'Lisbon means the EU should be recognised as a nation'

[RandBlade]

Funny, I seem to recall that when Labour was in power that their promise of an EU referendum was unnecessary as Lisbon had no 'constitutional' properties or significant transfers of power; then again according to Labour the Constitution itself was "just a tidying up exercise".

Why then now is Labour's Baroness Ashton, the EU foreign minister, now claiming that Lisbon means the EU should be recognised by the UN?

EU fails to get prominent UN role
The European Union has run into trouble over its plan to take a more prominent United Nations role after hitting opposition from developing nations in a setback to Herman Van Rompuy's presidential aspirations.

Arab, African, Latin American and Caribbean countries rallied against EU proposals to assume similar rights and powers to a fully fledged nation state at the UN general assembly during a vote in New York on Monday night.

The deferral means that Mr Van Rompuy, the President of the European Council, will not be able to address the assembly on behalf of the EU next week.

The EU is asking that Mr Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton, Europe's foreign minister, get the same speaking rights as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton during UN debates, a privilege denied to regional organisations such as the African Union, Arab League or the Caribbean Community, Caricom.

Lady Ashton said she hoped to overcome the opposition by explaining how the Lisbon Treaty had created new institutions to give the EU a more collective voice after she travels to New York on Sunday for meetings of the UN General Assembly next week.

"It gives us a real opportunity to talk to those countries who want to hear a little bit more about what it means," she said.

"We are simply asking for the fact of Lisbon to be recognised."

European diplomats have admitted to being "embarrassed" and having underestimated the lack of sympathy from other countries for giving special rights to Mr Van Rompuy and Lady Ashton.

"Certain countries are hardly inclined to grant even more privileges to the Europeans, who are already quite well represented," said a diplomat.

The Caribbean regional grouping Caricom called for the EU resolution to be postponed, probably until next year, 76 countries voted for, 71 were against and 26 abstained.

"The UN charter is based on the membership and equality of sovereign states and we need to ensure that this draft resolution upholds these fundamental principles," said a representative from the island nation of Nauru on behalf of several Pacific island countries.

Germany and Austria took the prized EU ambassadorial postings of Beijing and Tokyo on Wednesday as Lady Ashton announced 29 ambassadors for new diplomatic corps.

[littlelolligagged]

Would they be wanting to give up the representation of each of the member countries in the UN, then? And the two permanent seats on the security council?

That's some craziness.

[RandBlade]

No, they want to have an additional voice as well as the 27 already there.

Crazy.

[littlelolligagged]

Maybe you could invade some small country as a cohesive unit and take over their government and get the additional voice that way.

Iraq is currently up for grabs.

This thread has really been a WTF moment for me. I should just give up now, because I can't stop giggling at it enough to participate seriously in the serious forum.

[Hazir]

Randblade you are being an ass. First off, Ashton doesn't say at all what you claim she says. As for the EU being a supra-national entity of a special kind; that has been acknowledged in fora like the WTO, OECD, Council of Europe, G8 and G20 for decades now. In all three both the EU and (several of) its memberstates are full members. It is not strange the EU wants to achieve the same in the UN General Assembly. Very often the partner of the UN is the EU rather than its memberstates anyway (Unesco, WHO, Unicef) so it makes little to no sense to communicate indirectly.

I have very little doubt that the EU will apply the necessary pressure on countries that recieve significant sums from Brussels in the upcoming period.

[RandBlade]

Randblade you are being an ass. First off, Ashton doesn't say at all what you claim she says.

I am not "being an ass", all I am saying is from what I read in the quoted article. Am I taking what I said out of context of the article (which I quoted in full)? Or are you claiming I'm saying what she said out of some other context, because I've not seen any other context.

As for the EU being a supra-national entity of a special kind; that has been acknowledged in fora like the WTO, OECD, Council of Europe, G8 and G20 for decades now. In all three both the EU and (several of) its memberstates are full members. It is not strange the EU wants to achieve the same in the UN General Assembly. Very often the partner of the UN is the EU rather than its memberstates anyway (Unesco, WHO, Unicef) so it makes little to no sense to communicate indirectly.

I have very little doubt that the EU will apply the necessary pressure on countries that recieve significant sums from Brussels in the upcoming period.

That logic I can agree with. But that is not the logic Ashton used. Ashton specifically said and I quote: "We are simply asking for the fact of Lisbon to be recognised."

Lisbon has not been recognised for decades, so Ashton is "simply asking" to say that the situation has changed with Lisbon. Something she and her party denied before ratifying Lisbon

Had she said it was being consistent for decades and argued that way then I wouldn't have an issue, I take issue with her using Lisbon as an argument for change.

[Nessus]

No, they want to have an additional voice as well as the 27 already there.

Crazy.

It's not so much "crazy" as it is trying to undo the Yalta conference, but good luck putting that genie back in the bottle.

[Hazir]

All that Ashton did was react to a childish attempt of some third world countries to prevent the unavoidable.

[RandBlade]

The EU is not a country, it is not childish to say that. Come on Hazir, you can do better than resort to name-calling.

Ashton is a liar one way or the other. She either lied when she and her party said that Lisbon was no change, or she lied when she said that Lisbon is the reason that the UN should recognised. There is no reconciling those two positions.

I have no problem with eg Rompuy saying it should be recognised, he at least is consistent. Ashton is a two-faced liar, typical for the Labour party and it is a shame she represents the UK on the Commission.

[Loki]

The UN is based on the concept of sovereign equality, and there is no way that the countries that grasp to this concept (especially in the Third World) would allow EU states to have more than one vote in the GA. The Soviet Union did technically have 3, but that was a function of what happened in WWII, and won't be replicated. If the EU wants to be treated as a state in the UN, it will have to give up all the country seats. This has nothing to do with whether the EU performs or doesn't perform the responsibilities of a state.

[RandBlade]

Since the EU represents us at the WTO the individual nations don't normally speak at most meetings.

The WTO is about trade where we are unified though, the UN is about nations and the EU is not a nation. Should the Arab League, African Union etc also get votes at the UN?

[Loki]

Since the EU represents us at the WTO the individual nations don't normally speak at most meetings.

The WTO is about trade where we are unified though, the UN is about nations and the EU is not a nation. Should the Arab League, African Union etc also get votes at the UN?

The WTO isn't based on sovereign equality - the voting there is based on contributions.

The EU is no less a state than Somalia. The UN really has no hard requirement about it means to be a state.

[RandBlade]

The EU is no less a state than Somalia. The UN really has no hard requirement about it means to be a state.

Except that the citizens of the EU are all already represented by their member-nations. The UK could theoretically otherwise have 6 votes in the UN: 1 as the UK, 1 as the EU and 4 as the constituent nations of the UK.

[Hazir]

I'm pretty certain the next vote will go different.

[Loki]

Except that the citizens of the EU are all already represented by their member-nations. The UK could theoretically otherwise have 6 votes in the UN: 1 as the UK, 1 as the EU and 4 as the constituent nations of the UK.

The point is that if the Europeans agreed to give up the individual votes of European countries and get one for the EU instead, the rest of the UN would agree.

[RandBlade]

Obviously

[Hazir]

The point is that if the Europeans agreed to give up the individual votes of European countries and get one for the EU instead, the rest of the UN would agree.

Obviously. And just as obviously the European states will not do that because they have the means to change this vote next time that it comes up.

[RandBlade]

Obviously. And just as obviously the European states will not do that because they have the means to change this vote next time that it comes up.

... And if that is true, the "means to change this vote" will not be called Lisbon.

[Hazir]

... And if that is true, the "means to change this vote" will not be called Lisbon.

So? The end result is still the same, third world countries are in no position to permanently block recognition of the results of Lisbon by the UN.

[RandBlade]

So, my point all thread that Ashton is talking crap stands.

You think that the EU would not have the power to 'convince' third world countries (as you think they will) without Lisbon?

[Hazir]

That is not material, are you drunk or something? The matter is that they do not want to recognize the differences after Lisbon and will be forced to do so.

Let me explain this for your feeble mind; Lisbon is necessary for Lisbon to be recognized. Because without Lisbon we wouldn't be asking for its recognition.

[agamemnus]

By saying "huff, the EU is already quite well represented", some of those third world country leaders are just grandstanding in order to score any amount of political points in their home countries.

I don't think it matters whether the EU nations have a lot of votes, 1000 votes, or 1 vote. (or, if the EU gains an extra vote + diplomats) The UN might be a quasi-democracy, but the world isn't. The world does not work by how many countries vote "yay" or "nay". So really, it's quite irrelevant whether the EU has a vote, or not. Even in the UN, there are veto-wielding countries, and the other countries have no veto voice. That is because of their military, economic, and political power. If the half the veto-wielding countries were to suddenly become third world nations, the UN would no longer exist as a socio-economic-military-political force (it would probably be replaced by something where the actually dominant countries were dominant on paper, too).

/rant.

[Loki]

So? The end result is still the same, third world countries are in no position to permanently block recognition of the results of Lisbon by the UN.

Sure they can. Most of them refuse to vote for anything that even slightly undermines the concept of sovereign equality. It would take quite a lot of arm-twisting to get them to allow EU states to have more than one vote, and considering how unwilling the EU is to stand up to those countries at the UN, I doubt that will happen. I'm surprised the resolution managed to get ~70 countries to vote in support.

As for Lisbon having any effect at all, I really fail to see how. No one at the UN really cares whether an entity meets the qualifications for a state. If they did, we'd have a good 50 fewer states than we do.

[Lewkowski]

Non security council UN seats really doesn't matter so all of this is rather silly, BUT

Come on, common sense would dictate you have to have it one or the other. You can not have it both. Either you are one country or are you multiple countries. Should we be giving California an extra seat at the UN? Nah of course not, even though the GDP of that one state is bigger then several of the little inconsequential euro countries...

[RandBlade]

Come on, common sense would dictate you have to have it one or the other. You can not have it both. Either you are one country or are you multiple countries. Should we be giving California an extra seat at the UN? Nah of course not, even though the GDP of that one state is bigger then several of the little inconsequential euro countries...

You're entirely right Lewk, including about this being a silly argument - only the Security Council has any teeth.

Either Luxembourg is a country and the EU is a supranational organisation, or the EU is a naiton and Luxembourg is a state of it.

Which do you think it is Hazir? Or do you think that the EU is a nation made out of nations (Like the UK I suppose, but guess what we only get represented once too).

Is there a single nation in the world represented twice in the UN?

[Hazir]

I think the EU is a supra-national organisation with the teeth to make the UN decide to recognize it as a full member, regardless of the membership of its members. This is a minor set-back, the countries that opposed it now are generally irrelevant. The reason why it is an issue at all is that Surinam made a fuss about it.

[Hazir]

I think giving California a seat on the GA would be against the American Constitution. But I have no doubt that if the US really wanted something like that, California would be allowed in, despite some third world countries making noise about it.

It's just about who throws money at what.

[LittleFuzzy]

By saying "huff, the EU is already quite well represented", some of those third world country leaders are just grandstanding in order to score any amount of political points in their home countries.

I don't think it matters whether the EU nations have a lot of votes, 1000 votes, or 1 vote. (or, if the EU gains an extra vote + diplomats) The UN might be a quasi-democracy, but the world isn't. The world does not work by how many countries vote "yay" or "nay". So really, it's quite irrelevant whether the EU has a vote, or not. Even in the UN, there are veto-wielding countries, and the other countries have no veto voice. That is because of their military, economic, and political power. If the half the veto-wielding countries were to suddenly become third world nations, the UN would no longer exist as a socio-economic-military-political force (it would probably be replaced by something where the actually dominant countries were dominant on paper, too).

/rant.

Nice rant. This issue is explicitly limited to the General Assembly, so references to permanent security council members does not make much sense.

[Loki]

I think the EU is a supra-national organisation with the teeth to make the UN decide to recognize it as a full member, regardless of the membership of its members. This is a minor set-back, the countries that opposed it now are generally irrelevant. The reason why it is an issue at all is that Surinam made a fuss about it.

They might or might not be irrelevant in the real world, but they have 2/3 of the votes in the GA.

[LittleFuzzy]

I think the EU is a supra-national organisation with the teeth to make the UN decide to recognize it as a full member, regardless of the membership of its members.

Why? Why should supra-national organizations be recognized as members at all, in an body that is itself merely a supra-national organization of sovereign states? You mentioned other UN bodies like WHO, but those bodies have actual jobs to do besides presenting a supra-national voice to states.