World Forums

Boye, you emphasize far too much the impact of base populism in the referenda, as if to excuse the results to a momentary childishness. As you like.

The real lesson, I repeat to you, is that the constitution was a flawed proposal to begin with. This gave rise to an opportunity to send a message to the politicos/burocrats who have got out of touch with the citizenry of the EU.

Worse than voting "No", the electorates disregarded the constitution as irrelevant to their needs. Such happens when civil servants lose perspective of the reason why they are civil servants. Keyword: civil. They are serving the community and not their own peculiar agendas. No one should go to Brussels or Strasbourg with the intent of entering the history books.

If that lesson has not sunk in, heaven help us and heaven help the EU. Your letter to the Economist, attributing the referenda results to a passing infantility of the moment, indicates that it hasn't.

I warned you that Norway (at less than 4% unemployment) was "another planet", distant from the heart of Europe and what is happening there. Take heed.

Marko: Didn't know about Chirac being a crook, but I do not like him or the Kraut; neither can I abide socialists without feeling more than a little nauseous after 5 minutes in their company.

One of Chirac's best political cronies, and ex-PM of France, fell on his sword when convicted recently of charges of using illicit funds for political purposes - when Chirac and he were running the Mayor of Paris office in the eighties.

The trial showed that the kickbacks given by builders under contract to the municipality were, in fact, distributed across the political spectrum. One must assume therefore that such kickbacks have been funding political parties since time immemorial - and I doubt that France is the only country that is afflicted with this illness.

It is rampant in the US, and if you scratch the surface you will find it also in the UK. Until someone goes to jail, it will continue along its merry way.

The political process should not be funded by vested interests (particularly business or industry), which prejudices politics and corrupts politicians. There is only one client, the constituency.

(Of course, it would help enormously if an electorate were well advised of the issues and more implicated in the political process by means of referenda - that is the ONLY way of guaranteeing that representative government remains truly representative. But I'll let that sleeping dog lie.)

Boye: Even with democratic progress blocked by European voters, there can still be structural progress.

Yes, quite right.

What happened was simply a hiccup along the way. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Blair has something important to "show and tell". The UK is doing almost everything right, and what's not right is unimportant. The sole gauge of any consequence is employment.

The rest of Europe should listen. Particularly the diehards in France and Germany. Sorry, Boye, but in as much as I enjoy our exchanges, Norway is too special a case for it to apply to the rest of Europe. Sweden, however, is quite another matter. Low employment and social services that are the envy of many countries.

Even America could take a lesson in its historic neutrality.

Americans took your lessons all right and sailed westward. Never looked back:)

Yeah, Leo, the earth being flat, they all fell off ...

Leo:

I've read your letter, Boye. It's a load of crock, or to put it mildly, a lame attempt to obfuscate the true issue

Ah, nice twist. But those who disapprove of the EU Constitution do not necessarily disapprove of Chirac's presidency.

This is what happened:

Question: "Do you approve of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?".
Voters: No.

This is what NOT happened:

Question: "Do you approve of the Chirac presidency?"
Voters: No.

If people can pretend the referendum was on the Chirac presidency, then people can just as easily pretend that the referendum was not on the Constitution. Scrapping the Constitution and throwing Chirac out of office would be just as contemptous to the will of the people as sticking with the Constitution and keeping Chirac in office.

People demanding change, sound economic policies and worrying about their ancient freedoms taken away from them by Eurocrats are called populists

That's funny, considering the 'no' camp in France was partly basing their campaign on a protest against Anglo-Saxon capitalism and the freedom of movement.

But either way, that's not what the referendum was about. It was about the structure of European politics, not the content of it.

Marko:

I really don't see how voters BLOCKED democratic progress. They voted DEMOCRATICALLY.

Sure, it was a democratic decision, and one that should be respected. But it also was a democratic decision to block democratic progress. An elected presidency is more democratic than a rotational presidency, voting weights proportional to population is more democratic than voting weights decided by political horse-trading, and a directly elected body (European Parliament) is more democratic than a doubly indirectly elected body (Council of Ministers). While there may be plenty of reasons why people voted against the Constitution, there can be no doubt, whether the reason for the 'no' or the consequence of it, that European voters have blocked reforms to give more power to the European parliament, to have an elected EU president and to have fair voting weights in the Council of Ministers. Hence, European voters have blocked democratic reforms. That's sometimes how democracy works.

Me: Referendums are too important to be hijacked by populists who can't wait until the next election to boot a politician out of office.

You: Yes, we should do away with referendums and elections altogether. Let's just have a dictatorship, right? What on earth is wrong with the populace wanting to get rid of a failing leader?

I'm surprised that's what you read into it. I'm not saying we should get rid of neither referendums nor elections. On the contrary, I'm saying we should have both, but that both referendums and elections are so too important to be mixed. A referendum is not an election and an election is not a referendum.

Sure, for many people, Chirac is an unpopular leader. The same can be said about George Bush. But just as the French are stuck with Chirac until 2007, Americans are stuck with Bush until the end of 2008 - no matter what happens in ballot initiatives or other elections. They have been duly elected, Chirac even by an 80-20 majority in the 2002 run-off, and there's absolutely no reason why they should not sit out their term of office. The only constitutional way to shorten a president's term is impeachment. But impeachment cases are not up to a popular vote.

The referendum in France was on the future of Europe, and I stand by my comment that such a referendum is too important to be used as an opportunity to try to end the president's term prematurely. The referendum on the Constitution was not a referendum on the president. The 'no' vote was a 'no' to the question asked in the referendum, not a 'no' to any question you would have wanted to be there instead.

In a democracy, people must take the consequences of their vote: They have voted for Chirac in the presidential election, and they have voted against the Constitution in the referendum. And that's what they get: Chirac as president and no Constitution. It's contemptuous to the will of the people to either insist on the Constitution's survival or to demand Chirac's resignation.

French voters will get their chance to cast their verdict on Chirac's presidency, but not until 2007 when the term he was elected for is up.

Synthese:

Worse than voting "No", the electorates disregarded the constitution as irrelevant to their needs.

Sure, fine. But the call for Chirac's resignation on the basis of the defeat of the EU Constitution is ridiculous.

I warned you that Norway (at less than 4% unemployment) was "another planet", distant from the heart of Europe and what is happening there. Take heed.

Well, on my planet, half of all new regulations and laws come from Brussels and the Norwegian people have defeated attempts to send Norwegian representatives to Brussels decision-making bodies.

Funny indeed, cause Europe is so screwed up, that there isn't much difference between constitution's proponents and opponents:)

The only difference is that the ruling class is full of socialism as much as the plebs, but the former are more subtle folks.

One more thing. Our media and people like me talk about Europe too much. We really shouldn't, we should let you fall apart without suggesting any remedies. None. Let the chips fall where they may and I know where they will.

You may talk about Europe too much, but you certainly don't pay too much attention to what's going on over here.

As far as economic policy is concerned, the debate in Europe now is on a directive that will remove obstacles to trade in services across 28 countries and about reforming the agricultural policy. These are enormous and fundamental issues and, typically, the opponents of the Constitution in France are also against these reforms. Opposition against capitalism may well be what tipped the referendum in the no camp's favour. That people like you join in on the chorus of the French nay-sayers, is funny indeed.

But the call for Chirac's resignation on the basis of the defeat of the EU Constitution is ridiculous.

You are fixated on this subject, Boye, not I.

The consitutional vote condemned the political class in general. If you wish to focus on Chirac, then that is your business. I suspect the dislike manifested by this vote and its disregard for the constitution, is because the constitution symbolized the establishment. This was a popular, if not populist, vote against that establishment.

If you, and others in politics, cannot understand this, then the vote, worse than a hindrance to progress, is also a disaster. Only by learning from one's mistakes can one make progress.

Which is why Blair has stepped into the breech. It will take new thinking for Europe to recover from its present mess. New realities have established themselves in the world that surrounds Europe, but the politicos in both Brussels and Strasbourg seem oblivious to them.

One more thing. Our media and people like me talk about Europe too much. We really shouldn't, we should let you fall apart without suggesting any remedies. None. Let the chips fall where they may and I know where they will.

Why not make that one last thing.

Go away. Come back when you have learned the difference between pertinence and polemic. If ever ...

Synthese:

The consitutional vote condemned the political class in general. If you wish to focus on Chirac, then that is your business.

The Economist set the focus on Chirac. They called for him to resign after the no vote in France. In my letter to the editor, I pointed out that the referendum was not on Chirac's presidency.

As for the political establishment as a whole, my stance is simply this: people get the politicians that they vote for. The appropriate place for a protest against elected politicians is the election where they can vote in new ones, or, if they're not happy with any of the alternatives, run for election themselves.

The appropriate place for a protest against elected politicians is the election where they can vote in new ones, or, if they're not happy with any of the alternatives, run for election themselves.

Theoretically, correct. But, we are way beyond theory. It is time to act.

It is only action that will get Europe out of its fix and with the current set of actors. Further palaver is futile.

It is time to give crucial attention to the budget process and take action that both France and Germany are loath to undertake.

France must be forced to face its agricultural welfare budgets and Germany as well. Then, that spending can be directed into more productive avenues - technology and skills improvement.

It is necessary to review labor practices that condemn European workers to entire generations of unemployment. It is also necessary to understand what must be done about China. (But, that is subject for another post.)

I must fully agree with the urgency that Blair underscored. To hell with Chirac and his dandy PM. They are historically irrelevant.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... niewski_dc

Polish president suggests pan-European poll on EU: Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski suggested on Saturday a pan-European referendum on the aims and goals of the European Union as a way out of the bloc's current crisis.

Not a bad idea, if they (the politicians) understand how to craft it. And, if the referendum were undertaken EVERYWHERE on the same day.

Federalists have been calling for a pan-European referendum since the European Convention was created. Alas, navel-gazing national politicians have prevented it from becoming a reality. But Kwasniewski's support for the idea will no doubt be a boost to the pro-European cause.

Federalists have been calling for a pan-European referendum

Why just the "Federalists"? Who are they?

Not just the federalists, but they have been among the keenest supporters of pan-European referendums on European matters. The "federalists" are for example the Union of European Federalists, the European Movement, and Young European Federalists, but generally anyone and everyone who agrees with the idea of a Federal Europe governed by the principle that European decisions are made at the European level, national decisions are made at the national level and local decisions are made at the local level.

"generally anyone and everyone who agrees with the idea of a Federal Europe governed by the principle that European decisions are made at the European level, national decisions are made at the national level and local decisions are made at the local level

And therefore the principle of subsidiarity ...

Yep.

And the idea that a European Constitution can be stopped by voters in a single country - which obviously was the terms of ratification - is in breach of that principle.

... the idea that a European Constitution can be stopped by voters in a single country - which obviously was the terms of ratification - is in breach of that principle.

In breach of a principle that exists only in your mind.

To create an EU political entity with specific powers, those powers must be transferred by the states to that entity. That requires a constitution accepted by the states transfering thier soverign powers.

So, no constitution, no subsidiarity.

It was the EU that stipulated that the constitution needed to be passed by all countries and since two voted it down, it is effectively dead. Let's get it right next time (KISS), or the same will happen.

lol@breach of principle, Boye. YOUR principles, not mine or a lot of people's, it would seem.

Synthese, I wouldn't know about The Economist. I'm not really into economics as I've said before so I rarely read that or the FT.

I suppose it's horses for courses. The Independent newspaper might be considered the most "balanced" by its very title, but for me it is leftist. Just like for me The Times is centrist, but for others it is right-wing.

Nothing would take me away from The Telegraph either way.

Marko:

lol@breach of principle, Boye. YOUR principles, not mine or a lot of people's, it would seem.

Ah, well, it's only one of the most important principles on which legislation in the EU is based. It was established by the Treaty of Maastricht which created the European Union. LOL indeed.

Synthese:

I don't know what you're shooting at, claiming the nonexistance of the principle of subsidiarity. But it fits well with the favourite claim of yours, namely that Norway lies on another planet. Of course, the former is as untrue as the latter.

What you fail to understand is that the EU already has a de facto constitution: The Treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice + the European Single Act. And in that de facto constitution lies the principle of subsidiarity. Not as an overriding principle without exception, but it's there nonetheless. Look it up yourself.

I don't know what you're shooting at, claiming the nonexistance of the principle of subsidiarity.

The principle of subsidiarity exists, no doubt. But, for it to take the force of law or rule, it must be detailed in a constitution - which defines the purview of national and EU prerogatives. (Yes, I know the constitution tried to address the matter. But, subsidiarity does NOT exist until the constitution is passed, which was not the case.)

The Treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice + the European Single Act And in that de facto constitution lies the principle of subsidiarity.

These were treaties between governments, and I assail their legality. A treaty is as good as the paper it is written on, that is, for as long as nations which to submit mutually to its conditions.

Nonetheless, when nations transfer sovereign powers to a superstate, then the approbation of the people is necessary - which was never the case. The bureaucrat-politicos simply went ahead and signed a "treaty" - and the citizenry-sheep heard about it on the evening news.

No preface, no explanation, as little debate as possible (since 'we don't want to confuse the poor dears'). And, because the process worked, the political class continued in the same fashion to pass treaties ... until someone had the silliness to ask for approval by referendum.

Lo and behold, when asked, the will of the people was, "Go take a long walk off a short pier, you presumptuous jerks!"

And, politicians are amazed at the response? I ask you, "What planet do you live on?" The Planet Norway orbiting the EU, or the Planet Politico orbiting the universe of democratic process?

Regardless of which, time to get back in touch. "Earth to Boye, Earth to Boye ... Come in, Boye!" ;^)

More over, Boye, you keep insisting that the passage of the constitution was simply the setting in concrete all the preceding treaties.

The consequence: Even your precious treaties, in certain parts, are probably no longer tenable since they needed to be sanctified by a constitution. Just hope no one takes the matter to the Hague ... or, we'll have a deeper "institutional crisis" than you have ever seen or will ever see in your life.

Also, go look up the meaning of "Will of the people". You seem to think that simply because a political process has been undertaken, that it is automatically acceptable jurisprudence. It aint - it depends upon the nature of the contract (the treaty being nothing more than a contract of understanding between signatory parties.)

I maintain that, in matters of separation of powers between the EU and the nations, then referendums are absolutely indispensable - since soveriegnty of the nation is a basic human right of all its citizens. Getting a treaty passed in national legislatures was a ruse of the ruling political class in Brussels (meaning the Commission.)

Shame on them.

Synthese:

These were treaties between governments, and I assail their legality. A treaty is as good as the paper it is written on, that is, for as long as nations which to submit mutually to its conditions.

More than 50 years of experience shows that the member states do submit mutually to the conditions of the treaties, and that is what has made the treaty framework a de facto constitution.

I don't see how the legality of the treaties can be questioned. They were ratified in accordance with the constitution of the respective member states.

Nonetheless, when nations transfer sovereign powers to a superstate, then the approbation of the people is necessary - which was never the case. The bureaucrat-politicos simply went ahead and signed a "treaty" - and the citizenry-sheep heard about it on the evening news.

1) The EU is not a superstate; it is a Union of states.
2) The Constitution would have made EU decision-making more transparent; voters didn't want that.
3) Former treaties have been put to referendum as well: e.g. in France, Maastricht narrowly passed in a 1992 cliffhanger referendum

Even your precious treaties

My precious treaties?? It is you who wanted the existing treaties! I wanted them replaced!

in certain parts, are probably no longer tenable since they needed to be sanctified by a constitution

No, that's absolutely incorrect. The Treaties are the foundation of the EU and the terms of membership until all member states unanimously agree to change them or replace them.

Just hope no one takes the matter to the Hague

What's the Hague got to do with it? The relevant court is in Luxembourg.

Also, go look up the meaning of "Will of the people". You seem to think that simply because a political process has been undertaken, that it is automatically acceptable jurisprudence.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion, but I've never said anything like that.

since soveriegnty of the nation is a basic human right of all its citizens.

Nonsense. Human rights apply on an individual level. The sovereignty or even existance of any political entity within defined borders is not a human right. Nations entering into treaties is not a violation of the human rights.

In this day and age of globalisation, sovereignty is an abstract concept. Whether it's a decision made in Brussels, a WTO ruling, the Kyoto protocol, or merely a tax cut in Britain, a new product launched by Sony in Japan or a strike in Venezuela, they have implications around the globe. No nation enjoys complete sovereignty, no nation can shield itself from the implications of actions and decisions made elsewhere.

The world today is one of mutual interdependence. And I think we're all better off for it.

They were ratified in accordance with the constitution of the respective member states.

Yes, well, the legality of that is debatable. Legislatures, I repeat, have no power to transfer sovereign rights. Care to argue that in front a tribunal in the Hague?

This applies to the monetary system, foreign policy and taxation, in principle, but there are other areas where it may apply. Citizens must vote for the transfer of power to any entity at a higher level that will be presided over by an elected official.

But, enough of this constitution business. It is dead. Long live the New Constitution. And, until it is ratified, then its "business as usual".

What is more important now is understanding what the future of the EU shall be. Any future constitution can take that into account. I would like to see the institution of referenda in all countries for matters of significant importance.

It is the only way that people will have the opportunity to advise themselves of the consequences of their vote. Unless, of course, you have a better idea ...

And, when people are consulted, they have no one to blame for the consequences but themselves - which is the prime rule of any democracy.

Synthese:

Legislatures, I repeat, have no power to transfer sovereign rights. Care to argue that in front a tribunal in the Hague?

If legislatures don't have the power to transfer sovereign rights, then who has that power?

The competence of a legislature is described in a country's constitution or similar document where no constitution exists (e.g. Britain). In most countries, treaties have to be ratified by the legislature, and once they've been ratified, they have the same status as the constitution and count as the supreme law of the land.

Citizens must vote for the transfer of power to any entity at a higher level that will be presided over by an elected official.

No, not in a system of representative democracy. Some constitutions (e.g. the Danish or Swiss ones) require a referendum whenever sovereignty is given up, while others only require ratification by the legislature (e.g. the US constitution, or the German constitution). And yet in other countries, a referendum may be called but is not legally binding (e.g. the Dutch and Norwegian constitutions; or the British system).

In any case, it is the national constitution or similar documents that determine what is and what is not legal transfer of sovereignty. The relevant court for testing whether sovereignty has been legally given up is the national supreme court, not the Hague. The Hague's International Court of Justice only deals with disputes between states, not within states.

If legislatures don't have the power to transfer sovereign rights, then who has that power?

Citizens.

Sovereignty is the authority of the state to govern itself at suffrage of the citizenry. What is a "representative" but some one who "represents" another in an instance of government (e.g., parliament). Has that person the prerogative to represent IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES their constituency? My take on the matter: To make and implement new laws that regulate internal matters, Yes; to transfer powers of the state to another entity, I say, No.

Only citizens can transfer sovereign powers: The power to declare war, the establishment of a monetary system, the recognition of selected foreigners to work in their country, the desire to fuse with another state, etc., etc., etc.

In most countries, treaties have to be ratified by the legislature, and once they've been ratified, they have the same status as the constitution and count as the supreme law of the land.

Bush felt that he did not need to heed the word of the UN, even though the US was "bound" by treaty to a UN Charter. The signing of the charter did not transfer to the UN the right of the US to act in a manner to defend itself. (And, please, let's not start discussing Iraq. I am simply giving an example of sovereign powers.)

Treaties are circumstantial, like an agreement. They are made and broken with some frequency, depending upon the circumstance.

Another example: the Budget Deficit Rule, which has been broken by France, Germany and Italy the past three years running. Anyone get bent out of shape? No. The Commission fudged the matter.

Put it in an EU constitution, and it will become Law. The nerds in Brussels wont dare touch it, since they know that sanctions will be exacted.

The sovereignty or even existance of any political entity within defined borders is not a human right.

It is the right of all present within a geography to constitute a government. It is therefore very human.

Go the moon. Establish a colony. Declare a nation. It is the collective right of individuals and, therefore, a human right to do so.

Today, "human rights" are more expressed in terms of civil or social liberties. But, the establishment of a soverign nation is, indeed, a human right. It is inalienable.

Code: Select all

Nations entering into treaties is not a violation of the human rights.

Depends. If those treaties surrender soveriegn rights without the agreement of the people, then, yes, they are violations.

ynthese:

Me: If legislatures don't have the power to transfer sovereign rights, then who has that power?

You: Citizens.

Well, yeah, and in a representative democracy citizens elect their representatives!

Your ideal is direct democracy, that much I've gathered. But as far as legality is concerned, the representative democracy which is the order of the day is not illegal just because you want it to be. You can argue that a referendum on every itsy bitsy little thing in society would be more democratic than leaving the matters to elected representatives, but that does not make representative democracy illegal.

Only citizens can transfer sovereign powers: The power to declare war, the establishment of a monetary system, the recognition of selected foreigners to work in their country, the desire to fuse with another state, etc., etc., etc.

Err.. so you would leave matters of war and peace to a referendum? A referendum on declaration of war and then a referendum on a treaty of cease fire and finally a referendum on a peace treaty?

As for giving up sovereign powers to the EU, most member states have had referenda on EU membership.

Bush felt that he did not need to heed the word of the UN, even though the US was "bound" by treaty to a UN Charter. The signing of the charter did not transfer to the UN the right of the US to act in a manner to defend itself.

The UN Charter does not take away member states' rights to defend themselves. The argument was whether or not the right to defend oneself included pre-emptive strike and whether or not Iraq posed a threat to the USA.

Treaties are circumstantial, like an agreement. They are made and broken with some frequency, depending upon the circumstance.

Of course, treaties are frequently broken, especially when there are no or only weak mechanisms of enforcement. Conventions on human rights are more easily violated by member states than a military alliance. Violating a military alliance can have severe consequences for a nation's security, while imprisonment of terrorist suspects without trial is easier to get away with.

As far as the EU is concerned, the mechanism of enforcement lies partly in the EU's €100 bilion budget, partly in the European Court of Justice's power to impose legal and economic sanctions. Because the EU member states are so closely integrated, they benefit from free trade with the other members and therefore have a strong incentive to comply with the common rules. And for that reason, the European Court of Justice was able to force through liberalisation of French telecoms in the 1980s, to overturn the German Reinheitsgebot as a mandatory requirement for beer in Germany, to grant voting rights to the people of the British colony of Gibraltar, to strike down a Norwegian law attempting to monopolise the market for slot machines in Norway etc.

The rulings by the European Court of Justice are enforced, and therefore cannot be compared with decision made by UN bodies which has a mere advisory role in comparison unless the big powers put military force behind the demands.

Another example: the Budget Deficit Rule, which has been broken by France, Germany and Italy the past three years running. Anyone get bent out of shape? No. The Commission fudged the matter.

It was the Council of Ministers that, by a qualified majority, amid strong protests from the Netherlands, decided to suspend the Growth and Stability Pact. The Commission launched legal action and last July the European Court of Justice delivered a landmark ruling saying that while the Council of Ministers has room for maneuvre when it applies the Stability and Growth Pact, it cannot cannot depart from the rules laid down by the treaty.

Ultimately, though, all laws can be changed by lawmakers. But what the ECJ ruling said was that such changes have to follow the appropriate and prescribed procedure.

Put it in an EU constitution, and it will become Law.

The Treaties are the EU constitution. And like any other constitution, the Treaties can be amended according to specified procedures.

It is the right of all present within a geography to constitute a government.

So, if I and my neighbours, living within a geography obviously, want to, it is our right to constitute a government and claim full sovereignty over that land?

But, the establishment of a soverign nation is, indeed, a human right. It is inalienable.

Show me which human rights article states that everyone has the right to establish a sovereign nation.

Depends. If those treaties surrender soveriegn rights without the agreement of the people, then, yes, they are violations.

Basically, your argument seems to be that any law that is made without the explicit consent of the people in a referendum, is a violation of the human rights. I don't think that would hold up in court.

Well, yeah, and in a representative democracy citizens elect their representatives!

Oh, bollocks! Will you never understand?

They don't elect representatives to transfer the "crown jewels"!

Except, maybe, in Norway.

It was the Council of Ministers that, by a qualified majority, amid strong protests from the Netherlands, decided to suspend the Growth and Stability Pact. The Commission launched legal action and last July the European Court of Justice delivered a landmark ruling saying that while the Council of Ministers has room for maneuvre when it applies the Stability and Growth Pact, it cannot cannot depart from the rules laid down by the treaty.

Right, like I said, the Commission fudged it. THEY HAVE DEPARTED FROM THE RULES! Anyone pay the fines? No. Anyone go to jail? No.

Landmark ruling, me arse. Why? Because the TREATIES ARE UNENFORCABLE!

A treaty is as good as the paper it is written on, since it requires good faith of both parties. Good faith in Brussels has a half-life of two days, because they are all in a budgeting mess due to reduced VAT revenues.

Do your REALLY think anyone in Brussels is pulling the wool over our eyes? Think again.

Synthese:

I for one don't give a fuck about the nationality of decision-makers. I want decisions to be made at the relevant level, and for a lot of policy areas that relevant level is not that of the nation state. National sovereignty is an outdated concept no longer relevant in this age of globalisation, and especially not in a Europe where physical borders no longer exist and where national sovereignty has been replaced by common rules in lot of policy areas, including market regulation, trade, agriculture, environmental regulation, fisheries, etc.

They don't elect representatives to transfer the "crown jewels"!

People elect their representatives to make decisions on behalf of them, both domestically and internationally. The latter includes entering into treaties and giving up sovereignty. That goes for every country. The WTO, the Kyoto protocol, the EU, NAFTA, NATO all involve each country giving up part of its sovereignty.

Except, maybe, in Norway.

Article VI, clause 2 of the US Constitution states that "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...". Similar clauses exist elsewhere. It's not just Norway that has laws authorising the people's representatives to enter into treaties and to abide by them. And frankly, I don't think that's a bad thing.

Synthese:

the Commission fudged it

How did the Commission fudge it? The Commission took the case to court and won. The European Court of Justice found that the Council of Ministers had violated their own rules.

Lawmakers have the power to create laws, to amend laws and to abolish laws. The European Court of Justice annuled the decision on a procedural error, that is, the Council of Ministers had side-stepped the procedure required for amendment. But at the end of the day, those who enter into a treaty can also amend the treaty.

Do your REALLY think anyone in Brussels is pulling the wool over our eyes? Think again.

I don't share your destructive view on politics, but if you really think all politicians are just out to screw you, then you should either try to do something about it (e.g. by running for election yourself) or you should accept that the politicians who are in office are there because they were elected by the people whom could not find better people to represent them.

Is this what they call a filibuster?

Hehe - but we're not reading from the telephone book just yet.

National sovereignty is an outdated concept no longer relevant in this age of globalisation

Quite the contrary. This referendum WAS about national sovereignty in matters that most people care about, their lives. (You put it off to populism, which is simply an excuse, but not a reason.)

The Brussels crowd thought they were "streamlining" decision-making. Well, dear friend, the decision-making has been shitty and the people said, "Enough is enough. Take your decisions and shove 'em."

Now the song-book is, "What do we want the EU to be.". More than half a century into its exisitence and FINALLY they are asking the right question.

One answer is this: We don't want it to be what it was. A bureaucratic monster dislocated from our concerns and our lives. There is only one reason for a state, and it is the well-being of its citizenry. (Which is manifestly NOT the present condition throughout the EU.)

But, that doesn't answer the question of what is it that we want, which Blair has asked. Take heed.

Is this what they call a filibuster?

No, it called debate.

Try it some time, you might like it.