The European Prison

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Due to the recent debate on the Lisbon Treaty I was reading that revolting sample of written despotism, the failed “constitution” which the Eurocrats tried to slip us back in 2005, and which would have gone through if not for the French and Dutch, who saw right through this shady business and managed to stop the madness. Anyhow, as I was saying, I was going through it again – I still have a copy from when the Eurocrats were giving them out like candy – when I noticed a very interesting clause, probably the most interesting in this great papery scam scheme.

Specifically, I’m referring to Part I, title IX, Article I-60. I quote (adding the most surprising elements in bold):

Voluntary withdrawal from the Union

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article III-325(3). It shall be concluded by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

So after these ridiculous points, the next three sub-sections are just red tape to make the exit of a member-nation that has fallen into the mousetrap of the EU all the more difficult. However, the reference (in italics) to Article III-325(3) intrigued me, so I went and looked for it, and here’s what I found:

3. The Commission, or the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs (which, thank God, doesn’t exist – Kleber) where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, (good grief –K.) shall submit recommendations to the Council, which shall adopt a European decision (!!!) authorising the opening of negotiations and, depending on the subject of the agreement envisaged, nominating the Union negotiator or head of the Union's negotiating team.

Well here you have it: trap after trap after trap. As indeed, even though a country can choose to leave the EU – what remains to be seen is how the devil we’ll apply that to our Constitution -- he has to “negotiate” (and we all know what negotiate means in Brussels lingo) with the dreaded, evil Council, which is an undemocratic organism which hasn’t been elected by the people and which, furthermore, is the arbiter of all our interests. So they send you a “negotiating team” and then you have to go to Parliament and Council with a vote by qualified majority… I beg your bloody pardon?

Traps, just traps. Leaving the cage isn’t easy. If we have another look at what “qualified majority” means, we’ll find that it’s no less than 72% of Council members -- are they off their flaming rockers?!? – which “represent” member States accountable for at least 65% of the population of the said States. So in other words, what happens if the country in question wants to get the hell out of there and doesn’t feel like telling the Council or waiting for his holy blessing? Do they attack you? Do they send the troops after you? Do they tell you that you must behave and that you’re a fascist like Le Pen? Ah, of course, anyone who opposes them is automatically labeled as a fascist…

So thank God this revolting charter of punishments and obligations has neither been applied nor will it ever. And thank God that the Dutch and French saved our arses...

NOTE: For the text of the failed EU constitution, follow this link: http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucio...eaty_Const.htm

[Azog 150]

Surely if a nation wants leave bad enough, they won't give a what the council says and just start asking for passports and not letting in EU workers and what have you. Not much the EU can do about it then....

But I get your point. I was very encouraged by how well UKIP did in our Euro Elections (Although I don't really believe in leaving the EU altogether- just returning it to its original function)

[Digbert]

But I get your point. I was very encouraged by how well UKIP did in our Euro Elections (Although I don't really believe in leaving the EU altogether- just returning it to its original function)

Same here mate I just want it to return back to its original function +REP

[ShockBlast]

But I get your point. I was very encouraged by how well UKIP did in our Euro Elections (Although I don't really believe in leaving the EU altogether- just returning it to its original function)

From the times of ECSC the member states wanted to form a Federal state what ''original function'' are you talking about?

[bigfootedfred]

From the times of ECSC the member states wanted to form a Federal state what ''original function'' are you talking about?

The one where most of the people who voted for it at the time, believed it to be common market only, it certianly was the intetion of those in certain places to form a 'union' they just did it by stealth.

take a look at this bbc documentary, full of alot of intesting information.


Corresponding parts should appear at the bottom when the video ends, if not refer to this thread.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=267159

When you say 'member states' the big difference is that you are not talking about the members themselves, i.e. the people.

[ShockBlast]

Sorry Bigfootedfred but your goverment didn't tell you all the story about what EEC was and what it aimd to be maybe they thought that it will never happen but being just a trade bloc was never the final goal.The conflict it with your goverment not with the rest of the member states or how far do they want to go with the Union.

[bigfootedfred]

Sorry Bigfootedfred but your goverment didn't tell you all the story about what EEC was and what it aimd to be maybe they thought that it will never happen but being just a trade bloc was never the final goal.The conflict it with your goverment not with the rest of the member states or how far do they want to go with the Union.

And no other peoples were 'fooled' so to speak? there was no arm twisting of varoius governments once in?
Most across europe believed it to be just a trade bloc, this is what people mean to when they refer to its 'original function'

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Stealth is the word, indeed. The fact is that sovereignty-slashing measures have been fed to us piecemeal and undemocratically, never openly declaring their true intention and yet at the same time never denying anything.

This "constitution" I quote, for instance; it's absolute garbage! It's exceedingly long, exceedingly complicated, and not a man in 10 who voted for the "constitution" had read it. It's full of traps and red tape, as I point out, and unless you're so masochist as to go look up Article III-325(3) after having read through pages of this garbage, they'll get you each and every time.

[Каие]

Due to the recent debate on the Lisbon Treaty I was reading that revolting sample of written despotism, the failed “constitution” which the Eurocrats tried to slip us back in 2005, and which would have gone through if not for the French and Dutch, who saw right through this shady business and managed to stop the madness. Anyhow, as I was saying, I was going through it again – I still have a copy from when the Eurocrats were giving them out like candy – when I noticed a very interesting clause, probably the most interesting in this great papery scam scheme.

Specifically, I’m referring to Part I, title IX, Article I-60. I quote (adding the most surprising elements in bold):


So after these ridiculous points, the next three sub-sections are just red tape to make the exit of a member-nation that has fallen into the mousetrap of the EU all the more difficult. However, the reference (in italics) to Article III-325(3) intrigued me, so I went and looked for it, and here’s what I found:



Well here you have it: trap after trap after trap. As indeed, even though a country can choose to leave the EU – what remains to be seen is how the devil we’ll apply that to our Constitution -- he has to “negotiate” (and we all know what negotiate means in Brussels lingo) with the dreaded, evil Council, which is an undemocratic organism which hasn’t been elected by the people and which, furthermore, is the arbiter of all our interests. So they send you a “negotiating team” and then you have to go to Parliament and Council with a vote by qualified majority… I beg your bloody pardon?

Traps, just traps. Leaving the cage isn’t easy. If we have another look at what “qualified majority” means, we’ll find that it’s no less than 72% of Council members -- are they off their flaming rockers?!? – which “represent” member States accountable for at least 65% of the population of the said States. So in other words, what happens if the country in question wants to get the hell out of there and doesn’t feel like telling the Council or waiting for his holy blessing? Do they attack you? Do they send the troops after you? Do they tell you that you must behave and that you’re a fascist like Le Pen? Ah, of course, anyone who opposes them is automatically labeled as a fascist…

So thank God this revolting charter of punishments and obligations has neither been applied nor will it ever. And thank God that the Dutch and French saved our arses...

NOTE: For the text of the failed EU constitution, follow this link: http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucio...eaty_Const.htm

lol man. The Constitution didn't go anywhere.

TREATY OF LISBON


...and the only thing standing in it's way, literally the only thing because only they have a vote and all the other parliaments have ratified it or are about to with no resistance, is;



...not even these fellows who resisted us, England, for so long;





So...yeah...

[Treize]

We're ed?

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

We're ed?

Not in my lifetime. If that jolly red-nosed Paddy doesn't save us from Lisbon, we'll still resist, we'll still fight. This is antidemocratic and illegitimate, and as free men we have a right to defend our rights, our laws and our sovereignty.

[Каие]

No No Kleber you will do as you are told, it;s for your own good. Daddy knows best.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Daddy knows best.

You... you're right! What ever was I thinking about? What was I thinking about? Quotas! Fishing quotas! Lovely fishing quotas! And regulations! Lots, lots, lots. They are everywhere, but you cannot see them!

I'm off to pay some anonymous eurocrat's wages. Don't wait up for me folks!

[Каие]

Don;t forget to recycle.

Or be executed.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Wouldn't want that would I? No I wouldn't. Father Euro wouldn't like it either. His is the house of pain! His is the hand that makes! His is the regulation that forbids!

A stunning premise, lads: The Island of Doctor Meuro!

[Treize]

Now fishing quotas ARE important and they are one of the few things the EU is doing not terribly wrong.
----
But what can we do about it?
Vote for retarded parties?
Revolt when an USE is announced?
Never going to happen, the weak and decadent people here care onl about there bankaccount and there self-made Calimero-syndrome of 'they are big and we are samll and that's unfair' doesn't help either.
Alot of people start to this the USE is good.
But they don't understand the COSTS.
They think it will be better for the economy, but what do they want to improve?
Patriots are a minority.

Now if I lived in Britain things would be different.

[Chlodwig I.]

How can a country leave the EU at the moment?
There are no rules for this case.

So creating a rule set for the case a Member wants to leave is a good and necessary thing (maybe the British will then opt out in a few years)
And that it can't be like quiting the Membership of a Footballclub
is understandable because all the souverenities/right that have been transfered from the Membercountry that wants to leave to the EU needs
to be given back e.g Currency
And then you have to create new agreements and contracts for the EU and the Ex-Member
how to deal with Tarifs, taxation of expatriats, travel restrictions, traderestrictions etc.


Anbd that a qualified Majority is better to achieve such new agreements, compared to the acutal unanimousity principle is obvious.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

@ Kleber
How can a country leave the EU at the moment?

Hullo Chlodwig,

one of the main points of the "constitution" was that it intended to establish a clear-cut (though abusive) path to exiting the EU, whereas there was no real, official way to voluntarily leave the Union.

Of course, Greenland managed in 1982, by organizing a referendum, but I still wonder as to the legality of it. It all arose due to the question of fishing quotas -- again.

Now, the present situation is that our legislation says we are subject to EU law. This, of course, may simply be changed by repelling the legislation in Parliament. Our Parliament, after all, is still sovereign.

I heard, nevertheless, that there was some legislation passed in 2007 as to how to leave. I'll look into it and see if I can get you a better answer.

EDIT: Sorry, I see you edited your post after I answered. I'll have a look.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

is understandable because all the souverenities/right that have been transfered from the Membercountry that wants to leave to the EU needs
to be given back, e.g Tarifs, Currency, ECB, Shengen agreement.
and then you have to find a way how to treat that country in future.
you have to create new Tradeagreements etc.

By the way qualified Majority is better and easier achieveable as the current unanimousity

Of course. The problem, nevertheless, remains: that all these formalities and "negotiations" are Brussels lingo for "delaying tactics". How long can these negotiations take? When I saw that, I guessed a possible intention: to delay the process long enough for the current leader to lose the next elections. The opposition would then cancel everything and stop the exit process.

Of course this is just a hypothesis.

Furthermore, whereas I understand it is not only logical but necessary, as you say, that some agreements should be made and things set clear, why must a country be held to ransom by a 72% majority? It's a paternalistic mindset which treats nations as small children incapable of self-determination.

[Chlodwig I.]

Of course. The problem, nevertheless, remains: that all these formalities and "negotiations" are Brussels lingo for "delaying tactics". How long can these negotiations take? When I saw that, I guessed a possible intention: to delay the process long enough for the current leader to lose the next elections. The opposition would then cancel everything and stop the exit process.

Of course this is just a hypothesis.

Sorry to say that in such a direct way, but I think you got no clue about the European Union.

Many normal souverign rights are given from the Member States to the EU
the EU acts in order of the Memberstates

It's not like "quit the Membership in the Football Club and stop going to training on tuesday evening"

lets say Italy would leave the Union.
What about the Italians working in other EU Countries and the EU Members living in Italy?
do they need new allowance to sty, can they stay at all?, or do they all have to leave to country?
and how will they be taxed, what about Trade and the VAT?
Currency?
Open Borders?
Borderpatrol?
Export and Import Control, Taxation and Tariffs?
EU Trade Agreements with other Countries, do they still including Italy?

Furthermore, whereas I understand it is not only logical but necessary, as you say, that some agreements should be made and things set clear, why must a country be held to ransom by a 72% majority? It's a paternalistic mindset which treats nations as small children incapable of self-determination.

and to be held to ransom by a majority of 100% is better?