The Irish have Europe's future in their hands

[Skybird]

Tomorrow they will vote wether or not they will accept the european constitution that was rejected by democratic valid referendums by the people in two european nations, and then - by cheating and deception and preventing the european people to have a word in it - was reintroduced almost unchnaged through the backdoor. One of the masterminds behind the original constitution, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, said loud and clearly that the treaty of Lisbon covers the same items and formulates the same goals and mechanisms and inlcudes the same content as the original constitution that failed to convince France and Netherlands (the people, not the elitist governments), and that the treaty in no way has undergone essential changes. The Lison ztreaty and the active prevention and arguing of not letting the european people decide about something so fundamental, for me is a textbook example of how to undermine and prevent democracy and actively deconstructing it while at the same time strengthening bureucartic power accumulation of never democvratically legitimised offices and administrative structures claiming the right to command sovereign (and elected!) governments what to do and what not.

I hope the Irish deliver this political betrayal of european people a crushing defeat tomorrow.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,druck-558893,00.html

Without doubt the thing then will be tried a third time to be enforced onto european people. But maybe then another one will show up to jump into the breach and hold it.

[vedrand]

Two things:

The treaty has been ratified by about 20 European parliaments, in all cases in a very clear YES vote. These people do represent the interests of their respective countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

Secondly I am a strong believer in representative democracy because it is obvious that very few people are actually able to realisticaly weigh pros and cons of such a treaty. Theerefore the vote will be decided purely on the emotional basis. Of course, this type of behaviour does not apply only for Irish voters, but as this is a very big moment I would ask all the Irish members of the forum to vote YES for the sake of common future.

Greetings from Austria.

[Skybird]

Those elected at the time when being elected did not know and did not tell the voters that they would be in a situation later where to make such a heavy decision with such far-leading consequences. Parliamentary democracy the voter can only anticipate regarding future trends. when most european voters voted the last time, they simpyl could not know what would come of the Lisbon treaty, and what content it would be (the old one). Therefore in several european nations there always is the possibility to have the people decide a critical issue of seriour consequences, under circumstances usually regulated by laws or the comnstitution. Biut just look at the way the duscission was done in Britain, and how the government was squirming and eeling on the floor to avoid needing to call it by terms and names that would have made a referendum obligatory - terms that in fact just two years ago were valid and okay to be used to describe what it is. In Germany, the disucssion was ended pretty much in an authoritarian style: a "No!" was shouted at those wanting a referendum, and that was it. And since that met lobby intersts, po0liticians felt happy with it and declared it a closed issue. the Lisbon treaty affects Germany more serious than any chnage to the constitution since WWII. To leave that an issue to a small group of potentats, life-long politicians who think the voters have to serve their interests to keep them in power endlessly, and lobbyists, is a bit naive.

By content, the treaty is the same as the old constitution, there are only cosmetical changes as the result of the long rethinking and redesigning process that was promised when French and Dutch people said no (and I still rank mthe will of the people as higher as the will of the group of lobbyist at top of governments). Lats time this content was worth to be hold referendums aboiut it in some nations. but the fear for another sounding No now justifies that the same content miust not be made subject of a referedum in these places lioke last time? Just because it is no longer called a constitution but a treaty? That is arbitrarily switching on and off the rules of laws, coinstitiutuoon, and an opportunistic abuse of deomcracy: letting people only vote when they will create the result that is demanded, else either let them vote again and again until they do, or don't let them vote at all.

Also, parliamentary democracy is an ideal only these days, it has faded into history, today the parliaments for the most are a pit filled with lobbyist and party-strategists who in the main eye only one thing: their own power, their party's power and how to best deceive the public about it.

And finally, the way europe gets dsigned and taken over by the eurocrats simply is asomething that I regard as negative, destroying democarcy and freedom, and establishing a tyranny of lobbies and bureucraty who have not democratic legitimation at all, neither directly, nor indirectly. the whole EU thing has derailed roughly 15 to 18 years ago.

Both Valery Giscard d'Estaing an Helmut Schmidt must be counted to the founding fathers of the EU idea. The french last year said in an interview he sees the ideas the EU was founded on and was meant to develope after the end of the cold war as having failed. The nGerman says the risk that the EU will fail as a historic conception, is very high now, and failure cannot only be ruled out, but over the medium to lon future miust be expected. Both men descrobe the EU today as a distortion, and misdevelopement, the insane speed at which it has increased its size is descirbed by them as self-damaging, and wrong. Well, I hold Schmidt in very high respect, and as so often I certainly do not wish to argue with him here. I think today'S EU is on a track that is in violation of what it was meant for, and democratic princicples, and in ignoration to what degree democracy alraedy has been ursurped by lobbyists and their influehnce in media and public opinion forming. I think the EU as it is now needs to be destroyed, in order to overcome it and build it again in a more functionaol, comnstuctive way, serbong the peoplem of europe and their interest, as well as protecting their legacy of libertiues, freedoms, rights, a humansitic philosophic fundament, and democracy itself. the tumor the EU instiotutions and their jungle of powerpolitics and selfishness is today, imo is beyond reform and repair. The treaty of Lisbon just adds to the general deofmration, adding to the pervertion of freedoms, and the ursurping of power to a degree that national election have no meaning anymore. (80% of nthe laws in Germany that touch fields that are also being treated by EU institutions - are no longer be decided by the elected German parliament, but are waved thorugh for being demands and commands and laws coming from Burssel. The german voter that way gets betrayed, and the parliament violates its constitutional responsibility. In fact we are governed by office workers in Brussel, by chairmans of commissions, by secretaries and other kinds of bureaucrats. and if during the next election a very difefrent government gets elcted in Germany, and after ten yeras and twenty years - these very same bureaucraty will command european governemnt what to do and what laws to form and what laws to abandon, for they are completely beyond democratic legimitiation processes. And that'S why I call it the dictatorship of the bureaucrats.

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE EU WAS MEANT TO BE.

[joea]

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE EU WAS MEANT TO BE.

:up: Indeed, I sometimes wonder why I went through years of effort to get my Greek passport (in addition to my Canadian) inronically it helped me to get a Swiss permit more easily.

[GlobalExplorer]

I hope the Irish deliver this political betrayal of european people a crushing defeat tomorrow.

That's pure demagogy. What is your concept for Europe?

Tomorrow they will vote wether or not they will accept the european constitution that was rejected by democratic valid referendums by the people in two european nations,

Most people understand less about the background of this decision than my *******. If they form their information only on the basis of TV and populistic tabloids, I am all for forcing it upon them.

[STEED]

Europe is finished as the EU wants and will get in due course a empire. Turkey is next to join. And if any of us are still alive watch the impossible happen as Libya along with Egypt and a few others down in the Med.

David Miliband MP & Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was asked last year this would cause to much red tape with more and more country's joining the EU. His answer was, we will have 10 to 15 powerful rulers for each divided up regions.

The EU is evil and the time people see it for what it stand for it will be game over. Hitler tried it by force and failed. The EU is doing it by stealth and cunning lies, patients is there word.

[GlobalExplorer]

The EU is evil and the time people see it for what it stand for it will be game over. Hitler tried it by force and failed. The EU is doing it by stealth and cunning lies, patients is there word.

What bullsh_t.

[STEED]

The EU is evil and the time people see it for what it stand for it will be game over. Hitler tried it by force and failed. The EU is doing it by stealth and cunning lies, patients is there word.

What bullsh_t.

They got you wrapped around there little finger. :lol:

[vedrand]

Don't have too much time now so I will reply only to a small part of your post, namely the following.


And finally, the way europe gets designed and taken over by the eurocrats simply is asomething that I regard as negative, destroying democarcy and freedom, and establishing a tyranny of lobbies and bureucraty who have not democratic legitimation at all, neither directly, nor indirectly.

I would say no one is taking over anything here. It took a long time to find a compromise for this treaty that everybody could agree on. If you are of the opinion that your government is destroying your own democracy, then the EU is not place to blame. Do you think that parliaments of:

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Denmark
Finnland
France
Germany
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
The Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
and the UK

the countries that have ratified the treaty so far, do not work in the interest of their own people? Do you think that all the people sitting in those parliaments are bought up by lobbys and 'eurocrats'?. I do not think so and moreover I trust these people (from all of the countries above) to be in a better position to known about the effects of the treaty then the average voter in Ireland or indeed any in any other country. Needless to say that all of us need to resprect the Irish law and accept the outcome of the vote.

I deeply believe in common values of the citizens of Europe. Despite all of our differencies that caused so much trouble in the last century and before. Please tell me one thing that is the interest of an average let say German and not in the interest of an average lets say Austrian (or could be any other country).

The broad parliamentary support, EU wide, is for me reason enough to believe in the treaty.

There are certainly problems in todays world that all of us need to cope with, but we are doing no better if everyone retreats behind the own borders and tries to solve them there.

[Tchocky]

I'm voting yes tomorrow, but I consider the referendum to be a stupid and dangerous idea that does the national image no good.
The amount of public dissatisfaction with the governement in general means there will be an automatic swell behind a No vote. People will be voting on things totally unconnected with Lisbon, because we're not used to having referenda and the body politic can't cope with having to express an opinion on a single issue.

*anger*

I hear the No crowd going on about democracy in Europe. Is there anything democratic in allowing a couple of thousand people to thoroughly screw up a continental system? Blech.

[vedrand]

Anyway we saw how much Europe cares about the people's vote when they sat on the Dutch and French "NO" to that treaty. I sure hope the Irishs will say NO but I don't think it will change anything, they'll just twist it another way.
Did you vote in the last election in your country? Did you bother to ask anyone why the French parliament voted yes? Did you listen to their reasons? With you type of understanding of politics (my/our opinion (and vote) do not change anything anyhow) you give away the precious gift that has been given to us by generation who fought for it hardly.

[vedrand]

I can only talk for my country, but here goes : yes the parliament is sold to lobbies and big money groups.
IMHO, this part is way to simplistic and demagogic to be of any use in our discussion.

[STEED]

I'm voting yes tomorrow

Well you got the vote unlike us here in the UK, let us flashback to 2005 and in Labours manifesto if Labour was re-elected we the British people will have the vote on Europe. Labour was re-elected and did we get the vote? No we bloody well did not, Tony Blair in his last days in power went over to cross the T's and dot the I's followed by Gordon Brown signing it by sneaking in the back door. This Labour government has betrayed us the people and they should all be thrown in prison.

[GlobalExplorer]

People will be voting on things totally unconnected with Lisbon, ..

Well said.

You can make referenda on just about anything that has "EU" in it and people will vote NO. They are pissed off with capitalism, their lives, politics they don't understand, the EU they also dont understand, in summary all they want is to see the death of a scapegoat.

There is also a majority that wants to opt out of the Euro. First it was because it was too weak, now because it is too strong.

This all has nothing to do with democracy it's just stupid.

[Skybird]

I hear the No crowd going on about democracy in Europe. Is there anything democratic in allowing a couple of thousand people to thoroughly screw up a continental system? Blech.
A continental system that got no approval by the continental population. Three years ago, as well as today, polls have shown over and over again that the support for Lesbon is very far from being a sure thing. In fact most polls showed, since three years, that the content of the Lisbon treaty, that is the same as the constitution, is rejected by a majority. I think it is fair to say that more europeans do not want it, than wanting it. since the political deceptions and word balancing acts and as I see it: betrayals have brought us to this pass, I do not care wether it is fair or not that some Irishmen shall decide for all the continent. I hope they stop the deed before it is completed.

the proper way would have been after the Dutch and French No to wait longer, and then to bring up a totally new draft that really is different in content to the former draft, instead of just renaming it, but keeping the essentials. But what we now have is essentially the same that was borught up three years ago, and was rejected by the rules one had set up. the only thing different today is - that one has changed the rules. That is kicking the ball away, and when it rests on the ground, carrying the goal there and around it and declare it a score. In other words: it is cheating, or clearer: betrayal.

[Skybird]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/11/ireland.eu

This letter could have been written by me.


I was surprised by your leader on Ireland's vote on the Lisbon treaty (June 7), particularly the line: "An Irish yes would be an enlightened act." Enlightenment is thin on the ground here; banal advertising campaigns bombard the electorate with the message "Get the complete picture", while our politicians - who all, except for Sinn Féin, implore us to vote yes - admit they haven't read the treaty. Indeed Ireland's EU commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, proudly declared that no sane person would want to.

A cursory glance at the treaty shows it to be impenetrable and virtually impossible to understand. The proposed amendment to Ireland's constitution is equally meaningless. Ireland's Referendum Commission, which was created to offer an unbiased assessment of referendums, talks of many unknowns with Lisbon. Truly, nobody knows what might happen if it is ratified. The treaty's one nod to participative democracy - as opposed to the failed representative democracy which has brought us to this point - is a citizen's initiative process, whereby a million EU citizens can bring forward a topic for discussion in the European commission. Yet even this potential vote winner is just a fuzzy proposal.

Ireland is in a unique and historic position as the only country required to ratify Lisbon with a democratic vote. Should a population of just 4.5 million really hold back the will of 480 million? Given the unknowns, indeed the unknowables, in Lisbon's serpentine text, Ireland has a duty to vote no on June 12. Then the EU must work to address the democratic deficit which lies at the heart of its problems. And then all the EU citizens must have their say.
Very well said. Just where he takes "the will of the 480 million" as granted to be in favour of Lesbon, allows criticism, but probably is not intended, but comes by not taking enough care with wording. 480 million were not asked, as a matter of fact.



This is not just another of the many daily political minor decisions, this is basic, most essential, substantial, extremely important stuff that potentially affects our lives in the future fundamentally. In other words: it is far too important to leave it to politicians who want to support their career because they have not understood that the time of life-long power and aristocratic governing the people from the top are usually considered to be over. Something so basic and essential should not become valid without a clear and strong majority of the citizens of people in european nations are accepting it. So far we only have seen tricks and cheats of the top estaiblishement to keep them away from voicing there criticism and dissatisfaction and disturbing the harmony of the leaderships.

And if France'S Kouchner already has sent angry threats to kick Ireland out of the Eu if they do not vote like they are demanded to do, then this shows an interesting understanding of what freedom of political choosing, and demcoracy is about. Kouchner obviously thinks that people should only be allowed to make a choice if they will choose what they are commanded to choose.

A No tomorrow will trigger a crisis for the EU, yes. but it is a desperately needed, necessary, healthy crisis, offering the chance to become clear about some very serious distortions and deeformations that have accumulated over the past 15 years and so far just get ignored and covered up.

"Coming to your senses" on my mind.

[asanovic7]

I don't know about your countries, but here in Croatia every darn politician is fighting and stating that eu is blessing from heaven.. Now, my voter's or whatever you call it, right that I can tell to other people what I want would (and will) be tested by some policeman who would want to pass me "his" will with a, how do you call it, we call it pendrek, stick.. Anyways, this whole darn world looks to me like 1984. from orwell, so who cares.. What democracy and freedom are you talking about when you have 2000 cameras in the centre of the town, 20000 policemen, 2000000 laws telling you this and that, 2000000000 shop malls where they throw food... Democracy and freedom are rather a fiction in the movies about william wallace and such.. When people figure out why fight club is a good movie, then things will be good..
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Whoever said history repeats itself. Roman empire, huh? Maybe when Croats get in, oh will you ever let us in? :rotfl: we all will have an emperor, don't know about you, but I will call him adolf..
Cheers!
p.s. one more thingy.. I sort of notticed that eu is nothing more than a toy in russians hands.. Energy issues? :rotfl:

[joegrundman]

There is valid criticism of the treaty and the constitution and the way it is being challenged, without it meaning that the EU project itself is unwanted

The EU is an overwhelmingly good thing for every member state (and it is not a toy in russia's hands - it is a big player, but there are other big players, and you have to do business with them)

But the rejection of the treaty by France and the Netherlands, even if motivated by other domestic political factors (as is widely believed), should be grounds for rewriting the constitution.

For sure, the constitution of a project like the EU should be something believable and understandable and in someway inspiring, and not some piece of impenetrable legalistic-beaurocratic jargon that as the Irish minister says: no sane person would want to [read], and in general i agree it is time the EU became more directly democratic.

But how does one do that in an organisation that is still less than even a confederacy? If one is to accept the principle that the nation state members of the EU are the supreme entities, rather than the federal structure itself - then what is wrong with saying your elected governments have the right to handle the EU as they agree?

If on the other hand, the European populace was to directly vote for the EU government, then the EU government will be given a mandate and power base that is independent of the governments of the member nation states. By doing this you are creating a stronger european "center" and heading in the direction of a federal structure more like that of the USA.

[kurtz]

. Should a population of just 4.5 million really hold back the will of 480 million?


This smacks of 'bringing democracy to your country'
If 4.5 milllion people in one country don't want the governments of 480 million people want them to have then surely that's fair enough. I mean if russia had enough people and their government wanted us to have thier laws should we have them?

I think not

[Tchocky]

grundman, you make too much sense :).

It can't be a flowing, inspiring document, because it changes existing modes rather than establishes new ones.

The bookies have Yes winning, I just can't wait for it to be over. The Yes campaign has shown ineptitude beyond belief, whereas the No side have outdone themselves in vacuous stupidity yet again. I;m not too enamoured with the average voter, either. On the train today there was lots of talk of "kicking this useless governmenr where it hurts". I'd almost agree, just to see some retribution for the idiocy of putting this to referendum, but it's in the bleedin' Constitution.
I have to spend some time in Dublin city centre tomorrow morning, not looking forward to it.

[Skybird]

. Should a population of just 4.5 million really hold back the will of 480 million?


This smacks of 'bringing democracy to your country'
If 4.5 milllion people in one country don't want the governments of 480 million people want them to have then surely that's fair enough. I mean if russia had enough people and their government wanted us to have thier laws should we have them?

I think not
Context please. In reality I exactly said pretty much the opposite of what you give it a twist to appear as. ;) Also, it is a quote from that letter, and not a quote by me.

[Skybird]

There is valid criticism of the treaty and the constitution and the way it is being challenged, without it meaning that the EU project itself is unwanted

The EU is an overwhelmingly good thing for every member state (and it is not a toy in russia's hands - it is a big player, but there are other big players, and you have to do business with them)

But the rejection of the treaty by France and the Netherlands, even if motivated by other domestic political factors (as is widely believed), should be grounds for rewriting the constitution.

For sure, the constitution of a project like the EU should be something believable and understandable and in someway inspiring, and not some piece of impenetrable legalistic-beaurocratic jargon that as the Irish minister says: no sane person would want to [read], and in general i agree it is time the EU became more directly democratic.

But how does one do that in an organisation that is still less than even a confederacy? If one is to accept the principle that the nation state members of the EU are the supreme entities, rather than the federal structure itself - then what is wrong with saying your elected governments have the right to handle the EU as they agree?

If on the other hand, the European populace was to directly vote for the EU government, then the EU government will be given a mandate and power base that is independent of the governments of the member nation states. By doing this you are creating a stronger european "center" and heading in the direction of a federal structure more like that of the USA.
Good thoughts. It is clear that if it ever is to become a Confederation (but who ever said it should? Just twenty years ago, nobody said so), then chnaged condition necessarily will go at the costs of condtions of today'S status quo. You cant get something new and nevertheless stick with the old in totality. that is clear.

But the question is not wether or not such a thing, or a union, should be tried, the question is about the quality of the effort, and the honesty of intention behind it. The original treaty is not so much my concern. But it is to difficult to understand, and if even many poltiicians do not care to read it (and thus ratify it withiout knowing hwat it is they are ratifying), then the whole operation starts running under a bad starsign already, also, later bad surprises canot be ruled out. and finally, if the EU rerally is for the citizens and not for the corporations only, on something so fundamental like a constitution (and mind you: the Lisbon treaty keeps the key parts of the constitution draft), those for whose benefit it is claimed to be should have been heared and their acceptance should be secured. I think, that acceptance by majority is in no way a given fact throughout Europe. I would even say that you need a 2/3 majority for such a huge thing, you do not want to run it with a majority of just 51:49 - which effectively means to have half the European citizens uninterested, or against you.

that the structures of the EU and the office levels that form the really powerful decisions, that work out new directives and guidelines that then are mandatory to be formed into valid laws in nations without these nations being free anymore to change or refuse them, the growing gap between the power-waging bureaucracy, and the citizens - ironically exactly what the treaty claims to reduce in width, but you take from mywords that I see that different - all this additonally helps to prevent to coinvince me that the way the EU is planned to be in this treaty, is desirable, and "for the people".

However, the tricky things in my opinion lie in the appendices of the treaty (boshe moi, there are even politicians in germany not knowing that the treaty has appendices, can one believe it...), where certain more reality-related issues are getting touched that have more direct implications to our political culture, our freedom to form opinions and to voice criticism, also our freedom to be against something and to reject what is alien. Talking of indirect imp0lications that will have - and already have - massive consequences on the way we form our "Geisteslandschaft". Unlimited, indifferentiating tolerance is hereby declared mandatory, which means you also cannot defend the nature and essence of what you consider to be yourself and your home and culture, since for that the existence of borders that define what is "you" and what is no more you, is a necessary precondition. I see a trend in the EU to neutralize tradiiutonal cultural difefrences between regions and people in europe anyway, and to erazse the differences you see when travelling thropugh europe, and which gives europe it's charm, but people for the most take only note of it when a story like the EU planning to ban for example a French camembert from selling or shepards in the high Alpes needing to desinfect the natural water their sheep are drinking since cneturies jump into newspapers headlines. These stories are curiosities, but the general massive trend underneath that sometimes creates also such stories - that is the underlying current that I see and that I am so bitterly against. This is not becasue my quarrel with Islam alone, although the way the Islam debate is handled by the EU is a most popular symptom.

and finally I am convinced that the EU already is far to big, and has expanded far to fast, and is accepting cnadidates that by all reason at the time they joined should not have been allowed to join. And when yesterday I read in a German online newspaper that a German politician said about the possibility of the irish saying No, that that would be bad because it would not allow the EU to speed up the joining process "of the new EU members", then I can only shake my head about so much incompetence and lacking sense of reality and infantile desire to ride with a neck-breaking speed. The EU runs by the motto bigger is better, and it puts - as to be seen in the ratification procedures that exclude the voice of the european citizens - quantity above quality.

Well, I see that exactly the other way around.

Whatever the rish vote will be, I think that in the future perspective of the next 20-30 years the EU is doomed anyway. It will break by the reason of that itself is how it is. It had a good start, until after the Europe-wide left.-swing in the early nineties other ideologies and other ways of thinking took over from the desogning generation, and messed it up beyond repair. That's how I see it. That this will not be of benefit in the economical confrontations and conflicts over ressources, is self-explanatory. Maybe one thinks that in preparation of those battles one needs to push the EU through today, no matter the cost, but when the cost is that the knight is wqaering his shining armoud, but all the pieces are bound and fixed incompetently, then the first strike at his shield will cause the first plates of armour falling off, and soon he will stand there as prepared as he really is: naked. The EU cannot surviuve even when being exonomically strong, if he has not the support and loyalty of the european people behind it it, and protects their dufferences as well as their similiarities, and does not only try to melt cultuires all into one, but fosters their differences as well. The diversity, the many differences, the plenty of local specialities is what hoistorically formed europe'S strength that for quite some time made in the world'S leading power centre. Farmers know a multiculture always is more resistant and stronger and healthier than a monoculture basing, which in this case is being formed on bureaucratic pseudointellectual and pseudo-humanistic assumptions and blueprint theories.

The EU shines on the outside, and has a nice blue in its flag. But the inside I consider to be rotten. cheating deals in its decision makings and deals being formed, foul compromises, and a lacking understanding what one is, where one begins and where one ends, are all symptoms of this that people in the street perceive and relaize, despite the official desire to cover that by daily propaganda, and governments and parties trying to gain influence over the media so that they can better sell the officially desired versions of the stories. In Germany, this is a battle raging currently - and not many take even note. But what worth has a democracy if the sources of information you need to form your opinion and make your choice get corrupted by party interests and political tendencies? the chains are no longe rmade of iron, but are invisible and mean to manipulated people's mind from within, teaching them not to use their thinking potential to the fuzllest, and be satisfied with colourful blinking pictures instead, and slogans that go down the ear smooth and well. When seeing the collection of daily news in the two german non-privatised TV stations ARD and ZDF, the slogans and phrases that endlessly repeat themselves remind me of the old Aktuelle Kamera the GDR used to have.

[Tchocky]

Just back from voting. My primary school is the area's polling station, I've never felt so tall :p

Ticked Yes, naturally :)

[Skybird]

"Traitor...!"

[Tchocky]

"Traitor...!" Honestly, Sky, you're not far off. According to some people on the No side here, that is :p

THere are posters in Dublin with the Proclamation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_the_Irish_Republic) of the Republic on them, the headline is "People died for your freedom, don't throw it away".
I'd prefer them to read "People died for your freedom, let's p*ss all over it with insulting posters like this"

[Skybird]

At least I can share your feeling of being tall in your school. Some weeks ago we had a city referendum wether or not the world's culture capitel of 2004 after 20 years of fighting finally should get a music hall (now think of that...).the referendum was held in a school were I spend 6th class. back then we already had lived for one a year in this city, before moving on to Berlin.

Of course, my much disliked city comrades voted No by 75% or so, and voted for a fairground place instead. They may have money in this city, but sure as hell they have no culture that goes beyond what is of gold, or sells you French Fries and a beer to loud pop music. So, no top class orchestras touring to Münster for another twenty years to come, this wannabe-culture-capitel of the world.

[asanovic7]

Sorry if I am being annoying but I have to say it, because I feel noone understood me.
What skybird is talking about is true, but I think he misses one final part of the puzzle. Whatever you vote, whatever you say, the world is allready set, cards are dealt and you can change ja...t.
Go out, vote, try to make world different. Like they care. It is fixable easy..
:rotfl: All you will find is the merry few laughing at you :rotfl:
Who are they? Who were they before?
Was like that before, will be forever.. More today, when you have lots of tvs, radios, screens telling you how it would be cool to have a bigger a.s of bigger .., along with what to drink, what to drive, what to eat and then you have yourself voting for.. Whom? What? Who cares? You vote based on a good poster, a good advert or your current mood affected by some tune on the radio and then when you do your civil "duty" you get back to your usual life again pumped with some new "important" things. Do you really think the world would be here if elections would be based on that?

And now to a more existent thought in my mind. Why is there a thing called eu, who needs it? Why, when supposedly no wars will happen, every leader likes the other one, and so on. Why there couldn't be free trade among the states no matter the eu or america or south america or asia. Why couldn't people live like they should? Because, in it there is no money. So..
This world is based on b...cks, and not only eu is gonna fall apart like you say skybird, everything will go to hell when corporations figure out they have too much supply of beans. Nice food for the soldiers. :rotfl:
The only thing eu is going to do is make a route to a big corporation governement of the world and the supreme power of the few, regardless of the peace/war issue.

Democracy is non existent fiction to make people happy. And
coca cola civilization is smashing everything like it is planned and whatever happens, it was planned 10 or 15 years ago.
The only thing we can do is work, play some game like sh3, f..k, have children, grow old, if we are lucky in peace, although war is always moneyworth and that's it. This computer civilization is the end of the man that used to be.

Sorry again if I am being annoying, this is my last word.. Anyways :up:
Cheers!

p.s. and to that big computer that is counting how many times I said samao the wrong way around, although samao is also a terrorist fiction. I have one saying about the world and the few ruling.
"You just have to roll it, idiots will get caught by it like flies" :rotfl:

[Skybird]

Major German and British media have started to report that the Irish have said No.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7452171.stm

Not even half of voters showed up at the polling stations, which is seen as an explanation.

Assuming that the trend does not revers over the day, the Lisbon treaty by rules lined out by the EU itself is thereby rejected.

It now depends on wether EU-tricksters and cheaters again think their time has come to try to buy the Irish vote in the third run to force through what people do not want (and after that maybe a foruth and a fifth attempt if needed), or if the message finally is being heared in Brussel that the content of the EU constitution, renamed as the Lisbon treaty, is not of the content and quality that it will ever find much love in Europe. Special deals for several countries, not to mention the excentricity of Poland (that even was rewarded), certainly did not help to make the Lisbon comnstitution any more popular and representative for what the EU claims it should be, in an idealistical meaning - the creation of the treaty had anything to do but with idealism.

Threats by some politicians to kick out the Irish, or go without them, are unacceptable. One cannot set up rules, and if the outcome does not satisfy, kick out these rules one had set up oneself, or kick out the player following them but not producing the commanded result. One has cheated europe already three years ago. now trying betrayal of the europeans again?

Many Eurocrats see drama and heaven falling, but metaphorically speaking I see it as a chance to shut off the locked engine, restart in midair, and get the generator finally working before the plane crashes hard. Which would be the result if trying to switch on the generator with a failed engine one does not care to ignite. Granted, a critical time of transition, and if not more reason is to be seen in the future, possibly a time that could eventually mark the beginning of the end of the bloc as it was misplanned during the last ten years. I would cry for the EU as was planned during the 80s and very early nineties. for the EU of the past 10-15 years I would not shed a tear.

Nice one, Ireland! :up:

[STEED]

Early forecasts show 60-65% voted no.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080613/twl-early-count-suggests-no-to-treaty-41f21e0.html

[Skybird]

Early forecasts show 60-65% voted no.

That will hopefully hold over the day!

[Respenus]

Skybird, have you ever considered the fact, that the Lisbon treaty allows members to exit the EU, if they want to? I say force Lisbon to the Irish and if they don't like what they get, they can always exit.

Of course such an action will without doubt cause a catastrophe and a chain reaction in the EU, and those who would remain as a political body will be even stronger. For others, there's always EFTA.

I admit I haven't read any of your comments, due to time constraits (I'll be sure to read them in the future). Yet I ask you this. Did you mind the 10 new member states joining the EU and now Schengen? If not, then what's your problem now? Nice was build for 25 members, we now have 27 and the EU as an institution cannot function within rules it has now. It has to modernise. So what if the EU might have a vote on two or three extra subject over national parliaments. You can always exit. Or you can always get 1M signatures and get something changed.

I'm not ashamed to say this. 50+ years of peace and economic growth are without precedent in WORLD history, yet alone European, which has seen bloody carnage in the 20th century. So what if we have to sacrifice a couple of liberties over who gets to fish somewhere and what our farmers are going to grow! As long as we are ALL fed, with a roof over our heads and a hope for the future, we're set to go.

This is the natural order of things Skybird. The world has to go on and before you know it, EU will become a confederation. With a good reason. What is important is the cultural difference that will remain at the same level as it is now. No Serbian will change your culture, nor will a French mine. This is important. "United in diversity!" What's so different with Germany? A band of united countries, not a SINGLE one. This is the EU.

I rest my case for now and I'll enjoy any response you will give me.

[Skybird]

respenus, I have adressed the questions you raise repeatedly, in this thread, and in past ones, so I really must not repeat them again. you said yiourself that you have not read it all. I leave it to saying that I am not just some stubborn concrete-headed conservative who is agaisnt the new and the chnage for principal reaso0ns. I see the Eu having chnaged for the very very bad in the recent 10-15 years, and dangerously eroding dmeocratic legitimiation of power in europe, and europe's nations, also seriously and systematically reducing cultural diversity and sovereignity of national parliaments who more and mor eoften violate their own constitutions when uncritically taking over new demands by the Eu bureucracy that acts without any democratic legitimation itself and stays even while politicans and governemnts come and go.

And as I also said, I am in great comopany with my criticism of the chnages the EU made since sometime during the early nineties. I enjoy the compan of people like Helmut Schmidt and Giscard d'Estaing, who describe the present EU as a derailing project that not only has a chnace to see the EU failing anymore, but making failure the most likely outcome (Schmidt).

I support an EU idea in the understanding of meaning of the 80s, and early 90s. but what the EU sees itself as since then, is not compatible with that.

The benefit of 60 years of freedom, in the main is not th EEC's (EU's), but NATOs, and I have given tribute to that acchievement several times in this forum. but it also had something to do with the bad experiences from WWII, as well as the existence of an external thread by an enemy who was of concern for all. See that this loyalty of NATO has broken apart since then, as is very obviously to be seen in the exmaple of Afghanistan. There, NATO alowed itself to be trapped in a place where it had no business, and members are not united (ignoring for a moment how valuable or iditoic the mission'S cause is being seen) but speak with a chorus of voices, if you listen closely - and many then even not matching their words with their deeds.

Too many cooks spoil the brew.the expoansion of the EU was far too hasty, unprepared, a general sense of megalomania I see, and an uncritical attitide of not knwoing limits and limitations anymore, just wanting to become bigger, and greater, and becoming a self-purpose. the EU last but not least is an office-creator for political pensioneers and commitees with responsibilities that before their creation nobody ever missed, and who all too often take themselves very serious while they have not any imprtant job to take care of at all. 27 members, and desire to even pick up states that are not in Europe anymore at all. Gimme a break.

What we need is a complete new reorientation, and a massive breaking up of the "Filz" between politics and economic lobbyism. I see the dangers and challenges of the future as well as anyone else, but if the porice for a strtagey to counter these by just boosting oneself up is the corruption of democracy and the endless relativisation of differences in traditoosn and identities in europe, I fail to see a chance that this could ever get an enduring emotionaol support by the europeans.

An alliance of cooperating soveriegn nations, the EU has been described as in the 80s. andnthat is what I support. not more. what it is heading for is far beyond that, and making the EU a purprose for itself, an actor with his own agenda, minimizing national responsibility of parliamnts, and imposing it's own ideology and interests onto them. I quoted it often, and I quote it again: 4 out of 5 laws in Germany are no longer created and considered in Germany and brought up by the parliamnet, but are demands from the various offices of the EU that by binding treaties and rules the german parliament just is alloowed to weave thporugh, but has no (EU-) right to reject - while eventually rejecting those EU laws violating the german constitution is a constitutional obligation of the German parliamnt -w hich thereby must violate the constitutoon when not doujng so. that is absurd a constellation, but true in comparable forms in other nations, too!

and then the haughty talking about the high representive of european foreign policy, and the hundreds of offices being attached just this - as if anybody in the world takes that serious. america is not of much rtespect for that, and the Arabs are simply laughing. Also, that representative is a tiger without any teeth. so whom is he going to impress? It is all showing off, it is all show of an EU that gloriously overestimates itself and it's atractiveness for other nations, and other people, and even the europeans themselves.

Let's stop. Have a break. Come to our senses. Cut it back in size, to reaosmnbale size that makes sense, can be handled, and bears a realistic chance to keep realoistic degrees of freedom of action without putting more and more lightyears between the administration and the european citizens. what is going on now, and what the Lisbon treaty/constitution intended, is not what the EU originally was meant to become. Come to your senses, remember the originaol idea behind the EEC/EU, and you have my support. Go on in the new (las but not least: ideological) direction that was choosen after the political left-shift in Europe throughout the early nineties, and I will fight against it, always. Becasue such a union is not defender of European tradition of diversity and freedom and democracy, but exactly the opposite.

[Tchocky]

Don't make the mistake of reading this referendum as a democratic statement of popular opinion.
Don't make the mistake of reading any referendum as such, especially one on such a messy issue.
No long-serving Western government will have their way this summer. Economic recession, ever-increasing oil and food prices, all contribute to bad feeling in voters' brains.
I'm actually disgusted, hearing about people who voted No because they didn't feel well-informed, or didn't understand the issue. That's a disgrace, and one of the many reasons I've been against tyhe idea of a referendum from the beginning.

[Skybird]

Don't make the mistake of reading this referendum as a democratic statement of popular opinion.
Don't make the mistake of reading any referendum as such, especially one on such a messy issue.
No long-serving Western government will have their way this summer. Economic recession, ever-increasing oil and food prices, all contribute to bad feeling in voters' brains.
I'm actually disgusted, hearing about people who voted No because they didn't feel well-informed, or didn't understand the issue. That's a disgrace, and one of the many reasons I've been against tyhe idea of a referendum from the beginning.
I am aware of the implicit problem with referendum, for the same reason Helmut Schmidt, if he would talk with me :), disagrees with me, for he also rules out referendums in principal, for the same argment you gave, Tchocky. However, I see this issue from a perspective of realpolitik: I wanted this madness getting stopped, and nthat is what the Irish have dleivered me. why they did it, in the end is not a serious concern for me, they stopped it nevertheless, and that is what counts.

However, we have had many polls in european nations over the past years, and the majority of them indicate that the EU is not really popular in general. Don't make the mistake that you would get a general agreeing if you would have a referendum Europe-wide and a fairy tale would make it that people really and indeed oinly vote over the issue the referendum is about. I would bet three of my financial monthly budgets that both Lisbon and the old constituition would be rejected by a majority of 60% or more. So, as I see it, the motivation of the Irish is not the big issue. Maybe they all were drunk and made their ticks in the wrong box. Nevertheless they created what I wanted, and what I consider to be the majority opinion in europe anyhow.

The doubt they have raised in the EU, seem to be limited anyhow, speakers of the spocialist and the conservative fraction in the EU parliament already said that now one should go without the irish and anybody not wanting the treaty, and that the other shsould adopt to the old cionstitution. No one seem to realise that the content of the constitution is the problem, and must be redone from scratch. They seem to be detemrined more than ever to impose their will on Europe against the will of the people.

[geetrue]

I'm not ashamed to say this. 50+ years of peace and economic growth are without precedent in WORLD history, yet alone European, which has seen bloody carnage in the 20th century.

So what if we have to sacrifice a couple of liberties over who gets to fish somewhere and what our farmers are going to grow! As long as we are ALL fed, with a roof over our heads and a hope for the future, we're set to go.

I rest my case for now and I'll enjoy any response you will give me.

Fat dumb and happy were the people of 1938 also ...

Abortion rights will cause the Irish way too many problems and God will bless their choice to say "No" to EEEU.

Long live Ireland ... :up:

[Tchocky]

Lack of abortion rights is causing enough problems, to be honest.
That's the kind of referendum I can get behind, though. A clear issue, simply stated.

Skybird, I don't think it's the content of the treaty that is the main issue, because it's above all a procedural document. It's impossible to read for this reason, too. it isn't a founding document, but a modifying one. The disapproval across the continent is a more overall discontent with the performance of the EU, which becomes condensed into a single issue, be it Nice or Lisbon.

[Respenus]

I'm not ashamed to say this. 50+ years of peace and economic growth are without precedent in WORLD history, yet alone European, which has seen bloody carnage in the 20th century.

So what if we have to sacrifice a couple of liberties over who gets to fish somewhere and what our farmers are going to grow! As long as we are ALL fed, with a roof over our heads and a hope for the future, we're set to go.

I rest my case for now and I'll enjoy any response you will give me.
Fat dumb and happy were the people of 1938 also ...

Abortion rights will cause the Irish way too many problems and God will bless their choice to say "No" to EEEU.

Long live Ireland ... :up:

Do you see any potential Hitlers around here? No! want to know why? Because now it's different. Now we're working together towards a common goal and never again will there be such a crisis, from which might arise the need for Nacism and Fasism. A simple fact. I wasn't easy in '38, the world was even more crazy. The reason for the divide was because someone hold a grudge. Do you think that Hitler would had come to power, if it weren't for the economic crisis? He would not. Sure nothing was sure back then. The Great War, Socialist revolution, economic crisis. We don't have this right now. Nor we ever will if we stick together. And if it means under an European flag, with an European parliament pulling the strings, then BE IT!

The world will burn, I know that. In order to survive we must take action now, not when it will be to late. We must stick together and be as strong as possible.

[geetrue]

The world will burn, I know that. In order to survive we must take action now, not when it will be to late. We must stick together and be as strong as possible.

What do you mean by the statement, "The world will burn"?

[Respenus]

The world will burn, I know that. In order to survive we must take action now, not when it will be to late. We must stick together and be as strong as possible.
What do you mean by the statement, "The world will burn"?

It means that I am quite aware that THIS (all around us) will end and the world will be plunged into another "anarchy" and we will be forced once again to rewrite what we think about ourselves and how we percieve humanity as such.

Being oldfashioned, I'd like things to stay as they are now and I see the EU and the constitution that will some day arive as a solution to the inevitable change which will occur.

[GlobalExplorer]

It's very dissappointing that the Irish have given in to the populists.

Yes the EU is bad. It has pumped billions and billions into this country and it is still bad. I can go from Krakow to Paris, Rome and need not show my passport a single time. Bad. And we all prefer not to have a common currency which cushions national economies in bad times, and protects us from the omnipotence of the US.

Anyway, this is not the end of the world.

[August]

protects us from the omnipotence of the US.

Mwahahahahaha!

http://www.internationalterrorist.com/artwork/s_trystop.jpg

[geetrue]

Well it's offical now 53.4% of the Irish voters voted "No"

This may be the very reason why:


“a strange public mood out there that is anti-establishment, anti-authority and anti-politician.”


and I agree with you Respenus the world will burn one final time, but first the chip will come and then the surrounding of Israel by her enemies.

[Skybird]

Whenever and where ever the constitution was offered the people to hear their vote, it failed to impress. Three times it was offered to the public, and three times it was rejected. That should tell Brussel something, but obviously it doesn't. The mistake isalways with the others, it cannot be with Brussel.

It is simply arrogant to tell the Irish, like before the Dutch and the French, they were too stupid to understand the content of the treaty, or that they were in reality voting about something different, and not about the treaty at all. that is deflecting tactic not to allow the shadow of a doubt being cast on the treaty. That is the arrogance of Eurocrats who refuse for principle reasons to ever check their own position and allow doubts if really everything they are representing is so wonderful, and perfect. The mistake is always wioth the others, never with the EU.

Why should the Irish vote in favour of the treaty - when obviously nobody was capable to point out for them why it is such a wonderful and great thing? They would be stupid when having done so! If the thing really is so great and fantastic, it should have been almost self-recommending to vote in favour of it. So...?

How was it three years ago? The two nation's people that got asked back then, both did not want it. - What did Brussel do? It shut down the castle, raised the bridge, behind closed doors and thick walls they made some cosmetical changes while keeping all the basic content from the former draft unaltered, and prevented the people to have a word on it again. Safe is safe this time! Sending the result of this effort to parlaments for ratification meant to let it getting ratified by exactly those governments and parliaments who behind closed doors formed the treaty to be what they wanted it to be while ignoring the people's voice. And this kind of ratification should mean anything...? It means as much as an election result for the one-party of 98% in the former states of the Warsaw Pact. They too called it democracy, and a convincing result": In other words, it only illustrates to what massive degree democracy already has been manipulated, abused, and deconstructed. It is a propaganda stunt, nothing else.

and last but not least, people have a problem not only with the content of the treaty, and even more the appendices (here is where my quarrels lie), but with the rotten, betraying way it was created, and is tried to be imposed on them. It is not only doubt in what has been created, it is only antipathy for the "how". And this "How" tells something about the ways of the EU, and the selfunderstanding of it. And one can't see a basic democratic understanding in that, but it's straightout corruption.

[GlobalExplorer]

It is simply arrogant to tell the Irish, like before the Dutch and the French, they were too stupid to understand the content of the treaty, or that they were in reality voting about something different,

It is wrong to have people vote over a treaty that no one reads. If they made a knowledge test prerequisite for voting, I would agree with you. In fact that is my proposal for voting in general - first prove that you are ready for voting.

How was it three years ago? The two nation's people that got asked back then, both did not want it.

You can have these votes in any country and you would always get these kind of results - suggest we have a vote if people want to pay taxes - you live in an ivory tower if you think ordinary people approach these issued with wisdom and not purely emotionally.

[GlobalExplorer]

protects us from the omnipotence of the US.

Mwahahahahaha!

http://www.internationalterrorist.com/artwork/s_trystop.jpg

Whats so funny August? As long as the dollar is the worldwide lead currency the US can control the prices for their imports / exports. The fact that many Euro-critics still not understand is that the Euro was meant as an instrument to become less dependent of US monetary policy. See it sportingly, Europe wants to stay competitive.

EDIT: If I would be a US citizen I would probably see the world like you - that the rest of the world is just paranoid about Uncle Sam. I'm sure you agree you have made out yourself quite a strong position - which is not a crime - but you have problems to imagine what it would be like without this base.

[August]

Whats so funny August? As long as the dollar is the worldwide lead currency the US can control the prices for their imports / exports.

Control? How exactly? If we could control prices then gasoline would be a lot cheaper for us than it is presently and we wouldn't have let our manufacturing jobs move away.

[SUBMAN1]

Whats so funny August? As long as the dollar is the worldwide lead currency the US can control the prices for their imports / exports.
Control? How exactly? If we could control prices then gasoline would be a lot cheaper for us than it is presently and we wouldn't have let our manufacturing jobs move away.I second that!

-S

[Skybird]

It is simply arrogant to tell the Irish, like before the Dutch and the French, they were too stupid to understand the content of the treaty, or that they were in reality voting about something different,

It is wrong to have people vote over a treaty that no one reads. If they made a knowledge test prerequisite for voting, I would agree with you. In fact that is my proposal for voting in general - first prove that you are ready for voting.

It's wrong to have a treaty that even leading politicians have not read and freely admit it is so complicated that many people could not understand it. It is absurd to expect from others to say yes to such bullsh!t nevertheless. It is wrong to try to enforce it in such a cheating, anti-democratic way like it was tried after the failed constitution three years ago. It is not only the "what" - the "how is as important, else you will never get the loyalty to it that is needed to make the EU a lasting design.

How was it three years ago? The two nation's people that got asked back then, both did not want it.

You can have these votes in any country and you would always get these kind of results - suggest we have a vote if people want to pay taxes - you live in an ivory tower if you think ordinary people approach these issued with wisdom and not purely emotionally.

And more of the same arrogance I just complained about. Unthinkable that some people just draw the consequences of the unacceptably low quality of the draft and reject it for what it is: anti-democratic, too complicated, not understood and not read even by some politicians, and in full ignorration of the lacking sympathy from the people. the fault cannot be with the draft, or the EU's way to enforce it nevertheless - it must be the people who do not know what is good for them. Yeah, sure. If the good is so obvious and self-explanatory, I wonder why europe-wide it is so difficult to convince people of that.

This treaty enforced and piuszhed through in this way and with this content should not pass. For the simple reason that it is more bad than good, and also for it has no substantial majority support by the people. And after all, Europe is for the people, not for a self-declared elite of EU-aristocrats wanting to to have their way, or economic lobbies.

Make a better draft, and design the eu different from how it is designed since the past 10 years, and you get my support. Biut that was refused to do three years ago. Drive the Eu in the direction of the past ten years or so, and I will fight against it, and mock about it - and finally will see it fall apart, maybe at the end of my life, maybe earlier. The Eu is only democratic, if it is run with support by the european citizens. If it is designed against the will of the people, it turns into a tyranny of never legitimized bureaucrats that never got elected, and have plenty of sick ideology on their mind that hurts European identity, and does not defend it..

[joegrundman]

a) do we even need a constitution? Britain, for example, has never had one and is unlikely to get one.

b) if there's going to be a constitution, then whatever the underlying reasons for the french,dutch and irish rejections, it CANNOT be the same constitution that has already been rejected.

c) if you are going to write a constitution for this project it should be a stirring one such that people can (1) understand it first time without legal training, even when explained by the media or politicans (2) make critical assessments of it without having specialised training and (3) should see in it an inspiring and psoitive assessment of what the EU is and hoeps to be.

And finally it should be made clear: if the supreme unit in Europe is to continue to be the individual democratic nation state, then there are no referenda required. You elect your government, and it is their responsibility to make these decisions in your national interest. After all you do not seek a referendum on every big decision that your governement does, and if you don't like it, you work to persuade your government of this fact.

[Respenus]

Why, oh why, does everyone speak about making the treaty/constitution simple?!

Gentlemen, this is not something trivial, something that every chap in the bar can understand. Something as complex as the treaty cannot be made in simple words. Have you ever read any of your countries laws? Do they sound simple? Do they need official explanation? Most probably they do. I understand what you're saying about polititians not reading it. Have you seen how BIG it is? It would take a bloody lifetime to read it, yet alone understand it completely.

I'm for democracy, yet sometimes it's not up to the people to decide what's in the interest of European future. Yes this sounds like everything you're campaigning against, but unfortunatelly it's the truth.

So I propose this as an alternative and a food for thought.

EFTA still exists, yes? We somehow "join" it with the EU with some trade "union". Or we just keep EFTA as it is, doesn't matter. With this we get the economic basis of free trade that some people scream about and it allows countries like Ireland, who's afraid for it's tax rate, to decide for itself what it wants for its economy. Those countries that don't want stronger EU integration can exit, but stay connected within EFTA, so Europe doesn't lose it's common market.

For those who'll stay in the EU, we'll set up a constitution with stronger EU integration with all the benefits it brings us.

How's that?

[Respenus]

That's the problem Respenus, if Europe is built for Europe's interest without caring about what the people wants then what's the point ? We're countries, not private businesses.

What do the people want? They want ...? There are 500M people living in the EU. You'll get screwed anyhow. There's no way of satisfing so many people. You'll always get someone who doesn't like what the reform will bring. I remember before the signing of the treaty, the EU had to concede to Poland concerning certain questions, so that it would support the treaty. Finally they all agreed, even the Irish and people hoped it would now satisfy everyone. Look's like this is not the case.

Another thing I would like to point out. The group the was leading the No campaign is a bunch of commercialists (sp?) wanting to have a trade union and not a political one. Having seen the reaction of the "bloody hippies" when the results were about to be announced, I'm even more certain that it was a dirty campaign with someone screaming "NO!" and with enough money to make sure enough people screamed "NO!" with him. They didn't even give the representative the chance to announce the results. They kept on screaming. If it were up to me, I'd lock them up for the night to make sure they cooled a bit and become more reasonable.

It's the same thing in Slovenia. Now that the Liberals have lost and can no longer do whatever they want, they buy the media to keep telling people what to do and what's wrong. Probably it's just me being paranoid due to living in an ex-Com country, but Ireland doesn't look much different right now. It's the Emerald ile, just now it's filled with emerald posters.

That "treaty" was a bad joke for people who rejected it in first place. Giscard said it's the same as the rejected "constitution", excepted it's 3 times bigger and contains a lot of contradictions. And yet the medias and politicians tryed to sell it to us as "simplified treaty". We hear a lot of "people know nothing, let them not vote for the treaty", but if nobody reads it, not even politicians, is it wiser to vote yes or no (that's if you're given the choice) ?

Like I said before. You can't have such an agreement and have it simple. Considering your post, it would be simpler to stick to the Consititution. It would be less messy and more understandable, right? Can you even imagine how many laws the EU has? Try to modify them all. It's not an easy task and the rejection of the constitution made the job even harder.

We need the reforms. The EU won't keep standing up for much longer. Like I have said. Make a trade union and a political union.

Edit : one funny fact, basically all the constitutions of democratic countries around the world start with "we the people", "we the countryX people", etc. Europe's "treaty" starts with "his majesty king of Belgians, the president of Bulgaria, the president of Czech Republic, Queen of Denmark, .......... desiring to ..... have resolved to..."

Do you even imagine if it said "The citizens of Europe..." It would be a slaughterhouse. Every bloody nationalist would rise up. They had to cut European simbols from the Treaty that were in the Constitution. Do you imagine an European citizen? I do and I hope that I shall see it in the future. Maybe one day cooler heads will prevail and we'll stop attacking every single thing the EU wants to do to reform itself. Don't our countries do reforms? They do. And so must Europe!

I'm sorry end this post with this, but leave the islanders to what they want and leave continental Europe alone.

LONG LIVE FRANCE! LONG LIVE NAPOLEON! LONG LIVE DE GAULLE!!!

[XabbaRus]

Good on my Irish cousins. Gordon Broon still wants to ratify it the cock....

Why don't the EU stop expanding end it now. go back to what the EU was supposed to be an ECONOMIC UNION trade etc, not power to Brussels.

It is the economic benefits that has brought peace not the political integration of the continent. BTW can you ever see the French voting for a British president? or the Poles for a German?

Seriously it would beat Eurovision Song Contest for bloc voting.

[Hakahura]

Well done Ireland!
:up:

Now Brown, where's our referendum?
:nope:

We won't get one because they know the outcome.
:nope:


The British we're tricked by Heath in '72.
After decades of losing money and the primacy of British Law,

THE PUBLIC WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

GIVE US OUR SAY!

BRITAIN OUT OF THE EU!

[joegrundman]

Well done Ireland!
:up:

Now Brown, where's our referendum?
:nope:

We won't get one because they know the outcome.
:nope:


The British we're tricked by Heath in '72.
After decades of losing money and the primacy of British Law,

THE PUBLIC WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

GIVE US OUR SAY!

BRITAIN OUT OF THE EU!


You want out of the EU altogether, not just to reject this particular iteration of the constitution?

What for?

Can you explain it to me without sounding too much like an irrational daily mail islander how you think Britain is better out of the EU altogether?

[Hakahura]

Where to start?
OK here's a few to get going with.....

The EU cost the UK money. We put more in than we get out. (And always have since we joined)

The EU has managed to give it's laws primacy over British Laws.

Britain was tricked. The collection of countries trading together (European Economic Community) that we joined no longer exists. It has changed into something far more sinister The EU is now unafraid to admit to trying to create a United States of Europe. That's our sovreignty your violating without giving us a say.

The Common Agricultural Policy. This seriously favors the French and Britain is certainly loosing out

I could go on forever but I'll keep this short.

IMHO Edward Heath was one of the worst PM's this country has ever had.
What he did to us in leading us into the EEC was one of the UK's worst moves post WWII.

[GlobalExplorer]

Well done Ireland!
:up:

Now Brown, where's our referendum?
:nope:

We won't get one because they know the outcome.
:nope:


The British we're tricked by Heath in '72.
After decades of losing money and the primacy of British Law,

THE PUBLIC WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

GIVE US OUR SAY!

BRITAIN OUT OF THE EU!


You want out of the EU altogether, not just to reject this particular iteration of the constitution?

What for?

Can you explain it to me without sounding too much like an irrational daily mail islander how you think Britain is better out of the EU altogether?

Britains public opinion wants out of the EU. The economy and political class wants to do their urmost to prevent it. Of course because they know better whats good for the country.

I would let them scream.

Whats so funny August? As long as the dollar is the worldwide lead currency the US can control the prices for their imports / exports.

Control? How exactly? If we could control prices then gasoline would be a lot cheaper for us than it is presently and we wouldn't have let our manufacturing jobs move away.

Gas prices have risen anywhere in the world, I think it has to do with speculation on the stock market. It is also felt very much in the US because of the weak dollar. But the US national debt is enormous, so it is in the best interest of the US to keep the dollar weak. So what I said stands, the US can control prices, but of course not in two directions at the same time.

Anway, this is complicated stuff that I cannot explain, maybe it is better to refer to available material about global economics. One needs to look at monetary politics after WWII, how the US $ became the lead currency, the implications for post-war inflation in the US, what this has to do with the gold reserve in ft. Knox, the influence of China etc.

[Respenus]

Hakahura

Accept the treaty and the BAIL OUT if you want to you *peep* Brit!

That's right. You want a trade union. People want an EU not just because of trade benefits but because it brings good to the people. It makes sure corporations don't just take over as they have in the US. They work towards a more social Europe where everyone will be brothers and will work together. People like you, who only want benefits without risking something have caused and will cause this idea of the EU to fail. Just because you can't look over your lawn. It's just you, even if the rest of Europe suffers, just so you can keep your trade.

There's a reason de Gaulle wouldn't let the Brits join the EU. Looks like he was right all along.

I'm preety pissed off right now, so I'll just end.

[Hakahura]

Hakahura

Accept the treaty and the BAIL OUT if you want to you *peep* Brit!

That's right. You want a trade union. People want an EU not just because of trade benefits but because it brings good to the people. It makes sure corporations don't just take over as they have in the US. They work towards a more social Europe where everyone will be brothers and will work together. People like you, who only want benefits without risking something have caused and will cause this idea of the EU to fail. Just because you can't look over your lawn. It's just you, even if the rest of Europe suffers, just so you can keep your trade.

There's a reason de Gaulle wouldn't let the Brits join the EU. Looks like he was right all along.

I'm preety pissed off right now, so I'll just end.

I (along with over half the populaion of the UK) would love to BAIL OUT.

However the people are being denied the opertunity to vote on this.
Therefore anything that stalls the process of EU intergration, gives the UK breathing space.
Time to sort ourselves out and leave before something even worse is forced upon us.
So well done Ireland. Maybe the Irish like being Irish and not European.

Maybe full EU intergration is right for your country and your citizens are in favor of it. Fair enough.

But the Irish have said NO! Should they not have that right?
The Irish have only said no to the treaty in it's current form.
It's up to the EU to come up with something acceptable to all.

Problem is like most things the EU does, it will ignore peoples wishes, its own rules and steamroller the whole thing through anyway.

Wish someone would give UK citizens the chance to vote on this.

[GlobalExplorer]

It's official, the Irish have voted NO.

Imo the best reaction would be going on and ratify the treaty in the 26 other countries now. The Irish have to decide what they want to do. Maybe they can have another referendum if they want to leave the EU, I would like to see the outcome of that. Of course no one would mind in the future saving the BILLIONS Ireland has sucked up over the last decades.

Maybe it would be better to have a more drastic policy of confronting uncooperative members with the final option. One could reduce the union back to the core, paying members. This might sound like the end, but no one would opt out after the first country has definitely been excluded from the EU. Right now it is seen as a sport to sabotage all efforts to reform the European Union, and it comes without a consequence.

[Tchocky]

It's official, the Irish have voted NO.

Imo the best reaction would be going on and ratify the treaty in the 26 other countries now. The Irish have to decide what they want to do. Maybe they can have another referendum if they want to leave the EU, I would like to see the outcome of that. Of course no one would mind in the future saving the BILLIONS Ireland has sucked up over the last decades.
That part really annoys me. We're just at the point of becoming a net contributor instead of a net receiver, so we make a fuss and throw the toys out of the cot.

bleh.

[Hakahura]

The EU itself stated that all member nations must sign the treaty for it to be ratified.
Are we once again going to see EU break and twist its own rules?
Bet we do.

Yep suits me, kick the UK out of Europe.
Just remember what you said about "paying members"
EU stands to loose a lot of hard cash there.
And that will have to come out of someone else's pockets.
Volunteering?

[Hakahura]

That part really annoys me. We're just at the point of becoming a net contributor instead of a net receiver, so we make a fuss and throw the toys out of the cot.

bleh.
Don't worry about it.
Can't think of a greater service Ireland could have performed for the people of Europe.

Cost to Europe of Ireland being a member - who knows,
Sticking it to the man - priceless!

[Tchocky]

Service? This is a cloud with no silver lining.

I'd be totally in favour of going on regardless.

[GlobalExplorer]

Of course no one would mind in the future saving the BILLIONS Ireland has sucked up over the last decades.
That part really annoys me. We're just at the point of becoming a net contributor instead of a net receiver, so we make a fuss and throw the toys out of the cot.

bleh.

Can you clarify what you exactly mean here?

@Hakahura: If you really think it is a good idea for the UK to cut itself off from the european financial markets, then you should go for it, it will not be to the disadvantage of the continental countries. Atm the UK is neither giving nor costing the EU much, it was just nice to have them around.

And sure, the Sun can be trusted more than your politicians and economic experts.

[Hakahura]

Service? This is a cloud with no silver lining.

I'd be totally in favour of going on regardless.
Yes but thats the point isn't it.
Thats not what the rules say.
Lets hope the EU follows its own rules for a change.

Silver lining, no, its gold plated platinum, garnished with diamonds, rubies, emeralds and hard cash!

[STEED]

How can you trust the EU that's wants and most likely in the near future will get a single permanent president, sounds like a dictator to me. :yep:

[GlobalExplorer]

The EU itself stated that all member nations must sign the treaty for it to be ratified.

That was before the referendum. The reform process has been going for 7 years now, and we can not afford this farce with the popular votes any longer.

The Irish have decided for Ireland, not for the 26 other countries whose democratic governments have already agreed on the treaty.

No more popular votes about everything. This gets us exactly no where, like having kids vote if they like their parents leadership.

[Hakahura]

How can you trust the EU that's wants and most likely in the near future will get a single permanent president, sounds like a dictator to me. :yep:
Agreed.

The British have a long history of standing up to European dictators,
Looks like the Irish are doing their bit!

[Hakahura]

The EU itself stated that all member nations must sign the treaty for it to be ratified.
That was before the referendum. The reform process has been going for 7 years now, and we can not afford this farce with the popular votes any longer.

The Irish have decided for Ireland, not for the 26 other countries whose democratic governments have already agreed on the treaty.

No more popular votes about everything. This gets us exactly no where, like having kids vote if they like their parents leadership.
Does the passage of time permit the EU break its own rules?

[Hakahura]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4136534.ece

Yet look what our government is doing about this!

*********g Traitors!

[Hakahura]

This is one subject that winds me up more than any other.
These people are supposed to represent and look after Britain!
Strikes me they are doing a criminally bad job.

[GlobalExplorer]

Does the passage of time permit the EU break its own rules?

Of course! If the Irish governement will not stand in the way - as it already said - there could be a separate treaty with Ireland, meaning the country will stay out of the integration process for as long as it wishes. Why should we let our progress indefinetely stall because of our own rules?

Besides, I know you give a sh_t about the EU and it's rules. You just got used to the problems they have created for the union.

[Hakahura]

Does the passage of time permit the EU break its own rules?
Of course! If the Irish governement will not stand in the way - as it already said - there could be a separate treaty with Ireland, meaning the country will stay out of the integration process for as long as it wishes. Why should we let our progress indefinetely stall because of our own rules?

Besides, I know you give a sh_t about the EU and it's rules. You just got used to the problems they have created for the union.
Nice attitude. One you share with the EU in Brussels.
If you don't get you own way, just steamroller ahead anyway.
It's this kind of arrogance that is one of the EU's central failings.
How can it claim to respect the wishes of individual nations if it just ignores them?

[GlobalExplorer]

How can it claim to respect the wishes of individual nations if it just ignores them?

No one will ignore the wishes of Ireland by forcing anything upon them, but at the same time Ireland can not expect that 500 million people must wait for them. If they insist on having a public vote, and it was rejected, they can now decide if they want to stay out of the process and possibly out of the EU.

[Hakahura]

But the EU itself said the treaty must be ratified by all member states.
Can the EU be trusted if it breaks its own rules?

[Hakahura]

Besides we all know this treaty is just the failed EU constitution rejected by the French and Dutch, dressed up with a new name.

So that's 2 rejections.
Are we playing baseball?
3 strikes before your out?

[GlobalExplorer]

You are repeating yourself.

[Hakahura]

Ok I'll phrase it differently, but my point remains the same.

How do you justify the fact the EU cannot adhere to its own rules.
Do you trust an unaccountable system of government that breaks its own rules with impunity?
Which rules will it break next?

If I repeat myself it's usually because no-ones listening.

[Hakahura]

I think I've got too much spare time on my hands today.:rotfl:

[GlobalExplorer]

How do you justify the fact the EU cannot adhere to its own rules.

It is adhering to it's rules, hence the reform treaty has had to be worked on for seven years. What should now be on the table is to change the rules, to prevent permanent standstill.

To all your other points, the EU is not unaccountable and it has not broken any rules, it just failed to get a reform done because it needed a unanimous decision in 27 countries, which is not easy.

They should have made the reform before accepting new members, but now it's too late.

[Hakahura]

Should have, would have, could have.
Didn't.

Besides if memory serves me haven't the Irish been members since '73?

[Hakahura]

Yes, just checked, Ireland joined the EEC in 1973.

That might be more than 7 years ago.

[Dan D]

Ok, here is the plan:

The other EU member states will move forward and implement the treaty, anyway. This does not mean that Ireland will have to leave the Union. A new status can be found for Ireland, at least as being part of the free trade zone. The UK e.g. has a special status, too, as it is not part of the Euro zone. As a first step, it is up to Ireland now to come out and define in what way it wants to participate, just economically or as well politically and then how.

[Skybird]

Why, oh why, does everyone speak about making the treaty/constitution simple?!

Becaue it has to be, since it is the most essital legal basis, which gives orientaion both to the state and all to often to individual's questions of practical life. That'S why the Fench, American or German constitution are THIN, and easy to understand if you concentratew on it, yet covering a lot of ground by sparing the specifics. a constitution is not to repalce a set of laws. It is meant to giove orientation onto where laws to be made shoulöd aim, and where they are not allowed to aim at. The most basic part of the german Grundgesetzt for exmaple consists of only 20 paragraphs, each only a couple of sentences, sometimes just one sentence long. The american constitution orginally was made of 7 paragraphs only, who got added another 20 or so over the next 2 centuries.

Since a constitution should be for the people, not for a lobby only, a gang of aristicrats, or governments, it has to be simple to cover the ground it claims to be responsible for (in functionality).

A treaty or constitution that is thick as two telephone books, with ball the appendices, finds little sympathy by citizens, and well-deserved so.

The first draft, was rubbish. Nevertheless the same rubbish got some rouge spilled over it, got a different name, and was tried to be enforced this time under exclusion of dealing with the question wether or not it was wanted by the people. To push it rthorugh now by distoring one's own rules again, saying hat one needed 8 years to produce just this rubbish, is not an argument, but a nonbrainer. If anything it is a declkaration of bancruptcy. Rubbish does not turn into gold just becasue one spend 8 years brooding over it. And the monumental size of the thing is a reflection of that long period of time, and that one was aiming far beyond what a constitution should aim at. If it was only about chnaging voting modes, that could have been acchieved without needing a constitution. and beyond that one can even ask if a constitution even is needed. you do not need a such a thing to ruglkate cooperation between sovereign states. and here you can conclude, that soveriegh nstates is what the EU in reality does not want, and tries to dismantle more and more. Just consider what I said about the ammounts of laws national parliaments just wave thorugh, for by internatonal treaties they are obligated to wave them through. A sovereign parliament is something different. A huge part of their power already has been shifted to Brussel. and I do not get an impression that Brussel acts wisely with these growing power - far the opposite. more and more they interfere with the national levels, in fact. the EU needs as much a constitution as NATO. the Eu never was planned to be a state-qacting entitiy in itself,. only a modus vivendi regulating how soveriehng nations do interqact and cooperate in economic and cultural questions. The EU today has become a state in itself, growing at the cost of sovereignity of original nations, but not showing a growing in competence by that. Only a gropwing in ambitions, coupled with ignorrance and/or incompetence that is the stronger the more local the issue at question is.

This will always find my bitter hostility.

[Hakahura]

Why, oh why, does everyone speak about making the treaty/constitution simple?!
Becaue it has to be, since it is the most essital legal basis, which gives orientaion both to the state and all to often to individual's questions of practical life. That'S why the Fench, American or German constitution are THIN, and easy to understand if you concentratew on it, yet covering a lot of ground by sparing the specifics. a constitution is not to repalce a set of laws. It is meant to giove orientation onto where laws to be made shoulöd aim, and where they are not allowed to aim at. The most basic part of the german Grundgesetzt for exmaple consists of only 20 paragraphs, each only a couple of sentences, sometimes just one sentence long. The american constitution orginally was made of 7 paragraphs only, who got added another 20 or so over the next 2 centuries.

Since a constitution should be for the people, not for a lobby only, a gang of aristicrats, or governments, it has to be simple to cover the ground it claims to be responsible for (in functionality).

A treaty or constitution that is thick as two telephone books, with ball the appendices, finds little sympathy by citizens, and well-deserved so.

The first draft, was rubbish. Nevertheless the same rubbish got some rouge spilled over it, got a different name, and was tried to be enforced this time under exclusion of dealing with the question wether or not it was wanted by the people. To push it rthorugh now by distoring one's own rules again, saying hat one needed 8 years to produce just this rubbish, is not an argument, but a nonbrainer. If anything it is a declkaration of bancruptcy. Rubbish does not turn into gold just becasue one spend 8 years brooding over it. And the monumental size of the thing is a reflection of that long period of time, and that one was aiming far beyond what a constitution should aim at. If it was only about chnaging voting modes, that could have been acchieved without needing a constitution. and beyond that one can even ask if a constitution even is needed. you do not need a such a thing to ruglkate cooperation between sovereign states. and here you can conclude, that soveriegh nstates is what the EU in reality does not want, and tries to dismantle more and more. Just consider what I said about the ammounts of laws national parliaments just wave thorugh, for by internatonal treaties they are obligated to wave them through. A sovereign parliament is something different. A huge part of their power already has been shifted to Brussel. and I do not get an impression that Brussel acts wisely with these growing power - far the opposite. more and more they interfere with the national levels, in fact. the EU needs as much a constitution as NATO. the Eu never was planned to be a state-qacting entitiy in itself,. only a modus vivendi regulating how soveriehng nations do interqact and cooperate in economic and cultural questions. The EU today has become a state in itself, growing at the cost of sovereignity of original nations, but not showing a growing in competence by that. Only a gropwing in ambitions, coupled with ignorrance and/or incompetence that is the stronger the more local the issue at question is.

This will always find my bitter hostility.
:up:

Agreed.

Of course if the EU were to spell simply and clearly out what it's trying to achieve then the people would reject it even quicker.

[Respenus]

I know the Slovene constitution is not as thick as the treaty, but it's pretty long if compared to what you said about the French constitution (I'm making a speculation here).

Yet Skybird, the EU 20 or 30 years ago was different because the world in which it was created is different. Now, we no longer need just a trade union and some trade regulations, we need a unified front during the time of world unrest, be it now or in the future.

Yes, I understand what you mean by a "simple" constitution, yet I cannot agree with you that the EU is taking away sovereignty from the states. They will still decide on the important points on how they want to lead their country. Only some things will be regulated by the EU. So what! Sometimes it's even better for the common folk like you and me. Maybe some day, Germany will pass a law that would hurt you, but the EU would prevent it. Wouldn't you like support like that?

[STEED]

Democracy under this current Labour government was destroyed by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown by deaning us the vote on europe, as far as I am concerned New Labour is a traitor to this country. The EU is becoming to powerful and throwing it's weight all over the place by passes so many laws no one has time to read them in full.


PS: I agree with your last post SkyBird. :yep: :up:

[XabbaRus]

So have an opt out. Isn't that what the UK got with the Mastrich treaty. What's the point of having a treaty then if every country can pick and mix.

The EU has moved away from that for which it was created, economic harmonisation with common standards across the EU to make trade easier. Since then it has descended into a behemoth of bureacracy which has no idea why some of it exists. It is large and cumbersome. Why does Europe have to have a common foreign policy decided by a single EU foreign minister. Is it not enough for the foreign ministers for EU states to just get together and map out a common position.

Also the EU shoudln't expand any more. It can't cope. I bet the EU commission can't remember why it is getting bigger. It all seems to be inertia.

As for accountablity. The EU government is not accountable. Yes teh is an EU parliament with MEPs that we elect but they don't make policy. That is the eu commission which is hand picked by the leaders of each EU country. We have no say on who gets put there and the EU parliament rubber stamps what they propose.

I'm not against the EU for its original purpose - trade and laws surrounding that and freedom of movement is good too, but why the hell should the EU have powers to dictate tax rates in my country for example?

[Hakahura]

I know the Slovene constitution is not as thick as the treaty, but it's pretty long if compared to what you said about the French constitution (I'm making a speculation here).

Yet Skybird, the EU 20 or 30 years ago was different because the world in which it was created is different. Now, we no longer need just a trade union and some trade regulations, we need a unified front during the time of world unrest, be it now or in the future.

Yes, I understand what you mean by a "simple" constitution, yet I cannot agree with you that the EU is taking away sovereignty from the states. They will still decide on the important points on how they want to lead their country. Only some things will be regulated by the EU. So what! Sometimes it's even better for the common folk like you and me. Maybe some day, Germany will pass a law that would hurt you, but the EU would prevent it. Wouldn't you like support like that?
Surely the best person to ecide what is right for Germany is German.
Just as the best person to decide what is right for Slovinia is Slovinan.

I'm certain the British people should decide whats right for Britain.

WHERE'S MY REFERENDUM BROWN?

I believe it's when countries start forcing their opinions on others, that trouble starts.
At least that's my recollection of European history.

[STEED]

Also the EU shoudln't expand any more. It can't cope.

Turkey is looking good to join the EU club within the next few years. And it will not stop there, the EU has lost it way in a mountain of red tape lies and corruption.

[Skybird]

Yet Skybird, the EU 20 or 30 years ago was different because the world in which it was created is different. Now, we no longer need just a trade union and some trade regulations, we need a unified front during the time of world unrest, be it now or in the future.

That should be a job for NATO, that "no lpomnger being just a trade union". If the EU would be needed for tamiong unrest, it should have been needed back then, too, one would assume. But one could afford to let the EU be what it was back then: an agreement for economical cooperation, not a state in tiself; and for countering the economic challenges and wars for ressources in the future you do not need a suoperstate but economic cooperation for the first, or an army for the second. Why there should be an entitiy taking over the sovereignity from states, accumulating non-legitimated power for itself, and starting to mess around with the cultural identity of nations and local people. the strength of europe is it's diversity, and trying to turn it into a monoculture where everything and everyone more and more needs to run by the rules thought out by Brussel, means to weaken it.

You said the EU today no longer needs to be just a trade union. but I see also no reason why it needs to be anything more. And regarding the non-economial challenges, I see the EU poliy depending on appeasement, and paying protection money here, bribery there. Supremely handling such challenges looks different. In fact the Eu declares a policy of weakness a policy of europpean vurtues, and that is ridiculous.

Yes, I understand what you mean by a "simple" constitution, yet I cannot agree with you that the EU is taking away sovereignty from the states. They will still decide on the important points on how they want to lead their country. Only some things will be regulated by the EU. So what!

that simply is not true. I strongly urge you to find solid information on how many of your nations laws are more or less directly influenced or even demanded by Brussel - already now, and how much in your daily polticis is obeying Brussel demands, or serves these demands in running-ahead obedience. Members of the bundestag admitted frankly that, as I said, roughly 80% of laws in Germany are beyond control of the parliament, but are simply waved through since legal obligations make the acceptance of these laws obligatory. What the constitution has to say on it, often is not even checked.

And I cannot imagine that Germany is the one great exception from the rule, so I expect you to find out some news you do not like.

And don'T assume that it is just little me saying so, I am basing on a very competent opinion on these facts: the criticism I tell is much shared by Roman Herzog, former German Bundespräsident (head of state), and by profession having been the president of the german constitutional high court before he became head of state. He is a very prominent (and knowledge-heavy) critic of what is being debated here. I would assume he knows a bit what he is talking about, and also knows the legal backgrounds ö- it was his job to know them, both as federal president and presidnet of the constituional high court. It is pretty much arguments that he has given time and again that i am repeating when touching the ursupation of legal powers by the EU.

Sometimes it's even better for the common folk like you and me. Maybe some day, Germany will pass a law that would hurt you, but the EU would prevent it. Wouldn't you like support like that?

I never said the Eu is all bad, I say that there has been a massive chnage for worse since 10-15 years, and that now I consider the bads to outweigh the goods. I also said that in the past 10-15 years we have seen a serious distortion of what the Eu orginally was meant to be. The conception by Giscard d'estaing and Helm,ut Schmidt, the EEC of the 6 and the 15 hasn'T been perfect, but nevertheless I carefully supported their general idea: a cooperation between sovereign states. what it all is turning into since some year4s now is something that is so different that I can't do any other than being against it. I see a huge head pumping up, sitting on smaller shoulder, an even smaller body, and all that resting on ridiculously tiny feet made of glass bones. If you do not manage to get the hearst and mionds behind you from European people, the Eu can afford to pump itself up some more, but sooner or later must collapse, lacking support when it needs it in times of crisis, and winning more and more distanc ebetween itself and it's policies, and the people. To clean every resistance off the table by saying people just don't know what is good for them, is maybe the easy option, but the most dangerous one.

[Lurchi]

I fully agree with Respensus,

Taking the next step toward a stronger European Unification is pretty logical: "European Union", the name already tells about this vision. Now i hope some sort of "Core" Europe will develop with countries which are willing to follow this vision by tightening their cooperation thus leaving those behind who see the EU as just a trade agency with a big money pot to suck money from.

A european representative for foreign issues?
A european Army?
A President of the European Union?

sounds all good to me!

"Think Big" is something we can learn from America.
The Chinese, India and Russia already did it seems to me ...

[GlobalExplorer]

The message to the people who are now gloating and hoping that the european union will fall apart: it is not going to happen, neither is it in the interest of any member state.

Political and economic leaders have in principle already agreed that european integration is the way to go, and I trust them more than extremist partys, tabloid newspapers, or vocal activists from subsims GF.

The problem of the irish referendum is going to be handled, they are already working on a solution. Hopefully the Irish will come to their senses and discuss among themselves what they have just voted upon.

"European Union", the name already tells about this vision.

Of course, but a lot of people are never interested in unity, and the word vision does not exist for them.

A european Army?

Absolutely necessary. Remember how we could not handle the crisis in Yugoslavia without the help of the United States, which was really embarassing.

A european representative for foreign issues?

Someone with the responsibility to coordinate foreign policy and not to replace the national ministers. If the nations cannot agree on a common policy he/she will be pretty unable to do anything.

A President of the European Union?

Same. Will not replace the national leaders, or do you think that Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi, etc are going to let that happen?

[XabbaRus]

But the EU foreign minister will remove the national foreign ministers. Individual countries won't be able to consider their own foreign policy, even if EU policy goes against their interests. You can't compare the USA and the EU. The USA developed in a completely different way with a different mentality. Even with the union there are too many differences of opinion and will never be truely united.

However it has been shown the EU countries will break their own rules if they get a result it doesn't like. UK, Germany and France are looking for a get out so that Irelands non ratification of the treaty can be ignored. It is breaking its own rules. As far as I am concerned the UK government has not spelled out clearly and easily for the masses why this treaty is a good idea. Most people unlike myself and others I know here and friends are going to find out for themselves what the treaty is about. They rely on the government for that (and before Iget any smart assed answers about them being lazy etc I'm sure in Germany, France etc most people are the same) and that in the UK hasn't been done.

Oh I also find it insulting that you mention others (eg UK) who see it as a trade union and something to suck money from..the UK is a net contributer to the EU even after the rebate and contributes more than France who does better out of the CAP than the UK.

Just wait till Brussels starts telling you how to make your German sausages and what can be put in your Beer and what can't. That is already happening. IE daft EU health and safety rules stopping something being made in the traditional way as it could make people ill, even if it has been made a certain way for 100 odd years.

[Skybird]

Another good comment letter I found:

Ireland Punishes the EU for Constitution Trick

By Hans-Jürgen Schlamp in Brussels

The 860,000 Irish voters who rejected the Lisbon Treaty in Friday’s referendum aren’t to blame for the union’s latest crisis. The stalled reforms are the fault of the politicians who for years have been pursuing their own interests at the expense of the European project.

On the day the Irish rejected the Treaty of Lisbon in a referendum (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,559639,00.html), the Eurocrats in Brussels were as mad as hell. This is the last time, they must have been thinking to themselves -- those Irish will never be allowed to vote again. Let’s put an end to these referenda. They’re just too complicated for normal people.


First the French and then the Dutch said “no” to the European constitution in 2005. Then, after endless and painstaking work, the EU member states succeeded in pushing a new version through -- a little snip here, a little change there, a little paint touch-up there. And then, of course, a new name, even though the document essentially contained the substance of the original constitution. It’s fairly certain nobody in Ireland read the document and there are plenty of possible motives for
the “no” vote -- but none could be justified by the treaty itself.
The Treaty of Lisbon appeared to be well on track. Europe’s governments had promised not to put it to a vote before the people. And the only reason Ireland even held a referendum is that the country’s constitution requires it.

The pro-European bureaucrats were totally correct, too. The alliance of treaty opponents in Ireland -- mirroring previous votes in France and the Netherlands -- was bizarre. They came from the far right and the far left, with millionaires and the unemployed criticizing Europe in the most contradictory ways. On the one hand, they argued the Lisbon Treaty would make life difficult for entrepreneurs. But on the other they feared an erosion of workers’ rights. But all were united on one issue: their rejection of the treaty.

But Europe’s real problems began long before these failed referenda on dodgy treaties. For a long time now, the European Union has lacked a political father and mother figure. Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy and their colleagues may pay the EU lip service, but it is little more than that. Britain's Gordon Brown and his Czech counterpart Mirek Topolanek are also fond of talking up Europe. But each of them also ruthlessly haggles for each and every tiny benefit their country can possibly get, no matter how much trouble it causes.

They treat Europe more like a shell game than the political project of the century. What they themselves decide in Brussels is then shamelessly sold to voters back home by the ministers of agriculture, finance, economics, the environment, finance and transportation as something created by “the people in Brussels,” the second it starts to appear unpopular.

On top of this political duplicity, there are also the Eurocrats' tricks. The experts in Brussels, as well as Merkel’s advisers in Berlin, were so proud of their clever idea to rewrite the draft constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters to the point that no normal person could ever read it. They were essentially able to rewrap the constitution in the packaging of the Lisbon Treaty without anyone noticing -- at least not straight away.

The European train had already left the station, and it would get to its destination no matter what -- even if nobody knew what that destination might be. The most important thing was keeping the train running -- that was the motto as far back as when Europe enthusiast Helmut Kohl was still the German chancellor. In the long term, though, that cannot work.
Anyone who truly wants a European Union must clearly state what it is that they want. Do they want a casual trade alliance for the better implementation of globalized capitalism, or do they prefer something along the lines of a “United States of Europe?" Or do they want something else altogether?

Then, one needs to ask the citizens of Europe if they want that thing too -- or not. It is certainly possibly to "Europeanize" this kind of referenda. One could, as the Green Party has suggested, conduct a Europe-wide survey on the same day in each member state and, by doing so, reduce the significance of irrelevant national issues, and see what it is that the people really want.

But in the eyes of Europe’s leaders, that could also go awry. Voters, either because they are badly informed or because they are simply in a bad mood, could say no, just as we’ve just seen in Ireland. There’s a name for that: democracy.

And while people may not understand how the Poles could elect the Kaczynski brothers or how the Italians could choose Silvio Berlusconi, no one has seriously questioned their right to vote. Only when it comes to Europe do they want to ignore the will of the people.

And voters fight back against that. When they get the chance.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,druck-559741,00.html

Quality matters, not just speed or quantity. Accepting to raise the EU by terms of cheating, betraying most basic principles of democracy, and excluding the voice of the people, will claim revenge in the future. and then, politicians and profiteers will complain, and will insist that they had nothing to do with it, and that it all was about stupid people, mislead campaigns, and people simply not understanding what is good for them.

It will never come to these bright people'S minds that the way they have designed the EU both in content and in ways of proceedings - are exactly the valid reasons that caused and nursed the antipathy to it. The problem is not the people, but the leaders dreaming and self-celebrating uncoupled from reality and claiming the right for themselves not top represent their voters anymore, but to enforce their own private will on voters and non-voters alike, no matter what the latter two think. This is the great problem with the EU. The moment when in a socalled democracy an opposition is no longer allowed and votes are only held if the commanded-in-advance outcome is guaranteed, I start to be seriously concerned. There is much talking inside the EU administration of getting closer to the people on the street. If that is meant serious or with any sense of reason, I wonder why one is trying so hard and always harder to distanc eoneself more and more and with accelerating pace from these mentioned nobodies: the people. Euro-parties on the street, letting ballons fly and greeting pedestrians with mini-EU-flags and free pencils, is not the reasonable thing to, it is nothing else than to bribe the considered to be stupid natives with glass pearls and sugar, where solid answers to critical questions and actions reflecting the will of the people would be demanded for sure. The EU is not about democracy and representation of the will of the majority of the people, but avbout eroding these democreatic rights without making them aware. To claim that 480 million people in europe want this, is pathetic at best, and the claiming of a majority one does not have, is a lie. Peop0le may want what the diea of a united europe means in an abstract sense, but I see no majority for wanting that in the form and way the EU is claiming to realise - an unproven claim, one must add. I even can't see 290 million wanting that.

Voters should fight back indeed. But they will not get many more chances, if any.

[joegrundman]

But the EU foreign minister will remove the national foreign. Individual countries won't be able to consider their own foreign policy, even if EU policy goes against their interests.

Jeez you are like the Irish lady who voted no because "she was tipped off that it meant the European army was going to conscript her son"

What you have written is nonsense - but it illustrates the problem very well. The EU does not seem able to communicate why it does what it does, and asks people to vote for a treaty that they cannot understand. People just project whatever idiocy on to it that they like

Finally the whole Save the British Sausage thing was something from Yes, Minister!

Besides, in the old days the rubbish that was a British sausage was up to 60% rusk. now they are good again, and usually over 90% meat.

[XabbaRus]

No it's not nonsense. It's all part of the sovreignty argument. How big would a cabinet for the EU have to be? Would each country have a foreign minister per se or would they just be told that the EU govt. has decided this is the policy which will suit Europe benefit most countries but not all, like it or lump it. Europe is too big and too diverse for this to happen.

BTW I can't figure out if you are pro europe or anti? Like I said I am not anti EU as in EEC just anti federal united states of Europe.

[joegrundman]

Every nation will still have it's own complete government including foreign ministers, each of which will represent the nation to which they belong, and for the foreseeable future the real focus of power in Europe will lie in the member nation states and not the EU "federal" structure

AND there will be an EU foreign minister to represent the EU as a whole - in the same way as there is an EU president without it meaning we no longer have a British Queen and Prime Minister.

This is going to happen because the EU is involved in a vast number of international relationships (as is Britain), and it will make things easier for non-EU countries to have a go-to man/woman in dealing with their EU related issues, and vice versa.

It makes sense for in many situations the EU member states are essentially agreed on the policy that should be followed. It is simple cost and time efficiency to have a single agency to handle these sorts of affairs.

And until such a time has come that the EU starts to federalise along US lines, it will ALWAYS be the case that the desires of the nation state will supercede EU decisions. However just as it is the case that sometimes it is in the interest of the USA to allow a WTO decision to go in favour of the other side in a dispute, so it is the case that to continue the overall benefits of the system, occasionally an EU member state will go along with an unfavourable decision.

It's how it works in the real world.

(As an aside - just imagine the outcry if an EU foreign minister really did supercede the national foreign ministers. Think of all those people and their hangers-on and entire ministries that would be out of a job if it did happen!)

[joegrundman]

@Skybird

that post you quoted was quite good, but your following comments were less so

but the leaders dreaming and self-celebrating uncoupled from reality and claiming the right for themselves not top represent their voters anymore, but to enforce their own private will on voters and non-voters alike, no matter what the latter two think.


You all want your own democratically elected governments to represent you, don't you? This is why you should let them do it, and negotiate the treaty on your behalf

You don't need referenda. They are too easily captured by demagogues.

But what i do agree is that the EU commission is guilty of assuming that just because they can see how obviously sensible it is, it is equally obvious to everyone else.

It was deeply, deeply stupid of them to put themselves in a position where so much hung on a handful of Irish politicians saying to their electorate "I don't know what it says exactly, and i couldn't explain it to you clearly even if i did, but please vote for it anyway"

[Skybird]

Joe,

you already got any reply I could give, and i dont see a need to repeat myself again. Needless to say that I reject every point you made, and totally disagree with you, both in detail and on the general issue.

To make that clear, that is no personal hostility by me, but simply the way it is. ;)

Ironically now they start to talk about what just weeks before was impossible to be spoken out: they mention different conceptions of a core-Europe that before was considered to be unsolidaric and subversive to be even mentioned. I talked of a core europe since YEARS. Unfortunately, they want this core europe depending on this same damn nemesis of a constitution - and so again I will totally confront them, no matter if a core europe or Europe of two speeds, or whatever.

P.S. I strictly stick and defend that quote by me that you started with. If the EU has one problem outshining all others, than it's biblic distance to reality, and exaggerated positive self-perception on issue going beyond economics.

[Hakahura]

Every nation will still have it's own complete government including foreign ministers, each of which will represent the nation to which they belong, and for the foreseeable future the real focus of power in Europe will lie in the member nation states and not the EU "federal" structure

AND there will be an EU foreign minister to represent the EU as a whole - in the same way as there is an EU president without it meaning we no longer have a British Queen and Prime Minister.

This is going to happen because the EU is involved in a vast number of international relationships (as is Britain), and it will make things easier for non-EU countries to have a go-to man/woman in dealing with their EU related issues, and vice versa.

It makes sense for in many situations the EU member states are essentially agreed on the policy that should be followed. It is simple cost and time efficiency to have a single agency to handle these sorts of affairs.

And until such a time has come that the EU starts to federalise along US lines, it will ALWAYS be the case that the desires of the nation state will supercede EU decisions. However just as it is the case that sometimes it is in the interest of the USA to allow a WTO decision to go in favour of the other side in a dispute, so it is the case that to continue the overall benefits of the system, occasionally an EU member state will go along with an unfavourable decision.

It's how it works in the real world.

(As an aside - just imagine the outcry if an EU foreign minister really did supercede the national foreign ministers. Think of all those people and their hangers-on and entire ministries that would be out of a job if it did happen!)


foreseeable

How long is this? Do you know? I have a feeling the brussels interpretation of foreseeable is a-lot shorter than mine.

EU president

At the moment this is an essentially powerless figure head rotated every 6 months.
What the EU wants of it's foreign minister is someone in post for far longer with actual powers.

(Nasty hypothosis for 10 years time under EU rule with a EU foreign minister. Argentina invades and captures the Falkland Islands again. EU decides not to retake Islands but gives them to Argentina and deports the islanders to an EU country of their choice. The UK is forced to accept this as it is an EU member and EU foreign policy has primacy over national interests! Not completely unfeasible after all wars are expensive and a few hundred British citizens are not really of consiquence to the EU)

essentially agreed

Since when have member states all agreed with each other?
Even on trival matters, let alone foreign policy.

supercede EU decisions.

This is already happening. the EU has already managed to give some of it's laws primacy over national ones. In a oversized beaurocrassy the desires of individual nations will soon be steamrollered in the interests of harmonisation.

It's how it works in the real world.

What do you mean by real world?
Is the world not real if it doesn't follow the EU agenda?

[Hakahura]

Joe,

Glad you brought up the one about the proposed EU Army. (Rapid reaction force whatever they want to call it)
If it were to ever happen,
Who are they going to use to man this?

Existing troops that's who.

Well excuse me, but The Queens Crown is the only emblem on my Headress and it's staying that way!

So if I'm unprepaired to serve the EU will I be forced to resign?

[Hakahura]

@Skybird

that post you quoted was quite good, but your following comments were less so

but the leaders dreaming and self-celebrating uncoupled from reality and claiming the right for themselves not top represent their voters anymore, but to enforce their own private will on voters and non-voters alike, no matter what the latter two think.

You all want your own democratically elected governments to represent you, don't you? This is why you should let them do it, and negotiate the treaty on your behalf

You don't need referenda. They are too easily captured by demagogues.

But what i do agree is that the EU commission is guilty of assuming that just because they can see how obviously sensible it is, it is equally obvious to everyone else.

It was deeply, deeply stupid of them to put themselves in a position where so much hung on a handful of Irish politicians saying to their electorate "I don't know what it says exactly, and i couldn't explain it to you clearly even if i did, but please vote for it anyway"


You don't need referenda.

Well actually we do!
Here in the UK we were promised one by New Labour.
Only they've squirmed out of it!

WHERE'S MY REFERENDUM BROWN?

[joegrundman]

Every nation will still have it's own complete government including foreign ministers, each of which will represent the nation to which they belong, and for the foreseeable future the real focus of power in Europe will lie in the member nation states and not the EU "federal" structure

AND there will be an EU foreign minister to represent the EU as a whole - in the same way as there is an EU president without it meaning we no longer have a British Queen and Prime Minister.

This is going to happen because the EU is involved in a vast number of international relationships (as is Britain), and it will make things easier for non-EU countries to have a go-to man/woman in dealing with their EU related issues, and vice versa.

It makes sense for in many situations the EU member states are essentially agreed on the policy that should be followed. It is simple cost and time efficiency to have a single agency to handle these sorts of affairs.

And until such a time has come that the EU starts to federalise along US lines, it will ALWAYS be the case that the desires of the nation state will supercede EU decisions. However just as it is the case that sometimes it is in the interest of the USA to allow a WTO decision to go in favour of the other side in a dispute, so it is the case that to continue the overall benefits of the system, occasionally an EU member state will go along with an unfavourable decision.

It's how it works in the real world.

(As an aside - just imagine the outcry if an EU foreign minister really did supercede the national foreign ministers. Think of all those people and their hangers-on and entire ministries that would be out of a job if it did happen!)


foreseeable

How long is this? Do you know? I have a feeling the brussels interpretation of foreseeable is a-lot shorter than mine.

EU president

At the moment this is an essentially powerless figure head rotated every 6 months.
What the EU wants of it's foreign minister is someone in post for far longer with actual powers.

(Nasty hypothosis for 10 years time under EU rule with a EU foreign minister. Argentina invades and captures the Falkland Islands again. EU decides not to retake Islands but gives them to Argentina and deports the islanders to an EU country of their choice. The UK is forced to accept this as it is an EU member and EU foreign policy has primacy over national interests! Not completely unfeasible after all wars are expensive and a few hundred British citizens are not really of consiquence to the EU)

essentially agreed

Since when have member states all agreed with each other?
Even on trival matters, let alone foreign policy.

supercede EU decisions.

This is already happening. the EU has already managed to give some of it's laws primacy over national ones. In a oversized beaurocrassy the desires of individual nations will soon be steamrollered in the interests of harmonisation.

It's how it works in the real world.

What do you mean by real world?
Is the world not real if it doesn't follow the EU agenda?




The foreseeable future means as long as can be foreseen. Not more than, and not less than. On this particular question, it means that not a single major European player has federalisation on the agenda, and therefore it won't happen.

EU president - you choose to back up your point with a fantasy of your choosing and then say how Europe will stop you from fighting. Do you in fact know how the EU would react to this sceanrio? If so, how do you know? And how do you know that the EU would be able to veto a British decision to get them back? How, in fact, could they veto it?

The only pressure they can put on Britain in such a situation is in terms of EU membership. This is because within the EU, the member nation state WILL REMAIN THE SOVEREIGN ENTITY.

Essentially agreed is what most EU member nation states are on most matters that do not generally make the news.

Supercede EU decisions - i don't know how to respond to this as I don't think you understood what i said

The real world - is where nations do not lay down the law (except sometimes the US), it is where nations horse-trade and compromise and sometimes have to shift from their top-line positions. Britain lives in the real world, as does the EU.

The army- well as you feel so strongly about it, then yes, maybe you would have to resign. For sure a European defense force would be made of contributions from the member states, and as Britain is one of the strongest, our contribution would be relatively big.

Why is this a problem for you? You would still be fighting for Britain, as part of Europe. You fight under NATO too, don't you? And peacekeep under the UN flag too, don't you? Or have you already resigned to avoid this conflict of loyalty?

As for referendums. I'll say it again for the third time this thread. Your desire is that the nationstate be the sovereign entity. For this to be so, it is necessary that the negotiations be handled by the nation-states, for no senior minister in any nation-state will EVER talk themselves out of a job. You can bet your life on it.

On the other hand if referenda are the way forwards, the EUs obvious way forward is to push for a Europe-wide referendum on a new populist treaty so that it is not prisoner to the negativities of any one country. By doing this, the EU is getting legitmation that has BYPASSED the workings of the nationstates, and this is NOT WHAT YOU WANT!

But anyway, this is unlikely - the EU is getting tired of the whole expensive business of making new treaties.
.
.
There most certainly is serious debate and criticism and discussion to be had about the state of the EU, and the problems with the Lisbon treaty, but the whole debate gets clouded by rantings of the whole "Brussels is stealing my sausages and demagnetising my fridge magnets" crowd.

Fundamentally you don't seem to understand that the EU is MADE of nation states. And Britain is one of the three strongest in the whole structure.

I feel there are parallels with discussing evolution. There are interesting discussions and disagreements to be had about the areas of evolution that are less well understood - but the whole discussion then gets paralysed by IDers and creationists with what amounts to an elaborate fantasy.


@skybird - that's cool, and i agree that there is a massive cognitive dissonance going on with the EU people.

[Skybird]

@skybird - that's cool, and i agree that there is a massive cognitive dissonance going on with the EU people.
Öh eh - yes, on this we agree then. :lol:

[asanovic7]

Just wanted to say, nice one for the Irish, but a simple question..
Is EU gonna put Ireland out of EU or let them stay with some special rights? :rotfl:
I understood it that when one country rejects it, it will not be "legal". Now, I hear different things..
Cheers!

May we live in a better world someday..

[Skybird]

Just wanted to say, nice one for the Irish, but a simple question..
Is EU gonna put Ireland out of EU or let them stay with some special rights? :rotfl:
I understood it that when one country rejects it, it will not be "legal". Now, I hear different things..
Cheers!

May we live in a better world someday..
Well, the game is EU politicians versus the european people, and the EU already has demonstrated that it is not willing to even play by it's own rules, and use every trick and cheat if that helps to press this thing through, at all cost, no matter how, no matter what. Of course the constitution is dea din the water, since three years. And if you would get get reanimated for three years, all the time your heart being electro-shocked, you would not feel nice when waking up, eh?

See this, which I originally by fault had placed in the wrong forum:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...560549,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,druck-560549,00.html)

[Skybird]

It became known today that EU leaders had to admit that the Czech Republic also puts a threat over the treaty now. the treaty is challenged there over it's conformity with the Czech constitution. The EU officials shine again, saying that they are "100%" sure they will sign it nevertheless, while insiders on the Czech side carefull yhinted at that there may be more to it than just a minor issue to be overcome easily). Barosso also said that it is not acceptable that governments sign treaties, and then do not get ratification, that would be against the law, he said.

Mr. Barosso, why are ratification processes being kept separate then, if they are not allowed to eventually reject a treaty signed by the government? If it is "mandatory by international law" to ratify something always, in every case, there is no need for ratification at all. You, Mr. Barosso, have just given another telltale lesson on the EU and it's deeply autocratic self-understanding.

Furthermore, Mr. Barosso again has ruled out that even when after the Dutch and the French and the Irish eventually even the Czechs now reject it, the content of the treaty would be forced through and under no circumstance would be changed, altered or given up.

Interesting insight in your understanding of democratic principles, and your attitude towards "playing by one's own rules", Mr. Barosso. Very, very trustworthy your EU ways of going are.

[asanovic7]

I have read it, sky..

I have to be blunt..

I am shocked by the amount of b..cks in that paper. Like everything, I guess, when you touch modern politics. Unite the people, let's do it together, vote this.. ??

"The wording of the referendum would have to be sufficiently clear to allow voters to reach a decision on the EU's future direction.
With luck and commitment, a two-speed Europe could emerge from such a vote -- "
:rotfl:
Let's think about the worker 8-5 in some shipyard, working like a maniac, and then holding his strength and commitment to vote for.. what? Ah, ok.. :rotfl:

The thing that amazes me the most, is that all of you talk about the fact that lisabon whatever thing is hard to understand for the voters. How come 29(if I am not mistaken) states chose that? :rotfl: One didn't?
And now, when you had agreement that if one state doesn't accept it you don't have it.. Or it was shurely an accident.. Sarkozy said it, must be true..

How to put is short?
It is not coincidence lots of states voted yes, one didn't.. Or accident.. It is just a matter of making a thing that will confront and conflict nations until they together miraclelously find a solution to the problem(one of the ways and shortest):
"proposal that Europeans be allowed to directly elect an EU president goes well beyond the timid Lisbon Treaty."
:rotfl:

As I said, democracy is a fiction. It makes a modern man, strapped in the net of surveillance, jobs, computers, whatever think he has a vote.It has no difference in history, you had people flying with a sword to hunt you, you now have banks and clerks with a much more bruttish weapon, they take everything..

"In the end, they are left with no choice but to allow the peoples to decide for themselves."
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

What a bunch of crap! To allow what? Further accidents?

Sorry, mate, but when you talk about modern politics, the only thing you should not do, is to talk in gloves.. They maybe act that way, but that way shure ain't polite!
Anyways, again :up:

Cheers!

[Happy Times]

I have been pro Union for its economical benefits and stabilizing affect on Europe but now that i have had time to read more of the proposed treaty im getting little nervous. Somebody know if i have understood correctly that secession isnt guaranteed for a state that so wishes? If so, the reasons behind it raise questions of the federal system being built. When money rules, liberties are under threat, i may have to revise my position.:hmm:

[Skybird]

I have been pro Union for its economical benefits and stabilizing affect on Europe but now that i have had time to read more of the proposed treaty im getting little nervous. Somebody know if i have understood correctly that secession isnt guaranteed for a state that so wishes? If so, the reasons behind it raise questions of the federal system being built. When money rules, liberties are under threat, i may have to revise my position.:hmm:
that is one of the many tricky points, causing much criticism and bitter debate.

Part IV, article 50, section 2 says:


A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.
In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and
conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking
account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be
negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority,
after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.


So, in principle secession is possible, BUT: consider the formulations in the above text (and such things are important in the legal and political field). You see cross-reference to the "Guidelines of the European Council" (wich are a chapter for themselves, and are under fire), and the fact that a qualified majority of the Council and the european Parliament'S agreement must be secured. the criticism now is that it is not clear wether this adresses only the terms and conditions of the new politiical relation between the leaving nation and the EU, or if it even decides about the EU's allowance for the single nation leaving. this is not so obvious to answer as Eurocrats make it sound, the criticism comes for legal experts, whereas political critics and eurocritics also point at the fact of how much democratically totally unlegitimised power is held in the EU hierarchy by ministry officials that mostly act without being responsible in the understanding of owing responsibility to somebody who voted for them. then there is the still questioned lacking legitimation of the EU commission itself, the self-made (non-legitimised) expansion of power and competences of varous levels and offices of the EU institutions including the commission, and the most often ignroed violation of EU-laws taking it for granted to overrule national constitutional rights and parliamentary sovereignity. If you add all this together, you have a bureaucratic mechanism that could delay any demand by a member state to leave for years if not decades to come. The process to leave the union in principle is "allowed", but in reality if would last through so many legislation periods that it is extremely unlikely that it ever would successfully reach that far. So, secession is possible by the rules - while it has been made sure that in reality it never will happen by making the secession ambition suffering a slow many-years-long death bye negotiating through the levels of the EU offices.

you are allowed to leave, yes - but only if you do not do it. Compare to: you are allowed to vote over the EU constituion - but only if you vote in favour of it.

As I often said: the basic text of the lisbon treaty does nto seem like a problem, everything looks bright and nice. the problems become apparent when checking the appendices, the cross-references, the hidden complications.

This is not my private mislead criticism only, but it has been raised by many legal experts, and again, my favourite insider and heavyweight expert is amongst them: Roman Herzog, who has been federal president of Germany and hea dof state, and before that he was president of the german constitutional high court. His level ox expertise cannot just be wiped off the table by saying he does not truly understand what it is about - he has understood it better than most of those politicians who think they need to open their big Eurocratic mouths about things they did not understand at all.