Thread: Treaty of Lisbon; clearing the way for abolution of european governments?

EUROPA - Treaty of Lisbon

or

IEA - Publications: Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Consolidated Treaties | treaty of lisbon reform consolidated version peadar ó broin

some excerpts:

Article 32
Member States shall consult one another within the European Council and the Council on any matter of foreign and security policy of general interest in order to determine a common approach. Before undertaking any action on the international scene or entering into any commitment which could affect the Union’s interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council. Member States shall ensure, through the convergence of their actions, that the Union is able to assert its interests and values on the international scene. Member States shall show mutual solidarity.


Article 34
1. Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences. They shall uphold the Union’s positions in such forums. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall organise this coordination. ...


2. ... Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States and the High Representative fully informed. Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union's position.

What is excerpted above is only a very small, but very important aspect nonetheless, of the entire Lisbon Treaty package: replace the sovereignty of the European National Governments with that of a consolidated European government, through a typically imposed fascist "consensus."

What is excerpted above is only a very small, but very important aspect nonetheless, of the entire Lisbon Treaty package: replace the sovereignty of the European National Governments with that of a consolidated European government, through a typically imposed fascist "consensus."

Explain how 'fascist' applies to this in any way (unless we're defining it in the everyday usage of 'political or social viewpoint I disagree with'). Vague promises in the treaty to act in 'mutual solidarity' and the like are just words setting out the general aims, solidarity isn't a clearly defined enough concept for it to be binding on governments in any way. And the requirement to uphold the Union's position in international arenas doesn't really mean much, seeing as the Union has few positions. Foreign policy has to be agreed unanimously, so in most cases, with Kosovo being the prime example, there is no common position.

Also, exactly how much influence and effect do you think Latvia or Malta have in international negotiations? If they opposed this treaty, deciding they wanted an independent voice in international affairs, what would that achieve them? They'd just be another unimportant, tiny country with zero clout or influence.

Not to get into the intricate details of the Treaty of Lisbon (caffeine pointed out the actual state of the EU and the current foreign policy situation within the organization), or the functionalist and neo-functionalist aims of the European Community since the Treaty of Rome….. But it seems that the formation of an influential and relatively uniform pan-European government seems inevitable at this point.

I doubt national governments will ever fully disappear in Europe. That being said it seems reasonable to assume that in areas of economics, foreign policy and security a pan-European consensus emerging. It will be difficult to merge the continent’s independent militaries and various regional policies, however I’m sure agreements can eventually hammer such things out in some way to create come form of a compromise within a confederation of united European states.

@Caffeine:
Essentially as I see it, this is an attempt to consolidate power throughout much of Europe. Are European nations equals at the moment? Technically, yes; realistically, no. ITs called a system of mutual respect; mutual respect entails that one nation does not seek to dominate another nation, and that they respect the sovereignity of the 'other'.

@colin;
nothing in life is ever inevitable, except for death and taxes.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

@Caffeine:
Essentially as I see it, this is an attempt to consolidate power throughout much of Europe. Are European nations equals at the moment? Technically, yes; realistically, no. ITs called a system of mutual respect; mutual respect entails that one nation does not seek to dominate another nation, and that they respect the sovereignity of the 'other'.

The EU is about pooling sovereignty, not about dominating any one. If you want a common market, you need common rules - and if you want a body capable of making rules that isn't hamstrung by requiring complete consensus you need a system in which you don't always get your way*. Even then, you can join the market without joining the EU if you want, you just get no say whatsoever in the rules you'd be bound by. Other harmonisations of policy aren't really necessary for the market, like foreign affairs; but it's still a matter of pooling sovereignty to better deal with issues much larger in scale than a tiny nation state is really equipped to deal with. A state perfectly sovereign within its own borders is a nice idea for a disconnected world where people and goods travel slowly, but in an interconnected global economy with much greater travel and exchange it's not a practical model. And if your country thinks that certain areas don't need to be covered by European-wide legislation - justice and criminal law, for example - then the EU hasn't forced countries to sign up. The UK, Denmark, and I think Ireland all have optional opt-outs on justice and home affairs legislation.


*And even with that some things still require complete consensus at the Council; though this new treaty reduces the number. Before you look at some article that just mentions the number of things switching from consensus to qualified majority decision-making, and quail at all that sovereignty fleeing away, it should be borne in mind that these numbers include such fundamental policy areas as the method by which the European Office of Statistics collects data on agriculture.