The Irish have Europe's future in their hands

[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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE EU WAS MEANT TO BE.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

What bullsh_t.

They got you wrapped around there little finger.

[vedrand]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

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]

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

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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:

[kurtz]

Originally Posted by 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