And Vaclav Klaus has signed: http://euobserver.com/9/28932 The Lisbon Treaty will go into effect Dec 1. /thread
Finally, Mr. Klaus had no more excuses! Pity there's no picture showing him subscribe... Good news for the EU ... and time to close this thread. )
And bad news for Europe. Time for us all to get jobs within the EU, they're the only people who will benefit from this.
So, is the Lisbon treaty good for Europe and for the world? Can Europe ever become a political and economic entity like for example the United States is, and would that be a good thing?
I don't think so. There are too many conflicting ideas, cultures and interests for the EU to work as a federal superstate. I think it would be closer to the USSR than the USA. It's worrying how they're making the whole thing more powerful and integrated against the wishes of so many of the people. That can only lead to problems down the line.
Dunno about the world, but it's definitely good for Europe. Well, economically, the EU pretty much already is a single entity, especially the Euro-Zone. Politically, I just don't see it and apart from some idealists, I think nobody wants it either. In the (very) long term, I could see a common foreign policy but that's pretty much it and even that would be very hard to achieve. There won't be a United States of Europe. Europe will go its own way with sovereign countries but a common market place. I wouldn't like the idea at all.
I see you badly want to keep this thread alive... If it was bad, I doubt it would have been approved by all national parliaments... Btw: If you're interested in details, just take a look here ... http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm ... or just read the whole thread. The EU will never work like the United States for many reasons, so you can't compare them.
leg_breaker has, uniquely, got the point. Increasingly these days with Europe and the EU, it is necessary to distinguish between institution and project. The Lisbon Treaty is largely inconsequential with regard to the European project. It is, however, hugely significant to the EU as an institution. It renders permanent the thick, unctuous layers of self-perpetuating bureaucracy that sustain most of what the European Union apparatus is nowadays about. That's why all 27 member states were so compliant in its introduction over the heads of the European public. No. Nor do we seek to be such an entity, a few ultra-Euroweenie fantasists aside.
Jury is still out on that one... Not very likely, too much petty jingoism still going around. It could be, but since it has no chance of ever happening, what's the point in theorizing?
I've always been wondering what exactly this "European project" is. I think everybody has his own ideas about it. The lowest common denominator (apart from some economic issues) is probably "no war"...which is good when you look at history, but there's no grand idea about how Europe is supposed to be like. And there can't be, because every nation has its own ideas and they simply aren't very compatible. From the lack of an overarching European idea follows that Europe is most of all pragmatic. It's about getting stuff done, not about implementing some utopia. From that perspective, the Lisbon treaty is exactly what was needed, precisely because it's streamlining the institution. It enables the EU to get stuff done more efficiently.
Well, there is that. Interpretations are plentiful. The middle ground is probably something along the lines of economic cooperation, as joint a stance as is feasible on issues of supra-national significance (economics, finance, security, culture) and some semblance of communal (as opposed to common) identity. The fact upon which the entire bureacratic behemoth is now built. Nothing keeps bureaucrats in clover like the work involved in administering 27 disparate nations all playing along with the 1950's make-believe that defines the European ideal. Well, that's the centre of the debate, isn't it? Does the EU help or hinder the practice of "getting things done"? Depends on what you focus on - agricultural reform? No. Effective security policy? No. Upholding cultural values? Yes. Mutually beneficial (and/or restrictive) industrial and commercial frameworks? Yes, sometimes. Overall? It's probably a high-scoring draw between makeway and inertia. This is one of the pitifully unchallenged myths about the Treaty. It does nothing of the sort. People read "majority voting" and see "consensus". No such parallel exists.
At least there are a few people in Britain who are more worried about their nation than who the latest celebrity has knocked up. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2H-woX6uTc&feature=related"]YouTube- The shocking truth behind the European Union (Part 1 of 6)[/ame]
Good for a laugh though, isn't he I love the way he says '... and when vote number 48 comes up you have to vote yes', without going into that whole messy explanation nonsense of saying WHY you have to vote yes.
Yeah, it's funny in a sort of troubling way. The problem is that not everyone has their bullshit filters cleaned out regularly enough. How else do you explain support for UKIP and the lunatic fringes of the Tories' anti-European wing, to say nothing of the BNP? The most obvious explanation that a worryingly high number of people actually buy this crap.
The Lisbon treaty quite literally outlines what Europe should ideally be like. Very lofty ideals about an open market, human rights and the protection of the environment notably, which all member states have gladly agreed on but which now already some member states aren't living up to. The environmental ambitions notably are to help the developing world in becoming 'greener'. But now that the economic downturn has hit Europe hard, some countries can't be bothered anymore to invest in that. Anyway meanwhile the same Lisbon Treaty says nothing about member states losing their sovereignty. And actual practise shows that it's pretty easy to opt out on anything the EU decides in the first place so I've no idea what the Europhobes are whingeing about to start off with. The Brits notably. They have opted out on a long list of EU stuff yet simultaneously still complain about losing sovereignty to the EU. What do these people want from the EU I wonder. You've got to take the good with the bad. No political or even economic alliance will benefit your country on all levels. If you don't like the EU, then come up with a better plan, or leave altogether.
And a Coca-Cola advert doesn't say "Coke! Sweet, fizzy and bad for you!" Really? This is interesting - can you provide an example? Specifically of where a country opts out of something that they have already signed up to as part of a European Treaty? This is true, and frustrating, I agree. No point moaning after the fact. Of course, it's a bit more complex than that: the people complaining in the UK (apart from all us disenfranchised voters who never got a say in the first place) are the Tories. Who, of course, are in opposition and therefore couldn't do a vast amount about stopping the government saddling us with this poor piece of legislation. People keep saying this, but no one can explain why you have to take the bad. Why you can't, as an alternative, just work to ensure there isn't any bad?
Because everyone defines "bad" differently. The decisions made in Europe are compromises among 27 countries, each one having its own ideas. So you can't just pick the things that Britain likes and ignore the 26 other countries. It's a package deal, either take all of it or leave all together. Incidentally, the Lisbon treaty makes it pretty easy to leave the EU.
See, that's how the point is most commonly missed. People equate ending up with this hapless fudge of a treaty with farsighted collaborative pragmatism. It's nothing of the sort, it's just a hapless fudge. Let's not get even more "Emperor's New Clothes" about matters European than we already are, eh? I want the EU to be a genuinely effective force within the world. The Lisbon Treaty makes that less likely. So it's bad in an obviously and entirely universal way and not a matter of hand-wringing capitulation in the face of 27 different opinions. The EU should be about having a clear-minded vision and making it happen. But the EU has always been shit at that, which is why we end up with whole armies of administrators and bureaucrats pumping out pointless waffle like the Lisbon Treaty. Doing something is not always better than doing nothing, fellow Europeans.
What compromise benztown ? Europe didn't get a chance to vote for this criminal treaty and why is it that the Czech Prime Minister was quoted as saying " This is the end of Czech sovereignty" after he signed the treaty ?