The Irish have Europe's future in their hands

[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]

Originally Posted by 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..

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

[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

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]

Originally Posted by 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:

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.