Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 103

Thread: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    I would like to hear your opinions on how the Lisbon Treaty should have been, as for the future direction of the EU.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    As for myself; I believe that the EU should exist out of 3 organisations.
    Summary:

    1- The most important part, the economical part.
    This should keep an eye on the common market and on states passing the line. This also includes the ECB, but I believe the Euro should not be compulsory.

    2- A military organisation.
    This is basically a military alliance much like the NATO that includes a minimum in defence expenditure of memberstates and an emergency command structure.
    Standardisation of equipment is a good thing ofcourse but should never be forced.

    3- A political meetingplace for prime-ministers and ministers of the member states where they can discuss political matters that are important for more then one state. Common regulations on some points is an aim but not all the states will have to agree on things and the states who want to can do it without the other states.
    Miss me yet?

  2. #2

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    Well it doesn't really matter now since Klaus has signed it.
    These fine gentlemen's have thanks to their consistent idiotic posts have earned their place on my ignore list: mrmouth, The Illusionist, motiv-8, mongrel, azoth, thorn777 and elfdude. If you want to join their honourable rank you just have to post idiotic posts and you will get there in no time.

  3. #3
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    I know, but that's not this thread's purpose...
    Last edited by Treize; November 03, 2009 at 10:56 AM.
    Miss me yet?

  4. #4

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    Quote Originally Posted by IPA35 View Post
    I would like to hear your opinions on how the Lisbon Treaty should have been, as for the future direction of the EU.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    As for myself; I believe that the EU should exist out of 3 organisations.
    Summary:

    1- The most important part, the economical part.
    This should keep an eye on the common market and on states passing the line. This also includes the ECB, but I believe the Euro should not be compulsory.

    2- A military organisation.
    This is basically a military alliance much like the NATO that includes a minimum in defence expenditure of memberstates and an emergency command structure.
    Standardisation of equipment is a good thing ofcourse but should never be forced.

    3- A political meetingplace for prime-ministers and ministers of the member states where they can discuss political matters that are important for more then one state. Common regulations on some points is an aim but not all the states will have to agree on things and the states who want to can do it without the other states.


    1. Sounds like WTO

    2. Why create a second NATO if you already got one.

    3. G8 or G20 already exists


    So your Idea is to eradicate the EU?

  5. #5
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    No...

    /The WTO stinks, my idea contains all (most) of the EU´s current economic policies.

    /Without the USA, don´t forget that, and better organised.

    /But for EU countries and much more frequent.
    Basically this is the two speed political EU but alot smaller.

    If by ´eradicating the EU´ you mean not becoming a block with a united foreign policy and federal traits, yes.
    Miss me yet?

  6. #6
    ShockBlast's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    European Union , Romania , Constanta
    Posts
    4,496

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    No thanks ,i don't want a modern HRE.

  7. #7
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    No, a federation

    I´m morally against that...
    Alot of decentralisation and a representative government please.
    Miss me yet?

  8. #8
    ShockBlast's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    European Union , Romania , Constanta
    Posts
    4,496

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    Quote Originally Posted by IPA35 View Post
    No, a federation

    I´m morally against that...
    Alot of decentralisation and a representative government please.
    No,that means every state will act independent,we can't afford not having a common stand.You get a piece of the pie or you get scraps from the other powers.There is no middle ground we become a federation or just declare ourselves vassals of USA,RF and PRC and get it over with.

    Morality is for the weak,when it comes to politics.Getting a piece of the pie comes hand in hand with the federation if not every country can just leave,the Union will not become a worthless piece of sh-t just to satisfy some nationalists that live in the past.
    We need centralization,a powerful federal government to defend our common needs and we need national goverments so stay the f--k out of external matters.Internal matters is for national governments to handle.

    You get on the wave or bend over and start moaning.

  9. #9

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    Quote Originally Posted by ShockBlast View Post
    No,that means every state will act independent,we can't afford not having a common stand.You get a piece of the pie or you get scraps from the other powers.There is no middle ground we become a federation or just declare ourselves vassals of USA,RF and PRC and get it over with.


    Eurocratic fearmongering at its best. The confrontational theory -- "ZOMG teh chinese an murkans are coming to eat our babies OMG!!!1!!one!!!eleven!!"

    Well Romania may not be a major power, but currently, Britain, France and Germany have more projection than Russia, for instance.

    Sorry, I don't buy into your BS cold war mentality.

  10. #10
    ShockBlast's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    European Union , Romania , Constanta
    Posts
    4,496

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lance-Corporal Jones View Post


    Eurocratic fearmongering at its best. The confrontational theory -- "ZOMG teh chinese an murkans are coming to eat our babies OMG!!!1!!one!!!eleven!!"

    Well Romania may not be a major power, but currently, Britain, France and Germany have more projection than Russia, for instance.

    Sorry, I don't buy into your BS cold war mentality.
    This is no cold war mentality bud,it's politics.Every country tries to impose itself over the others and get more for itself,you British must know you were the world's biggest parasite.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShockBlast View Post
    This is no cold war mentality bud,it's politics.Every country tries to impose itself over the others and get more for itself,you British must know you were the world's biggest parasite.
    Then how do you explain, "bud", that the biggest blocs have not necessarily been the most prosperous countries? Projecting power isn't the only way to prosperity, wealth, stability... all of which are more important values than "facing China and the US".

    The Cold War emphasized the antagonism of large world blocs. Nowadays, the relevant affairs of this world are happening above the realm of politics. Economy has a strength of its own, and large =/= competitive -- small countries can manage far greater growth and dynamism than their larger cousins.

    No, sorry, I don't think we should think in terms of confrontation. We have our own interests, we can look after them, but being inconspicuous and successful is better than sacrificing the interests of the peoples of Europe just to satisfy the ego of power-hungry Eurocrats who just want to go "up there" with the "big boys".

    Quote Originally Posted by Darsh View Post
    My own answer to Victor Hugo's piece of :

    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    One of the most ridiculous myths ever to be propagated by the EU ideologists is that of an alleged “prophecy” which Victor Hugo – the French nutca… err, author – made in the 19th century:

    A day will come when war will seem as absurd and impossible between Paris and London, between Petersburg and Berlin, between Vienna and Turin, as it would be impossible and would seem absurd today between Rouen and Amiens, between Boston and Philadelphia. A day will come when you France, you Russia, you Italy, you England, you Germany, you all, nations of the continent, without losing your distinct qualities and your glorious individuality, will be merged closely within a superior unit and you will form the European brotherhood, just as Normandy, Brittany, Burgundy, Lorraine, Alsace, all our provinces are merged together in France. A day will come when the only fields of battle will be markets opening up to trade and minds opening up to ideas.

    Where is the vomitorium, I hear you ask? Indeed, apart from Victor Hugo’s comical affectation, it is worth pointing out that this message has neither fulfilled itself, nor will it ever. War, in the 21st century, is a reality, not only in Europe but on the entire planet; two world wars have bloodied the 20th century, the question of nationalism remains alive and kicking, the criterion for unity are no clearer than they used to be, and, to top it all with, Europe is neither “fraternal”, nor are markets “open to trade”. What kind of Europe do we want, and why do we want it? I have never, in my entire life as a man of the world, seen the mob in the streets voicing their enthusiasm towards the EU, the glory of the Euro and their will to pay Bureaucrats in Brussels with reckless abandon.

    Rather au contraire, as Victor Hugo would say. “Europe Day” – another apish EU trick attempting to imitate Independence Day in the United States whilst failing miserably – is probably the least celebrated day in Europe, and the only fun to be gained from the EU flag is burning it in front of the European Parliament for a modicum of pyromaniac delight.

    The EU is neither fraternal with itself nor with the Third World. Without, it closes its barriers to countries which could effortlessly sink the CAP, staunchly defended by the incompetent French peasantry; within, it ruins countries with unfair fishing and farming quotas. And while we’re at it, Vicky fails once more by predicting that Russia – Brussels’ number one enemy – would also be there, whereas the Russian Federation, by maintaining its influence in the Caucasus and the Balkans, has ridiculed Brussels’ “diplomacy” time and again.

    The EU, furthermore, intends to erase the national characteristics of each country through a uniform, globalizing, steamrolling process which nearly succeeded with the failed pseudoconstitutional text back in 2006, in which a Europe of States, and not a Europe of Nations, was mentioned. The scorn the Brussels oligarchs feel towards those who don’t believe in the EU and want nothing to do with it is also highly eloquent in what regards Victor Hugo’s “democratic” poppycock. Why must a person who neither feels European nor wants to be European be caught up in this imperialist wet dream? (Let us remind our readers that this is the closest a Eurocrat can get to sexual intercourse).

    And let us not forget this most pathetic idea which has given the European Cthulhu many a sleepless night, this ridiculous concept, fruit of an undeniable American influence: that of creating the United States of Europe. The magnitude of this absurdity is so mind-boggling that one wonders if they are actually hiring children to write down their political theories. Neither have the United States been like Europe, nor will Europe ever be like the United States, a country built upon a hodgepodge blend of Enlightenment, liberalism, protestant thought and the will to agglutinate all Americans in the so-called “American dream”.

    There is no such thing as a “European dream”; there is no European Kennedy. There is no European Hollywood. Rather, there is the European nightmare, because the Old World is a land whose mentality is radically different to that of the United States: ancient rivalries, mistrust, citizens unwilling to be part of some cheap imitation of the United States, and structural problems which have been dragged on ever since the days of the ECSC. Obviously, European countries also have different languages, different identities, different historical evolutions, different external zones of influence (viz., the Commonwealth, French influence in North Africa, Belgian influence in Congo…), diverse economies, sociological differences which separate Sweden from Spain far more than Pennsylvania from New Mexico… probably, the greatest difference with the United States is the fact that in the United States everybody feels American, whereas in Europe, not a soul feels European (a few exalted nutcases notwithstanding). Ask a Frenchman, Icelander, Greek or Hungarian which is his country and his identity, and they will answer, without flinching, that they are French, Icelandic, Greek or Hungarian. And if you ask a Fleming, a Corsican, a Kosovan or a Basque, they will answer likewise. Nobody will ever answer “European” unless you should take the trouble to visit some Euroleech in Brussels trying to somehow justify his Achaemenid salary.

    The EU, no matter what Vicky’s prophecy may say, has no future (furthermore, obviously, Victor didn’t mean that there would be an EU like that which Kalergi or Unamuno wanted in Vienna, back in 1923). It is dangerous to found a political project on obscure economic interests based upon a prophecy which hasn’t fulfilled itself and whose meaning is both unclear and open to the most grotesque interpretations.

    Prophecies are funny things, as you can always twist them to fit your own agenda. Let's have a look at the discovery of America: there was this pathetic pseudoscientific theory about it, relating a text by Seneca to Christopher Colombus; the text in question was from Medea: venient annis saecula seris, / quibus Oceanus vincula rerum / laxet et ingens pateat tellus / Tethysque novos detegat orbes / nec sit terris ultima Thule.

    In English, that would be, “In later years a time will come when Oceanus shall relax his bars and a vast territory shall appear, and Tiphys shall discover new worlds, and Thule shall no longer be the remotest spot on Earth”
    If we should interpret Thule as the Iceland of the ancients, and therefore, the last known land to the West, we may find that Seneca had predicted the official discovery of America by Christopher Colombus in 1492, no less. Amusing, isn't it? That's prophecies for you...
    Last edited by Atterdag; November 05, 2009 at 04:57 AM.

  12. #12

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    So you what to get rid of the parliament?

  13. #13

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    This proposition sounds almost exactly like the original French idea back in the late 50s, only without th bereaucracy the French insisted on having. In fact, we only have an EU today because the bereaucracy was able to work even when the politicians wouldn't.

  14. #14
    Darsh's Avatar Maréchal de l'Empire
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,888

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    Discours prononcé le 21 août 1849 lors du Congrès de la paix.

    "Un jour viendra où les armes vous tomberont des mains, à vous aussi ! Un jour viendra où la guerre paraîtra aussi absurde et sera aussi impossible entre Paris et Londres, entre Pétersbourg et Berlin, entre Vienne et Turin, qu'elle serait impossible et qu'elle paraîtrait absurde aujourd'hui entre Rouen et Amiens, entre Boston et Philadelphie. Un jour viendra où vous France, vous Russie, vous Italie, vous Angleterre, vous Allemagne, vous toutes, nations du continent, sans perdre vos qualités distinctes et votre glorieuse individualité, vous vous fondrez étroitement dans une unité supérieure, et vous constituerez la fraternité européenne, absolument comme la Normandie, la Bretagne, la Bourgogne, la Lorraine, l'Alsace, toutes nos provinces, se sont fondues dans la France. Un jour viendra où il n'y aura plus d'autres champs de bataille que les marchés s'ouvrant au commerce et les esprits s'ouvrant aux idées. - Un jour viendra où les boulets et les bombes seront remplacés par les votes, par le suffrage universel des peuples, par le vénérable arbitrage d'un grand sénat souverain qui sera à l'Europe ce que le parlement est à l'Angleterre, ce que la diète est à l'Allemagne, ce que l'Assemblée législative est à la France ! (Applaudissements.) Un jour viendra où l'on montrera un canon dans les musées comme on y montre aujourd'hui un instrument de torture, en s'étonnant que cela ait pu être! (Rires et bravos.) Un jour viendra où l'on verra ces deux groupes immenses, les États-Unis d'Amérique, les États-Unis d'Europe (Applaudissements), placés en face l'un de l'autre, se tendant la main par-dessus les mers, échangeant leurs produits, leur commerce, leur industrie, leurs arts, leurs génies, défrichant le globe, colonisant les déserts, améliorant la création sous le regard du Créateur, et combinant ensemble, pour en tirer le bien-être de tous, ces deux forces infinies, la fraternité des hommes et la puissance de Dieu ! (Longs applaudissements.)
    Victor Hugo
    to sum up in English:
    The term 'United States of Europe' (États-Unis d’Europe) was used by Victor Hugo, including during a speech at the International Peace Congress held in Paris in 1849. Hugo favoured the creation of "a supreme, sovereign senate, which will be to Europe what parliament is to England" and said "A day will come when all nations on our continent will form a European brotherhood... A day will come when we shall see... the United States of America and the United States of Europe face to face, reaching out for each other across the seas." Victor Hugo planted a tree in the grounds of his residence on the Island of Guernsey he was noted in saying that when this tree matured the United States of Europe would have come into being.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe

    Légion étrangère : « Honneur et Fidélité »

  15. #15

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    Quote Originally Posted by IPA35 View Post

    2- A military organisation.
    This is basically a military alliance much like the NATO that includes a minimum in defence expenditure of memberstates and an emergency command structure.
    Standardisation of equipment is a good thing ofcourse but should never be forced.
    You're going to have an extremely hard time with things if you don't force standardization. Principally in regards to weapons and ammunition for those weapons, but additionally in regards to training, doctrine, and command philosophy. Fortunately for your idea, NATO already paved the way on a lot of that.

    You get a piece of the pie or you get scraps from the other powers.There is no middle ground we become a federation or just declare ourselves vassals of USA,RF and PRC and get it over with.
    Interesting. Can you please tell me what scraps we in the United States have seen fit to toss off the table to France, Great Britain, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc? Seems to me they were doing well enough on their own. Hell, the US dumps plenty of it's own money into Eastern Europe alongside the Western European countries, so it's interesting that you'd say if Europe doesn't unite in some force then the US will just spit on you... well that's kind of a funny idea. It really just seems like proponents for the EU want to be a super-power and rival the United States, not for any real benefit besides saying you rival the US... which is immaturish, but whatever.

    The only good reason I've heard was from Mordred who explained that smaller countries could be held by the balls in regards to natural gas and oil supplies, etc, from larger countries like Russia which can divide and conquer Europe economically if the smaller countries aren't on the same page.

  16. #16
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    Quote Originally Posted by Desperado † View Post
    So you what to get rid of the parliament?
    Prehaps, the political branch should have some form of power, much like the proposed two-speed EU but with far less tasks. It should concentrate on a few core tasks, and when one voice is needed it can be done but if a few countries don't want to they don't have to. The pariament seems pretty useless to me, the council of the EU will be the most important.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShockBlast View Post
    No,that means every state will act independent,we can't afford not having a common stand.You get a piece of the pie or you get scraps from the other powers.There is no middle ground we become a federation or just declare ourselves vassals of USA,RF and PRC and get it over with.
    That's very black-and-white.
    I myself prefer an independent foreign policy of armed neutrality, but with that EU defence-pact.

    Morality is for the weak,when it comes to politics.Getting a piece of the pie comes hand in hand with the federation if not every country can just leave,the Union will not become a worthless piece of sh-t just to satisfy some nationalists that live in the past.
    We need centralization,a powerful federal government to defend our common needs and we need national goverments so stay the f--k out of external matters.Internal matters is for national governments to handle.

    You get on the wave or bend over and start moaning.
    That first line is very true, but in a different way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Jin View Post
    You're going to have an extremely hard time with things if you don't force standardization. Principally in regards to weapons and ammunition for those weapons, but additionally in regards to training, doctrine, and command philosophy. Fortunately for your idea, NATO already paved the way on a lot of that.
    It would be alot like NATO indeed, the NATO ammunitions should be used for example. But I do not seek even more standardisation that the current NATO.
    Miss me yet?

  17. #17

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    Quote Originally Posted by IPA35 View Post

    It would be alot like NATO indeed, the NATO ammunitions should be used for example. But I do not seek even more standardisation that the current NATO.
    It's pretty good for the most part, but you'd have to get more countries like the Czech Republic onboard with that. Currently they're butting heads over that with NATO simply because the Czechs have their own homegrown weapons manufacturing, which would be the production of the CZ. 58, similiar to the AK and firing a 7.62. There are others like this. But NATO standards are pretty good.

  18. #18

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    Quote Originally Posted by IPA35 View Post
    Prehaps, the political branch should have some form of power, much like the proposed two-speed EU but with far less tasks. It should concentrate on a few core tasks, and when one voice is needed it can be done but if a few countries don't want to they don't have to. The pariament seems pretty useless to me, the council of the EU will be the most important.
    So you want to get rid of the only democratic part, and make it a club for the national leaders without the voice of the European people? Why can't we just make the Parliament hold the power, and let the people of Europe collectively decide if and how they they want to co-operate? Or are you inherently against democracy?
    Last edited by Desperado †; November 07, 2009 at 05:47 PM.

  19. #19
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    Quote Originally Posted by Desperado † View Post
    So you want to get rid of the only democratic part, and make it a club for the national leaders without the voice of the European people? Why can't we just make the Parliament hold the power, and let the people of Europe collectively decide if and how they they want to co-operate? Or are you inherently against democracy?
    Well, the commision could be made democratic...
    A lottery system for which country provides which commisionar and then vote in that country but I actually prefer a downsized commision of 10.
    Maybe vote per post??? But then people would have to vote 10 times, alot of people would not take the time.

    The Parliament actually wants to become/is a stand alone organisation and will become too powerfull.
    The Council of Europe should have the full power without that interfering powerhungry parliament.
    The heads of states and the ministers of each country are IMO much more representative (nobody cares for the EP, just look at the turnout).
    It is just a very expensive useless body, who's task is to say yes or no, or can block a decision.
    Tha fact that that is the only democratic institutions pretty much sums op the EU's actual democracy.

    But the EC+CoE should ONLY discuss core stuff NOT how a banana should look like and other rediculous stuff that should be decided by each country individualy. So only climate change, fishing quotas, new memebership and military things amongst others.
    And countries should be able to opt-out without further consequences. Or prehaps a veto is a better solution?

    I do need to work this out a bit, but my point is clear, right?
    Last edited by Treize; November 08, 2009 at 06:02 AM.
    Miss me yet?

  20. #20
    Incontinenta Buttox's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Airstrip One
    Posts
    4,415

    Default Re: The Lisbon Treaty. Or how it should have been..?

    It's remembrance Sunday today. Of course, we should remember all those who died for our freedom—but perhaps Remembrance Sunday should, from now on, represent something different. We have lost what all of these brave men fought for.

    It is indisputable that those freedoms for which they fought and are fighting have been steadily eroded, to the point where we are no longer an independent nation. We have lost that ultimate freedom—the freedom to govern ourselves.

    This, however, will be the last Remembrance Day before the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. Next year, we will be remembering not only the lives that were expended in the cause of our freedom, but the fact that we have, despite the sacrifices, lost that freedom.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •