Could have fooled me!
So you spent lots of time and effort to come up with this?
Okay lets get some thing straight here.. and you should know this according to yourself.
The EU/EEC has evolved since it got started in 1957, where the original treaty was called The Treaty of Rome. Now what most people seem to not understand, is that this Treaty is still valid. Since then there has been add-on treaties to factor in more members and the implementation of factors of the Treaty of Rome.
Now the EU constitution would have replaced it all, with the SAME content plus the Treaty of Lisbon. Now the problem in doing this, is that would require referendums in many countries. The problem with referendums on stuff like this, is that it becomes more about national politics and not so much about the actual issue. It happened in Ireland and in France. Dont even try to deny that.
So yes, the EU members had to do another amending treaty instead of replacing the whole thing with a Constitution. And of course the Lisbon Treaty would be very similar to the Constitution because most of the changes were needed because of changes in number of members and so on.
There is no conspiracy here.. the process was very open and clear what they did. A new constitution would require referendums because.. it is new.. where as an amendment treaty in most cases does not because it is not.. new. Not hard to understand.
I have pointed out that I dislike corresponding with rude ideologues, when they bring nothing but opinion and old hat to the table, while negating the obvious.
:lol: so you have something against facts? This has absolutely nothing to do with ideology, but facts.
If you read the Constitution and then the Treaty of Lisbon, you would quickly see that they are almost the same... almost. There is no conspiracy here at all. If you had read the background to why the Constitution was needed, you would also understand why the Treaty of Lisbon was needed. It has nothing to do with ideology but cold hard facts.
The only ideology here is you pushing a bull**** conspiracy theory that never existed.
Stay, obviously.
Despite what the 'out' campaigners say, the EU has been the single most important factor in the maintenance of peace in Europe since the end of WWII.
Personally I don´t see any causal link between one or the other, We simply have nothing left to fight about. Most previous wars were about
1 Monarchial sucession
2 Religious issues
3 Border disputes, notably Alsace-Lorraine
4 Captalism vs Communism VS liberal democracy
5 Rival imperial ambitions
All of which are no longer much of an issue. And wouldnt be even if the EU had never existed.
Personally I don´t see any causal link between one or the other, We simply have nothing left to fight about. Most previous wars were about
1 Monarchial sucession
2 Religious issues
3 Border disputes, notably Alsace-Lorraine
4 Captalism vs Communism VS liberal democracy
5 Rival imperial ambitions
Stay, obviously.
Despite what the 'out' campaigners say, the EU has been the single most important factor in the maintenance of peace in Europe since the end of WWII.
Economically, the UK will be royally effed if it leaves the EU: it will still need to abide by all those regulations that form the backbone of the 'out' argument, otherwise it will not be able to trade with the EU. The global corporations will leave, so goodbye Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Tata, and tens of thousands of jobs, welcome home tens of thousands of expats who no longer qualify to work and/or remain in EU countries.
The idea that leaving the EU will result in the repatriation of democratic powers to the British people is a sad joke when the corporately-owned Tory government has no interest in seeing any such thing as democracy - witness their electoral gerrymandering, hostility to devolution and sad, electioneering lies about decentralisation and the creation of a 'Northern Powerhouse'. Funny how George Osborne hasn't mentioned that since the election, isn't it?
I hate much about the EU - the Christian capitalists' club - and hope to see Schäuble, Dijsselbloem, Merkel and the bunch kicked hard in the nads, but my dislike how the EU is currently operating doesn't make me want to ditch it, but want to change it. It certainly doesn't drive me into the arms of crypto-fascists, ethnic nationalists and corporatist libertarians.
The single most important factor in the maintenance of peace in Europe since the end of WW2 has been the US security guarantee.
Sure it has been. :roll: I'm sure that line plays well in Roanoke and Richmond; less well in Liège, Lyon and Logroño.
It is nonetheless true. The last time there was a serious intra-Euro scrap, in the former Yugoslavia, it took US intervention to sort it out.
No one sorted that out. It ran its course and claimed over 250,000 lives. The UN, NATO and the US were involved in attempts at peace-keeping. Fairly unsuccessfully. Sad and revealing that you'd claim that as a success story of US intervention in Europe.
The single most important factor in the maintenance of peace in Europe since the end of WW2 has been the US security guarantee.
There'll be no need for France to stop migrants their side of the channel, if the UK isn't a member any more.
I guess that's why the agreement is named for a city in Ohio.
[h=3]Dayton Accords | international agreement | Britannica.com[/h]www.britannica.com/event/Dayton-Accords
Encyclopaedia Britannica
Brian Schlumbohm/U.S. Air Forcepeace agreement reached on Nov. 21, 1995, by the presidents of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia, ending the war in Bosnia and outlining a General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
[h=3]Dayton Accords - US Department of State[/h]www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/dayton/
United States Department of State
Dayton Accords. -11/21/95 General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and ... -11/21/95 Agreement on Initialling the General Framework Agreement
[h=3][PDF]Dayton Agreement - UN Peacemaker[/h]peacemaker.un.org/.../BA_951121_DaytonAgreement.pd...
United Nations
framework agreement for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the annexes ... Yugoslavia as well as the other parties thereto on 21 November 1995 in Dayton,.
No one sorted that out. It ran its course and claimed over 250,000 lives. The UN, NATO and the US were involved in attempts at peace-keeping. Fairly unsuccessfully. Sad and revealing that you'd claim that as a success story of US intervention in Europe.
Exactly. This is so overlooked. Britain insisted Sangatte be closed so what happened? The jungle sprang up - where else were they going to go? France keeps hold of the immense problem that is the jungle precisely because it can't let another EU state be flooded - hence the fences and the increased protection around tunnels, the ferries, the Eurostar etc. Those who think the French authorities and police are being lax haven't seen anything yet. Should Britain leave the EU, France will have no responsibiity to its neighbour and the migrants will just come spewing forth at Dover. Leaving the EU will not curtail illegal migration to the UK - you will import the problem wholesale.
I guess that's why the agreement is named for a city in Ohio.
Even more sad, yet unsurprising, that you deny it. You and Pete continue to reassure me with your constant belittling of the US and everything it has ever done. There aren't many consistent things in the world that we can rely on any more. Your unfailing anti-Americanism thankfully is one that we can rely on.
You don't expect a Euro-lefty to ever give any credit to the US for anything, do you? The Europeans failed spectacularly in the former Yugoslavia (remember the horror show by the Dutch at Srbenicia?) , and it was only when US military force was brought to bear on the Serbs that the killing stopped. These folks have extremely short memories.
The single most important factor in the maintenance of peace in Europe since the end of WW2 has been the US security guarantee.
And that's his problem, Pete. He doesn't want any factual challenge to the American exceptionalist, neo-con narrative. You agree that American power is the undisputed and unique force for good in the world, or you're anti-American, almost certainly a leftist Eurofag, and definitely an apologist for Putin/Assad/ISIS/Cologne rapists.No what is sad is how you constantly put the US on a pedestal and ignoring the truth.
And that's his problem, Pete. He doesn't want any factual challenge to the American exceptionalist, neo-con narrative. You agree that American power is the undisputed and unique force for good in the world, or you're anti-American, almost certainly a leftist Eurofag, and definitely an apologist for Putin/Assad/ISIS/Cologne rapists.
There's no middle ground whereby you can criticise and praise where appropriate, but these are zealots we're dealing with. So be it.
The trouble with that position, Andy, is it can be used in reverse; I mean, Pete is probably the worse anti-American/UK poster on this board. He wouldn't know middle ground if it smacked him in the face!
That's pretty true. I've had to take him to task for that a dozen times, but that doesn't undermine the point that the Wiggens of this world are cut from the same cloth, just one with a different pattern of hatreds.
I suppose that's intended as a compliment for these countries but the only reason they're now this way is that they exhausted their finances, as well as a future generation, in their internecine wars. Luckily the Americans were there to restore some order though, as history demonstrates, there are always outbreaks of violence somewhere in Europe.For the first time in centuries France, UK and Germany/German states, were not at war with each other over land and resources.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?