SECRET NEW PLAN FOR EU SUPERSTATE

[psi29a]

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/9970/

TONY Blair wants to hand the European Union radical new powers in his last act as Prime Minister, it emerged today.

The Prime Minister has welcomed controversial plans to bring back the troubled EU constitution by the back door - totally bypassing the need for public referendums on sweeping new powers for Brussels.

German chancellor Angela Merkel has suggested ditching the name "constitution" from the title and instead calling it an "amending treaty - to avoid having to seek the approval of voters.

French and Dutch voters rejected the original plan - which would hand Brussels the power to represent individual countries at the UN and change national laws - two years ago.


Britain's voting rights would be reduced by a third under the scheme and our hard-won veto on European directives would be torn up. Britain could also lose the right to impose quotas on immigration.

Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "If Tony Blair thinks he can hoodwink the British people by smuggling in the rejected EU consitution under another name, he had better think again.

"He underestimates the British people. They will see right through any shabby stitch-up.

"If the Labour Government sign up to a new treaty that takes powers from Britain and hands them over to the EU, the British people must have the final say in a referendum."

The Germans believe "as much of the substance of the constitution as possible" should be kept, renamed and put into law.

Scrapping the name will help Mr Blair reach agreement at what will be his last EU Summit and virtually his last public duty before handing over to Gordon Brown.

But the document makes no reference to one of Mr BlairÕs previous key demands - an Òopt-outÓ from a shift to more joint European decisions affecting criminal law and justice.

A Government spokeswoman welcomed the latest approach to what is being billed as one of the most important EU Summit gatherings for years.

We fully support the German Presidencys desire to reach agreement on institutional reform, she said.

"We welcome their proposal to return to the classical method of treaty change whereby the existing treaties would be amended.

ÒWe believe an amending treaty should help to make the EU more efficient. The more effectively the EU works together, the more that it is in our national interest as well as our international interests.

The German plan talks about calling the result of any Summit agreement a Treaty on the function of the UnionÓ - removing the federalist implications which have been plaguing efforts to get EU reform plans back on track.

But the report makes clear the EU would still develop a Òsingle legal personality - a bid to give the EU collectively more weight on the world stage, and fuelling Eurosceptic fears of a further whittling away of national status in Europe.

On the Summit agenda will be the removal from any new reform document of other contentious plans, such as promoting the EU flag and EU anthem.

But the German Presidency expects to see a Òcharter of fundamental rightsÓ given legal force as part of any reform package.

EU foreign ministers meet in Luxembourg on Sunday for a first discussion of the options.

EU leaders gather in Brussels next Thursday, prepared to launch Òan intergovernmental conferenceÓ on the details of a new treaty if they can agree the outline.

Neil OBrien, director of the think-tank Open Europe, expressed surprise that a Òsingle legal personalityÓ for the EU was still being considered. It was an unpopular move already flatly rejected by the UK and would not, he predicted, survive in any final deal.

Mr OBrien went on: This memo suggests that the new version of the constitutional treaty is likely to be more radical than expected, and it will strengthen calls for a referendum.

[uncempt]

You read the daily express psi??? I particularly love how they bring immigration into every vaguely political article.

EU Superstate's the way forward though. We need some coherence for the power to counterbalance US foreign policy

[Libaax]

EU Superstate's the way forward though. We need some coherence for the power to counterbalance US foreign policy

Thats actually not a bad idea.

It would be a great idea it meant stopping US from ****** up the world even more.

[psi29a]

I would love to get vtwahoo's thoughts on this considering her background in poli-sci.

For the record, I read from a lot of sources. I will be the first to admit that I'm biased, however that doesn't stop me from educating myself.

For those hawking 'we need a counter-balance to the American hegemony', that is the statement of an extremist. America in the 90's was a hegemony, but as shown in the 00's, it's only hegemony is purely military in it's projection of force. Economically, America is in a very bad position. That being said, if the US tanks you can believe the world will tank to.

Forming a stronger EU is to consolidate a power base economically, then slowly militarily.

We also see Russia becoming less European and more Asian, it does this all through-out history in vacillating in between the two to the benefit of Russia. It sees itself once again enemies of the 'West' which strengthens Sino-Soviet relations and possible relations with India.

[uncempt]

I've never been called an extremist before... I would have thought "we have to stop the US" was the extreme view. I guess "counterbalance" was the wrong word to use if it suggests that. Maybe "exert a steadying influence" is more appropriate.

I'm no political scientist but I think the world could do with more real dialogue. That's where our elected officials sit around drinking tea/coffee/vodka and discussing things reasonably. How can that happen when the US has the power (and inclination -Kyoto) to just storm out of any discussion it doesn't like? If the EU or any other country can improve it's standing to a level where the US actually cares how they're seen in their eyes (for whatever reason) then the talk can become genuine again, making for a much healthier political climate.

Hopefully that made sense without resorting to silly playground analogies!

[Albator]

It actually starts with the superpower-in-place to choose adequate people to lead (if such people are available).

Having 2 or many superpowers will only make it easy for nationalists to agitate the fear of the other, and engage into blind opposition, and sandwicing the other "2nd rate" country, forcing same to pick a "side". People don't easily accept ex-aequo, a clear 1st and 2nd is generally more readable. It reminds me of Georges Orwell and his 3 superpowers fighting each other mainly because they are rivals and that's about it.

A single superpower isn't bad at all. They just have to take the advantages, but also the responsability that goes with it. The US spend more money than you think outside their own boundaries. Lately the only problem is that they seem to believe that it gives them the right to do whatever they believe is right. I actually think that if the US were only willing to defend their own interest a little less and take into account other's people vision before theirs, their position will only be consolidated, and at the end they would probably reap the benefits of it. I'm probably overoptimistic.

Build a EU force could be good, but it shouldn't be to be a counterpart of the US force (do they really need it?). It should be a partner, or support.

[Brainpiercing]

As a citizen of Germany, and therefore of the EU, I must say I am in favour of greater cooperation, albeit not under a false header. The EU constitution has an air of idealism to it, while just another treaty would be back to dirty politics. Whether the result is any different I am not able to judge at present.

The EU has had many controversial debates about how national authority is being dissolved and handed over to the "Eurocrats", a ballooning administrative body that eats up millions of funds without perceived efficient operation. However, the advent of the Euro and free travel, residence and occupation within in the EU has been, or so I believe, one of the greatest social leaps the western world has taken. As such, the benefits of a strong union cannot be disregarded, there just have to be checks in place to make sure "Eureocracy" doesn't run out of bounds. National reservations sometimes need to be pushed aside forcefully in order to ever move forward, but forcing the union against the people does not seem a desirable goal.

That being said, Germans were never asked at all, anyway. Our administrations have sought international recognition by strong foreign policy, and that has always included pushing for a stronger EU. By taking the initiative, Germany ensures that it will not pull the shortest straw in the end. We Germans as a populace endure and hope for the best.

[psi29a]

I've never been called an extremist before... I would have thought "we have to stop the US" was the extreme view. I guess "counterbalance" was the wrong word to use if it suggests that. Maybe "exert a steadying influence" is more appropriate.

I'm no political scientist but I think the world could do with more real dialogue. That's where our elected officials sit around drinking tea/coffee/vodka and discussing things reasonably. How can that happen when the US has the power (and inclination -Kyoto) to just storm out of any discussion it doesn't like? If the EU or any other country can improve it's standing to a level where the US actually cares how they're seen in their eyes (for whatever reason) then the talk can become genuine again, making for a much healthier political climate.

Hopefully that made sense without resorting to silly playground analogies!

I apologize.

I really didn't meant to lump you in as an extremist, however the polarization that a 'counter-balance' would create could possibly be destabilizing effect if it where aggressively antagonistic. I will concede that the US has been very aggressive of late in prosecuting it's war on abstract nouns. I'm not proud of this country's actions but my voice and those of my peers are being ignored.

That being said, I'm actually for a united UE should it rise to same playing field as the US and possible Sino-Soviet Bloc which would create a 3 tier playing field in the world of politics and economies.

The real human tragedy is that someone else's morality and sense of justice that is in the majority will over-rule your own. We see the case where Federal law supersedes that of local law for better or worse. The only absolute solution is to move, but a majority of people can't do that either. So, consolidating powers leaves few options and choices for people who are not aligned with the mainstream.

[uncempt]

The real human tragedy is that someone else's morality and sense of justice that is in the majority will over-rule your own. We see the case where Federal law supersedes that of local law for better or worse. The only absolute solution is to move, but a majority of people can't do that either. So, consolidating powers leaves few options and choices for people who are not aligned with the mainstream.

Yeah, but this has been happening since the day we started hunting in packs. Whenever there are minorities, they tend to get shouted down, right?

I've been wondering whether Europe is diverse enough to be more of a collection of minorities, though. I mean, we're all weird, most of us are proud to be different, there are loads of different languages/cultures, no single country dominates... I guess the hope is that Brussels can get us to agree on the big stuff while leaving us the small stuff to ourselves. I mean I'm not sure we *can* agree on small stuff anyway...

[MrFelony]

they should just make the official language of the EU english

[Libaax]

Heh that might start WWIII, the french,spaniards,german refusing to speak english.

[Albator]

And rightfully so, damnit!

[uncempt]

I'd better brush up on my Welsh to get in on the action

[LordMune]

And rightfully so, damnit!

You people!

[Sortep]

I love how everyone forgets the Greeks and all the other nations within the EU

[MrFelony]

who?

[MsNomer]

For the record:

EU27 Member States:

* Austria
* Belgium
* Bulgaria
* Cyprus
* Czech Republic
* Denmark
* Estonia
* Finland
* France
* Germany
* Greece
* Hungary
* Ireland
* Italy
* Latvia
* Lithuania
* Luxembourg
* Malta
* The Netherlands
* Poland
* Portugal
* Romania
* Slovakia
* Slovenia
* Spain
* Sweden
* United Kingdom
Candidate Countries:
* Croatia
* Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
* Turkey

[uncempt]

Um... Turkey isn't a member state until possibly 2012...

EDIT: Just read the whole post

[Dark Force]

Well, if every other country didn't let us walk all over them and do what we wanted without resistance, you wouldn't need counterbalance. 25 pussy nations combining with Germany and Italy would create one giant pussy nation, and probably just end up making things easier, since we only have to go through one as opposed to 27.

[Sortep]

Look df, you really need to keep in context of the conversation and be a little bit more respectful. That juvenille crap may be acceptable for the interstice, but not here. I'm pretty sure you don't speak and act like this towards people you see on the street, so don't do it in here.

[Dark Force]

Excuse my language in that case, but as a general rule I don't talk about politics with people on the street. But honestly, the USSR was essentially the same thing, I doubt anyone here needs a history lesson, but seeing as they could hardly compete or even keep it together (not to mention relying completely on a few key nations), I don't see how you could consider the potential superstate a superpower. I mean look at the list, only a handful of the said 27 have some kind of involvement in world affairs, the rest are a joke. If anything, it's weaker than the USSR. There isn't one superstate in all of history that hasn't destroyed itself and made things worse for themselves and the rest of the world.

[Killfile]

I don't know about that.... China seems to have done fairly well for itself, though it tends to slide in and out of "superstate" status -- moreso in its ancient period than today of course.

Of course superstates lack real National legitimacy and are all destined for either assimilation or disintegration. Even so, I don't think you're giving Europe the credit it's due. Certainly it's less militarily involved in the world than the US is right now, but it's not totally unprepared. An EU superstate would be a nuclear power, a formidable blue water Naval power, and a air and land power to be reckoned with.

Moreover, economically speaking, the EU presents a far greater challenge to the US than Russia. Only China and India have greater potential and Europe is much closer to realizing it.

[reiketsu]

Excuse my language in that case, but as a general rule I don't talk about politics with people on the street. But honestly, the USSR was essentially the same thing, I doubt anyone here needs a history lesson, but seeing as they could hardly compete or even keep it together (not to mention relying completely on a few key nations), I don't see how you could consider the potential superstate a superpower. I mean look at the list, only a handful of the said 27 have some kind of involvement in world affairs, the rest are a joke. If anything, it's weaker than the USSR. There isn't one superstate in all of history that hasn't destroyed itself and made things worse for themselves and the rest of the world.

The countries that formed the USSR where there due the lack of option and, for most of them, the lack of choice.

And, so far in the history, every superstate was formed by the force. Maybe one formed under the bless of the democracy might last longer, right? At least nobody will try to liberate there from the hand of a tirant.