too easy for the media to hype this up into 'WE'RE LOSING OUR SOVEREIGNTY OMFG' because of the use of the word 'constitution' in the original treaty. Hell, even the French didn't like it then. But the Reform Treaty, which is what the amended version is called that they're debating now, goes a long way towards clearing up some fundamental inefficiency in the organisation while at the same time giving Britain pretty much all the opt-out clauses we've wanted.
It won't mean a common foreign policy, we won't be subject to supranational judicial laws, while at the same time it will involve national parliaments more, tweak the voting procedures to make it a fairer system and generally make the EU a much more democratic institution (which I agree s_i, it largely isn't atm).
All secondary legislation must conform to EU law so we are affected by the Charter of Fundamental rights in an indirect fashion, tbf.
Originally posted by Matt Jones:
<BLOCKQUOTE>There should not be a referendum, it's not the same as the consitution that the manifesto pledge was made on.
The content of it is deemed to be mostly the same by the scrutiny committes. Have you read it? </BLOCKQUOTE>
Doesn't matter how similar it is, if the "meat" that would require a referendum is removed/red-lined.
Originally posted by Zaitsev:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Matt Jones:
<BLOCKQUOTE>There should not be a referendum, it's not the same as the consitution that the manifesto pledge was made on.
The content of it is deemed to be mostly the same by the scrutiny committes. Have you read it? </BLOCKQUOTE>
Doesn't matter how similar it is, if the "meat" that would require a referendum is removed/red-lined. </BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is in determining what that 'meat' is. It always strikes me as strange when the government say 'we've got our red lines' as a justification for not calling a referendum despite the fact that they were the ones who created the red lines. They need to be doing more to actually explain what those red lines are, why they are so significant and why they mean we don't need a constitution rather than acting as though these red lines are some catch-all solution. The government creates the rules, plays by them and then expects praise for obeying them. It's all too simplistic.
Linear Mode
