I kind of get the gist that it expands EU powers at the Federal level, but I really don’t understand it. Can someone dumb it down for me?
Do you have any more-specific questions?
It’s the latest edition of what we might call “the EU treaties.” The EU started life as a commercial agreement between six countries which presented the peculiarity of being a supranational entity, not just international (i.e., if one of the six didn’t agree with something which wasn’t defined as requiring unanimity, tought luck); in time it’s expanded both its geographical and mental boundaries.
The last two treaties (the failed Constitution) and this one have tried to be more flexible in their definitions than previous ones, in order to avoid having to be rewritten every time another country joins in. This one is also adding Energy Policy to the list of things for which the EU is responsible (ie, for which the signatory countries agree that if the majority agrees on point X, then any signatory country which does not agree does X - they reserve the right to grumble, but they still must comply).
There is no Federal level, as the EU isn’t a Federation (at least not yet), although it does resemble one more with every treaty. But often the changes have existed before the treaty that made them official, the treaties and the political realities walk parallel but not quite in step; they’re more like “right foot, left foot” than like railways.
I, too, would like to know more about this; and I can’t be more specific, because all I know about it is that it concerns the EU.
FWIW, I am somewhat ashamed at my lack of knowledge. This is something that affects us in a major way. I really should know more about this.
Main Lisbon Treaty provisions:
[ul]
[li]expand the subjects of qualified majority voting (55% of countries with 65% of population required) as opposed to unanimity in the Council of Ministers (the deliberative body where each member country’s executive branch sends a representative) [/li][li]make the President of the European Council an elected post with 30-month term as opposed to rotating every 6 months [/li][li]establish the post of a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (i.e. an European Foreign Minister)[/li][li]strengthen the role of the European Parliament in passing European directives, at the cost of the Council of Ministers[/li][li]introduces an explicit procedure for a country leaving the EU[/li][li]provides for a common defence agreement contingent on the European Council (the national heads of government) unanimously agreeing on one (not going to happen in the foreseeable future - Ireland has restated its opposition and other non-NATO countries (Sweden, Austria) won’t sign on either.)[/li][li]introduce certain consultation and collective veto rights for the national parliaments in EU legislative procedure (at the cost of national executives’ and the European Parliament’s influence). (I don’t know how important this is going to be in practice - would be relevent mostly when a national executive and legislative branch disagree on European policy which would be unusual in a parliamentiary system)[/li][/ul]
The Lisbon treaty is the amended version of the European Constitution which was voted down by the French and the Dutch in 2005. Although it does contain some new provisions, an important reason to have it is to unify all the European treaties that were hitherto ratified into one document. Much of the material in the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution is in effect already in one form or another as part of an earlier treaty.
To the OP: note that to speak of ‘the Federal level’ in the context of European politics is contentious both politically and empirically. There is broad discussion whether the EU should really be seen as a federation (or whether or not it should become a federation) OR that it is really still a far-reaching from of inter-governmental cooperation.
How would they make a military work? What language would a military speak? Seems like it would be necessary for them to speak the same language.
There’s no proposal to create a single EU army, if that’s what you mean. Think more like an EU-only version of NATO.
Intact units from various countries’ armies would be assigned to the command structure for various missions. So there’s no language-barrier issue, except in certain inter-unit communications.
Right, that makes sense.
I’m very curious about how NATO’s mission will change. I think the recent removal of the Polish missile defense is very significant and represents a sea change in international policy. The idea that Poland would be nuked by Russia is becoming more and more ludicrous.
I know people have said that this doesn’t really provide for a military for the EU, but if one came to be, do you think that the US could stop providing for European security in that case?
If you mean the European bases, the US could withdraw right now if they wanted to, but they would lose force projection abilities - the main purpose of the bases now is as a staging ground for the middle east.
I think we Europeans could provide security for ourselves, who should invade, anyway? Russia? France and Britain have enough nukes to deter that.
So the only ones who are sad if the US is leaving another base are the communities around it, because of economic factors. You’re welcome to stay, but we don’t need you.
The US does not provide for European security. We have perfectly functional (fully armed and everything) armies of our own, thanks. I’m sure (I hope) you didn’t mean it this way, but this is the kind of unthinking, breathtaking arrogance that really pisses people off about the US.
Considering the US is a NATO member and the one with the largest military by many times and pretty much the only one that could take on Russia or China, I’d say, yes, we provide quite a bit of the security you take for granted. I dont want to turn this into a big anti-European thing, but the idea that the US isnt providing European security is laughable.
France spends more then China on its military, and France the UK, Italy and Germany each individually spend more then Russia. I don’t really see why they couldn’t “take on” Russia or China (though where exactly they’d fight China isn’t really clear).
Lets see, the Russian military is over 1 million active soldiers. The French? 220k. So thats almost 5 to 1. Now weigh in subs, jets, choppers, missiles, ships etc and, well, the first person Sarkozky will be calling will be Obama.
The combined forces of UK, France, and Germany dont even match Russia. Although this is arguable and probably belongs in GD, but in GQ, the idea that the US isnt providing European security is ridiculous. Not to mention the last time we let European powers manage their own military affairs, the world went to war and lots of Jews were gassed. Funny how that works.
I think this thread is getting totally derailed really fast - I could see how this might annoy some people.
Personally, I don’t see what the balance of power internal to Europe has to do with Europe’s external security - or are you suggesting that the US not only keeps Europe safe (which is something I could go along with although with the Soviet Union gone and both France and the UK being nuclear powers seems to be easily overstated?) but that it also keeps them from killing each other? I think that’s overreaching in your assessment of the role the US plays in the world, to be frank. Also, it has very little to do with the Lisbon Treaty, although I’d be very eager to find out if I’m wrong in that assumption.
The purpose of placing ballistic missile interceptors in Poland was not to protect Poland.
The perception in America is that over the last century, billions of American dollars and gallons of American blood have been spent restoring and/or ensuring European security. I’m sure you didn’t mean it this way, but this is the kind of blithering ingratitude that really pisses a lot of Americans off about Europe.
Like it or not, the U.S. military is part of the overall European security. The U.S. military has a large role in Nato and most of the European armed forces are tightly integrated into Nato’s command structure. Both of Nato’s strategic command structures are headed by Americans and much of Nato’s budget is from America.
There is some resentment and there are questions whether NATO is still necessary. However, alternative all European arrangements have not worked out. Europe is still a collection of very independent states which don’t entirely trust each other. Most European leaders realize that an external threat on Europe would require unified action, and getting that unity simply won’t happen without American leadership.
Maybe as the European Union grows and actually turns into a true federation, it will be able to present its own unified military force that is not based upon the various national armed forces. Until that time, if Europe wants a unified military response, they’ll have to depend upon Nato and the United States.
What I’d like to know is why are y’all talking guns when they are barely mentioned in the Lisbon treaty and when the notion of “an European army” is nowhere near the negotiating table. You want to have a pissing match over guns, open your own thread!
Take a course in EU law. Then you’ll know what the Treaty is. And maybe not even then!
Basically it alters the power roles of the three main EU institutions, and their relationships, takes some more power from the national governments and perhaps more importantly, gives some back.
What worries me is that countries have a referendum about this, and Joe Public decides whether it should be voted in. Does Joe Public know what he/she is voting for? We may have one soon, and I certainly don’t know what I’d be voting for. Do governments explain the intricacies to the people?
In theory they should, but they don’t bother. In Spain, the explanations re. the “Euroconsti” were, basically, newspapers giving away the text of the proposed Constitution for people to read. I don’t think it’s even possible to evaluate a text like that as a “stand alone,” you need to have at least some understanding of what the situation that’s being changed is.
Then again, we got the same amount of explanations when the current Spanish Constitution was up for the vote, so it’s not news. I think back in the '70s Spaniards may have been more willing (in general) to slog through that kind of horrible text, but I still doubt more than 20% of voters read it cover-to-cover.
Spanish students have to take a “Civics” class, but IIUC it’s more about “tolerance” than about “how does democracy work at each government level.”