United States of Europe

[Deadeye79]

Now watch somone will start building massive rivers just to do it Ha!

 

[Quarto]

Seriously, with those guys there's almost something like "alcohol tourism". We often have people as tourists over here, and they usually stand out because of their excessive drinking orgies.

Uh, they are vikings, you know .

That is rather unlikely. Contrary to what you might have heard, the ethnic situation in most Western and Middle European countries is very stable, excepting a few vocal minorities.

Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

It's a fact, for example, that 1/3rd of all Hungarians live in countries bordering Hungary, because the 1919 peace conference had a particular hate for Austria and Hungary, and the new borders sliced off 2/3rds of the latter's territory. Just last week, Hungary had a referendum on whether to give those five million Hungarians citizenship - a move that certainly didn't win any praise among its neighbours. (unfortunately, it looks as though the results are indecisive - too bad, but then again, this isn't the first such initiative nor the last).

It's also a fact that the German and Polish governments are looking increasingly uncomfortable, as the rising noise in the background is making it harder to hear their "what problems? We love each other" message. In reality, this is a potentially explosive crisis in the making - the issue of property ownership in the German lands Poland got after WWII was never properly resolved. Sooner or later, the expelled Germans will start suing, and since the German government has not taken upon itself the responsibility for their compensation, Poland will tell them to go to hell, this is likely to go all the way to the Strasburg tribunal (edit: just noticed that I accidentally used the German name of this French city, inhabited for the most part by Germans... but no problems there, of course, Germany and France have always loved each other). Which will have to rule in favour of the Germans, because in the absence of any agreement (there is no peace treaty between Germany and Poland! We're technically still at war!), the expelled Germans have the law on their side. But naturally, that's something Poland will not tolerate - even if the Polish government was to accept it, the people would simply take the matter into their own hands. Good thing the UN Charter gives every country in the world the permanent right to attack Germany any time they want, we might need that .

It's also a fact that in an increasingly regionalised (as opposed to nationalised) Europe, the question of the Basques takes on a whole new meaning - as national governments give up more and more power to the EU, it's only a matter of time before the Basques on both sides of the Franco-Spanish border demand unification - and neither France nor Spain are willing to listen, because according to them, there is no problem.

It's also a fact that Northern Italy is increasingly unhappy about being kept in the same basket as Southern Italy. For fifteen hundred years, Italy had never been united, and now that the euphoria of nationalism is starting to wear off, people are increasingly conscious of the fact that for Lombardy and Venice, backwaters like Naples and Sicily are a deadweight.

It's also a fact that time and again, you hear about the Flemish in Belgium demanding autonomy. I don't know very much about the situation in Belgium, so I don't want to say too much, but it seems it's not all sunshine and lollipops there.

And finally, most importantly, it is a fact that England (speaking of which, how about them Scottish, eh?) Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and especially France are experiencing a most disturbing growth in their Muslim population, to the point where France, in two or three decades, can anticipate either a change of name or a civil war. But officially, this is not a problem either - in the European Union, after all, we are all happy and tolerant, so it is not a problem if a Muslim majority in France might one day elect an Arab president and change the constitution to turn France into the Islamic Republic of France. Hey, I have nothing against the Arabs or Islam, but somehow I don't love the idea of them taking over the heartland of European culture - like most people, I tend to like my own culture better than everyone else's .

But yeah, I'm sure you're right - the European Union is a fine and dandy place, and there's not a cloud on the horizon to spoil our day .

It's also worth noting that these were all just ethnic issues; meanwhile, the EU's future depends on the results of the constitution referendums, and the good news is that in many countries, a positive result is questionable - if the British people in particular don't chicken out (err, chicken in?) at the last moment, we might see the end of the union within two years.

 

[Lynx]

Maybe I should'nt have said that there are only minor problems in the EU, just that they wouldn't inherently lead to it breaking up.
I'm very well aware with the problems in Italy, for example, but actually the problem there has actually calmed down there comparing to the past. Sure, people aren't too happy about it, bit that's it pretty much. Most you hear from it is stupid politicians like Bossi whining about it all the time.
As for the hungarians, it's not a directly EU related problem. Though the people in Bosnia-Herzegovina herd a particular animosity against the resident hungarians that might have to adressed in the future.

I can't comment too much on that situation between Germany and Poland, what I know is that there's something of a hostility between them because of Poland demanding higher funds from the Union as it actually gets.

The muslim minority might get a problem in the future. [EDIT]Already starting to get a problem in some parts, but the magnitude of the problem might rise or decrease depnedant on the handling of the issiue

 

[KrisV]

Considering Europe's history with various kinds of unions, over the centuries, personally I'm willing to take bets on when the current one will break up, over long-standing ethnic/national hatreds (Yugoslavia being an obvious, but not the only, example).

Hmm. That's mostly just the English though.

I'm not sure what previous "unions" you're thinking of. I can't think of anything that compares to what they're doing right now. Projecting what happened in the Balkans onto the whole contintent is very far-fetched. The ethnic and cultural makeup of Europe is rather the same, certainly when compared to the situation in Yugoslavia, where they put East and West into one country and then did the best they could to suppress these different identities.

I think Europe is a bit overglorified and forcefed in the media over here in Belgium, what do you think KrisV?

I don't follow local media that much. It's Fox News, but with a left slant.

 

[Quarto]

I'm very well aware with the problems in Italy, for example, but actually the problem there has actually calmed down there comparing to the past. Sure, people aren't too happy about it, bit that's it pretty much. Most you hear from it is stupid politicians like Bossi whining about it all the time.

Eh, well, true enough - but Yugoslavia was the very epitome of calmness for fifty years...

As for the hungarians, it's not a directly EU related problem. Though the people in Bosnia-Herzegovina herd a particular animosity against the resident hungarians that might have to adressed in the future.

Sure it is - it's a conflict-in-the-making between Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. Of these, two are EU members, one is due to be admitted in 2007, and the fourth would probably want admission eventually (except that the EU will hopefully be dead and buried by then ). A possible conflict between three members of the same federation cannot go by without an impact on the federation as a whole.

I can't comment too much on that situation between Germany and Poland, what I know is that there's something of a hostility between them because of Poland demanding higher funds from the Union as it actually gets.

Yeah, well, that's because the idiots actually thought the EU wanted us to join so that they could give us money out of the kindness of their hearts, and so completely missed the point, which is to send all the money to Brussels . At the same time, there is some proverbial justice to it, given that Poland never got any war reparations from Germany (because we're still at war and all that ).

 

[BigsWickDagger]

I love Euro-socialism. I love it so much, sometimes I just get the urge to go book a one-way ticket to Somalia .

Quarto: If you ever leave Poland you should come to the USA. You obviously have a very insightful grasp of Sociology and History. We need all of the intelligent people we can get! I've had the chance to meet several Poles who've come to the US to work- mostly very nice people with a great sense of humor, honest and fun. Folks from the Czech Republic are generally great too. The Russians, well, some who've come to my city have been quite pushy and arrogant. We've had a few lose their privileges at the local public library where I work because they'll refuse to follow simple computer use guidelines and policies designed to give everyone equal and fair access. But hey, I'm not trying to paint with too large of a brush. That has just been my experience.....

 

[Lynx]

Eh, well, true enough - but Yugoslavia was the very epitome of calmness for fifty years...

The thing in italy is not really related to the things that happened Ex-Yugoslavia. No matter what it was in the past, now it boils down to the industrialized and rich northern Italy not wanting to drag the undeveloped, poor South along. This is the only issue that was also concerning the Yugoslavian conflict - the more developed Slovenja and Croatia didn't want to support the backwards Bosnia, Serbia. But added with intense hatred for the ethnical entities of those both countries too, which is not the case in Italy.

The only reason that the conflict in Yugoslavia didn't erupt earlier has the rule of Josip Broz Tito. It was actually quite impressive that he managed to prevent those people from slicing each other to bits since the mutual hatred there was alive and kicking for hundreds of years.

Sure it is - it's a conflict-in-the-making between Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. Of these, two are EU members, one is due to be admitted in 2007, and the fourth would probably want admission eventually (except that the EU will hopefully be dead and buried by then ). A possible conflict between three members of the same federation cannot go by without an impact on the federation as a whole.

As far as I know, this issue is being adressed as part of the requirements for entering the Union. But agreed, this issue can't be solved in the duration of the negotiations since it's too much of a leap in such a short time. An especial problem canditatethere is Serbia.

Yeah, well, that's because the idiots actually thought the EU wanted us to join so that they could give us money out of the kindness of their hearts, and so completely missed the point, which is to send all the money to Brussels . At the same time, there is some proverbial justice to it, given that Poland never got any war reparations from Germany (because we're still at war and all that ).

Hehe.
Actually Poland receives more money than it gives to the EU. More likely to piss of the people in Poland are the new regulations that are now to be followed, right?

 

[Quarto]

The only reason that the conflict in Yugoslavia didn't erupt earlier has the rule of Josip Broz Tito. It was actually quite impressive that he managed to prevent those people from slicing each other to bits since the mutual hatred there was alive and kicking for hundreds of years.

Yep, it's amazing what you can do with a solid army and total disregard for human life .

(on a more serious note, to some degree Tito is responsible for creating these problems in the first place, because his Yugoslavia was basically a continuation of the pre-war Yugoslavia - which was nothing more than a Serbian empire; and that was the thing that bothered the Bosnians and Croats most of all - they didn't always hate the Serbs, but ever since WWI, the Serbs had been very keen on giving Bosnians and Croats reasons to hate them)

Actually Poland receives more money than it gives to the EU. More likely to piss of the people in Poland are the new regulations that are now to be followed, right?

Oh, well, it's all sorts of issues. For one thing, Poland is a bottomless pit (I think we're even more corrupt than Brussels ) - no matter how much money we get from the EU, people will still whine about it not being enough (because this money doesn't actually reach its targets, instead getting lost in pockets along the way). The other thing is indeed the new voting regulations... but then there are also things like the lack of Chrisitianity in the constitution and the concern that the EU is becoming a Franco-German empire - complaints that most Western Europeans seem find confusing or downright bizarre. Maybe we're just a bit oversensitive - we're still recovering from Nation Europa, after all .

BigsWickDagger: thank you for the kind words . I suspect that if I had a concrete possibility for work in the USA, I wouldn't hesitate too much. It's mainly a matter of first improving my qualifications, however, which I'm working on.

 

[Red]

I don't follow local media that much. It's Fox News, but with a left slant.

That's actually pretty well put ^^

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

(...) It's also a fact that the German and Polish governments are looking increasingly uncomfortable, as the rising noise in the background is making it harder to hear their "what problems? We love each other" message. In reality, this is a potentially explosive crisis in the making - the issue of property ownership in the German lands Poland got after WWII was never properly resolved. Sooner or later, the expelled Germans will start suing, and since the German government has not taken upon itself the responsibility for their compensation, Poland will tell them to go to hell, this is likely to go all the way to the Strasburg tribunal (edit: just noticed that I accidentally used the German name of this French city, inhabited for the most part by Germans... but no problems there, of course, Germany and France have always loved each other). Which will have to rule in favour of the Germans, because in the absence of any agreement (there is no peace treaty between Germany and Poland! We're technically still at war!), the expelled Germans have the law on their side. But naturally, that's something Poland will not tolerate - even if the Polish government was to accept it, the people would simply take the matter into their own hands. (...)

I don't think that law is on the side of the expelled Germans.
While not being called a peace treaty the "2+4 treaty" settles pretty clearly that Germany's borders are final and that Germany won't demand any of its old territories back. This was confirmed in a treaty between Poland and Germany the 14th of November 1990 (don't know if it has a special name). Courts, including the one in Strasburg, are fairly sure IMHO to take this as legal base.

Good thing the UN Charter gives every country in the world the permanent right to attack Germany any time they want, we might need that .

Wah? And who do we have the right to attack?

(...)
It's also worth noting that these were all just ethnic issues; meanwhile, the EU's future depends on the results of the constitution referendums, and the good news is that in many countries, a positive result is questionable - if the British people in particular don't chicken out (err, chicken in?) at the last moment, we might see the end of the union within two years.

I think the best thing would be that each and every member of the EU ratifies the constitution because in it there is a mechanism of how to withdraw from the EU (which is technically not possible at the moment or at least, not regulated). Thus, it everyone ratifies the one who don't want to be in the EU can leave and the others can continue their project. If the constitution is not ratified the Pro-Eu will be stuck with the unwilling and vice versa.

I personally am rather pro-EU. Of course, not everything is perfect, it's far from being perfect. But as long as politics play a major role it will never be perfect but I believe that in a (more or less slow) process the EU will get more and more united.
I think of it as being pretty impressive as how the European Community and later the EU was built only a few years after the 2nd World War.
There were phases of enthusiasm and phases were things progressed not at all or very slowly (like 1965 to 1986). But it progressed and will continue to do so.

Also, I don't think that any of those separatist movements in Italy, Spain, France, Belgium and so on, are really going to achieve their goals. They're just spitting out hot air, just like here in Germany some idiots claim it would be better to never have reunified. Sadly, some terrorists are just too narrow and resort to violence because they know they'll never achieve their goals politically, they're not really supported in the population from what I know or have been told in personal conversations.

 

[Lynx]

One problem of the EU is the lack of communication with the people. It's not that many people don't like the EU most of them don't know jack shit about the EU. If you go on the streets and ask people about the upcoming charta, most people would just mutter "What the heck?" since to many it's either unclear what it's about or that it even exists.
Actually, for that kind of work it should be the national gouvernments who are responsible, but they either don't care or are simply forgetting it. Therefore it appears to many people it appears the the EU parliament is just a bunch of money grabbing bastards(it's a gouvernment body after all ) caring only about commercial issiues.

As for separatist movements, the militant arm of the IRA is practically dead; the ETA's activity has rosen recently, but it's nothing compared to what they did in earlier times, and the movement in Italy is nothing more than a bunch of old people whining.
It all depends how things are handled - just look at south Tirol in northern Italy. It was part of Austria until to the end of WWI. It was a source of trouble throughout the century, culminaating in dozens of bombings of important structures like electricity lines on the 50's and 60's, and the Italians granted them minority rights and a regional gouvernment and now it's the nicest part of whole italy with the better infrastructury and ethnic understanding than the rest of whole Italy.

 

[climber]

Being British I have a nice viewpoint on this. Inward investment from the EU, namely for deprived areas is fantastic. Simply put, any areas where income is below a certain level gets a whole load of cash to give to business start ups such as mine. For example my brother was given the equivalent of $200,000 for you americans, this year because of a promise of new jobs.

Single currency, well I like to travel and I enjoy having one currency on the go. It does cost countries a lot of money to get into a position where they can be accepted to the sinlge currency and thankfully good old blighty is not meeting them at all.

The biggest boast of the EU currently is that it carries economic clout that far exceeds that of the USA for the first time in a long time. Unfortunately with China pootling about now that seems kind of insignificant.

As for the collapse of the EU, I have never really enjoyed the idea. New states joining that bring little to the table and get lots of cash spent on them. Or how about the fact that the entire assembly used to move twice a year at the cost of some £18,000,000 to joe public, astounding. Unfortuntely currently it is illegal for any state to leave the EU for any reason. Luckily Britain is in a good position with one of the strongest currencies there is at the moment. Unfortunately with the dollar tied to teh Chinese I see no happy outcome there.

World politics is comic really. I see the next big threats from either India or China with France causing some problems simply because they are french and they are obliged somehow to be a pain in the bum

As for a untied states of Europe, well I dont think that in this enlightened age we could maraud accross the continent and murder the natives to lay claim to lands that do not belong to us to create a convoluted federal system where the likes of Bush and Arnie (although I love his films) could rule the first and fifth largest economies respectively.

 

[Death]

As for a untied states of Europe, well I dont think that in this enlightened age we could maraud accross the continent and murder the natives to lay claim to lands that do not belong to us to create a convoluted federal system where the likes of Bush and Arnie (although I love his films) could rule the first and fifth largest economies respectively.

The above is fine and dandy, except for the weeee little problem that they don't "rule the [...] economies". Neither US president nor any of the US state governors enjoy absolute control, but have to go through their respective legislatures, which can override a veto if enough of those legislators disagree with the president or governor in question. Unlike pretty much every European country at some point or another, the US has never had a king/emperor (well, excepting Emperor Norton, anyway) with absolute authority over the nation, nor even a government head whose qualifications are solely based on "born to X family".

 

[Ridgerunner]

the US has never had a king/emperor with absolute authority over the nation, nor even a government head whose qualifications are solely based on "born to X family".

I don't know, the Bush/Clinton thing is looking to be around a while.

Jeb Bush vs. Hilliary Clinton in '08?

 

[Quarto]

While not being called a peace treaty the "2+4 treaty" settles pretty clearly that Germany's borders are final and that Germany won't demand any of its old territories back.

It's not quite that simple. This isn't about borders, this is about private property. And the thing about private property is that you can only regulate it in an international treaty if the nations involved are able to enforce the rules at home. Neither Germany nor Poland can, however - both have in their constition the inviolability of private property, and so any international treaty dealing with the private property of their citizens would be a worthless piece of paper. The German Bundestag even has on record legislation calling upon the German government to assist in every way possible the German citizens whose property was unlawfully lost at the end of WWII (so in a way, the German government has been breaking German law for decades, by refusing to do so). And the Germans, when fleeing Poland, were careful to take their land deeds with them - so they can actually prove that they own land in Poland.

A few weeks (months?) ago, the Polish parliament called upon the Polish government to get this thing sorted out. As I recall, the reaction of the German press ranged from surprise to outrage. And this is a part of the problem - Germany has consistently refused to recognise the fact that this is a problem you have to deal with, to the point where most German citizens have no idea that the problem exists. Poland has no jurisdiction over German citizens, but no Polish citizen is going to give up their land regardless of what Strasburg might have to say on the matter, so a continued refusal to resolve this on the part of Germany will lead to serious trouble, perhaps even war. It is up to the German government to acknowledge that this problem exists, because only the German government can expropriate the property of German citizens (and only with due compensation). Even if no German citizen ever tries to recover their property in Poland, this has to be done, because until the problem is resolved, Poland can never maintain good relations with Germany - fear is a bad foundation for that.

Wah? And who do we have the right to attack?

No one - you have to remember, at the time when the UN Charter was being drafted, the war was not over. So, the UN Charter very specifically gives all the countries on the Allied side the right to attack the Axis at any time. Nobody ever got around to updating the Charter afterwards... which is perhaps understandable, because how can you deny people the right to attack Germany when most of the world is still at war with Germany?

There were phases of enthusiasm and phases were things progressed not at all or very slowly (like 1965 to 1986). But it progressed and will continue to do so.

Some would disagree on that. From the perspective of an inhabitant of an ex-communist nation, the EU stinks of socialism. It's not an organisation capable of making progress - it can only regress further into that swamp. I would be in favour of an EU that's built from scratch upon more sound foundations, but that will not happen in this EU. Furthermore, from my point of view, the EU constitution is the worst thing that can happen - this thing sets in stone all the worst aspects of the EU, including its ever-growing, rampant bureaucracy and its obsessive, unjust, corruption-breeding socialism.

But heck - forget all the ideological concerns, this constitution is a horrid piece of shit from any point of view. It's the longest, most obtusely-written constitution in the world. It's over 200 pages long. Some of its paragraphs are nothing more than a bunch of sentences referring to other paragraphs, making it impossible to understand without reading the whole thing. I give it five years before even the people who wrote it will not understand what the hell it all means. It might as well be written in Chinese, because most EU citizens will not be able to understand it without the help of a professional translator [lawyer]. That's not a document to ratify, that's a document to burn.

Finally, allow me to ask this question - have you read the constitution? All of it? Because if you're in favour of ratifying a two-hundred page document you haven't fully read, then you're a danger to yourself and society .

(in case you feel like countering that with the same question - no, I haven't read all of it, but I don't need to, because I only need to read the preamble to know this isn't a document I'd like to see turned into law)

 

[Delance]

Some would disagree on that. From the perspective of an inhabitant of an ex-communist nation, the EU stinks of socialism.

Quite so. It stinks.

The brazilian intelligenstia is so fascinated by the EU that it can't be a good thing.

Old dream, isn't it, an united Europe.

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

It's not quite that simple. This isn't about borders, this is about private property. And the thing about private property is that you can only regulate it in an international treaty if the nations involved are able to enforce the rules at home. Neither Germany nor Poland can, however - both have in their constition the inviolability of private property, and so any international treaty dealing with the private property of their citizens would be a worthless piece of paper. The German Bundestag even has on record legislation calling upon the German government to assist in every way possible the German citizens whose property was unlawfully lost at the end of WWII (so in a way, the German government has been breaking German law for decades, by refusing to do so). And the Germans, when fleeing Poland, were careful to take their land deeds with them - so they can actually prove that they own land in Poland.

I think it'd be false to talk about real inviolability of private property. The German constitution says that property is guaranteed but the next sentence also states that its content and limits are defined by laws. It also knows expropriation by the state "for the good of all" (probably not correctly translated here), compensation of course is granted. So the state can enforce it by law.

A few weeks (months?) ago, the Polish parliament called upon the Polish government to get this thing sorted out. As I recall, the reaction of the German press ranged from surprise to outrage. And this is a part of the problem - Germany has consistently refused to recognise the fact that this is a problem you have to deal with, to the point where most German citizens have no idea that the problem exists. Poland has no jurisdiction over German citizens, but no Polish citizen is going to give up their land regardless of what Strasburg might have to say on the matter, so a continued refusal to resolve this on the part of Germany will lead to serious trouble, perhaps even war. It is up to the German government to acknowledge that this problem exists, because only the German government can expropriate the property of German citizens (and only with due compensation). Even if no German citizen ever tries to recover their property in Poland, this has to be done, because until the problem is resolved, Poland can never maintain good relations with Germany - fear is a bad foundation for that.

I think the Germans were outraged (if at all) at the tone this happened. The German public wasn't expecting it. But anyway, the papers I read were all affirmative that the claim of German/Polish for new compensation etc. will go unheard because they have no chance of success. Believe me, nobody sane in Germany actually thinks he will get any land back or something. Maybe they just want (more) money from the German government.
And I do not understand why you think that Germany refuses to see this as its problem: the government clearly stated that it won't give in to any demands and the Federal Constitutional Court decided more than once that the expropriations after WW2 are facts by now, that they have been compensated for (mostly, single cases might get additional compensation) and they stated in their reasoning that this is a burden/result of Germany's history, to be borne by the German people as a whole (the most recent decisions were about expropriation by the Soviets).
You can't hinder certain groups in the population to write this matter on their agenda - but they have no real legal or political base.

(...)

As for the European Constituion: It might shock you, but yes I read it. I am studying law and thus had to familiarize (as much as possible anyway) with the changes brought by it. And I agree, it's not very easy to access but that's because it's a political child and has to be a constitution for 25 countries. And, well the EU is a complicated structure so it has to get technical at some point. Still, I think it is understandable in its meaning for most citizens - not that they can know the full detail what everything means, but they get the point. After all, it's a matter of fact that most laws can't be understood without a lawyer, even in the consitution, except for the basic articles. Thus, the basic liberties, the objectives of the EU (in their meaning, not their details) are accessible to the citizen. And for fleshing out the details, that's what courts are for.

But as I wrote: just ratify the Constitution and then you (general) can leave and everybody gets what he wants.
BTW, I am going to bed now. Have a good night and I'll post tomorrow again.

 

[Quarto]

I think it'd be false to talk about real inviolability of private property. The German constitution says that property is guaranteed but the next sentence also states that its content and limits are defined by laws. It also knows expropriation by the state "for the good of all" (probably not correctly translated here), compensation of course is granted. So the state can enforce it by law.

Yep, I skimmed the German constitution, so I know . And that's kind of my point (and that of all those people in the Polish Parliament) - the German government has the means to end all this once and for all, by proclaiming, in clear and unequivocal terms, that it is expropriating all the lands and property left by German citizens in post-war Poland, and that it is transferring these lands and porperty to the people in Poland that de-facto own these lands.

If this was done, it would end the matter. But the German government has never even tried anything like this, resorting to what, over here, looks like mere half-measures (i.e., they're refusing to even consider any of the demands for compensation... but this is not a final solution to the problem, it's just a delaying measure). People here tend to be pretty suspicious about that - especially in light of the constant assurances from Germany that the matter's closed. If it's so closed, why not close it properly?

Believe me, nobody sane in Germany actually thinks he will get any land back or something.

None of this matters, because the tribunal in Strasburg can overrule whatever decisions the German courts had made in this matter (that, after all, is the point of appealing to a court of higher instance). And what people here fear is that this is an open-and-shut case - those people *own* that land. They have the documents to prove it. There was never any legislation taking the land away from them, they were simply ordered to leave by an occupant. In point of fact, at the time when they were leaving, there wasn't even any government that could lawfully expropriate them. You may disagree on all this, but here's the crux of the matter - nobody will know for sure until such a case actually gets to Strasburg.

(and recently, Strasburg ruled against Poland in a similar-but-different case, dealing with Polish citizens expelled from lands now beyond Poland's eastern border; the difference, however, is that while it was the Soviets that took the lands, the Polish government had a treaty with the USSR in which it took upon itself to compensate the expelled Poles. There is no such treaty between Poland and Germany, so if Strasburg recognises the expelled Germans' right to compensation - which it has to, since their case is exactly identical to that of the expelled Poles - the burden of compensation will be upon the Polish government)

And I agree, it's not very easy to access but that's because it's a political child and has to be a constitution for 25 countries.

Pfft, the Americans have a constitution for 51 (or was it 52? For some reason, I always forget) countries, and it's much, much shorter and more accessible. The EU constitution's length is not a necessity, but just another symptom of the organisation's excessive bureaucracy.

But as I wrote: just ratify the Constitution and then you (general) can leave and everybody gets what he wants.

I don't think so. I haven't read the parts of the constitution that deal with withdrawing from the EU, but this is a trap. Poland is a sovereign nation. As a sovereign nation, we can withdraw from the EU any time, because the EU is just a bunch of treaties which we can abrogate with no consequences whatsover - because sovereignty, after all, means having no one ruling you, and therefore no one capable of forcing you to do anything (whoops, there goes the entire work of fiction called 'international law'). As such, all this talk about a stronger EU being a pre-requisite for leaving the EU can only be a trap. Looking back at history, 1861 stands out as a particularly tragic date, when a group of sovereign countries found out that unfortunately, the treaty organisation to which they had adhered to was stronger than they were and did not want to let them go. And the EU is usurping the priviledges of the sovereign state at a far quicker pace than the USA did.

(also, note that voting against the constitution in the referendum is quite possibly the last time I'll have a say in this matter; the media and the government will never allow an anti-EU party to win any elections, so this is the end of the line - either the people turn down the constitution and Poland gets kicked out of the EU, or we're stuck in this swamp forever)

 

[Death]

I don't know, the Bush/Clinton thing is looking to be around a while.

Jeb Bush vs. Hilliary Clinton in '08?

What I meant by "the US has never had a [...] government head whose qualifications are solely based on "born to X family" was that the head of the US government (the president, in this case) is not given the position solely because of heredity, without the people being governed having any say at all over the matter.

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

Sorry it took a bit longer but last time I had access to the internet the Explorer crashed and with it my post.

Yep, I skimmed the German constitution, so I know . And that's kind of my point (and that of all those people in the Polish Parliament) - the German government has the means to end all this once and for all, by proclaiming, in clear and unequivocal terms, that it is expropriating all the lands and property left by German citizens in post-war Poland, and that it is transferring these lands and porperty to the people in Poland that de-facto own these lands.

If this was done, it would end the matter. But the German government has never even tried anything like this, resorting to what, over here, looks like mere half-measures (i.e., they're refusing to even consider any of the demands for compensation... but this is not a final solution to the problem, it's just a delaying measure). People here tend to be pretty suspicious about that - especially in light of the constant assurances from Germany that the matter's closed. If it's so closed, why not close it properly?

That's answered easily: if Germany expropriates by a law then according to the constitution it has to compensate those who were expropriated. Now, I don't think that they'd get any compensation but would be told they already have been compensated. But it would sure stir up some trouble and anger - to no use in the eyes of the German governemt since for them it's clear that the matter is closed.

Pfft, the Americans have a constitution for 51 (or was it 52? For some reason, I always forget) countries, and it's much, much shorter and more accessible. The EU constitution's length is not a necessity, but just another symptom of the organisation's excessive bureaucracy.

You can't compare the US and EU constitution. The US constitution is more than 200 years old and is thus rather simplistic compared to other more recent constitutions. But that's not bad or unusual for a country with the Common law system - which the majority of the EU states does not have.
(BTW: I always forget if there are 50 or 51 states - thus I guess 51 is correct .)

None of this matters, because the tribunal in Strasburg can overrule whatever decisions the German courts had made in this matter (that, after all, is the point of appealing to a court of higher instance). And what people here fear is that this is an open-and-shut case - those people *own* that land. They have the documents to prove it. There was never any legislation taking the land away from them, they were simply ordered to leave by an occupant. In point of fact, at the time when they were leaving, there wasn't even any government that could lawfully expropriate them. You may disagree on all this, but here's the crux of the matter - nobody will know for sure until such a case actually gets to Strasburg.

(and recently, Strasburg ruled against Poland in a similar-but-different case, dealing with Polish citizens expelled from lands now beyond Poland's eastern border; the difference, however, is that while it was the Soviets that took the lands, the Polish government had a treaty with the USSR in which it took upon itself to compensate the expelled Poles. There is no such treaty between Poland and Germany, so if Strasburg recognises the expelled Germans' right to compensation - which it has to, since their case is exactly identical to that of the expelled Poles - the burden of compensation will be upon the Polish government)

Ah but with your point further down about being a sovereign nation, as Germany is as well, it wouldn't matter if Straßburg ruled differently. Because Germany could choose not to be bound anymore by the convention.

And AFAIK, the Court at Straßburg shouldn't apply the Convention to events before the entry into force. So I am a bit surprised about the verdict you mentioned.
Furthermore, the judges at the court are not stupid - they know it'd only cause trouble if they ruled in favor of the Germans. And there's enough to rule against them - considering the loss of territory as German reparation to Poland, the treaties confirming this. And, as you maybe heard, it is possible (though not undiscuted) to consider Chancellor Schröder's phrase that there is no room for any demands as a renounce of any possible rights of Germany against Poland, binding it by international law.

I don't think so. I haven't read the parts of the constitution that deal with withdrawing from the EU, but this is a trap. Poland is a sovereign nation. As a sovereign nation, we can withdraw from the EU any time, because the EU is just a bunch of treaties which we can abrogate with no consequences whatsover - because sovereignty, after all, means having no one ruling you, and therefore no one capable of forcing you to do anything (whoops, there goes the entire work of fiction called 'international law'). As such, all this talk about a stronger EU being a pre-requisite for leaving the EU can only be a trap. Looking back at history, 1861 stands out as a particularly tragic date, when a group of sovereign countries found out that unfortunately, the treaty organisation to which they had adhered to was stronger than they were and did not want to let them go. And the EU is usurping the priviledges of the sovereign state at a far quicker pace than the USA did.

I'm sure there would be consequences by the EU but of course, yes, a sovereign country can choose not to honour its international agreements. But but a government can also choose to ignore laws or the constituion - all of it is only paper. But modern societies consider these rules which they gave to themselves binding.
And after skimming through the US constitution it appears to me that the states of the US were not as sovereign as the members of the EU are.

(also, note that voting against the constitution in the referendum is quite possibly the last time I'll have a say in this matter; the media and the government will never allow an anti-EU party to win any elections, so this is the end of the line - either the people turn down the constitution and Poland gets kicked out of the EU, or we're stuck in this swamp forever)

But the majority of the polish people voted for the adherence to the EU. They already had their say in that matter. And in a democracy any party should be able to win an election if backed-up by the population. If it isn't so in Poland, then it's your system which is to be blamed, nothing else.
Please, there's no offense meant by this - I know of course that theory and reality often differ. But it's up to each country to solve that matter. Here in Germany, a referendum is not possible on the federal level - that's critized by many. So if people care, they should vote for the party that supports referendums on the federal level.
And I don't think that Poland or any other EU member will be kicked out if it refuses the constitution. Which I then think is wrong - after all, the new members were associated to the elaboration of the consitution. If they didn't like then they just could have never adhered to the EU. If the constitution is turned down then the EU will be blocked for a long time and it'll be the fault of those who refused.