Wrong on so many levels. The constitution was a whole new document and that was the point. They took the old EU treaty ripped it up and started over. Hence all countries needed to ratify via a referendum since they were entering into a new union under a new treaty.
The Treaty is nothing more than house keeping really.
The Lisbon treaty is slimlining decision making and cutting out voices so it can have a quicker decision making mechanism. Call that house keeping, or what you want. Its basically what the constitution wanted to achieve. Its the same story with a different cover.
These are literally the only differences between Lisbon and the Constitution i could find:
* The planned 'Union Minister for Foreign Affairs' has been renamed 'High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy'.
* EU symbols like the flag, the motto and the anthem, are not made legally binding in the Treaty of Lisbon. All of them are however already in use; e.g. the flag was adopted in the 1980s. Sixteen EU-countries have declared their allegiance to these symbols in the new treaty, although the annexed declaration is not legally binding.[159][160]
* In line with eliminating all 'state-like' terminology and symbols, new names for various types of EU legislation have been dropped, in particular the proposal to rename EU regulations and EU directives as EU 'laws'.[9][136][137][161]
* Three EU Member States have negotiated additional opt-outs from certain areas of policy, particularly the UK (see above).
* Due to Poland's pressure during the June Council in 2007, the new voting system will not enter into force before 2014.
* Combating climate-change is explicitly stated as an objective of EU institutions in the Treaty of Lisbon.
* The EU Constitution would have laid down as an objective of the EU the encouraging of "free and undistorted competition". Due to pressure from the French government, this phrase was not included in the Lisbon Treaty. Instead, the text relating to free and undistorted competition in Article 3 of the EC Treaty is kept and moved to Protocol 6 ("On the Internal Market and Competition"). There has been some debate over whether this will have an impact on EU Competition policy in future. Whilst French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared "We have obtained a major reorientation of the union's objectives",[162] EU commissioner Neelie Kroes has refuted such claims, stating "putting it in a Protocol on the internal market clarifies that one cannot exist without the other. They have moved the furniture round, but the house is still there. The Protocol is of equivalent status to the Treaty."[163]
And these hardly make a difference to the treaty to the extent you exagerate it to be.
Gone are the aspects of Federalism that I was against in the Constitution, gone are things like having a flag (silly thing to kick out but hey) and gone is a whole new text.
The EU mechanism inevitable has to federate members to a certain extent through integration and increased soverign in Brussels. Though the term "federated" as we know it cannot yet be quiet defined as the EU, its certainly heading in that direction, and the Lisbon treaty is evidence of this. Regardless if the EU is headed for a Greater European state or not, the ever decreasing soverign of member states is still enough to cause concern.
Instead we have amendments that accept the realities of the EU today, that we have more members than when the old treaty was written. On top of that, they have added things like human rights and what not, something you had to live up to any ways to join the block in the first place.
Im not going to say that the human rights elements of Lisbon is bad. Quiet the opposite. Infact its quiet a promotion of our indivisual rights. Its the general purpose of the treaty i disagree with.
The biggest change is the role of "President", but that is also an administrative change and in no way a monumental change in the relationship between countries and the EU. The role of "President" existed in the old treaty also.
It was not quiet the same. The "President" as defined in Lisbon is far less temporary and is far more vocal and has more power in his hands...and you say Lisbon makes the EU less federal which is what you are against...a President under a governmental body that represents multiple nations sounds very familiar and federal to me (USSR, US come to mind?).
Where exactly does the treaty, not the constitution give "more power to Brussels"? You keep saying so without proving it.
It gives more power to Brussels because a Representative of Foriegn Affairs is established with the aim to create a united EU foriegn policy in what is supposed to be a market treaty....why does a market treaty need a united foriegn policy and a President? And Europe is so politically divided a Representative of Foriegn affairs amuses me more than the thought of Syria coming to Israel's aid during a natural disaster. A President is also established which provides more central control over EU member states
Again, where... prove it.
Have.
Yes it is why. The constitution was a whole new document, hence a referendum was needed in most countries.
What are you getting at? Your the one denying that the Lisbon treaty is the trojan horse successor of the constitution which pretty much aims to do the same thing.
Which is exactly what the Lisbon treaty is doing.. cutting red tape.
Im glad. But they are doing it differently and this has nothing to do with my point that expansion needs to come to a halt and the exclusion of countries with large anti-EU crowds and largerly divided political views which leads to EU deadlocks in decision making.
I do like the fact however that debated by the Commission of the European Union will be televised.
Hey I agree some what, Romania and Bulgaria were not ready in my opinion. But I am guessing you are complaining more about the Poles..
No mate, the Czech's, the UK who will probably end up holding a referendum and rejecting it, and inevitably Turkey in the future.
You do know that the EU parliament gets MORE power in the Lisbon treaty right? People YOU elect get more power to represent you.. and you are complaining over "less say"?
How so?
You did at least indirectly.
No i didnt! Im sorry i gave that impression.