Replies

If ratified, the EU will have a parliament, president, court, military, central bank, and currency.

The EU already has most of these things: A parliament since 1952 (directly elected since 1979), a rotating presidency (currently Sweden as represented by minister Cecilia Malmström), a high court, a common currency (the Euro) and a(n independent) central bank in Frankfurt, Hesse, Germany

Why not go more in-depth? The Commission (appointed) is the actual executive, but writes the laws; the Parliament has no legislative power although it's called a legislature. The Council of Ministers (appointed) is a wild card, who can make laws and pass them if they feel like it. The "rotating presidency" is to be replaced by an appointed permanent president who shall have a 2½-year term.

The buildup of a EU military is laid out in several paragraphs of the Treaty of Lisbon, as is a mandatory requirement to show "mutual solidarity" in the case of an attack on one member state (all the other member states have to respond using all of the military and civilian resources at its disposal).

And in case people missed it, the German Constitutional Court ruled earlier this year that all EU laws have to pass through Berlin and conform to Germany's Basic Law by being approved by the Bundestag and Bundesrat. So now Germany has become the de-jure ruler of the EU.

If it walks like a country and talks like a country...it sounds as if Great Britain, France, Ireland, Germany, and Italy...all once great empires of their own, will come to an end.

Why should they? Did the US end with NATO? Or when Saudi Arabia pegged its currency to the Dollar? First of all, the reform treaty - even an earlier draft called constitutional treaty - is not a constitution in the sense the US has a constitution. First of all, all power emanates from the member nations, which are free to secede from the union anytime they like.

No, that's not true at all. The "principle of subsidiarity" means that the powers "conferred" on the EU's government consist of all political power, to be doled out at Brussels' sole discretion, and anything that Brussels feels "can be done better at EU level" will never make it back down to the member state governments.

Many political leaders in Europe have already called the EU an empire, most poignantly Jose Manuel Barroso, who has been re-"elected" President of the EU Commission by the EU Parliament.

Member states can secede "whenever they like"? Better re-read that treaty. The language is not very clear, and all decisions thereof are up to Brussels, which means that the member state in question can be put into a very uncomfortable position if it "decides to withdraw".

The Lisbon Treaty is a Constitution. It may differ markedly from the US Constitution in principles and laws, but it's a binding constitution. In addition to founding the EU's military in earnest, it also imposes the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights upon all member states. Habeas corpus is absent; free speech is absent; even freedom of the press is absent. Even worse, the current government in Brussels has a strong far-right (fascist) influence within it. The EU is not going to any good place.

And in case people missed it, the German Constitutional Court ruled earlier this year that all EU laws have to pass through Berlin and conform to Germany's Basic Law by being approved by the Bundestag and Bundesrat. So now Germany has become the de-jure ruler of the EU.

That is complete nonsense. What the ruling actually meant was that the Federal Government cannot negotiate on the EU level without involving the states (or Bundeslaender), as that would infringe on their rights. So the states have to be involved in writing the law and have to be respected when implementing EU law, i.e. rewriting EU law into national law.

No, that's not true at all. The "principle of subsidiarity" means that the powers "conferred" on the EU's government consist of all political power, to be doled out at Brussels' sole discretion, and anything that Brussels feels "can be done better at EU level" will never make it back down to the member state governments.

To be blunt: I am right, you are wrong. The difference between a nation like the US and the EU is that powers conferred to the EU can be revoked, whereas US states cannot secede from the union. In some cases that takes the form of opt-outs (e.g. not all EU member states use the Euro), otherwise by simply leaving the European Union, because ultimately the souvereignty and legitimacy lies with the nation states. Of course, leaving the EU would be an endlessly messy affair with a huge fallout (due to the close economic integration of the EU member states), but it is within the nations' rights. That's also why the reform treaty specifically features a secession clause.

Better re-read that treaty. The language is not very clear, and all decisions thereof are up to Brussels, which means that the member state in question can be put into a very uncomfortable position if it "decides to withdraw".

I'm not denying that. But the EU will never wage a "civil war" against a member that decides to leave. What you call uncomfortable position results from the close integration of the economies and legal systems, which partly goes for non-EU members, too. Switzerland for example adopts a lot of EU legislation and has become a de-facto member of the common market without being a member of the EU. If the surrounding EU countries were to close the borders, the Swiss economy would suffer as well.

Habeas corpus is absent; free speech is absent; even freedom of the press is absent.
To quote from the source:
11.1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
11.2 The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
47. Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

In other words: so it's freedom of the media (not only press) and of expression (not only speech, but also blogs), different wording, same meaning.

I'm not saying the reform treaty is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'm just saying that your statement is incorrect.

Many political leaders in Europe have already called the EU an empire, most poignantly Jose Manuel Barroso, who has been re-"elected" President of the EU Commission by the EU Parliament.

The US has often referred to itself as an empire ("imperial presidency" etc.) without ever having had an emperor. Of course the EU is an empire in the sense that it's the world's largest integrated economy and that this economic might / heft of course influences its neighbors, just like 2000 years ago all roads (i.e. infrastructure) led to Rome. But that's just semantics.