The European project is a crime

[Bono]

The "European project" is a crime against the subsidiarity principle. It is a sinister process which steals the power from the base and puts it in the hands of a Jacobite directory in Brussels. To propose such a thing to be only voted on parliament is a confession of cowardice and an attack on what little is left of national sovereignty. We must use all legal means available to us to but an end to that "project", which stenches of Rousseau.

[Jens]

The "European project" is a crime against the subsidiarity principle. It is a sinister process which steals the power from the base putting it in the hands of a Jacobite directory in Brussels. To propose such a thing to be only voted on parliament is a confession of cowardice and an attack on what little is left of national sovereignty. We must use all legal means available to us to but an end to that "project", which stenches of Rousseau.

What are you talking about? perhaps a link would inlighten us

[Bono]

The "European project" is a crime against the subsidiarity principle. It is a sinister process which steals the power from the base putting it in the hands of a Jacobite directory in Brussels. To propose such a thing to be only voted on parliament is a confession of cowardice and an attack on what little is left of national sovereignty. We must use all legal means available to us to but an end to that "project", which stenches of Rousseau.

What are you talking about? perhaps a link would inlighten us

About the current efforts by Merkel and Co to try to pass the European constitution by the backdoor, though my first couple of sentences are valid regardless of context. I find it pretty ironic that most authoritarian parties oppose the EU, while many supposedly liberal ones are in favor of it.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The EU is a crime in itself. Unfortunately I do not see it ending and I see America probably eventually ending up in it.

[Jens]

The "European project" is a crime against the subsidiarity principle. It is a sinister process which steals the power from the base putting it in the hands of a Jacobite directory in Brussels. To propose such a thing to be only voted on parliament is a confession of cowardice and an attack on what little is left of national sovereignty. We must use all legal means available to us to but an end to that "project", which stenches of Rousseau.

What are you talking about? perhaps a link would inlighten us

About the current efforts by Merkel and Co to try to pass the European constitution by the backdoor, though my first couple of sentences are valid regardless of context. I find it pretty ironic that most authoritarian parties oppose the EU, while many supposedly liberal ones are in favor of it.

First of all, I disagree with the assuption that EU = authoritarian, second, most authoritarian parties also has strong nationalistisk bias that doesn't go well with the idea of an European Union.
That said, it is my firm belief that the new and much needed consitution should been accepted in all the member countries and that was not the case in Netherlands and France. Hence the need of a modification, but of cause one that as to be accepted via whatever method used by the member countries.

[Bono]

The "European project" is a crime against the subsidiarity principle. It is a sinister process which steals the power from the base putting it in the hands of a Jacobite directory in Brussels. To propose such a thing to be only voted on parliament is a confession of cowardice and an attack on what little is left of national sovereignty. We must use all legal means available to us to but an end to that "project", which stenches of Rousseau.

What are you talking about? perhaps a link would inlighten us

About the current efforts by Merkel and Co to try to pass the European constitution by the backdoor, though my first couple of sentences are valid regardless of context. I find it pretty ironic that most authoritarian parties oppose the EU, while many supposedly liberal ones are in favor of it.

First of all, I disagree with the assuption that EU = authoritarian, second, most authoritarian parties also has strong nationalistisk bias that doesn't go well with the idea of an European Union.
That said, it is my firm belief that the new and much needed consitution should been accepted in all the member countries and that was not the case in Netherlands and France. Hence the need of a modification, but of cause one that as to be accepted via whatever method used by the member countries.

How is the absurd centralization of minute policy details not authoritarian? The EU makes rules on things that should be decided by local governments, and then purports to be in favor of subsidiarity. What a joke. The EU is just a forum for national governments to pass policies they don't want to pass through parliament on their countries (the european parliament is a joke).

As for the constitution, even though I oppose it in principle, here are some things that would make it much better: write a new treaty, sober and "defrenched", to simply solve the institutional problem without constitutional pomposities and Napoleonic refinements.

[Colin]

Bono, answer me this since I've always wanted to know this. Do you just parrot the things that you hear other people say or do you just post these thoughts as they come to you?

[Jens]

The "European project" is a crime against the subsidiarity principle. It is a sinister process which steals the power from the base putting it in the hands of a Jacobite directory in Brussels. To propose such a thing to be only voted on parliament is a confession of cowardice and an attack on what little is left of national sovereignty. We must use all legal means available to us to but an end to that "project", which stenches of Rousseau.

What are you talking about? perhaps a link would inlighten us

About the current efforts by Merkel and Co to try to pass the European constitution by the backdoor, though my first couple of sentences are valid regardless of context. I find it pretty ironic that most authoritarian parties oppose the EU, while many supposedly liberal ones are in favor of it.

First of all, I disagree with the assuption that EU = authoritarian, second, most authoritarian parties also has strong nationalistisk bias that doesn't go well with the idea of an European Union.
That said, it is my firm belief that the new and much needed consitution should been accepted in all the member countries and that was not the case in Netherlands and France. Hence the need of a modification, but of cause one that as to be accepted via whatever method used by the member countries.

How is the absurd centralization of minute policy details not authoritarian? The EU makes rules on things that should be decided by local governments, and then purports to be in favor of subsidiarity. What a joke. The EU is just a forum for national governments to pass policies they don't want to pass through parliament on their countries (the european parliament is a joke).

As for the constitution, even though I oppose it in principle, here are some things that would make it much better: write a new treaty, sober and "defrenched", to simply solve the institutional problem without constitutional pomposities and Napoleonic refinements.

All legislation from the EU has to be ratified by the national parlaments. One of the major problems is that the national parlaments "fail" to ratify common EU-laws.

All this references to the Jacobites and Napoleon you really need to elaborate, otherwise it just seems like a smarter way of using the classic x = Nazi-argument

[Bono]

Bono, answer me this since I've always wanted to know this. Do you just parrot the things that you hear other people say or do you just post these thoughts as they come to you?

Both. Everyone does this, o/c. I don't really see the value in paraphrasing something and then claim you're original. It's just a waste of time.

[Colin]

Bono, answer me this since I've always wanted to know this. Do you just parrot the things that you hear other people say or do you just post these thoughts as they come to you?

Both. Everyone does this, o/c. I don't really see the value in paraphrasing something and then claim you're original. It's just a waste of time.

True, I guess. I just wanted to know since some of the things sounded pre-packaged.

[Bono]

The "European project" is a crime against the subsidiarity principle. It is a sinister process which steals the power from the base putting it in the hands of a Jacobite directory in Brussels. To propose such a thing to be only voted on parliament is a confession of cowardice and an attack on what little is left of national sovereignty. We must use all legal means available to us to but an end to that "project", which stenches of Rousseau.

What are you talking about? perhaps a link would inlighten us

About the current efforts by Merkel and Co to try to pass the European constitution by the backdoor, though my first couple of sentences are valid regardless of context. I find it pretty ironic that most authoritarian parties oppose the EU, while many supposedly liberal ones are in favor of it.

First of all, I disagree with the assuption that EU = authoritarian, second, most authoritarian parties also has strong nationalistisk bias that doesn't go well with the idea of an European Union.
That said, it is my firm belief that the new and much needed consitution should been accepted in all the member countries and that was not the case in Netherlands and France. Hence the need of a modification, but of cause one that as to be accepted via whatever method used by the member countries.

How is the absurd centralization of minute policy details not authoritarian? The EU makes rules on things that should be decided by local governments, and then purports to be in favor of subsidiarity. What a joke. The EU is just a forum for national governments to pass policies they don't want to pass through parliament on their countries (the european parliament is a joke).

As for the constitution, even though I oppose it in principle, here are some things that would make it much better: write a new treaty, sober and "defrenched", to simply solve the institutional problem without constitutional pomposities and Napoleonic refinements.

All legislation from the EU has to be ratified by the national parlaments. One of the major problems is that the national parlaments "fail" to ratify common EU-laws.

All this references to the Jacobites and Napoleon you really need to elaborate, otherwise it just seems like a smarter way of using the classic x = Nazi-argument

Yes legislation needs to be passed by parliaments, but they don't have a choice, because if they refuse to pass it they can be sued for lack of compliance in the EU court.

As for what I mean as Napoleonic refinements, is all that stuff about enshrining a charter of "rights", a "preferred economic model", or anything that resembles a nation state architecture. See also my points on subsidiarity, which you haven't answered. Do you need clarification on that too?

[Bono]

Bono, answer me this since I've always wanted to know this. Do you just parrot the things that you hear other people say or do you just post these thoughts as they come to you?

Both. Everyone does this, o/c. I don't really see the value in paraphrasing something and then claim you're original. It's just a waste of time.

True, I guess. I just wanted to know since some of the things sounded pre-packaged.

Some where, the first post was entirely, for instance.

[Jens]

Yes legislation needs to be passed by parliaments, but they don't have a choice, because if they refuse to pass it they can be sued for lack of compliance in the EU court.

As for what I mean as Napoleonic refinements, is all that stuff about enshrining a charter of "rights", a "preferred economic model", or anything that resembles a nation state architecture. See also my points on subsidiarity, which you haven't answered. Do you need clarification on that too?

Hmmm, subsidiarity. Some of it works some of it doesn't. Portugal and Spain are good examples of both. Impressive grows, buth also huge amouths of wasted money. The whole agricultural thing is by far the worst part of the menagery, not to mention the costoms barriers. Both things only benefits a few people and hinder development in the EU

I disagree with you on the charter. It was a fantastic chance of defining the rights of the Europeans - a nation state the EU will never be, but a feeling of belonging to a common society could increase mobility to the benefit of the populations.

[Bono]

Yes legislation needs to be passed by parliaments, but they don't have a choice, because if they refuse to pass it they can be sued for lack of compliance in the EU court.

As for what I mean as Napoleonic refinements, is all that stuff about enshrining a charter of "rights", a "preferred economic model", or anything that resembles a nation state architecture. See also my points on subsidiarity, which you haven't answered. Do you need clarification on that too?

Hmmm, subsidiarity. Some of it works some of it doesn't. Portugal and Spain are good examples of both. Impressive grows, buth also huge amouths of wasted money. The whole agricultural thing is by far the worst part of the menagery, not to mention the costoms barriers. Both things only benefits a few people and hinder development in the EU

Uh, subsidiarity hasn't got anything to do with subsidies. It means making the decisions at the lowest level of government possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem with the charter is that it enshrines many positive "rights", which in effect are a constitutional mandate for a certain economic policy enforced by an omnipresent European bureaucracy. If you want to have a charter of rights just make the EU sign the European Convention on Human Rights, which is actually a reasonable document.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Bono: Since you fear world government from the EU... THESE links may be of interest.

http://johnreilly.info/cont.htm

http://johnreilly.info/oncwg.htm

IMO I may not buy those scenarios but I still find the links interesting. The links presume that we're heading towards world government by 2100(something I disagree with but...)

[Cubby]

The EU is a crime in itself.

Not quite

......and I see America probably eventually ending up in it.

Not a chance in hell of that happening now. Maybe in 30 or 50 years.

[afleitch]

Fun fact number one: The EU has one of the smallest bureaucracies in the world. It has less people working for it than the average English county council.

[Bono]

Fun fact number one: The EU has one of the smallest bureaucracies in the world. It has less people working for it than the average English county council.

Small in number, great in power...

[Gustaf]

Fun fact number one: The EU has one of the smallest bureaucracies in the world. It has less people working for it than the average English county council.

Lol...I see that comparision used quite often (though with a Swedish counter-part of course). It doesn't hold up because usually those local governments have real people working for them (like police officers, nurses, cleaning personell and so on) and even the bureaucrats have to adminstrate these actually needed activities. The EU on the other hand does almost nothing worthwhile (there are parts of it that are good but most of them don't need much administrating).

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The EU is a crime in itself.

Not quite

......and I see America probably eventually ending up in it.

Not a chance in hell of that happening now. Maybe in 30 or 50 years.

1 Yes it is. it enforces PC multiculturalism. If the EU was either more decentralized or less ideologically repulsive(as in joint european army to patrol its borders and keep arabs out plus no lefist PC multiculturalism) then I wouldn't care.

2 I was thinking 70-100 years. Not 30 to 50.