I really like the concept of the EU, and I have to say, it has really succeeded in its original mission - to foster cooperation and conflict amelioration among European states. It is inconceivable now to think of two EU member states going to war. But of course that's not the issue you raised.

I happen to think that increased coordination in economics and foreign policy within the EU is a good thing. The EU has begun to balance somewhat the power of the US - which may not be seen as a good thing over here, but is probably good for the international system in the long run. It tempers American interventionism, and makes it more appealing for us to work with Europe (who often is more humanitarian-minded in places like Africa) rather than going it alone.

I admittedly haven't read much about the Lisbon Treaty, but I did like the European Constitution... especially the expansion of Common Foreign and Security Policy.

However, of course, it is difficult to convince French farmers that in order to make the EU work they will have to share the spoils of agricultural subsidies with Poles and Hungarians now.

___________________

^^ Well said.

I have been living in Holland for almost a year now (moved from Canada) and I really like the EU concept. Sure there's some failings in the system, but I think the concept is strong and is only getting better as time goes on.

The main problem as I see it is the unspoken "resistance" to the open movement of workers. I guess I'm part of the problem lol (I have a British passport). You can get the impression that some people don't appreciate that people would want to emirate from their home country to go work elsewhere where the opportunities might be better. For the most part, people seem to keep quiet about this but every now and again I read something that says otherwise.

For a guy like me, it has opened up a whole new world that I wouldn't have known if I stayed back home.

I know this is a bit off topic from the nature of the conversation, but I haven't really been following it for long enough yet. Hopefully countries like Italy, Belgium, Greece and Spain turn things around jobs-wise since from what I've been reading they're having a tough time keeping up with the rest of the EU in terms of unemployment rate etc.

___________________
Paul

I think the EU project is good in terms of the free movement of labour, etc., but I would have concerns about the centralisation of power and the resultant democratic deficit. It's being alleged that with every treaty ratified that we're heading for a United States of Europe scenario, and that national autonomy is getting increasingly eroded. It is also alleged that powers that lay with the government (and ultimately the people) of the member states are gradually transferring to the European Parliament and more alarmingly the European Commission. I think the ratification of this treaty will also alter the voting powers of member states within the EU in that a small number of the bigger states can veto the rest. And while it might result in more accurate voting powers in relation to the population of the states, for those of us from smaller states it can cause worry.

There needs to be more debate on it, but if it involves what I think it does I'll be voting against it in the Summer when we have a referendum on it. It's being said also that if it's passed in Ireland it will result in the government in power being able from now on to ratify treaties without referendum (all european treaties have to be put to the people, as that's what's set out in the Constitution of the south of Ireland). Although, with the Nice referedum a couple of years ago, when the people rejected it the government put it to a referedum again - until it got 'the right answer' from the people. Fairly ridiculous when you think about it.

___________________
"Níl saoirse gan saoirse lucht oibre."

^^ very good points.

I haven't done enough reading on it yet, but what you're saying does make sense (in a worst-case scenario kind of way).

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all shakes down.

___________________
Paul

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I admittedly haven't read much about the Lisbon Treaty, but I did like the European Constitution... especially the expansion of Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Well the new Treaty doesn't expand the CFSP. In fact it contains a clause reaffirming that foreign policy is the sole competency of the nation state. Only when all 27 countries agree on a joint foreign policy can the EU be used as a mechanism for its implementation.

What the Treaty has done in the realm of foreign policy is merge two existing departments concerned with foreign policy. Previously (or currently until the Treaty is ratified) there is a department of the Council (the EU government) called the High Representative of CFSP, and there is also the Commission's External Relations DG. This has lead to quite a bit of confusion and duplication, espeically for those countries that deal with the EU - they have no single point of contact. So these two departments are no merged to avoid that. However, they have no new powers.

quote:

However, of course, it is difficult to convince French farmers that in order to make the EU work they will have to share the spoils of agricultural subsidies with Poles and Hungarians now.

The problem here is not to convince French farmers to share their subsidies with Polish farmers, because they have to. The problem is that these subsidies are no longer relevant and eat up half the EU's budget. What needs to be done is reform CAP and gradually terminate these unecessary payments, but that is a highly contentious political issue as the agricultural industries have quite a bit of power and influence, and would oppose any kind of reforms

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse The main problem as I see it is the unspoken "resistance" to the open movement of workers. I guess I'm part of the problem lol (I have a British passport). You can get the impression that some people don't appreciate that people would want to emirate from their home country to go work elsewhere where the opportunities might be better. For the most part, people seem to keep quiet about this but every now and again I read something that says otherwise.

When the EU expanded from 15 to 25 countries in 2004, only the UK, Ireland and Sweden allowed migration from these new countries. The rest placed traditional immigration controls on the new EU citizens (and following the accession of Bulgaria and Romania ALL EU countries have placed traditional immigration controls on these citizens). But the issue of immigration still causes concern among certain people from all EU states, but with the exception of UK, Ireland and Sweden, this is mainly immigration from outside the EU.

In the UK, many anti-immigration types claim the Polish etc are a burden to our country, those in favour say they do necessary jobs and are good for the economy. In truth, they are great for the economy as a whole because they do a lot of jobs that British people were nto too keen on doing, but in the process, these jobs (like sandwich factories etc) which previously paid fairly highly for the type of work, now pay minimum wage, which obviously effects the native workers already employed in these industries. Of course, they claim benefits, use hospitals and their children need access to education, just like everyone else in the country. The anti-immigration lot (which consist mainly of right wing racists and the odd left wing types concerned with the rights of existing UK workers) will point to this as them "sponging" off the state, in truth, they pay taxes and are entitled to all the benefits a British citizen is entitled to, so those arguments IMO are entirely false and based on prejudice.

quote:

Originally posted by donegalredneck I think the EU project is good in terms of the free movement of labour, etc., but I would have concerns about the centralisation of power and the resultant democratic deficit.

Well that's just a myth put about by Eurosceptics. The truth is that the EU is just as democratic as elsewhere. In the UK, half of our Parliament is made up of Lords! People who have never been elected and are there solely because their great great grandfather was some posh bastard! In the EU, ALL laws (other than those concerned with foriegn policy) must be approved by both the Parliament (made up of directly elected MEPs) and the Council (made up of the elected national governments of the EU). So for any law to be passed, ONLY elected representatives are allowed to say yes or no. The new Treaty will also contain a clause that now lets national Parliaments also vote on new laws. The Commission proposes the new laws, sometimes off its own back, sometimes as the request of the Council or Parliament. Each Commissioner is appointed by the Council (national governments) and has to be approved by the Parliament (who can also kick the Commission out)

quote:

It's being alleged that with every treaty ratified that we're heading for a United States of Europe scenario, and that national autonomy is getting increasingly eroded.

National sovereignty is not being erroded simply by the EU. In a globalised world, our sovereignty is not only erroded anyway, but it becomes inceasingly irrelevant. The EU allows us to pool sovereignty to counter those trends. For example, we are at the mercy of global market forces, environmental problems, crime is increasingly cross-border. All these issues cannot be solved if we cling onto our sovereignty. The EU is a great tool to "manage" the decreasion of national sovereignty that simply will happen and has to happen in the world we live in.

quote:

It is also alleged that powers that lay with the government (and ultimately the people) of the member states are gradually transferring to the European Parliament and more alarmingly the European Commission.

I think you're getting confused here. You cannot differentiate between a transference of powers to the Commission or the Parliament, neither can you leave out the Council. If powers are transfered to the EU, then they are transferred to ALL institutions. Powers cannot only be transferred to one of the institutions, or to a greater extent than the other institutions (with the exception of foriegn policy which currently only the Council has power over). But you're concerned about the transfer of power to the EU. Well you need to consider what I said above about globalisation...

quote:

I think the ratification of this treaty will also alter the voting powers of member states within the EU in that a small number of the bigger states can veto the rest. And while it might result in more accurate voting powers in relation to the population of the states, for those of us from smaller states it can cause worry.

That's a valid concern

quote:

There needs to be more debate on it, but if it involves what I think it does I'll be voting against it in the Summer when we have a referendum on it. It's being said also that if it's passed in Ireland it will result in the government in power being able from now on to ratify treaties without referendum (all european treaties have to be put to the people, as that's what's set out in the Constitution of the south of Ireland).

The new Treaty cannot alter the law that states changes to the Constitution need to be done by referendums. So the Irish government will not be able to ratify future treaties without the need for a public vote. What I think you're confusing this with is "passerelles" which mean the possibility of either moving a policy area from the intergovernmental third pillar to the supra-national first pillar, or changing the voting rules in the council, or the extension of the article's scope of application without the need for a new Treaty (incidently these already exist in some form or another in the previous treaties). Whether or not the Irish would still have to hold a referendum if the EU pursue this I don't know

quote:

Although, with the Nice referedum a couple of years ago, when the people rejected it the government put it to a referedum again - until it got 'the right answer' from the people. Fairly ridiculous when you think about it.

To be fair, that to me shows a lack of interest in the EU. If the Irish public were that concerned with the EU then they would have voted "no" twice. I get the impression the "yes" vote later on was more of a "do what you want" vote as the EU simply does not register highly on voters concerns...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley When the EU expanded from 15 to 25 countries in 2004, only the UK, Ireland and Sweden allowed migration from these new countries. The rest placed traditional immigration controls on the new EU citizens (and following the accession of Bulgaria and Romania ALL EU countries have placed traditional immigration controls on these citizens). But the issue of immigration still causes concern among certain people from all EU states, but with the exception of UK, Ireland and Sweden, this is mainly immigration from outside the EU. In the UK, many anti-immigration types claim the Polish etc are a burden to our country, those in favour say they do necessary jobs and are good for the economy. In truth, they are great for the economy as a whole because they do a lot of jobs that British people were nto too keen on doing, but in the process, these jobs (like sandwich factories etc) which previously paid fairly highly for the type of work, now pay minimum wage, which obviously effects the native workers already employed in these industries. Of course, they claim benefits, use hospitals and their children need access to education, just like everyone else in the country. The anti-immigration lot (which consist mainly of right wing racists and the odd left wing types concerned with the rights of existing UK workers) will point to this as them "sponging" off the state, in truth, they pay taxes and are entitled to all the benefits a British citizen is entitled to, so those arguments IMO are entirely false and based on prejudice.

Cool, thanks, I didn't know about these other restrictions. I thought it was open everywhere.

I agree with your points though. Freedom of movement is a good thing and it should motivate the "locals" (wherever their local area may be) to self-improve and not get complacent.

___________________
Paul