UK to hold Referendum on EU "Constitution"

[Solly]

A referendum should either be a once-and-for-all decision, or a regular event (say every ten years).

It shouldn't be an irreversibility for one outcome, and a regular event until that thing is chosen.

So before the referendum is held, all political parties should agree whether it is going to be a one-off or a regular thing.

Can anyone see them doing that?

[Saint Marcus]

But how could this even be remotely feasible when if all EU armies were combined, it wouldn't even touch the US's in terms of firepower, training, and mobility. And the EU's global GDP % is drawfed by the US's, despite the EU having 100 million more people.

The armies of the EU nations combined are the 2nd most powerful military on earth.

The combined EU's GDP is the same size, and soon bigger (EU expanding) than that of the US.

Get your facts straight.

[Sandman]

Europe is about finding consensuses.

Says the advocate of a two-speed Europe. Been at Ned's medicine cabinet?

[Harovan]

I think the Brits should decide once and for all, whether they want to be in, or out. "With us or against us" does apply here indeed. I'm fine with either way. Should they vote to be in, great, let's celebrate. Should they vote to be out, they should be completely out, definitely. No common european market for them then. They can join NAFTA for all I care. To have the benefits of a unified Europe without taking the responsibilities should be excluded.

[Solly]

There seems to be a bitterness here that the UK are playing the EU game quite well.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
A referendum should either be a once-and-for-all decision, or a regular event (say every ten years).

It shouldn't be an irreversibility for one outcome, and a regular event until that thing is chosen.

So before the referendum is held, all political parties should agree whether it is going to be a one-off or a regular thing.

Can anyone see them doing that?

Well, as I see it those who want a certain decision have the right to bring up an issue again and again. Noone is forced to vote either yes or no. But when the decision is made in favour of the supporters from their POV there isn't any reason to bring it up again (why should they try to reverse a decision they liked) - however, then those who are against this decision (should) have the right to seek a new decision in their favour.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
There seems to be a bitterness here that the UK are playing the EU game quite well.

To stand with full weight at the brake has nothing to do with playing the European game.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


The armies of the EU nations combined are the 2nd most powerful military on earth.

Funny, because I was JUST reading this before I read your post.

At this stage, the EU does not have the military capability of a great power. In fact, it does not have an independent, unified military capability at all. The defense of the EU members is currently taken care of by the individual members via national defense forces, by NATO under the collective defense guarantee outlined in the Washington Treaty (excluding Austria, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden), and by the Western European Union (WEU) for the ten EU countries that constitute its full membership. Previous attempts at forming a defense capability, outlined in Chapter 1, have not come to fruition. The bulk of this chapter, therefore, will examine the prospects for an EU defense capability.

So in other words, the EU is only as strong as its weakest member. And thats WEAK!

http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/homepage_docs/pubs_docs/PDF_Files/Gibbs%20OP%20Folder/dreamweaver/contents/chapter5.html

The US spends about 3% of its GDP on the military, and this is 3% of the worlds largest GDP (ie, a HUGE number of dollars). Most EU countries spend less than 1% of tiny tiny GDP's. So if the EU is second, which it might be, its second by a looooooooooooooooooooong shot.

The combined EU's GDP is the same size, and soon bigger (EU expanding) than that of the US.

Get your facts straight.

How so? And remember, we're talking EU, NOT Europe the continent. The US is 20% of the worlds GDP, while the EU is 14%. The EU's GDP grew at less than 1% last year, while the US's grew by about 3-4%. This = US is bigger and growing faster. If this weren't the case, what would the impetus be for unification, since many here and in the academic world cite the reason for European integration as to create an alternative to US superpowerdom. And also, the combined EU purchasing power is about 9.5 trillion, while the US's is about 10.6, while the US has 270 million people and the EU has 370.


Spiffor: All your points make sense and are valid, but it seems to me like the major problems you are addressing are about harmonizing the governments of individual member states, but what I'm asking is WHY should a country go through all this trouble when the same ends could be achieved through economic and human rights agreements, rather than full blown poltical unification. Like, Canada and the US can have NAFTA and various other treaties, and we both benefit, but you don't see us creating the North American Union or something along those lines.

[Whaleboy]

EU is a great idea, except for the CAP. Simple really.

[Solly]

Free trade is a great idea, but not a fully fledged EU. Now that's simple

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
The US spends about 3% of its GDP on the military, and this is 3% of the worlds largest GDP (ie, a HUGE number of dollars). Most EU countries spend less than 1% of tiny tiny GDP's. So if the EU is second, which it might be, its second by a looooooooooooooooooooong shot.

Who cares? It's not like we're planning to go to war against the US

[Verres]

Has anyone actually read the constitution? I know its been published, but its meant to be around 200 pages or something and as much as i may pretend to be a concerned and well-informed citizen, i really dont have the time or energy at the minute.

If anyone could give me a condensed version of what im going to be voting on, it would be much appreciated

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid


Who cares? It's not like we're planning to go to war against the US

No one cares, its just that we all like to think and say (even in North America) that the EU will somehow eclipse the US militarily and economically, when this is just simply not true.

[Solly]

"If anyone could give me a condensed version of what im going to be voting on, it would be much appreciated "

Here you go:

Do you like Europeans?

Yes/No

Which is how most people will vote.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Spiffor: All your points make sense and are valid, but it seems to me like the major problems you are addressing are about harmonizing the governments of individual member states, but what I'm asking is WHY should a country go through all this trouble when the same ends could be achieved through economic and human rights agreements, rather than full blown poltical unification. Like, Canada and the US can have NAFTA and various other treaties, and we both benefit, but you don't see us creating the North American Union or something along those lines.

Things are pretty straightforward in NAFTA, because they are three actors, in which only one decides anyway. It is very different from our 15 member States (we'll be 25 in ten days), in which 6 have a roughly equal say.

The very reason EU is plagued by inefficient bureaucracy is that the power is held by individual governments that are constantly bargaining, instead of a Parliament deciding on issues on a ideological basis, and a central government-ish institution, deciding on the basis of the interest of the Union as a whole.

A EU decision takes several years from the original idea to the final application. Here's how it works. 1. The project is worked by the "Commission", which is our closest thing to a government. It takes a few months to give a project that is technically satisfying (so far, it's normal). 2. Then, the individual gornments take up to several years to haggle a text they all find a consensus on. The more governments the longer the bargainings, obviously. (the haggling arena is called the "Council") 3. Finally, the Parliament can agree or disagree with the text submitted by the Council (this legislative process can take several months). If the Parliament rejects the text, there is again a very long process to conciliate the opinion of the Parliament with which of the Council. Obviously, more individual governments means that the Council will take more and more time to find a consensus that is both satisfying to the Parliament and to the individual governments.

Solution:
Stop letting power in the hands of the slow, inefficient, non-accountable, and egoistically minded individual governments. Leave the decisions be taken by a much more efficient European Parliament, that is accountable to the population
Of course, these decisions should only be the competences of the EU, not of national governments at home.

For comparison, in the US, imagine the president has no power of decision, only that of suggestion. Imagine the Parliament can only give a final agreement or disagreement, but decide nothing. Imagine all decisions are taken by envoys of each of the 50 States, that take years to haggle decisions. And tell me now if the most efficient solution is the intergovernmental haggling, or the situation the US is enjoying now.