The Lisbon Treaty. For or Against

[quadraphonics]

Then, the USA did work out fine, didn't it ?

Sure, after 200 years of industrialization, a devastating Civil War, and repeated waves of mass immigration. There's no doubt that Federalism can work, but the point is that it's a very difficult, messy, violent affair. There's no doubt that Federalism can fail very badly. Nation-states are exceptionally strong, enduring entities (hence their predominance in the last few hundred years of world history), and you aren't going to contain (much less "dissolve") them without many generations of difficulties (and probably the use of force). The idea that people will, en masse, decide to quietly sign up for a post-national federation run by distant technocrats strikes me as very naive.

 

[vanesch]

Sure, after 200 years of industrialization, a devastating Civil War, and repeated waves of mass immigration.

Do you consider the 3 items as negative points ? I'd only see the Civil War as potentially negative (and that's even open to discussion). I think that industrialisation and mass immigration are not a priori negative points.

There's no doubt that Federalism can work, but the point is that it's a very difficult, messy, violent affair.

I don't see why it should be violent. In fact, it should always remain an option to leave.

There's no doubt that Federalism can fail very badly. Nation-states are exceptionally strong, enduring entities (hence their predominance in the last few hundred years of world history), and you aren't going to contain (much less "dissolve") them without many generations of difficulties (and probably the use of force). The idea that people will, en masse, decide to quietly sign up for a post-national federation run by distant technocrats strikes me as very naive.

It is probably true that it is naive, in that many people seem to be attached to their nation-state and are somewhat daunted to look beyond it. I for one am absolutely not attached to nation-states, in fact I find nation-states oppressing entities, with too much, well, nationalism attached to it, but I guess you are entirely right that it is naive to think that many people (not to say, a majority of people) think that way. I think that what I profoundly like in the European construction is the (idle ?) hope to get finally rid of nation-states, without replacing it with just a bigger "nation-state", but in fact with a face-less, half-automatic, anonymous entity to which one cannot attach too much nationalistic feelings. This is why I don't want exactly a USE, because that would be too much of a nation-state itself, and certainly not with an elected kind of president. Europe must be a single entity which looks, from the outside, a bit like a nation-state, but which ought to be almost totally transparent when seen from the inside, and which takes in an almost automatic way care of the relationships between people in between their nation-states, and which, most importantly, limits the power of nation-states over their citizens. A kind of escape route from one's nation-state - like the European Court. In fact, much of this is already in place in some or other way, and maybe it will take a few extra generations before one can progress more in that direction, if we are not caught again in a kind of nationalistic reflex.

 

[quadraphonics]

Do you consider the 3 items as negative points ? I'd only see the Civil War as potentially negative (and that's even open to discussion). I think that industrialisation and mass immigration are not a priori negative points.

I'm not trying to account for negative and positive aspects, I'm just trying to illustrate the magnitude of the upheaval involved in keeping a functional federal system running in the long term. The stuff about industrialization and immigration was meant to illustrate that in the case of the United States, you're starting with sparsely-populated, non-industrial regions, and then creating states whole cloth. This is a non-option in Europe, which is already industrialized, densely populated, and home to a large concentration of the most entrenched nation-states on the planet.

I don't see why it should be violent.

All states rely on a monopoly on the use of force to function, bigger states even more so. I don't see how you can expect to subsume 20-odd of history's most violently assertive nation-states into any kind of permanent federation without force. This doesn't mean invading states and toppling their governments, but rather the construction of European military, police and courts, exactly as is proposed in Lisbon. These are all indispensable instruments of state violence. As it is, the impetus towards unification has been not so much the threat of force by the EU, but the fact of outside force. But if the EU is to function as an integral, self-sustaining unit, and not simply a convenient expression of a European political environment marked by American hegemony, it's going to have to take over that role for itself. Otherwise, what you're talking about adds up to a European franchise of the USA.

In fact, it should always remain an option to leave.

Of course I have to agree with this, but it's unfortunately the case that a realistic option of leaving amounts to the same thing as a disfunctional union. In the end, there's simply too many cards on the table for a Union-of-convenience to make it anywhere.

 

[Art]

I'm not sure what possible positives there are to take from the American civil war? A war in which more US citizens died than in the combined total of all the other wars the USA have been involved in since it's inception It seems as if you are almost suggesting Europe too would benefit in some way from such a civil war?

The position in Europe is the Irish enjoy being Irish, the French enjoy being French, the British enjoy being British etc etc and very few people have any interest in devoiding themselves of their cultural and historical heritage and nationhood in favour of a nebulous, unseen, undemocratic, secretive superstate designed by a prominent member of the Bilderberg group, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who waged colonial actions whilst president of France and who makes no secret of what his aim regarding Europe is as quoted from an interview he gave to La Monde in June '07 "public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly", and so the Irish voted enough is enough. It is truly unfortunate that all the other citizens of member states have been denied a voice but perhaps now the Irish have spoken their national gov'ts will be left with no choice other than to give them a vote too.

If the Lisbon treaty was really about simply streamlining the EU decision making processes to account for the increased membership then what was the Nice treaty for? That was also supposed to be the definitive treaty which amended the institutions to allow for the accession of new members.

Just for information although there was a lot about the treaty I disliked the part of the referendum I personally objected to the most was a piece which said we were agreeing to give up our right to future referendums on constitutional matters emanating from Europe.

IMO that would be a very dangerous blank cheque to sign.

 

[vanesch]

I'm not sure what possible positives there are to take from the American civil war? A war in which more US citizens died than in the combined total of all the other wars the USA have been involved in since it's inception It seems as if you are almost suggesting Europe too would benefit in some way from such a civil war?

I didn't say that, but the US civil war did have some positive aspects, be it the definitive end of slavery.

The position in Europe is the Irish enjoy being Irish, the French enjoy being French, the British enjoy being British etc etc and very few people have any interest in devoiding themselves of their cultural and historical heritage and nationhood in favour of a nebulous, unseen, undemocratic, secretive superstate

That's then the difference between us, I'd sign immediately, but I reckon you are in the majority. Although I do like the "folklore" and cultural and culinary aspects of the nation states, I hate their nationalism, which has been source of more sorrow than anything else (maybe except religion) during most of its significant history. In as much one would be prepared to "die for queen and country", I don't think you'd be prepared to "die for the European Union", and exactly that is the good part about it. If "queen and country" cannot decide anymore to do this or that according to their national agenda, or at least have a hard time doing so, that's all the better. Of course, all those worshippers of "queen and country" won't like it, and visibly there are a lot of them. I took "queen and country", but I could have taken also "egalite, fraternite, liberte" or any other principle or symbol that is supposed to represent a nation-god.

If the Lisbon treaty was really about simply streamlining the EU decision making processes to account for the increased membership then what was the Nice treaty for? That was also supposed to be the definitive treaty which amended the institutions to allow for the accession of new members.

It isn't simply about that, it is indeed a new step on a larger integration, like having finally something useful to do for that European parliament. For having European institutions which get more of a life of themselves, independent of the life of the nation states. So that not all of it, or a big part, is playing out national agendas.

Just for information although there was a lot about the treaty I disliked the part of the referendum I personally objected to the most was a piece which said we were agreeing to give up our right to future referendums on constitutional matters emanating from Europe.

IMO that would be a very dangerous blank cheque to sign.

As I said, I don't think these votes should be organized nation-wise. Would you agree upon a single European referendum with a qualified majority ?

That said, what exactly are the points in the Lisbon treaty that are a no-go for you ?
Like I said, I too have a big objection: the president of the European Council would be elected - I don't like that. But most of the other points, I find them a good idea.

 

[Art]

I didn't say that, but the US civil war did have some positive aspects, be it the definitive end of slavery.

The point still remains federalism by no means guarantees the end of war between participating states.

That's then the difference between us, I'd sign immediately, but I reckon you are in the majority. Although I do like the "folklore" and cultural and culinary aspects of the nation states, I hate their nationalism, which has been source of more sorrow than anything else (maybe except religion) during most of its significant history. In as much one would be prepared to "die for queen and country", I don't think you'd be prepared to "die for the European Union", and exactly that is the good part about it. If "queen and country" cannot decide anymore to do this or that according to their national agenda, or at least have a hard time doing so, that's all the better. Of course, all those worshippers of "queen and country" won't like it, and visibly there are a lot of them. I took "queen and country", but I could have taken also "egalite, fraternite, liberte" or any other principle or symbol that is supposed to represent a nation-god.

Yes, that is something we fundamentally disagree on. I wonder where you are going to find this pool of intelligent, philanthropic, nationless, non-nationalistic people to draw your resources from.

IMO every employee of the EU in whatever capacity has the interests of their nation states first and the wider community a distant second.

It isn't simply about that, it is indeed a new step on a larger integration, like having finally something useful to do for that European parliament. For having European institutions which get more of a life of themselves, independent of the life of the nation states. So that not all of it, or a big part, is playing out national agendas.

Exactly, so they have lied to the general population of the EU about what the treaty represents. Not a good start in promoting a new political system.

As I said, I don't think these votes should be organized nation-wise. Would you agree upon a single European referendum with a qualified majority ?

No, I believe every country should have it's own referendum. The idea that as Germany has a bigger population than Ireland they should carry more weight is anathema to me. Taking that principle to it's natural conclusion wars should be won simply on the basis of who has the biggest population which would make for an interesting world

That said, what exactly are the points in the Lisbon treaty that are a no-go for you ?

Take your pick from the extension of QMV, the reduction in the areas of national vetoes, the reduction in Ireland's vote, the interference in social affairs and of course the fact it is a big step on the road to a US of E which I do not want.

Like I said, I too have a big objection: the president of the European Council would be elected - I don't like that. But most of the other points, I find them a good idea.

Elected? Barely. The post will be filled by an election of the council of ministers who themselves were not elected to their role. It will also remove the current requirement for endorsement by the EU parliament. Hardly a shining example of democracy at work. It gives the proposed EU president about the same amount of democratic legitimacy as the old USSR president. With Blair being touted as a strong candidate for this post I'd be careful what you wish for.

BTW the latest German and French threat that they won't allow Turkey to join the EU unless the Irish overturn their decision is likely to backfire spectacularly.

 

[epenguin]

Simplistic nonsense.

Not Nice.

Simplistic nonsense. That is not the reason Ireland voted no. The treaty of Nice was not just about enlargement, in fact that was a minor side issue. It was cynically portrayed as being about enlargement and Ireland blocking new members so as to put pressure on Ireland to reverse their referendum result.

Reading this, and since all this treaty stuff is complicated and it was a long time ago, I wondered if the wrong idea had sedimented in my mind. Let us say that the difference is of interpretation. It was not the Enlargement Treaties themselves that were explicitly voted on (I don't know how they got past the Irish then, possibly via references to them in Nice, I do not remember any other referendum) it was necessary preparation for enlargement which could not work without some change and definition of arrangements, and widely understood as such.

Your interpretation of the following may be different from their face value, but at least my simplistic nonsensical impressions are somewhat widely shared.

http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=26450
As the Taoiseach has just explained, the Treaty of Nice is about preparing for enlargement. Pure and simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nice
The primary purpose of the Treaty of Nice was to reform the institutional structure to withstand the Enlargement of the European Union

http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSTREAT/TR5.htm
The Treaty of Nice was agreed at the Nice European Council in December 2000. It represented a further attempt by the governments of the member states to find a workable means of moving forward the process of European integration, and to prepare for the coming enlargement of the EU to include ten new members. (To be fair.) -> Negotiations were divided by the re-emergence of old arguments over the benefits of intergovernmental as opposed to supranational models for the running of the EU.

Possibly I might agree in that you do not say enlargement was not what the referendumn was about, you only say that was not the reason for the No vote. I.e. that referendums are often decided by questions other that what the referendums are about. That was certainly the case in this last one.

 

[vanesch]

Yes, that is something we fundamentally disagree on. I wonder where you are going to find this pool of intelligent, philanthropic, nationless, non-nationalistic people to draw your resources from.

Well, there's me of course, that's a start

You see, it shouldn't be philanthropic - you might not care too much about your nation-state's power and agenda, if you, yourself, directly, can take advantage of you being a European citizen. Imagine, for instance, totally silly example, that you are member of a minority in your own country, say, a telephone sanitizer. Imagine that your nation-state doesn't have much respect for telephone sanitizers, simply because locally, they don't represent a serious electorate. So telephone sanitizers are taxed extra, have to pay three times more social security fees, have no right to visit public hospitals or schools, and don't have any right to retirement. Telephone sanitizers can also be beaten up in public, that's not against the law.

However, in Europe, as a whole, telephone sanitizers are recognized as being an extremely useful strategic resource and are, on the whole, quite well represented. Well, you, as an Irish telephone sanitizer, have all advantage in a Europe that protects you, as a European citizen and telephone sanitizer, against your nation state's arbitrary way of dealing with them. You have an advantage in diminishing your own nation-state's prerogatives over telephone sanitizers, and giving more power to telephone sanitizers in general, even if the majority of them resides in Germany and Spain. You have more advantage from your European citizenship than from your Irish citizenship, so you'd better have the power balance shift towards Europe, against your nation state's agenda.

You as a citizen, don't loose anything in that shift, on the contrary: telephone sanitizers of Europe, unite ! Your Irish citizenship becomes less powerful, but your European citizenship becomes more powerful.

IMO every employee of the EU in whatever capacity has the interests of their nation states first and the wider community a distant second.

If that is true, then they should be tortured on the spot until they die ! Well, depends of course what's their function. But a European Commissioner is supposed to think first about Europe, and forget his nation's prerogatives in the matter. I've seen several commissioners actually behave that way. One that comes to mind is the Belgian Socialist Karel Van Miert, who was commissioner for competition in the 90-ies, and who went against a French and Belgian demand for state aids for air transport companies.
(see http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/1993/LesEchos/16486-45-ECH.htm )

No, I believe every country should have it's own referendum. The idea that as Germany has a bigger population than Ireland they should carry more weight is anathema to me. Taking that principle to it's natural conclusion wars should be won simply on the basis of who has the biggest population which would make for an interesting world

This is a doubly strange reasoning. Don't you find it normal that, say, the vote of somebody living in London should count more or less the same as somebody in Dover when it concerns national UK matters ? Now, as there are more people living in London than in Dover, of course the total vote weight of "London" is bigger than that of "Dover", yes. I don't see why the vote of an Irishman should count 20 times more than the vote of a German, when it is about European telephone sanitizers.
But the second reason why I find your argument strange, is that you seem to think that Europe is a kind of (trade?) war theater, while it is supposed to be a community construction.

Take your pick from the extension of QMV, the reduction in the areas of national vetoes, the reduction in Ireland's vote, the interference in social affairs and of course the fact it is a big step on the road to a US of E which I do not want.

In other words, you are simply against a European construction beyond a theater of economical competition.

Elected? Barely. The post will be filled by an election of the council of ministers who themselves were not elected to their role. It will also remove the current requirement for endorsement by the EU parliament. Hardly a shining example of democracy at work. It gives the proposed EU president about the same amount of democratic legitimacy as the old USSR president. With Blair being touted as a strong candidate for this post I'd be careful what you wish for.

It is reassuring that the guy wouldn't be elected by the people. Of course somebody has to appoint him, but the more abstract that commission is, the more it looks like a CEO and not a president, that's fine with me. I don't want a democratically legitimate president of Europe, he could do too many stupid things with it, and he'd like too much to please his electorate.

BTW the latest German and French threat that they won't allow Turkey to join the EU unless the Irish overturn their decision is likely to backfire spectacularly.

I don't want Turkey in Europe for now in any case. In fact, the best way to get a further European integration to a grinding halt is to expand it even further. Europe is already too big. I don't mind an economic trade zone which includes Turkey. But they shouldn't be part of the political integration before long. As I said before, maybe we should split Europe into two concentric parts: those that want just a trade zone, and those that want further political integration.

For instance, it would be inconceivable to go to further political integration with nations that didn't even adopt the Euro or the Shengen agreement. So it is probably way too ambitious to want to have a further political integration of such a large set of nations.

 

[Art]

Well, there's me of course, that's a start

Even if I grant you that, that's still only one person; besides who is going to run the nuclear power industry if you are running Europe

You see, it shouldn't be philanthropic - you might not care too much about your nation-state's power and agenda, if you, yourself, directly, can take advantage of you being a European citizen. Imagine, for instance, totally silly example, that you are member of a minority in your own country, say, a telephone sanitizer. Imagine that your nation-state doesn't have much respect for telephone sanitizers, simply because locally, they don't represent a serious electorate. So telephone sanitizers are taxed extra, have to pay three times more social security fees, have no right to visit public hospitals or schools, and don't have any right to retirement. Telephone sanitizers can also be beaten up in public, that's not against the law.

However, in Europe, as a whole, telephone sanitizers are recognized as being an extremely useful strategic resource and are, on the whole, quite well represented. Well, you, as an Irish telephone sanitizer, have all advantage in a Europe that protects you, as a European citizen and telephone sanitizer, against your nation state's arbitrary way of dealing with them. You have an advantage in diminishing your own nation-state's prerogatives over telephone sanitizers, and giving more power to telephone sanitizers in general, even if the majority of them resides in Germany and Spain. You have more advantage from your European citizenship than from your Irish citizenship, so you'd better have the power balance shift towards Europe, against your nation state's agenda.

You as a citizen, don't loose anything in that shift, on the contrary: telephone sanitizers of Europe, unite ! Your Irish citizenship becomes less powerful, but your European citizenship becomes more powerful.

I can't think of any genuine examples of where any group in Ireland needs protection from the state but I can think of several that needs protection from Europe. The EU fishing policy being an obvious one. Since Ireland was forced to share it's fishing grounds with it's European neighbours the fishing community in Ireland has been devastated with whole towns which previously depended on this industry laid waste. The seas have been emptied and the little that is left of the Irish fishing fleet spends nearly the whole year tied up in dock because of the minuscule quotas they have been given

If that is true, then they should be tortured on the spot until they die ! Well, depends of course what's their function. But a European Commissioner is supposed to think first about Europe, and forget his nation's prerogatives in the matter. I've seen several commissioners actually behave that way. One that comes to mind is the Belgian Socialist Karel Van Miert, who was commissioner for competition in the 90-ies, and who went against a French and Belgian demand for state aids for air transport companies.
(see http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/1993/LesEchos/16486-45-ECH.htm )

Actually I was mistaken. I should have said they put themselves first as evidenced by the entire commission being found guilty of bribery and corruption with the exception of Neil Kinnock :tongue2: The behaviour is typical of the character of the people being appointed to these key roles and so long as they continue to be political appointees drawn from the political old boy network it will never change. Ignoring the personal greed element their first loyalty will be unquestionably to the national politicians who appointed them who can also remove them from their very well paid jobs.

This is a doubly strange reasoning. Don't you find it normal that, say, the vote of somebody living in London should count more or less the same as somebody in Dover when it concerns national UK matters ? Now, as there are more people living in London than in Dover, of course the total vote weight of "London" is bigger than that of "Dover", yes. I don't see why the vote of an Irishman should count 20 times more than the vote of a German, when it is about European telephone sanitizers.
But the second reason why I find your argument strange, is that you seem to think that Europe is a kind of (trade?) war theater, while it is supposed to be a community construction.

Pure democracy is a potentially evil concept. As someone once said it's two wolves and a lamb voting for what's for dinner which is why the concepts of unanimity and vetoes appeals to me. It allows minorities to protect themselves in a negative sort of way, they can only stop the majority doing something, they can't make them do anything.

In other words, you are simply against a European construction beyond a theater of economical competition.

In general yes though I assume you meant a theatre of economic cooperation? When and if this free trade area is finalised with a common currency across all EU countries I would then consider if another step forward is warranted.

It is reassuring that the guy wouldn't be elected by the people. Of course somebody has to appoint him, but the more abstract that commission is, the more it looks like a CEO and not a president, that's fine with me. I don't want a democratically legitimate president of Europe, he could do too many stupid things with it, and he'd like too much to please his electorate.

This was already tried in the former USSR with less than glowing results. One of the problems with the Lisbon treaty is it doesn't spell out in any way whatsoever what the powers of this new president will be so the feeling is it will depend a lot on what powers the first incumbent manages to seize. Again a dangerous grey area.

I don't want Turkey in Europe for now in any case. In fact, the best way to get a further European integration to a grinding halt is to expand it even further. Europe is already too big. I don't mind an economic trade zone which includes Turkey. But they shouldn't be part of the political integration before long. As I said before, maybe we should split Europe into two concentric parts: those that want just a trade zone, and those that want further political integration.

For instance, it would be inconceivable to go to further political integration with nations that didn't even adopt the Euro or the Shengen agreement. So it is probably way too ambitious to want to have a further political integration of such a large set of nations.

As it is Ireland's no vote that the French and Germans claim is stopping Turkey's accession you should be more supportive of us :tongue:

btw Have you ever noticed how it is always France and Germany who make these statements regarding EU matters? Telling the world what will and what will not happen. One would almost get the impression they think they run the whole show

I see Poland are also acting up now. A clever ploy by their anti-treaty president to prevent Ireland from being beaten into submission on the grounds of being the only country not to ratify the treaty. I'm still puzzled why France didn't push for ratification in the other EU states of the original constitutional treaty after it was rejected by their electorate. Hmm double standards perhaps??

As for military alliances and the like, there is nothing stopping France and Germany forming such groupings although for PR reasons they prefer to do it under the camouflage of the EU blanket even though anybody with half a brain knows what they are up to.

Incidentally where was French European solidarity during the Falkland's war? Oh yes while it publicly supported Britain it had a team of technical specialists assisting the Argentinians with the Exocet missiles and Super Etendard aircraft they had recently sold to Argentina.

 

[vanesch]

Even if I grant you that, that's still only one person; besides who is going to run the nuclear power industry if you are running Europe

I know, I know. Some days, I really get stressed out :rofl:

I can't think of any genuine examples of where any group in Ireland needs protection from the state but I can think of several that needs protection from Europe. The EU fishing policy being an obvious one. Since Ireland was forced to share it's fishing grounds with it's European neighbours the fishing community in Ireland has been devastated with whole towns which previously depended on this industry laid waste. The seas have been emptied and the little that is left of the Irish fishing fleet spends nearly the whole year tied up in dock because of the minuscule quotas they have been given

I think that if there ARE wise decisions taken by the EU, then the fishing restrictions are amongst the best. Now, what I will agree with is not normal, is that countries are being given quotas. There should be a EU market for fishing licenses, independent of the nationality of those wanting to buy some. You want to take more fish ? You buy more licenses. The price of the license is too high ? You don't fish. As such, one would get the best bang of the buck out of the finite fishing resources.

Pure democracy is a potentially evil concept. As someone once said it's two wolves and a lamb voting for what's for dinner which is why the concepts of unanimity and vetoes appeals to me.

You start understanding my problem I have with a referendum per country over things like this. I fully agree with your two wolves and a lamb. But if they all have veto, then chances are there's going to be nothing for dinner...

It allows minorities to protect themselves in a negative sort of way, they can only stop the majority doing something, they can't make them do anything.

That's why there have to be qualified majorities, veto systems and representative democracy.

In general yes though I assume you meant a theatre of economic cooperation? When and if this free trade area is finalised with a common currency across all EU countries I would then consider if another step forward is warranted.

You are probably right. Things just went too fast, especially with the enlargement to the east.

This was already tried in the former USSR with less than glowing results. One of the problems with the Lisbon treaty is it doesn't spell out in any way whatsoever what the powers of this new president will be so the feeling is it will depend a lot on what powers the first incumbent manages to seize. Again a dangerous grey area.

I don't think that the main problem with the USSR was the way the president was designed. The main problem was an economical model that didn't work. But I agree with you that the thing of that president is maybe not the best of ideas.

As it is Ireland's no vote that the French and Germans claim is stopping Turkey's accession you should be more supportive of us :tongue:

Ah, that's like Blair who was so very happy with the French no-vote so that it wasn't going to be him that was to blame for the sinking of the European Constitution, because the French and the Germans are also very divided over Turkey's integration.

btw Have you ever noticed how it is always France and Germany who make these statements regarding EU matters? Telling the world what will and what will not happen. One would almost get the impression they think they run the whole show

But these national agendas are really the main reason why I would like to see more of Europe, and less of the nation states, which could be achieved with more direct citizen-EU_instititution interaction, without the national filter. Then the EU would be more independent from the national agendas. The defending of national agendas is exactly what Europe shouldn't be.

I'm still puzzled why France didn't push for ratification in the other EU states of the original constitutional treaty after it was rejected by their electorate. Hmm double standards perhaps??

I thought they did ? After all, what else is this Lisbon Treaty but the "mini-constitution", somewhat polished ? And who proposed it in the first place ?

Incidentally where was French European solidarity during the Falkland's war? Oh yes while it publicly supported Britain it had a team of technical specialists assisting the Argentinians with the Exocet missiles and Super Etendard aircraft they had recently sold to Argentina.

Again, these are those national interests that should be diminished in a better-working Europe, more independently from all those nationals.