EP elections 2019

Do you plan to vote on the EP elections?


  • Total voters
    47
  • Poll closed .
Status
Closed
Aug 2009
5,347
Londinium
You don't need to listen to what I say. Take rather primary sources as starting point:




Article 42

(ex Article 17 TEU)



1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as "the European Defence Agency") shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

4. Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

5. The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.

6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 46. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 43.

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. ...


* * *


The European Defence Agency was established under a Joint Action of the Council of Ministers on 12 July, 2004, "to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future”.

To implement the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (Art.42 TEU), this Joint Action was first replaced by a Council Decision on 12 July 2011 which was revised by Council decision (CFSP) 2015/1835 of 12 October 2015 on the statute, seat and operational rules of the EDA. ...
source: Mission

* * *

The Council decision 2915/1835 is here, in full: https://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/defa...uncil-decision-2015-1835-dated-13-10-2015.pdf



Please pick the Constitution/legal text concerning the defense of any State You like and consider as "state" and compare yourself.
We’ve discussed the EU military beforehand, an entire thread about it. It has also been discussed in this thread previously as well as most others regarding the EU or NATO etc.

Let’s say, for augments sake, I accept that the EU has nothing even remotely approaching a military in any way and that they have no desires for a military – they will never possess a military in the future either. Would this, for you, mean that the EU is no longer a state? Would this single driver be the threshold that the EU must cross to be deemed a state? I’m asking because I’ve responded to all those attributes you listed and this is the only one you have decided to follow-up.

I want to be 100% sure what you think does/does not define a state before responding.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
14,270
Europix
Would this, for you, mean that the EU is no longer a state?
(emphasis mine)
You didn't convinced me yet, so no, I don't mean the EU is no longer a state, as I never believed EU is a state.

Let’s say, for augments sake, I accept that the EU has nothing even remotely approaching a military in any way and that they have no desires for a military – they will never possess a military in the future either.
You don't have to accept any of all those, as it isn't about that.

You said that EU is a state, I said it lacks a couple of attributes defining the modern state.

Amongst them, the military aspects.

I gave You the legal texts, You have the liberty to compare to any legal texts defining the military aspects of any state. Preferably, comparing with what You (and the general consensus) consider undoubtedly a state.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,452
Portugal
@Tulius could you respond to my post a few pages back regarding the link you provided and how I understood the EU to qualify as a sovereign state? (if you're still in this thread?)
Not sure if I am in the theme. Honestly I find it boring, a waste of my time and often in some details annoying and even, to use your wording, frustrating (and I will explain why). Furthermore the posts have a quick sequence that aren’t compatible with my leisure time, so I am not reading them all which diminishes my capacity to intervene. Furthermore since that post of yours I still didn’t post in this thread.

So, I presume that you are mentioning the Wednesday posts, or the #632 or the #633 (page 64).

I gave personal opinions in support of the previous links, many, many pages ago. Those opinions were not the foundation of my argument. Furthermore, you have not dismissed any them
You gave your opinions and links. I already answered to you several times that none of your links supports your opinions. I also understood that you have the opinion that I didn’t dismissed any of your opinions. I agree. Maybe because opinions can’t be dismissed. I even stated let us agree to disagree. Anyway I dismissed some of the statements that you made and that you presented as facts (the one about CPLP was quite embarrassing!!!).

Notwithstanding my (single) mistake of saying country rather than state, a shocking crime, you have failed to address anything that has not already been discussed before.
You made an honest mistake. It is not “a shocking crime” (that terminology seems too much theatrical!), but that seems to reveal that you didn’t read your own links.

Although you have helped clarifying my argument with your source.
Thanks. At least you are gaining something with our change of posts. By the way I am not sure about what source you are refereeing (if you are referring to the following one, the paternity of the source will be discussed).

Thanks for your link,
Probably you mean “thanks” for remembering you the link, since you were the one that provided it in the first place. Anyway, you are welcome.

I would like to revise my previous argument, the EU is not a state, it’s a sovereign state (according to your link; Explore What Defines a State, Sovereign State, Country, and Nation):
Now this “according to your link” is one thing that is really, really frustrating and annoying.

In a fair and intellectually honest conversation, or even in a court, it is usual and common practice that if “A” brings a item “X” for discussion. Item “X” in that discussion and while that discussion is ongoing is, in short, an “A’s” item, an “A’s” evidence, an “A’s” source. Even if “B” uses item “X”, it was not “B” that brought it, it is not “B’s” item, it is still an “A’s” item, an “A’s” evidence, an “A’s” source.

You brought that link to this thread, to this discussion and if you have any kind of doubts please go to post #411:

So even if I used your source, please don’t give me the paternity to bring that source to the discussion. Thank you.

I would like to add that although I don’t have the paternity to bring the link to this thread, although the link isn’t exactly academic, although I tend to avoid bringing links to sites that I just, especially if they aren’t academic, although I didn’t knew the author Matt Rosenberg, thoughtco.com seems a quite reasonable educational site and the linked article is quite balanced and reasonable for basic concepts, so I didn’t had problems to use your source as a reference in this thread.

This all think made me realise that or you forgot that the source is yours and you just read it now or that this conversations is not being fair.

A sovereign state is a state with its own institutions and populations which has a permanent population, territory, and government. It must also have the right and capacity to make treaties and other agreements with other states…. Space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries

People who live there on an ongoing basis.

Regulations governing foreign and domestic trade

The ability to issue legal tender that is recognized across boundaries

An internationally recognized government which provides public services and police power and has the right to make treaties, wage war, and take other actions on behalf of its people

Sovereignty, meaning that no other state should have power over the country's territory.
Ok, I have the idea that here you are mostly paraphrasing the text from your link.

As far as I can seem the EU doesn’t have the ability to wage war; everything else listed out is directly applicable to the EU.
Yes, I agree with you that the EU doesn’t have the ability to wage war. I, and some of the sources that I provided*, don’t agree with you that “everything else listed out is directly applicable to the EU”. And here I am mentioning specifically and almost entirely the last two paragraphs.

Beginning with the last one “Sovereignty, meaning that no other state should have power over the country's territory”, this doesn’t apply since, as can be seen by the links already provided (see the treaty), there are areas that the member stated delegate part their sovereignty to the EU, and there are others that are shared. Members states are sovereign states (Germany, UK…). So again here your comment doesn’t support your idea.

The international recognized “government” is recognized internationally not as a government, but as an international organization. The EU doesn’t provide public services and police power, the member states do, and as you well said doesn’t have the capacity to wage war.

About the capacity to wage war it is odd to the point of awkward that you refer to EU as a sovereign state and than you recognize that it doesn’t have one of the utmost powers of sovereignty, the capacity to engage in war.

I’ve already demonstrated, clearly, that the EU makes treaties and agreements with other states under the guise of the EU, hopefully we don’t need to go over that again, if unsure then please go back into this thread and pick-out the posts where I have proven this.
Not sure why you needed to demonstrate that. It is a common knowledge. Doesn’t really need to be demonstrated. What you didn’t demonstrated, and that was needed to your reasoning is that the EU signed the treaties as a state, that is mentioned in the treaties as a state.

Having to return back to old posts myself, repeating the same thing, is getting very tiresome. So, unless you’d like to debate if the EU has a permanent population, territory and government (self-evident I feel) then do you accept that by your own source, the EU is a sovereign state?
Already questioned by you already answered by me. If you don’t think my answer sufficiently explicit see the link that I provided to a short and easy to read text provided at the site of the Carleton University: Introduction: The EU - A Political System, but not a State - EU Learning

If you would really care to make an upgrade in our conversation, to transform your opinion in a bit more than “your opinion”, you could post here academic links that defend and provide the explanation that the EU is a state. The net is huge, the concepts in Political Science are quite plastic, and permeable to politics, so I am sure you will find one.

Lastly, just because the EU doesn’t see itself as a state doesn’t mean it is not a state; if Man Utd declared themselves not a football team but carried on playing football in the EPL etc, would you and the world stop telling people they are a football tea?. Come now, think for yourself rather than what the EU does/does not say.
The fact that the EU doesn’t see itself, yet, as a state is relevant. It is indirectly a political statement of the lack of features that are still necessary in the construction of the project and that were already mentioned here. The intent of further integration is clearly explicit in the treaties.

And political statements, from the political bodies and entities that produce the statements are relevant in international politics and have weight and consequences. See the case of the “Islamic State”. That was a political entity that since quite early was designated as a state. Even if the designation had many detractors. Pardon me to give a political and not a “what if” football analogy.

Edit: Some typos were corrected.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,452
Portugal
[cont.]

EU law must be enforced by member states. Furthermore, as I’ve said countless times, EU law must be put on member states statues but this is not reciprocal. The EU could pass a law which supersedes member law resulting in sovereign power resting with the EU and not member states. Monopoly of power isn’t clear, but I would argue the EU clearly exercises force within its territory i.e. Portugal.
It is clear. Some areas are even crystal clear. It seems that only your lack of knowledge and your bias against the EU don’t see it clear: “The European Union can only act in those areas where its member countries have authorised it to do so, via the EU treaties. The treaties specify who can pass laws in what areas: the EU, national governments or both.”

Source: “Areas of EU action”, please red it, and the different areas, or at read the treaties.

The areas are clear in the treaties. We can agree or disagree with that, but that is a matter of fact. A legal one. Often doubts and political discussions result in the implementation and in the developments, but that is a natural in politics, especially in democracies.

But it does recognize the EU. It does see the EU as an authority which can be negotiated with and enter into contracts with.
Yes. Same for many international organizations, ONGs, UN, UN agencies. In my younger years, I was a member of an international students organization recognized internationally by the UN and by many states, and yet it… surprise!… it wasn’t a state.

I don’t care. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I’m calling it a duck. If the EU called it’s Sarah, would you call it Sarah?! LOL
Biological analogy apart, you forgot to say that it sings like a canary, I recall a certain story that I said to other member of this forum some time ago. A professor of mine said something like: “when someone in an intellectual or serious conversation uses “LOL” or “duh”, we know that the conversation reached the bottom and that is not intellectually relevant anymore.” My teen students also use those terms often, albeit not in the classes. I guess my old mentor was right.

I.E one aspect of the apparatus of a state (sovereignty) is now within the EU’s remit. Yes?
I think that it is clear and obvious with the reading of the mentioned part. Yes.

In international treaties as a part of the whole construction of the international law, the sovereign states prescind in some way of parts of their sovereignty in favour or major organizations. More in some treaties than other. This is one of the relevant debates of this century. Globalization vs sovereignty. There are studies about it. I am surprised that you were unaware!

Some time ago in a discussion with a colleague of mine, around a table that wasn’t full of documents but full of food, we compared the states in the international society with the individuals in the society. And we compared total sovereignty with the individual liberty to do whatever the individual wanted.

Since individuals leave in society the liberty is always finite. It has boundaries and limits. It has much more limits as the individual is inserted in the society. In other words his individual liberty diminishes in the reverse ratio of his social integration.

For the states we can make the analogy that their sovereignty is also always finite. Its limits are in their relations with the other states, and with the international community, including here non state agents. In other words its state sovereignty diminishes in the reverse ratio of his international integration.

It was a good meal!

Well that’s very convenient for the EU. Is this not classic double speak
The words integration and construction are in the EU vocabulary, so not sure why do you state that is convenient. But after all these days and all these posts, I am not also that interested.

If you want to agree to disagree it is fine. We can move on. If you don’t want to agree to disagree, that is also fine by me, I will probably move on alone.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,090
Netherlands
[cont.]
The areas are clear in the treaties. We can agree or disagree with that, but that is a matter of fact. A legal one. Often doubts and political discussions result in the implementation and in the developments, but that is a natural in politics, especially in democracies.
I cut out the rest, for that my apologies. What you are saying is basically the problem in a nutshell. People elect a parliament, which then signs over its powers to the EU, preferably after an election in which EU wasn't an issue. Unfortunately this isn't an EU problem but a democratic one (although the EU is a huge problem).
 
Oct 2013
14,270
Europix
I cut out the rest, for that my apologies. What you are saying is basically the problem in a nutshell. People elect a parliament, which then signs over its powers to the EU, preferably after an election in which EU wasn't an issue. Unfortunately this isn't an EU problem but a democratic one (although the EU is a huge problem).
I believe You are right: EU remains an union of states (and is a very democratic union of states, see the extensive area were consensus is required), but not an union of people (and from that POV there are areas were is far from being democratic).

I's a bit squaring the circle: making it a democratic union of people instead a democratic union of states will be automatically a huge step towards making EU a state and making disappearing the member States.

And IMHO, a large part of Europeans aren't ready for that, if not totally against it.
 
Last edited:

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
5,309
Wirral
Might as well stick it here as it seems to have become the current catch-all EU thread. I’ve found something on the BBC site re the £39bn. It’s made up of:
Our share of 2019/2020 EU budget (fair enough as we’re still in it) - £16bn
Our share of future programme commitments made while we were in the EU - £19bn
Contribution to EU staff pensions- £9bn
Refund from European Investment Bank etc bring it down to the £39bn.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,452
Portugal
I cut out the rest, for that my apologies. What you are saying is basically the problem in a nutshell. People elect a parliament, which then signs over its powers to the EU, preferably after an election in which EU wasn't an issue. Unfortunately this isn't an EU problem but a democratic one (although the EU is a huge problem).
No worries, it was a huge post. Glad that someone read it even with all those typos :D

I think that the democratic problem that you are pointing is a huge one. And if further integration is made the definition of how the democracy in the EU will be is quite relevant and should be further discussed and not only in bureaucratic or technocratic circles in Brussels or Strasbourg. Because as new powers are delegated by the member states to the organization the previous structures reveal inadequate and not as democratic as they should be.

In other words, reforms are necessary and urgent. Even if I don't think that they will happen soon. Not with this Brexit thing ongoing.

Then we have the problem that some of these needed reforms will be positive for the EU (meaning here for the majority of the states and of population of the EU), but not necessarily positive for all the countries in the short term.

I believe You are right: EU remains an union of states (and is a very democratic union of states, see the extensive area were consensus is required), but not an union of people (and from that POV there are areas were is far from being democratic).

I's a bit squaring the circle: making it a democratic union of people instead a democratic union of states will be automatically a huge step towards making EU a state and making disappearing the member States.

And IMHO, a large part of Europeans aren't ready for that, if not totally against it.
Precisely.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,090
Netherlands
I believe You are right: EU remains an union of states (and is a very democratic union of states, see the extensive area were consensus is required), but not an union of people (and from that POV there are areas were is far from being democratic).

I's a bit squaring the circle: making it a democratic union of people instead a democratic union of states will be automatically a huge step towards making EU a state and making disappearing the member States.
The whole EU problem is that, other then some nice jobs in some EU organization, there isn't really anything in common. I move 100 kms south and people talk French, I move 100kms east and I cant drive a truck in the weekend, 100 kms west and I am forced to watch cricket. So there isn't really much we have in common, unlike say a United States or closer to home 1870 Germany. The US formed against a common enemy and then expanded, making everyone Americans, but even there they couldn't settle differences without a big war. Germany in the end only unified because of war (and even then needed a big army to remain a country).
And IMHO, a large part of Europeans aren't ready for that, if not totally against it.
Which is why no politician puts up a referendum on the subject or respect the result. Even with the Brits I am still skeptical.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions