European Union Picks Belgian Prime minister, to be EU President.

[52ndStreet]

The European Union recently picked Belgian Prime minister Herman Van Rompuy, to be the European Union President. I don't know this person, I think they should have chosen some one like Tony Blair as their first President. Given the reputation of Belgium in world ,
and historical affairs, I don't think it was the best choice.

These unknown choices , could backfire on the EU.

 

[Colin]

The European Union recently picked Belgian Prime minister Herman Van Rompuy, to be the European Union President. I don't know this person, I think they should have chosen some one like Tony Blair as their first President. Given the reputation of Belgium in world ,
and historical affairs, I don't think it was the best choice.

These unknown choices , could backfire on the EU.

So says the expert on European affairs! Such an expert that he would have chosen a man who is a proven liar and self-serving con-man as president! Your expertise shines through like a beacon in a pile of shit.

 

[Polk]

Reasonable choice. EPP is the largest faction in the parliament, so it's reasonable the leader would come from them. Small country makes more sense than a large one, as someone with big name recognition is a large country isn't going to want to step down to take such a minor post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reasonable choice. EPP is the largest faction in the parliament, so it's reasonable the leader would come from them. Small country makes more sense than a large one, as someone with big name recognition is a large country isn't going to want to step down to take such a minor post.

A careful study of the EU and its history is pertainent to the US.

One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.
a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!
b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!
c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.


When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding
the importance of constitutional sovereignty.
a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.
b. There is the thinking that human rights law transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?
c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.

 

[Polk]

One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.
a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!
b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!
c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.

Several things wrong with that argument.
1. Yes, the regulations passed at the EU level do override national statutes. However, it only does so in areas which are part of the treaty, which was ratified by the individual member states.
2. The EU does not have a treaty because it's not a country. It does however have binding treaties which are the functional equivalent of a constitution.
3. The reason the EU does not have a common foreign policy has been the inability of individual member states to agree on how the policy should be constructed.
4. There is a EU police force (Europol).
5. The lack of a pan-European military comes from a similar tension to the foreign policy. So far, states have only been able to agree on the concept of common military assets under the guise of European Union Military Staff, which has deployed forces to Macedonia (EUFOR Concordia) and Bosnia (EUFOR Althea). There are similar arrangements that exist between the members of the Western European Union.

When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding
the importance of constitutional sovereignty.
a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.
b. There is the thinking that human rights law transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?
c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.

Many errors here too.
1. Kyoto would not have resulted in any loss of power. The treaty simply set forward an agreement to meet specific goals. The treaty contained no provisions to punish nations which failed to do so (and even if it had, it's pretty different to argue those provisions would have been enforceable). Implementation of procedures to meet the Kyoto goals was left to the individual member states.
2. There has long been thinking that there is fundamental law that transcends the laws of individual nations. In the past, this was handled on an ad hoc basis (there wasn't a legal basis for the Nuremberg Trials, for example). Since then, there have been active attempts to codify what's considered basic human rights law, in the form of international agreements such as the Fourth Geneva Convention and following Protocols, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention Against Torture.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.
a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!
b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!
c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.

Several things wrong with that argument.
1. Yes, the regulations passed at the EU level do override national statutes. However, it only does so in areas which are part of the treaty, which was ratified by the individual member states.
2. The EU does not have a treaty because it's not a country. It does however have binding treaties which are the functional equivalent of a constitution.
3. The reason the EU does not have a common foreign policy has been the inability of individual member states to agree on how the policy should be constructed.
4. There is a EU police force (Europol).
5. The lack of a pan-European military comes from a similar tension to the foreign policy. So far, states have only been able to agree on the concept of common military assets under the guise of European Union Military Staff, which has deployed forces to Macedonia (EUFOR Concordia) and Bosnia (EUFOR Althea). There are similar arrangements that exist between the members of the Western European Union.

When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding
the importance of constitutional sovereignty.
a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.
b. There is the thinking that human rights law transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?
c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.

Many errors here too.
1. Kyoto would not have resulted in any loss of power. The treaty simply set forward an agreement to meet specific goals. The treaty contained no provisions to punish nations which failed to do so (and even if it had, it's pretty different to argue those provisions would have been enforceable). Implementation of procedures to meet the Kyoto goals was left to the individual member states.
2. There has long been thinking that there is fundamental law that transcends the laws of individual nations. In the past, this was handled on an ad hoc basis (there wasn't a legal basis for the Nuremberg Trials, for example). Since then, there have been active attempts to codify what's considered basic human rights law, in the form of international agreements such as the Fourth Geneva Convention and following Protocols, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention Against Torture.

First, let's get something straight: contrary to "There has long been thinking that there is fundamental law that transcends the laws of individual nations." This miasma has been inflicted on you by liberal schooling. Fight it. You are bright enough to overcome.

This is liberal drivel and foolishness. You have been brainwashed to believe in a philosophy that would give away our country. The basis of your proposition is a disbelief in American Exceptionalism, the same view as our President.

A bit of history is in order:

1. Jean Bodin, French jurist (16th century), one of the first to address sovereignty, understood the King of France as an independent political authority, meaning that he did not owe allegiance to either the Holy Roman Emperor, or to the Pope. Government, he postulated, must be strong enough to protect people’s rights, yet restrained enough not to do more than that.

2. The term sovereignty was rarely used before the 17th century, the time that people first came to think of representative assemblies as legislatures, reflecting the modern emphasis on law as an act of governing, i.e. government by consent.

a. This was also the time when professional armies came into being, serving distinct governments, and a seriousness about defense.

b. And during this period, discussions began about international law, the relations of sovereign nations. In fact, the Declaration of Independence refers to such a law, in its first sentence: “…necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station…” thus assuming that nations, like individuals, have rights.

3. Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”

a. In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards. The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. In 90 years, we have unilaterally adopted just three of the standards.


Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.

 

[Polk]

The idea of American exceptionalism is complete and utter bullshit and unchecked, it'll eventually be the fall of the nation. To think that the United States has some special protection from the gods which makes it immune from the consequences of reckless decision-making is idiotic in the utmost.

 

[Polk]

Also, thanks for admitting that your previous arguments were rubbish.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The idea of American exceptionalism is complete and utter bullshit and unchecked, it'll eventually be the fall of the nation. To think that the United States has some special protection from the gods which makes it immune from the consequences of reckless decision-making is idiotic in the utmost.

Both your education and your comprehension are sorely lacking.

I'm doing my best, but it seems well-nigh impossible to undue the 'schooling' damage.

I've posited thoughts, and shown you a more erudite way of posting, and you've not only fallen back to grade school level, but indicated why we have the administration that we do.

On January 11, 1989, in his last televised speech from the Oval Office, President Ronald Reagan, said: “An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American….We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs [protection]…. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen, I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

How unfortunate that those who raised you didn't perform the functions that the great 40th President suggested should take place around the dinner table.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Also, thanks for admitting that your previous arguments were rubbish.

A mind-numbingly dumb post, akin to the ever-popular, is sophomoric "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[Polk]

The idea of American exceptionalism is complete and utter bullshit and unchecked, it'll eventually be the fall of the nation. To think that the United States has some special protection from the gods which makes it immune from the consequences of reckless decision-making is idiotic in the utmost.

Both your education and your comprehension are sorely lacking.

I'm doing my best, but it seems well-nigh impossible to undue the 'schooling' damage.

I've posited thoughts, and shown you a more erudite way of posting, and you've not only fallen back to grade school level, but indicated why we have the administration that we do.

On January 11, 1989, in his last televised speech from the Oval Office, President Ronald Reagan, said: “An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American….We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs [protection]…. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen, I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

How unfortunate that those who raised you didn't perform the functions that the great 40th President suggested should take place around the dinner table.

Except that Americans have never really done those things. The national attitude has never been to learn about history except a very surface "us good, them bad" view.