The Irish have Europe's future in their hands - Page 3

Respenus · 06-13-08, 07:07 AM

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 · 06-13-08, 08:01 AM

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 · 06-13-08, 08:17 AM

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 · 06-13-08, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 06-13-08, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 ...

Tchocky · 06-13-08, 08:53 AM

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 · 06-13-08, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geetrue

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 ...

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 · 06-13-08, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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"?

Respenus · 06-13-08, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geetrue

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 · 06-13-08, 10:59 AM

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 · 06-13-08, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

protects us from the omnipotence of the US.

Mwahahahahaha!

geetrue · 06-13-08, 11:49 AM

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

This may be the very reason why:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Times

“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 · 06-13-08, 12:38 PM

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 · 06-13-08, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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 · 06-13-08, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

protects us from the omnipotence of the US.

Mwahahahahaha!

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.

06-13-08, 07:07 AM	#31
Respenus Ace of the Deep Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,169 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________

06-13-08, 08:01 AM	#32
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,708 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

06-13-08, 08:17 AM	#33
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

06-13-08, 08:53 AM	#36
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Last edited by Tchocky; 06-13-08 at 09:04 AM.

06-13-08, 10:59 AM	#40
GlobalExplorer Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Location: Berlin Posts: 2,015 Downloads: 165 Uploads: 0	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. __________________

06-13-08, 12:38 PM	#43
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,708 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.