;:ASD;:AS;:SAD almost read it

You're such a kidder, you're probably barely literate as it stands :)

Who cares about politics anyway, it's full of shit and boringness.

yes it defines your whole life, so who cares

while you cant do shit about it, so who cares

A referendum precisely means you CAN do something about it you idiot.

A: Who cares about politics anyway, it's full of shit and boringness.

B: Yes it defines your whole life, so who cares

C: While you cant do shit about it, so who cares


then a retard comes along and says something about a referendum, which was not the subject, and even tries to insult someone.

good job.

now stfu.

"While you cant do shit about it"

Like I said you CAN because it was a REFERENDUM meaning the people could VOTE. Idiot.

technically yes.

realistically, no.

even if there is a really really really close vote you usually still have at least 100 people more on the winning side, so you one vote doesn't make a difference.

Not only does your vote still count, but you can also have an influence on the votes of other people if you campaign for or against an option. Just like the ones supporting the "no" managed to get people to vote against the Treaty. You don't need to be a politician to have an impact on decisions, meaning that YES, you CAN do something about it.

politics doesnt equal referendum, you retarded paralyzed moron. shut the fuck up.

I didn't say politics = referendum. YOU said you couldn't do shit about politics, which is WRONG and I just proved it. Valid effort from you though, but you're still an idiot.

yeah, lorenzo a really knows what an idiot is. especially cause he's a pathetic internet warrior who tries to find something to shit about.

last time, i replied regarding politics in general, and politics only.

go outside and bore some kids now if they dont run away.

How exactly can't you do "shit about it" if your vote and your actions can determine the final political decision you idiot?

btw "i just proved it" is as pathetic as it gets, cause i cant see you proving anything.

ahahahahaha

Just what they want you to think. Politicians love it when they convince people to stay away. Hard to rape you and pillage your belongings when you're actually paying attention.

Indeed, thank you Ireland!

\o/ Ireland. The way the EU clearly intends to try to brush this under the carpet as quickly as possible tells you all you need to know about their intentions, our own David Miliband tells UK voters that we don't need to get a vote on it because the Irish Parliament endorses it. Go democracy.

Same here, we never had a chance to vote on it :X

The patronizing aspect of government is most disturbing, like the benevolent parent protects the stupid kids from hurting themselves, yuck.

V is for Vid_Restart

!

This has nothing to do with democracy.

they are still gonna drive it through one way or the other

So, have you actually read the documents the vote was about (cause I haven't)? Or is your opinion just formed by some other politicians and media agencies?


/edit

I mean two of the reasons the Irish seem to be opposed to this is because they would have less power than before and because they don't want new nations to enter (at least that what I read about the reasons)
I guess the six founding countries could have kept more power, avoided lots of hassle and saved a whole lot of money if they had kept Ireland out back then...

fuck global government.
fuck NATO. fuck UN/OSCE/McDonalds

woo-whoo rebelling rocks so hard!

Oh I agree so much, when had the EU ever done anything good for the poorer countries like Ireland (back when), Romania or Poland.


I'm not wanting to say that the EU is great or anything, many things are wrong about it!
But I believe it's better than if we had just every state for thmeselves.
Cause face it, the number one success of the EU is that a war between e.g France and Germany is completely unthinkable nowadays!

And some little reforms that might have made the EU more efficient have just been stopped by the nay sayers. Whoop - di -doo!

EU hasn't done anything for Romania yet, because we have 100% corrupt politicians that would rather delay the EU funds getting here until they figure out how to leech them for personal interest.

still.. EU is awesome for free migration and opportunities in other countries (jobs, education, business) :)

Dude, I write my diploma for a company that does contracting work. And they have several jobs in romania payed for by half by the EU. And believe me making the fire safety system at a gas processing plant work again is a good thing ;)


/edit

didn't want to say your leaders aren't corrupt assholes, but there is at least some good things coming out of it...

"didn't want to say your leaders aren't corrupt assholes, but there is at least some good things coming out of it..."

There's something good coming out of his leaders being corrupt? Woah! :P

I agree, badly phrased :)

and don't even get me started on THOSSE FUCKING EXCUSES FOR RAODS you have ...

yeah man.. the roads are fucking horrible

only in Romania you can see good roads repaired every year for no reason just to leech public funds and derail it to dubious contractors.. while the roads that need repair are getting worse :/

like a local saying goes: beautiful country, too bad it's populated (with stupid people) :)

.

look at the industry of the European countries back before the EU and now and how they are connected.

think about it.

look at how people actually know the languages of other countries (except you lot of course ;) ) and how that was not the case before.

think about it.

look at how people very easily travel from one country to another getting to know the people there.

think about it.

think about how knowing and relying on other people makes you feel closer to them that complete strangers (e.g. see jameria and his idiotic fear of anything middle eastern vs. not having such bad feelings about Germans and French)


then think about how all that is a little different from the the times where the British, French and/or the Germans had a war about every 40 years.

Then you may start to explain your point.

.

please stay away from political and / or sociological discussions. you are embarrassing yourself.

1.Only new thing EU brought to the table was the currency, which helps foreign investing I guess, but increased inflation for "normal people". EU Benefits are incredibly stupid and fuck the economies of poorer non-european countries who can't now compete in agriculture. Just ask any economist. The trade-agreements date earlier, pre-eu.

2.Your second claim is just absurd - Why wouldn't I know about their languages for the love of pete, is EU now responsible of the very basic education and common sense?

3.Yes as I can travel just as easily to Russia or USA(???)

4.And why couldn't I rely to russians, americans, or japanese, if I wanted to? Only thing this does is segregates and creates an illusion that some people should have higher value because some douchebags and turds who I didn't even vote for say so.

To me only thing you are forwarding is the usual EU propaganda, making EU look like it's responsible for everything when it mostly is virtually useless money-waste that could be spent better.

amazing how fast you people get past the thinking part.

Oh wait, you skipped it altogether...

Then elaborate. Do you have anything to give with your ad hominem and notion you assumed in your head that you know more just by being patronizing and condesending?

Oh I'll tell you why.

You actually are thick enough that going from one country to another by car without even stopping is as easy as filling out a visa and standing in line and possibly being rejected from entering (happened to me once in the US).

Plus you proved that you have no idea what inflation means.


Oh, and yeah being condescending is pretty much my biggest vice, but god knows you make it so easy...

I am glad that you took your time to answer my points with grace and class instead of just start acting like a complete baby.

Inflation means generally the rise in prices. Did or didn't you understand what I meant?

In which case i make it easy? Because you don't want to understand just to nit-pick and use it as a strategy? Which of the points are invalid? I still think travelling abroad is generally as easy, I personally haven't met any complications. I apologize if you have once.

But what right do you have to start acting like a complete fucking asshole towards me without even any attempt of making counter-arguments or realizing you just had your propaganda-meter bit too north this time. I really thought you were a smart guy, but you really should take your head off your ass and look in the mirror.

Inflation is the increase of the average prices not just a few select ones. also it is pretty much agreed that an inflation at around 2% is actually good.

And I guess you never travelled to russia or chine or any other country that actually requiers you to fill out and pay for visas or else your defintion of "just as easy" is like saying running 10km is just as easy as walking for 1km.

And I don't think i'm good enough at explaining to successfully argue the more complicated points if the things above cause you to disagree.

I used inflation in the way it is used in the speaking language. What I mean is that opportunistic merchants raised their prices because the currency 'looked' less to the consumer, thus concealing hidden costs in. Be honest. Did you or did you not get this at the very first post?

Fine, What I meant by travelling is that you probably have to wait half an hour and file some form, that EU didn't change really make a difference in my decision where I will travel. I mean, do you believe even yourself that some person would like to visit the ancient temples of Peru or pyramids of Egyp, but then go... wait they're not part of eu, I'll go to poland or estonia instead because it's so revolutionary easier?

Nope i actually did think you meant the actual inflation, not the perceived one.

And with travelling I meant travelling not going on vacation. You know like driving to the netherlands cause gas and coffee was cheaper there, or because you wanto to visit some friends for a day or two.
Or simply because you work there (ok, that's probably not really travelling, but still)

The EU currency didn't "increase inflation for normal people", that's a common myth that anyone with any knowledge of economics knows is wrong. And you can't travel as easily to Russia and the USA since they aren't in the Schengen area (and the Schengen agreements were integrated in the E.U. legislation via the Treaty of Amsterdam). You'll need passports, visas etc.

Fine. It increased the cost of daily commodities such as bus tickets, coffee, newspapers, but didn't really effect the prices of "bigger stuff"

Like anyone wouldn't bring their passport anyway?

no, I never bring my passboard, just my id card.

and I lived near the border to the netherlands. you have to slow down to 80 when you cross the border. That's it.

Try that going from Canada to the US...

I would rather have people checked their ID before entering Finland. EU has brought beggars and small-time thieves from poorer countries with it.

yeah, because those id's have a part that says "small-time thief from poor country - don't let him enter"

If someone is wanted by officials of another country they could be caught before entering? Do you understand this or do I have to draw a picture?

draw the picture please, cause interpol hunting down small time thieves sure sounds interesting.

It looks like you. The country is USA.

ah yes, the country that locks up people for four years for being in the wrong place.

Well, at least I like looking at the picture you drew :D

Phew, I suspected for a second you might be one of them "terrorists and other extremesists" thus burning my picture on streets of Ira...n.

dird is dumb as dirt, don't even try arguing with him.

The E.U. and the League of Nations have almost nothing in common.

.

How has the E.U. not been able to prevent a war between its member states, considering there has been none and will be none?

Cause face it, the number one success of the EU is that a war between e.g France and Germany is completely unthinkable nowadays!

And some little reforms that might have made the EU more efficient have just been stopped by the nay sayers. Whoop - di -doo!

This is sarcasm, right?

the "whoop - di - doo" is, yes.

for the rest please do what #21says.



oh and I really do think that removing those "eu commissioners" might (as in "potentially") make the whole thing more efficient.

You're a fucking idiot if you think it's a good thing that Ireland voted against the Treaty of Lisbon. Read the document and THEN talk. It's pathetic how morons are being brainwashed by catchy phrases like "it will cost you", "more taxes", "less power". Pathetic.

I've read it, still wanna fight?

So what exactly do you think is wrong with it?

im pretty skeptical about it because im not really sure that the EU has really proven its worth with regards to social policy. The lisbon treaty would vastly expand the European mandate in ways that i feel are not explicity required, i mean does Europe really need a Foreign Minister? It could also create alot of friction between member nations and the wider union if the common policies do not reflect their own national interests.

the EU has done great things with regards to economic treaties and standardization, i just feel that this is too big a step forward, that imo, is unjustified and creates the foundation for even more power grabbing by an unelected, unaccountable central government. The fact that they have to resort to largely undemocratic tactics in order to get this thing through the pipelines should be a stark warning to all europeans about the future.

It is necessary to make steps towards more political integration, so far the emphasis has largely been on economic integration. I don't see how more political integration is a bad thing since it would precisely make the E.U. institutions more transparent and more connected with the E.U. citizens.

The aim is also to strengthen the E.U. parliament, and not an unelected, unnaccountable government (what exactly are you referring to?). You have to understand that this Treaty GREATLY improves how the E.U. works and precisely makes its institutions more efficient and would make them appear less like an obscure bureaucracy.
This is also directed to ix: not holding referendums has nothing to do with whether or not the process is democratic. In democracies, every decision is not subject to a public vote. You're referring to direct democracy, which is used almost nowhere in the world (Switzerland does have a system that comes close). Representative democracy is the form of government that Western countries use, and therefore not holding a referendum for this isn't undemocratic at all.
Still also directed to ix: most reasons given by the ones supporting the "no" are proof that the majority of them don't really understand the changes this brings. Again, the campaigns with signs saying "it will cost you" are a good example of the demagogism the opponents of the Treaty have to resort to in order to avoid having to deal with its actual content.
The E.U. is not even CLOSE to becoming a State. The member states are still sovereign entities and if they delegate some policy areas to the E.U. it's because harmonizing the decisions in those areas with the other member states allows for more efficiency. We have european elections, and a better political integration is definitely what is needed right now. Stop considering the E.U. institutions as evil bureaucrats and look at their actual work and how the E.U. has greatly helped improve the situation of E.U. citizens since it was created.

im refering to the commission of course, what else?

political integration for the sake of political integration is no reason at all. My point is that each member nation has its own interests to look after, and after all, a consensus can be reached with regards to critical issues without the need for each nation to delegate large amounts of legislative power to the central european government. Also, the success of the EU can be in large part put down to the fact that it has indeed largely focussed on making economic cooperation between member states more beneficial, theres no doubt about that, but also remember that its only real large scale social project (the CAP) is an outright disaster on the long term.

I feel that greater political harmonisation would reduce the amount of options available to each nation, for instance to a) to formulate and enforce their own foreign policies, b) to build and maintain their own military agreements and c) coordinate their own monetary policies.

The EU may not be a fully fledged State; yet, but that is definitely the direction that this treaty leans towards. Obviously some portions of the treaty are indeed beneficial and probably warranted. However, im skeptical of the whole endeavour on the long term, and whether politicians are infact competent enough to wield their increased power effectively. People seem to forget that what has now become the EU was first and foremost meant to be , simply put, increased economic cooperation between the Western European nations (and even then, EU membership and economic and societal success are not necessarily bound c.f Norway and Switzerland). Now it seems that the debate has shifted to Federal Europe vs wholesale European integration, removing entirely the notion of independent states cooperating to create an environment of freetrade. As i said, im skeptical, but dont outright reject the idea. At this stage though, i guess its inevitable.

(edit: just noticed the fact that you refer to citizens of each individual member states as EU citizens makes it quite clear what your position is as far as european integration goes :P)

Die you filthy statist!

Then why are you referring to the Commission since the Treaty would decrease the number of commissionners and increase the importance of the Parliament?

It's not political integration for the sake of political integration. Again, the E.U. institutions are really starting to get outdated and the changes proposed would allow for greater efficiency and coordination. You're not in touch with reality if you think a consensus can always be found for every matter the E.U. is dealing with.
a) not only would the member states still be able to formulate their own foreign policies but the reason they agreed to have a high representative for foreign affairs is because they realise that in order for them to have a greater influence in the world it is necessary to go through the E.U.
b) military and defense policies would still largely be in the hands of the member States, in fact a large number of the provisions are about having solidarity between the member States, for example in case of attacks.
c) what exactly are you referring to here? The ability to increase/decrease interest rates? I don't think you realise how virtually impossible it has become for countries to conduct completely independant monetary policies today, without behind influenced by neighbouring States. The last two countries that were able to do this were the United States (in the 1980's etc) and Germany with its Bundesbank (before the creation of the ECB since it's not independant anymore). It's not a question of accepting to delegate monetary competences, it's because it's vital to coordinate such policies and in the interest of everyone.

Again, an E.U. State is not happening any time soon. It is the States that realise that it is in their own interest to delegate competences to the E.U. in areas where coordination is greatly beneficial. Such coordination would never be obtained otherwise.

I used the expression "E.U. citizens" because it's the correct expression for what I was referring to and it exists parallel to national citizenship.

I think that an EU state is closer to becoming a reality than you think, although it will likely be something closer to the US federal system. All the pieces are converging, and although they may still be fairly separated from each other, they are all moving towards each other, and at one point, it will be a State, although you may not realise it.

Your points seem to boil down to ' individual member nations must submit themselves to the common good of all member nations rather than maintain their own national interests ' . Anyway, i think you make some good points and it will indeed probably be beneficial. I sure hope so anyway.

We'll see! I don't think the definition of a State will apply any time soon. It's a new type of entity that is emerging, imo.
And it's not only for the common good of all the States but also in the global interest of each State taken individually (and their respective populations) :]

I'm absolutely in favor of more political integration, BUT, this is not the right time. We are still paying the discrepancies relevaled (not created) by the Iraq War and the addition of the new eastern members, which are a lot, and barely integrated as members yet. I do think it will come the time when a deeper political integration will feel normal, because I'm old enough to notice how radically different is the perception the citizens have from other member countries citizens now compared to 15 years ago. But the society needs to evolve alone some more before enforcing a deeper political integration, which now feels just unnatural.

"enforcing"

Typical language for a pro-European. -_-

This pro-European has just said enforcing was not the right thing to do. Try reading.

I did read, perhaps you missed the wording you used.

"But the society needs to evolve alone some more before enforcing a deeper political integration"

Ok, maybe my english is not good enough. What I tried to say is that *they* are enforcing a political union *now*, and they should let the society evolve on its own into wanting that political union, cause it's just a matter of time that it will happen.

yeah fuck those morons, because all the people that voted for the treaty did read it, right? oh, wait--

yes, and that is the reason why public votes don't make much sense.
even more so with just the Irish deciding for all europeans.

It's not the fault of the Irish that the rest of Europe wasn't allowed to vote.

And I don't see me blaming them.

I just said that how it happened is stupid.

At least people that voted for the Treaty probably realise that the E.U. has done great things, that it has greatly helped Ireland over the past and that it's necessary to make it even more efficient. A LOT of those voting no are voting no for the wrong reasons, just look at the catchy phrases the "no" compaigners used.

Two things:

Firstly, the Nice treaty a few years back was also rejected by the Irish people - we were then told to vote again, unsurprisingly it passed.

A repeat is already being talked about...

Secondly, the president of the EU has come out and said that the treaty could / should be ratified with or without Ireland's backing.

Bwah Esr bingo won't allow me to reply individually...

@ Black Sheep - open borders as a tourist is all good but it's the ease of trade that's important. "Free movement of goods, labour, services & capital"
@ Dird - simply put, nations whose economies rely on one-another for trade are less likely to fight wars. (Slightly OT but the free movement of people allows nationalities to mix, the more you immerse yourself with other cultures the more you realise we're all just people. It's a lot harder to paint all Jews as thieving shysters if you've a Jew down the street that's a decent bloke... Helping build on liberal tendencies - decreasing the possibility of another Hitler. [obviously a huge leap o' faith to generalise so in so few words])
@ Black Sheep #2 - the EU improves the economies of those poorer nations, ipso facto reducing crime. Look at the increasing strength of the Zloty & the Polish economy in general.
@ ix - respect, I gave it a bash but jeez that's dry reading :O) but did you understand it?

We elect politicians to read and understand the ramifications of these treaties, and to vote according to their elected mandate - giving a referendum to the ignorant masses is irresponsible in the extreme. Especially one that'd be decided by xenophobia...

Well there's understand and understand, I got the gist of the changes but there's no way I was going to read the other treaties to really try to understand it, after a hundred pages of amendments you start to consider stabbing yourself in the eyes. I had a reply for Naghokez but ESR ate it in the post lottery so I'll summarise: the treaty makes the convention of human rights a part of law, even in the face of the UK opt out (don't let the nice name fool you, it's a mess of law) it will probably win in a test case. It adds a long term post of President and Foreign minister, major steps towards statehood, it removes many policy vetoes and reduces minority votes (more power to Germany, lovely) as well as the very blatant path towards super-statedom with the 'enhanced collaboration' measures.

The public knows that the eventual aim of the euro project is a superstate, that is what they're really voting against because most don't want any more loss of national powers. The insulting condescension of politicians that people 'just didn't understand' is also very suspicious, it is the politicians job to explain but the treaty is almost deliberately opaque. The fact that people are being denied referendums shows how highly democracy is valued in the EU state, this is substantively the same as the constitution that was rejected twice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union

DO WHAT WE SAY !

Let's play Master and Servant?

But we NEED a superstate. NWO FUCK YEAH. It's a shame Ireland ruined it for others. No, I'm not trolling. We need less OUR PEOPLE ARE BETTER stuff and should focus on how to bring the world TOGETHER FOREVER.

On one hand you are pretty correct, on the other you are probably just parroting something that others have told you and that doesn't command much respect. Do you ever think for yourself?

Usually ad hominem attacks also supply the 'correct way to think' even if it's without any actual backing. Why leave it out now?

Jargon automata, full steam ahead?

Where's the ad hominem here? I basically agreed with your statements and at
the same time stated my suspicion of the copy&paste nature of your 'thoughts'
Summa summarum, I have zero interest in them. Hell, I don't even bother with mine that much anymore

You do know that 'correct' can also be used to voice one's agreement?

If you took it as an offense, that's your prerogative
but while your at it I'll go and hotwire funnyb's care car.

You seem to like catchprases. E.g your constant misuse (in and out of context) of'ad hominem'

No

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

go back to your sauna whining fuck.. theres _NOTHING_ you can do about the new world order.... if you dislike it move to mars..

i love how nerds think they know something about politics =)) =) =) =)))= =)=)

Because you know better or you're just being a dick?

i know very little about politics but i aint claiming i do like some people in this thread

Kinda rich coming from the guy who thought that in movie theaters, films are played from dvd's.

^Hey Pushbaboon, that's an ad hominem.

uhh k thats totally related

It isn't.

On topic, your argument clearly went along lines such as this:

I'm a moron, ergo, so are everyone else. =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =)

just tired of "know-it-all" nerds who sits in their parents basements and theorylife how things should be when they have no fucken clue how reality works.

Who exactly are you referring to?
And btw I see you're still calling other people "nerds" on an internet forum with your 7342 posts, I love the irony :]

yeah i signed up like .. uhh.. yeah 2002?

i mostly posted on esr while in school.

and what has anything to do with me (maybe) beeing a nerd? you totally missed the point

again, just because you're a cluless nerd doesn't mean everyone else is. kthxbye

yes i bet we have alot of PROFESSIONALS who really knows what politics is about. i wonder what the average age of esr is..

What on earth are you talking about?

Are you mentally deranged or suffer from low self esteem or something?

wow you're really off track.

why would you ask that?

I'm quite on track, you just didn't understand what I meant.

You come to a thread full of, myself included, cookie-cutter political debate on whether full-scale eu intergration, and the even more centralized descision-making that follows on it's heels, is a good thing or not.

And you don't present any viable argument why you find the discussion lacking, but give a slew of overused stereotypes probably meant for someone who you don't like. You should have added something about weak sexual prowess
in there, just to complete the clichè run.

So either you find people who want to debate about said stuff pretentious since you said you don't know anything about politics and consider people who do talk about them pretentious, or some 'basement dweller' here has kicked sand in your vagina
earlier on.

Whew, it's not like you're even worth the time it took to type this, but as a fully-fledged gimp I have nothing better to do on a Thursday evening.

Luck & Love.

you dont know the background to this, this is mostly a joke pointed at pushpaboon :D

you take the internets very seriously m8.










anyways, i didnt read most of this thread and i came here to troll and flame, i thought someone of your intelligence would see that (OH WAIT LOL)

Well, colour me fucked.

I'll be in the basement if anyone asks :D