PDA

View Full Version : EU issues / Irish voters


ORAC
7th Jun 2008, 12:38
Eureferendum: There is much excitement in eurosceptic camp with the news that the latest opinion poll on the Irish constitutional Lisbon referendum is showing the "No" side surging ahead in a dramatic reversal of opinion.

We are told by RTE news that this is the finding of a TNS/mrbi poll which appears in today's Irish Times giving opponents of the treaty a five percent lead over those in favour. This is all the more remarkable as, up to now, opinion polls have consistently shown the "Yes" side ahead, although opponents have been closing the gap. But now the "No" side has done more than that, surging into a commanding lead with just a week to polling day.

The poll shows the "Yes" side at 30 percent, down five points since their last poll three weeks ago, while the "No" side is at 35 percent, up a staggering 17 percent, with "Don't Knows" down 12 at 35 percent. By any reckoning, if the movement continues at this rate, the political establishment is heading for a crushing defeat. However, any hope that the constitutional Lisbon treaty will be killed off is sadly misplaced.

The worst-case scenario from the perspective of the "colleagues" is that the treaty will go ahead without Ireland, applying to the 26 other member states. All that is needed for that to happen is an agreement at the next European Council to proceed – legal niceties will not be seen as an obstacle. There will be a "bridging" instrument already prepared that will enable the Irish government to work under the Nice rules yet remain within the Community framework.

Before that, though, there will be a process of negotiation and the plan is to offer the Irish some opt-outs, in the form of a declaration, which will address the main issues raised during the referendum campaign. The details will emerge in time but, even a spokesman for Sinn Féin - the only political party to oppose the treaty – concedes there will be a deal. This is Eoin Ó'Broin, SF's director of European Affairs, and he dismisses any idea that there is no "Plan B".

There always is a "Plan B" and the "colleagues" are not going to let a little thing like a "No" vote from a marginal country on the periphery of the Union derail their plans. :*:*

tony draper
7th Jun 2008, 12:48
Of course the way the question is asked is very important.
YES you don't want not to approve of the new EU constitution.
NO you don't want to say no to the new EU constitution.
:uhoh:

ORAC
12th Jun 2008, 07:12
Torygraph: European Treaty: Irish plan to get around 'no' vote

Officials in Brussels are working on plans to ensure that the European Treaty is still implemented elsewhere if Ireland votes against it in the referendum. Although measures such as creating an EU president, "foreign minister" and European diplomatic service may be delayed, they are still expected to be introduced.

One diplomat said a "bridging mechanism" was being discussed. If Ireland rejects the treaty, it may simply be removed from the list of signatories and will not be legally obliged to abide by it. By late 2009 or early 2010, when Croatia joins the EU, an amending "Accession Treaty" will be signed by all members including Dublin.

Incorporated into it would be a series of protocol texts giving paper "opt-outs" on controversial Irish EU issues, such as taxation powers or greater military co-operation. Such texts would be similar to Britain's existing protocol opt-outs on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and social issues in the Lisbon Treaty text being ratified in Westminster. Ireland, like the rest of the Europe, does not hold referendums on EU enlargement treaties and with new protocol opt-outs Dublin may get a new Accession Treaty past the Irish parliament without a popular vote.

"This mechanism would be no more incomprehensible or legalistic than the Treaty itself," said one official. "It is probably no more difficult than the legal footwork necessary to turn the Constitutional Treaty into [the] Lisbon [Treaty] after the French and Dutch rejected it. The issue will be timing."

In recent weeks, Irish officials have held secret talks to implement the Lisbon Treaty regardless of any referendum on the text........ Secret minutes seen by The Daily Telegraph show that Ireland's EU ambassador, Bobby McDonagh, pleaded with his colleagues to keep the talks and Dublin's position confidential. "[We] have to remain cautious in presenting these issues [referendum]!," the minutes record......

Overdrive
12th Jun 2008, 11:23
By late 2009 or early 2010, when Croatia joins the EU, an amending "Accession Treaty" will be signed by all members including Dublin.




First it was a Constitution. Then a (in no way, shape or form, The Constitution) "Treaty". Next it will be an (in even more no way,shape or form The Constitution) "Accession Treaty" .... :ugh:

Why don't they have done with it and just ram it down our throats?

MSF
12th Jun 2008, 17:31
I voted 'no' and so did everyone else that I know.

I think that Shrek will get a clear message fron the west.

mini
12th Jun 2008, 23:54
What is really interesting about this is that Ireland were the only country that had to put "Lisbon" to its populace, all the others dealt with it by parliamentary votes.

Democracy it would seem in this instance anyway, begins with a stout written Constitution...

(no pun intended :E)

tony draper
13th Jun 2008, 12:15
Buy him a large drink today,same goes for Irish ladies,well done chaps chapesses.
:ok:

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
13th Jun 2008, 12:34
Would you good people from Eire have voted for a Lisburn Treaty?

Funny old World when we rely on Paddy to stand up for British freedoms. Now watch the Eurocrats marginalise them or make them vote again and again "until they get it right"!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7452171.stm


Turnout is said to have been about 45%. Commentators had predicted that a low turnout figure would suggest a rejection.

Our correspondent says that many voters seem to have voted No for the simple reason that they did not understand the treaty, despite a high-profile Yes campaign led by Prime Minister Brian Cowen which had the support of most of the country's main parties.


I read that as an arrogant assertion that the People are too stupid to vote.

tony draper
13th Jun 2008, 12:41
Brussels will probably order the Irish Government to instigate the Mugabe option.
The result is delayed for a recount.:E
Brussels will learn a valuable lesson,it's the last time they will allow any of this silly democracy stuff.
:)

G-CPTN
13th Jun 2008, 13:11
BBC reporting that Gordon Brown is determined to proceed with ratification next week . . .

Lord Lardy
13th Jun 2008, 14:01
Our correspondent says that many voters seem to have voted No for the simple reason that they did not understand the treaty


Well I voted NO, because I did not get any answers from the pro camp that would satisfy me. I was asked to vote on a treaty that our government failed to provide me or it's population a copy of. The Irish Prime minister said on televsion recently that he hasn't even read the full treaty :ugh:

It's going to ruffle quite a few feather around Europe. Europe has been very good to Ireland over the years, and I don't think that by people voting no they are anti europe. I think this has been rammed down people's throats and democracy has spoken. As the only country actually voting on the Treaty due to Consitution rules, it would be very interesting to see the European outcome if it was put to it's people.

On a side note, I have just heard on the radio a member from Irish Government's main opposition party saying that a factor in people voting NO was that it was deemed fashionable to do so. He was spouting on about the influence of celebritries coming from reality programs such as Big Brother etc getting their five minutes on television and influencing certain voters. I nearly had to pull my car over to stop myself laughing. You couldn't make it up.

Now the question is what way would British people vote if Gordon gave them the opportunity to have their say?

A good summary of the way this has been dealt with here: Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE)

fishtits
13th Jun 2008, 15:11
I voted No too.

I've found that it is impossible to find out what the hell we're supposed to be voting for - clearly by design as evidenced in that link in the previous post.

News reporting 53% to the No vote at the moment - it's going to be close :uhoh:

frostbite
13th Jun 2008, 15:30
I voted NO to the whole mess back in 197?

Fat lot of good that did.

bear11
13th Jun 2008, 16:22
I voted no because it's a (deliberately?) vague, unfinished treaty that has been rejected in one other form already.

A bit of history - a guy called Raymond Crotty in 1986 took the Irish government to our supreme court, he got a ruling that said there would have to be a referendum if there were any major changes in the EU that impinged on our constitution. Thanks to Raymond and our constitution, we have a vote on major changes such as this - the response of some of the EU fascists and commentators is along the lines of "Ireland shouldn't be allowed to vote on this issue", which is precisely one of the reasons that the EU was formed in the first place to avoid in future generations. I simply can't get my head around the comments from some people that say we are holding the rest of the EU to ransom - my response is grow a pair, demand a vote, debate the issues, and decide it in a democratic fashion.

Our government have been pathetic in backing the treaty, basically scaremongering, and telling us we owe the EU. We were asked to “trust” our politicians who had negotiated it (but many who admit they hadn’t read the bloody thing, or that it was unreadable), you can guess what the answer to that was. Mind you, the No side was full of the usual ragbag of nutcases, many of whom hilariously insist that we could “renegotiate” the treaty if there was a no vote. The main reason I have seen for voting Yes was for "efficiency" in the EU. I am all for efficiency, but NOT at the cost of democracy. I was a huge fan of the EC and then the EEC, but I am very wary of the EU, and want to see a federal system maintained. For me, this is about our constitution and our ability to vote on, and decide, these issues - anything that subverted our constitution in any way was simply not acceptable.

What will happen now? The answer is - a big, fat nothing, cue the Monty Python dead parrot sketch. Let’s see the French, who are next in the European seat, abuse us for the result, given they stiffed their own voters who said "Non" 3 years ago from voting on it again. If all the EU can do is insist we vote on it again rather than all the other countries being given the opportunity to vote on it, is there any wonder there was a No vote in the first place?

G-CPTN
13th Jun 2008, 16:42
A press conference at which it is expected to hear the results of the referendum is being 'delayed'. Perhaps they are waiting for advice from Harare?

EU officials are saying that in the event of rejection by Ireland, they will expect to receive recommendations of changes that will answer the points on which the rejection is based . . .


Bummer, eh?

FerrypilotDK
13th Jun 2008, 16:54
The Dutch and French stopped it last ime, Danes would probably had followed suit. As the others had already killed it, the Danes just let it rest, never holding the vote.

This time round, the government, knowing that they faced a questionable outcome, decided to ram it though Parliament without the referendum! 1000 years of varying degrees of democratic influence has been sold down the drain. A sorry state of affairs and a foretaste of the future under the Eurocrats.

If one believes in the European ideals, then to argue and debate them is fine. When faced with resistance, the right solution is NOT to ram it down the throats of the people. Look, we have had a long period of prosperity and peace, cooperation between countries....but now this cooperation is heading for the trash-heap, as the countries themselves are relegated to it. Notice how the very people that the voters toss out for one reason or another, invariably show up in Brussels, holding down one tax-free position or another? Buying from the non VAT "company store.?" Sort of reminds me that under the communists, the pary members had their own shops where only otherwise illegal foreign currency could be used.

Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others.,....

Ah...freedom, an illusion as long as it lasted, but now they are here to take it back!

View from Iceland

corsair
13th Jun 2008, 17:34
I didn't vote in the end. But probably would have voted yes. In part because of motley selection of types against it. A weird combination of right and left wing. Besides I find it difficult to go by anything Sinn Fein says and they were against it. One theory I read was that the right wing Libertas group which campaigned against the treaty were funded by the US neo cons who fear a more militarily powerful Europe would rival the USA. On the other hand part of the left wing's objections were that the treaty would lead to a more militarily powerful Europe. An ironic convergence of interests?

Whatever? However I have to say this treaty would have been voted down in most countries of the EU had they been given a chance.

That I believe is the lesson here for politicians and the EU in general. Clearly they have not carried the people along with them in their ambitions. They are not trusted.

If the EU is to progress in any meaningful way, It has to do it in a transparent and obvious way that addresses the real fears of the average citizen. The EU has been good for Europe but hasn't always been seen to be. That's a problem that needs resolving. No one wants to go back to the old nation states competing against each other like in the bad old days. But it's obvious now that people in Europe really don't want a huge United States of Europe with a single army, foreign policy, taxation etc etc.

This shouldn't be seen as just an 'Irish' thing. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone now that most of Europe has a similar view.

I wonder will the politicians finally realise this.

1DC
13th Jun 2008, 18:14
I would have liked to have voted no,but because i am British and governed by a deceitful and bent government i was denied a vote.This after getting the impression that i would get the opportunity to vote on it prior to the last election.
You Jocks don't know how lucky you were after all your rubbish pollies were palmed off into our Parliament..
Send the buggars back,I say.......

nosefirsteverytime
13th Jun 2008, 19:40
I heard so many terrible rumours on Thursday night.

One involving conscription to a European Super-Army :*

Another involving Abortion.

Some I think voted for the wrong reasons.

I really wanted to vote yes, but due to economic circumstances (not being able to afford the petrol to return from work to my home constituency) I was forced to abstain.

Their loss. It wouldn't have made a difference anyway. But it was interesting to note that the Lisbon treaty would have installed a mechanism whereby a country would be able to leave the EU.

Now that all's done, I can see the merit in the No, only because the treaty was not clear enough, and I do not like the rotating 5-year thing. Make it large, make it unweildy,
but give everyone a say.

nosefirsteverytime
13th Jun 2008, 19:47
Posted in the other thread drapes, but I heard an interesting titbit on the news today.

The dollar has gained strength against the euro after the treaty rejection. And considering how oil prices are tied up to the dollar, I reckon that might help weaken the oil prices.

Ireland: Doing our bit to save the world :ok:

Parapunter
13th Jun 2008, 19:58
I am an Irishman & I'll have a Guinness when you're ready Commander Drapes.;)

brickhistory
13th Jun 2008, 20:00
Well done.

Imagine voting to determine your destiny.

Shocking concept.








"Vader, terminate them. Immediately."

airship
13th Jun 2008, 20:57
Irishmen working on luxury yachts are relatively rare these days here in France (they were replaced by cheaper Australians sometime ago). But if I were to meet an Irishman I knew over the next few days, I'd probably say "Shame on your compatriots, mate?!"

Why?! Because Eire is what it is today in large part thanks to the EU and former EEC. By 1982, a survey revealed that over 80% of multinational companies who'd setup there had been mainly attracted by its exceptionally low corporation tax rates and 'reliefs'. That's why Dell Computer set up there (I bought one back in 1997 and another again in 2003 and was somewhat surprised to learn where they were shipped from...).

I can't speak for the Dutch, but the French voted 'no' to the new constitution basically because they believed that it represented an 'open-door' to further economic liberalisation / globalisation and an increased Anglo-Saxonisation of the EU. A British / American plot in other words, to undermine what they believed the EU stood for. Europe (the rest of the EU) are Britain's biggest trading partner (I think). Fine, so stick with the £ sterling and continue to undermine the EU (Briton's national sport after cricket?)...?!

And realise that the game you play for whatever reason may backfire. Imagine a new EU comprised of say, a backbone of Germany, France and Italy (we always need a poor man...)?! This new EU reverts to what it was originally - more or less an agricultural / customs union, much like the USA today...

And consider just how many normal companies (leaving aside the multinationals for an instant) in Eire or the UK will remain there, once the trucks carrying their finished products are obliged to carry TIR plates, with consequent delays at the new frontiers :E

Like I said, the ungrateful bastards are at work, and indeed won the day once again this time. I don't know whether UK or Irish MPs fiddle more than their own MEPs. But for sure, the latter get more media attention.

Whatever, ungrateful sods (of the earth). And I'm not about to convert to Guiness unless it's on prescription.

PS. Nice to see you here brick :confused: But I thought you'd made it abunduntly clear that Europeans should not interfere with internal American affairs (eg. Presidential elections) on the premise that they didn't have the right to vote or were not directly affected...?! ;)

corsair
13th Jun 2008, 20:59
Yes indeed, every woman would have to have at least one abortion, we would all be concripted to join the Euro army and be sent off to fight the Chinese, taxes would be doubled, a dictator woudl be appointed, everyone would be forced to drive on the right and French would be the new Euro language.

Apart from that it was all good.:ok:

Future 737NG pic(?)
13th Jun 2008, 21:22
Airship, take your sanctimonious claptrap away and go and take another, harder look at the "glorious EU".

I, like many other Europeans, am glad the Irish have voted against the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty (a watered down version of the proposed constitution that sets up the beginnings of a Federal Euro state), seeing as though they are the only country to permit their people to have a direct say in something that will fundamentally alter many Europeans' lives.

Why should anyone feel guilty that they do not agree with plans created by unelected and unaccountable politicians far removed from everyday life?

Two points to leave you with:
1. Which model is working the best, in terms of employment, job creation and trade - the Anglo-saxon or the one based on 'dirigisme'?

2. Why do you think the EU will ever revert back to a customs union? There are some great ideas in existence that have been borne out of the EC, free movement of labour, etc. On a negative note, for the MEPs and civil servants in Brussels, it would be like Turkeys voting for Xmas.

selfloadingcargo
13th Jun 2008, 21:24
Airship - just because you don't like how they voted doesn't make them wrong.

What most sensible (definition: those who share my views) people want is a trading community rather like the original EEC (European Economic Community). What we/they don't want is Eurocrats who have abandoned monarchy but have delusions of kingship telling us what to do with everything from Health and Safety to Defence.

Yes, let's trade without barriers. No, let's not trade body fluids in policy areas that we are perfectly capable of lousing up on our own on a small scale, rather than on a grand scale - at the cost of billions - with people we have to pretend to like.

Good on the Irish.

acmi48
13th Jun 2008, 21:35
ireland voted no to the TCE -dollar up and oil dropped by ............................ 20c a barrel

phew..needed that.

4 more 'no's' we save a dollar.

the treaty will be re worked again ..

Standard Noise
13th Jun 2008, 21:36
There's summat to be said for a country which has a written constitution that gives it's people a say on such matters. Sure beats having politicians running scared of their manifesto commitments.
Still, they do say that in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king!:rolleyes:

tony draper
13th Jun 2008, 21:39
Wonder what they will call it next time round ?.
Hell hath no fury like a Eurocrat thwarted.:E

airship
13th Jun 2008, 22:14
Why should anyone feel guilty that they do not agree with plans created by unelected and unaccountable politicians far removed from everyday life? Oh puhleeeeeeze! If you have any evidence that your (elected) MEPs are any more or less sleazier than the home-based variety, please do tell. Otherwise, that statement is no more than propaganda that even Dr. Joseph Goebbels would retch at (and which undoubtedly contributed to the Irish 'no' vote)... :rolleyes:

Future 737NG pic(?), I offer you this: the French are still mainly French (at least, everyone still blames them for simply everything bad). It's the British who are ostensibly multi-cultural and have been 'watered-down' if that is possible. In fact so few traces of 'the British' might remain that sometimes we must appear to be American to everyone else at best, if that makes sense. Recognition and due respect of minorities in France / GB are different: the UK readily effaces its own cultures and traditions, the French at least endeavour to convert later citizens into a sort of Frenchness (well it worked with me...?!) As far as job creation and the rest, all I can say is that I was extremely grateful to escape the UK in the early-mid '80s. UK plc works because she has been able to tread a fine line as part of the EU to date, and bully for us (her) I guess. What the French are worried about (like the British once were) is that they will end up like the UK today: with hardly any manufacturing industry to speak of aside from assembly plants, relying on massive immigration to keep up house prices because average Britons make much more from increasing house values than from their day jobs in the 'newer' service industries. Now that these assets are decreasing in value after a very long run, it looks like we might need another Falklands debacle to take everyone's minds off the situation...?! Poor old Arthur Scargill - didn't know what he'd let himself in for did he?! BTW, I don't believe that they're any 'Scargills' left, so whether or not the next government will be a sleazy conservative or even sleazier labour one, there'll be fewer scapegoats to blame in future.

Except for the EU of course - western governments' most convenient scapegoat for all the woes their citizens experience...?! :ugh:

Future 737NG pic(?)
13th Jun 2008, 23:13
If you have any evidence that your (elected) MEPs are any more or less sleazier than the home-based variety, please do tell.

I give you the names Peter Mandelson, Giles Chichester and Pascal Sevran to highlight but a few... :yuk:

I'm sorry, I don't believe that manufacturing sector is the be all and end all for an economy, especially when other countries around the world can do it cheaper and arguably better. That belief belongs to Arthur Scargill and his ilk and in the 70s and 80s. A knowledge-based economy (so long as you keep educating to the very highest standard), will do the best in a mature economy.
After that, you resort to hyperbole and outrageous conjecture. If you honestly believe what you have written... :ugh:

I won't get involved in the ideological debate of which works better: 'On est avant tout Francais' or multiculturalism. Disaffected younger people of ethnic origin exist here and in France, with no solution proving better than another.

There would be a lot more enthusiasm for the European idea if people had more opportunity to express and have their ideas enacted.
But wait, power to the people...? Gordon Brown would be sweating even more than he is now if that were true.

Rightbase
13th Jun 2008, 23:35
here http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/LTPD07/

Another few thousand on the petition won't do any harm.

Blacksheep
13th Jun 2008, 23:42
The Irish got it right. Thank you guys. :ok:

But the outcome will have no effect upon those who think they know better than we do what is "the right thing to do."

I like the idea behind the EU in general. I don't like the way our politicians are using it to put distance between them and the voting population and make them less accountable to their electorates. I fear that Aristotle's opinion of democracy is coming true before our very eyes and there seems to be nothing we can do to stop it.

Rightbase
13th Jun 2008, 23:50
You might spoil 'his' day just a little ...

And get a tiny bit of satisfaction yourself ...

here (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/LTPD07/)

mini
14th Jun 2008, 00:28
Airship, I thought your compatriots were the first to reject this? non?

Your Minister for Foreign Affairs didn't help matters with his thinly veiled threat to the Irish Electorate last week either... (diplomatic?) which was duly seized upon by the Murdoch steered tabloid press... note the large working class no vote...

Democracy chaps, a fading value in todays world.

Agree with it or not, it can't be ignored.

Having said that, the "No" campaigners were a bunch of complete nutcases, one in particular "Libertas" has serious questions over its finances and where they came from.

Average folks just didn't understand what was being voted on.

airship
14th Jun 2008, 00:39
Before Ireland was a member, it was a poor country but the people were quite happy. Do you speak of the period under British rule, before or after the potato famine, mass emigration...or do you speak of a time when Irish builders in UK were comparable to Polish plumbers today?! Happy times indeed... :confused:

PS. Average folks just didn't understand what was being voted on. Don't blame it on the French - blame your own Goebbels... :ok:

brickhistory
14th Jun 2008, 00:48
air, apparently you're not much of a reader.

I simply congratulated the Irish for voting.

I did not congratulate them for voting no or yes. Simply for determining their own course.

The fact that I like the result is of no importance to anyone but me.

Do try and keep up.

BlueWolf
14th Jun 2008, 00:51
Good on the Paddies :ok:

When Europe does eventually fractionate, and the Euro collapses (as once I predicted within these very walls, or maybe it was the Mil forum), people will wake from their trance and recognise the EU for the evil madness it always was, and they will thank the Irish for their foresight and sanity.

They're kinda like the Hobbits, saving Middle Earth from itself. ;):D

Parapunter
14th Jun 2008, 00:59
I'm keeping up brick.
You did congratulate. However, you then went on to venture an opinion. Twice, three times if you care to accept that you have failed to bring balance to the force.

Being a Paddy, I pick up on these things.


Whilst I'm on, pro American moment of the week: Rook by Shearwater. A contender for album of the year, an evolution of New York group the Okervill River. Possibly the most intelligent record I've listened to all year. Apologies for the thread drift, but I can't bother my arse to start a new one.

airship
14th Jun 2008, 01:01
air, apparently you're not much of a reader. Oh, but I am, until that is I've consumed too much Scotch and things begin to get blurry. Otherwise, I always endeavour to read between the lines. Not necessary with your posts because they're always pretty blunt. No finesse therein requiring any serious contemplation. Always to the point. Hopefully I've answered similarly.

BlueWolf
14th Jun 2008, 02:02
Maybe it's just easier to see the whole thing from a distance; or then again, maybe not, because I've yet to meet, or speak to, a single Pom who thinks the EU is a good idea.

But the thing about Europe is this; it isn't MEANT to be one country or super-country or Federation or Union or whatever. That's why there are so many lanuages. People with different nationalities and different languages and different cultures and religions aren't MEANT to be ruled as if they were all the same.

This thing just isn't sustainable, and it isn't sustainable because it's wrong. Just plain wrong; plain and simple.

Fortunately, the bigger and more disparate it gets, the sooner will come its demise.

You can't just go lumping all sorts of massively different people in together and expect them to homogenise, because they won't; that's not human nature, and it is very much the lesson of history that it won't happen.

Idealists, and socialists, and internationalists, who are all too often the same people, have great difficulty in accepting this. They don't like the idea of nationalism, they don't like the idea of the nation state; I'm not sure why, maybe it's some kind of mental illness, like pacifism, or belief in AGW, but whatever it is, clinging steadfastly to some dogma or doctrine in the face of all the evidence and the natural way of things, is just not an intelligent way to behave.

Open borders, for ease of travel and working, can sometimes be a good idea. But open trade is never a good idea, because it diminishes the strength and freedom of the nation state. Money is fake. Economics is all fiction, made up by man. There are no natural laws at work here. Subsidies are a good thing, because they keep countries working. Free Trade puts people out of work, and makes a very few very rich, and doesn't achieve anything which wouldn't have been achieved anyway, and it diminishes the sovereign right of peoples to determine their own destinies, and the "money" and the "economics" and the "cost-effectiveness" of it, are all fake anyway.

Good on the Irish, bastion of sanity in a European ocean of madness. The Brits didn't, and don't, want a United States of Europe. Neither do the Danes or the Dutch or even the French. But only the Paddies have the constitutional power to stop this insanity, and they have.

I say good upon them.

Ooh, you know what, I think I'll use the above as the basis of an article.
:ok:

airfoilmod
14th Jun 2008, 02:22
And exactly why the USA must resist absolute centralized DC. If not too late, separate states make more sense than a central system that serves itself as a separate entity instead of a seat of government. The same reason Europe will survive in resisting the forced blenderization of the separate states. Homogenization destroys identity, culture, language and borders. What ensues is whatever those in power at the time say it is, generally bearing no resemblance to normalcy and a strange kinship with controlled chaos, to no ones benefit, (save the Pirates).

Al R
14th Jun 2008, 08:27
Vaclav Klaus is the first leader to (I think) to state this morning that Lisbon is no more. And he is right. Brown has said he'll continue to ratify it, but only because he hasn't got the energy to fight the EU at the moment, as well as British voters. I was going to suggest that Lisbon is in a holding pattern and running out of fuel, but I wonder if that doesn't apply to the EU instead? Could anyone tell me - has anything put out by the EU ever passed a modern popular vote?

The EU is little more than a job club, a dating agency.. putting countries together as it scurries self importantly down its own corridors of power. I subscribe totally to the idea that we have all gained from some ye olde Common Market trading unions, but this bastardised bloated carcass has overstepped the mark so many times without any popular mandate, that how can it retain any credibility? I am sure, that this weekend, we will read more tales of the repercussions of there being no democratic process in Zimbabwe. Lets just be grateful shall we, that someone somewhere closer to home was allowed a say in whats going to happen to them.

merlinxx
14th Jun 2008, 08:37
To those in the Republic who voted no, thank you for protecting democracy.

From a Welsh Celtic cousin.

ShyTorque
14th Jun 2008, 08:52
David Milliband on TV news this morning.

Apparently...... by voting "No", Ireland has sent a clear message to the UK to press ahead with the treaty.

How does that work then? :confused:

Which planet is this muppet from? :}

tony draper
14th Jun 2008, 09:00
First time I clapped eyes on that Milliband tosser I knew he was an arse,he is being touted as the new labour leader as well gawd help us.:uhoh:

Wingswinger
14th Jun 2008, 11:09
Well done the Irish! :ok:. Would you like to rejoin our Union? Maybe you could save us from ourselves again!

capewrath
14th Jun 2008, 11:52
Trouble here is that these snout in the trough Eu officials will not let it go at this.

Humphreys in Yes Minister summed it up nicely:-

"A decision is only a decision if it is the decision I want. Otherwise it is a temporary setback".

nosefirsteverytime
14th Jun 2008, 15:43
(reposting this from another place. Makes my point really.)

Many voted no for the wrong reasons. Because they heard rumours about conscription, abortion, and taxes, none of which were in the treaty.

Many voted no because they did not like the idea of anybody having legislative powers over the state which had no representation of the state for five out of 15 years.

I was prevented from voting because I could not afford the petrol to drive to my home constituency, vote, and return to my city of work. I would have voted yes. But I am comfortable with the no that we now have.

We need to look again, and have the stamina to look again and again and again, like the best athletes, until we reach that perfect mark.

Barroso said he was willing to listen to the concerns of the no camp. He must do so.

I do not reject the treaty outright.
I wish to see the Irish people consulted, and the treaty amended.

Edit: the European people consulted, and the treaty amended.

By the "EU as a whole a bad idea" posts here, looks like a pick-and-mix solution may be the best.

We cannot go backward. Ceasar (removed Senate powers, became Emperor), Cromwell (yes yes, liked by you English, vilified by Irish), Napoleon (same thing, loved by French, vilified by English), Hitler (vilified by all thankfully) and many other Autocrats look at us with their bloodied hands and mouths.

They and their ilk are what await us should we go back. We are at peace, we need to remain so. The only path is forward.

nosefirsteverytime
14th Jun 2008, 15:54
Made a great big post in the other thread.

Won't repeat or cut-n-paste the whole thing, suffice to say the whole point of the EU was to prevent another war flaring up between europeans.

That's what it is doing. If there had not been one, what would have happened in the past 30 years? Would the Berlin Wall have come down, had Western Europe not been trading away, giving West Germany the good life while East looked on?

To quote:

We cannot go backward. Ceasar (removed Senate powers, became Emperor), Cromwell (yes yes, liked by you English, vilified by Irish), Napoleon (same thing, loved by French, vilified by English), Hitler (vilified by all thankfully) and many other Autocrats look at us with their bloodied hands and mouths.

They and their ilk are what await us should we go back. We are at peace, we need to remain so. The only path is forward.

tony draper
14th Jun 2008, 16:16
Mr Nose I think the original thinking was that countries who trade with each other rarely go to war with each other, I think they call that sort of arrangement a "Common Market",don't think anybody objects to a "Common Market" after all that's what the peeps of Great Britain got to actually have a referendum over,not to go in incidently,we were taken in without being asked,but we were asked if we would like to stay in a few years later,I and most others have no problems with a Common Market,our objection is with what the corrupt shite in Brussels have done with said Common Market and what they plan to do with it in future.
:suspect:

SASless
14th Jun 2008, 16:51
The Irish voted against joining the EU recently.

What effect does that/will that have upon EASA and similar processes?

Shell Management
14th Jun 2008, 16:55
Far less than November's vote will have on the FAA for sure!

Overdrive
14th Jun 2008, 16:56
A destructive one with luck.

(but I doubt it).

HillerBee
14th Jun 2008, 17:01
No effect on EASA. It has a lot of other consequences though. It will put Ireland in a very bad position in Europe, and it will have a dramatic effect on the Irish economy which is in turmoil already.

tottigol
14th Jun 2008, 18:34
Shall they be admitted to the next UEFA Cup qualifiers?

garp
14th Jun 2008, 18:39
I remember what Ireland was like in the mid-eighties, from the nearly third world country it was in those days to the second most prospering nation in the EU. It seems that with the increased wealth also came a severe case of amnesia for everything the EU (more precesely the German taxpayer) has done for the country. Perhaps time to leave the EU and take the limeys with you while you're heading for the exit.

The Real Slim Shady
14th Jun 2008, 18:46
In the 20th century our forefathers went to war twice to free Europe from tyranny.

Regrettably, our "leaders" have consistently prevaricated and shown themselves as weak and indecisive over our commitment to Europe.

We are either European and hence we take part as a major player or we aren't and we withdraw.

There are no shades of grey here.

soggyboxers
14th Jun 2008, 18:53
There seems to be some misunderstanding here: Ireland has not voted against joining the EU. They are already a member. What they have done, after a referendum, is refused to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. This has thrown the EU into confusion as all member states have to ratify it for it to happen.

For more details go to:

EU at crossroads after Irish vote (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7454427.stm)

Troglodita
14th Jun 2008, 19:03
Soggy,

With you (look you) as a fully qualified leek waver I am constantly amazed at your depth of knowledge!

I thought EASA was a housemaid at El Elewor till I was put straight by you.

I somehow missed out on the Lisbon Treaty - how does it affect us?

Trog

kevmusic
14th Jun 2008, 19:53
Why are so many politicians so in favour of a federal Europe? We're going headlong for it; they're so in denial about the Irish vote that they're shoving it through anyway, despite it being against the (European) law; powers are being transferred from London (& other capitals) to Brussels; talk of a European army; the Euro - and it's all being craved by our leaders! What do they know that we don't? :confused: :confused:

Honest question.

ZH875
14th Jun 2008, 20:03
Because the trough for their enlarged snouts is even bigger in Europe, and as the Auditors have not passed the EU accounts for at least the last 7 years, the freeloading thieving MEPs will continue to want more of everything.

banana9999
14th Jun 2008, 20:08
Can anyone tell me what's so great about pilots

acmi48
14th Jun 2008, 20:10
the only people in europe who still go on about wars and the like are the brits
and to a lesser extent the russians and the brits especially maintain an island mentality

everybody else has moved on..where i am in europe we are not overun with
social benefits tourists and brussels is a pain at times but tolerable .

SOTV
14th Jun 2008, 20:11
I may be naive but I think it may go something like this:

Every politician wants to be a MP.
Most MPs want to progress to government level.
Government level ministers want to be at least a secretary of state.

At that level if you are kicked out by an ungrateful electorate your record as a good 'European' will gain you employment in Brussels where there are no annoying elements such as voters to disturb your earning potential.

Just a self perpetuating trough for snouts that have been up so many arses they are dyed Brown.

G-CPTN
14th Jun 2008, 20:15
The Kinnock Family are firmly ensconced, and Tony Blair is expected to become 'President of Europe'.
Gordon can but dream . . .

Eurosceptics:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Europe
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=31
http://openeuropeblog.*************/
Next week at the European Council, a coalition of the small countries: Ireland, the Czech Republic, maybe Denmark and Sweden, will call for the treaty to be dropped. But they will come under intense pressure from the big members to carry on regardless.
Surprisingly perhaps, Britain will be in the bullying posse, calling for the Treaty to go ahead. Having denied the British people a referendum on the text, Gordon Brown is intensely embarrassed by the Irish vote. Like a man caught with his pants down, Brown plans to try and hurry the Treaty through the British Parliament before next Wednesday.

nosefirsteverytime
14th Jun 2008, 20:18
I'm sure most are not actually in favour of a federal europe. But a co-operative one, yes.

Listen to the War Veterans. They can tell you why a closer europe is a good idea.

We actually have Peace in Our Time, never mind the terrorism claptrap. Yes it's there, but the bodycount is in the hundreds, not millions..........

The fact is, if we go back to countries horse-trading with each other, then WWIII is around the corner, or at least some strife will happen eventually.

Conversely, if we get a federal Europe, expect communists, anarchists, fascists, and many other "ists" to start bombings all over Europe. Or at least try.

The only way the United States of Europe could deal with that is to crack down hard, and then the rest of the populace would mistrust the USE, and the whole thing collapses.

Federal Europe: ain't gonna happen.

I know that.

You know that.

Beleive it or not, Brown knows that.

And Cowen.

And pretty everyone other than the actual federalists. (They are out there!)

Anyways, back to the question at hand.

The Treaty has some good points in it, which, seperate from the whole, would probably have been passed.

Citizens' Initiative: "One million citizens from a number of Member States will have the possibility to call on the Commission to bring forward new policy proposals."

Withdrawal from the Union: "The Treaty of Lisbon explicitly recognises for the first time the possibility for a Member State to withdraw from the Union."

tony draper
14th Jun 2008, 20:56
Europe is a great place to hold a war in as well. :E

tony draper
14th Jun 2008, 21:01
Aye yer not overrun wi Jackboots either :E

SOTV
14th Jun 2008, 21:11
Like a man caught with his pants down, Brown plans to try and hurry the Treaty through the British Parliament before next Wednesday.

And this is from one of the major architects of the last Labour manifesto, which in order to secure the euro-sceptic vote promised a referendum on the matter.

Nuff said......

Mr Drapes: Where else?

:E

banana9999
14th Jun 2008, 21:12
What do they know that we don't? :confused: :confused:

Honest question.

I would rather answer the question "What do the rest of us know that kevmusic doesn't?"

Quiet a lot.

Kev, why not do a little research and a little self-education. Start here: www.google.com

Bon Chance!

Blacksheep
14th Jun 2008, 21:26
I've been converted and I'm now a confirmed Europhile, but not one in favour of a federal state. A Confederation of independent states could be acceptable, but isn't that what it already is?

Scooby Don't
14th Jun 2008, 21:27
nosefirstetc is pretty much spot on.

Even the most ardent European knows that the nation-state is the largest unit to which most people will form an allegiance, so a federal republic of Europe just isn't going to happen, at least not for centuries. What we have is an economic zone, which happens to make good sense as European nation-states simply aren't large enough entities to support separate economies and separate currencies in the long term. In order to have a genuinely common economy, we need a level playing field which is where European regulations come in. Yes, there are some silly ones, but the goal is to have everyone playing by the same rules. Given time, we should see the end of the CAP which is really just a means of supporting outdated practices in French agriculture. But, if we aren't sitting at the top table, we don't get to change that!

The proposed constitution was actually a very good thing for Eurosceptics, and I look forward to their spluttering responses when asked why they helped to shoot down a written and permanent limit to the powers of the European Parliament and the European Commission.

Since Eurosceptics are also likely to be the most vociferous proponents of lower interest rates to save British exports and the property market, perhaps they'd like to explain why they've spent so long keeping Britain out of the Eurozone which has, you guessed it, LOWER INTEREST RATES!!!

glad rag
14th Jun 2008, 22:34
everybody else has moved on..where i am in europe we are not overun with
social benefits tourists

Aye, because they know the Manna is at the end of the line, not getting off halfway!!!

BlueWolf
14th Jun 2008, 23:18
nose, one is reminded of the famous quote by the famous man - Ben Franklin, I think, or someone very much like him;

"Peoples who sacrifice liberty in exchange for security, will have neither."

Some other clever person once remarked:

"A Government which is big enough to give you all that you want, is also strong enough to take all which you have."

Jetex Jim
14th Jun 2008, 23:34
Since Eurosceptics are also likely to be the most vociferous proponents of lower interest rates to save British exports and the property market, perhaps they'd like to explain why they've spent so long keeping Britain out of the Eurozone which has, you guessed it, LOWER INTEREST RATES!!!
Well said that man.

mini
14th Jun 2008, 23:42
Common Market... guess which country the current Commissioner that deals with this comes from? :E

tony draper
14th Jun 2008, 23:49
There is another similar organisation that has or had a commission,the Cosa Nostra,though I believe unlike the EU, members got to vote on who was a commissioner,well the made one's did anyway.
:rolleyes:

mini
14th Jun 2008, 23:57
Whatever the next move is I reckon it will be decided by the new entrant States, they with their hungry noses poised above the feeding trough will be most compliant to the wishes of their Franco - German masters in moving this forward...

... a bit like Paddy a few years ago...

BlueWolf
14th Jun 2008, 23:58
We actually have Peace in Our Time,

Perhaps what you have is but a temporary lull in the fighting. Conflict, after all, is the natural state for mankind. It is the way of things that we will struggle against one another; as we always have. And through history, there have been periods of peace - they're just not very long, or the norm.

If I was a betting man, which thank the Lord I'm not Sir, I'd give Europe in her present shape maybe thirty years (give or take ten), after which she will fractionate into at least three blocs, maybe four.

I can't see that being a bad thing.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
15th Jun 2008, 00:11
I don't know, it seems logcal to me, but what do I know?

America is a superpower because it's one country and not fifty individual countries, all fighting each other. Maybe it's time Europe tried something similar.

Still you're all probably right, after all you make the same arguments that were made five hundred years ago "Prithee, whyfore must Lancaster join with those scoundrals of York? and as for Mercia, well I ask you"

BlueWolf
15th Jun 2008, 00:22
Yes, but America was born as a nation, with one tongue, and a common heritage, and one religion, and a common purpose.

It was the New World.

The Old World was stuffed even back then, and it's still stuffed. The individual nations of Europe may go forward, and they should, in partnership as much as possible; but it cannot, via Treaty and legislation, be made into one entity. It's peoples are too old and too diverse and too entrenched in animosity.

This is reality. Right or wrong, it is the way things are, and it will not be changed by theory or dogma. In the clash between reality and ideology, there can only ever be one winner. It won't be ideology. Such is the human condition.

tony draper
15th Jun 2008, 00:22
Ere I thunk America was 51 separate countries called States with their own Governments and laws and such,of course they do have the advantage of adopting a common language called English
Come to think they can also police their own borders as well
Such as Texas
HIPPIES AND LIBERALS MOVE ON, YOU IN WELCOME HERE BOY.
:E

LordGrumpy
15th Jun 2008, 00:40
The Wolf and Draper show. Two of the finest minds on the WWW at the same time, what's the odds of that happening again?

Phil77
15th Jun 2008, 00:50
I somehow missed out on the Lisbon Treaty - how does it affect us?


...maybe in the way that necessary regulatory changes in EU law can still be blocked by single countries (principle of unanimity), stalling descisions you might find important, for example changes in JAA regulations?

I'm by far no expert, but I think the necessety of a democratic majority process instead of the unanimity process (part of the Lisbon Treaty) seems to be proven by the irish... 45% out of 3 million eligible voters decided that the other 26 member states (population: 490 million) cannot proceed with the negotiated contract. That's beyond me...

...but I'm just a simple pilot :ugh:

BlueWolf
15th Jun 2008, 00:57
One would never have promoted oneself to the same ilk as the Admiral, but one does find oneself more often in agreement with him than not. ;)

kevmusic
15th Jun 2008, 01:03
Nosefirst, I take your point about WW2 being an inspiration for a trader-friendly Europe that was established by the then Common Market in the fifties. The original aims seem quite laudable but the extent to which governance has been ceded to Brussels, particularly by the UK Government, is too much to stomach. Too much power over our lives is now wielded by unelected, unaccountable faceless Eurocrats and I wonder what's in it for us. The Government seems hell-bent on getting us further in to the extent of relying on the most outrageous double-speak to get round the Irish 'no' vote.

Three things have cropped up in you guys' replies that I didn't know:


Citizens' Initiative and Withdrawal from the Union - thank you, nosefirst; and lower interest rates in Europe - thank you, Scooby Don't!

I am a eurosceptic; but I would hate to be in that position simply by not knowing enough!

Overdrive
15th Jun 2008, 01:57
45% out of 3 million eligible voters decided that the other 26 member states (population: 490 million) cannot proceed with the negotiated contract. That's beyond me...




If all had been given their democratic say, then it may've been 490 million voters in a democratic majority process. The decisions "decided for" the other member states took on one cameo of the democratic process as it should've been, and lost (for what difference it may make in the long run).

Two's in
15th Jun 2008, 01:58
Why are so many politicians so in favour of a federal Europe?


Ooh, Ooh, I know this one as well...

Try corruption, graft, kickbacks, self-serving Government, meglomania and above all else, breathtaking arrogance.

Just Google Marta Andreasen to see what happens when somebody with moral fibre and integrity tries to derail the EU Gravy Train.

And which paragon of virtue suspended and fired her for highlighting outright theft and fraud? - bring it on Neil Kinnock. Now elevated from Sheep Shagger in Chief of Wales to protector of corruption in the EU. A proud moment for Britain.

Phil77
15th Jun 2008, 03:41
Overdrive: I'm not sure what you're saying :confused:
Maybe: they have made a democratic descision, so deal with it - could have been the other way around?!

This whole topic is a bit off as far as rotorheads is concerned but if I'm alowed one more statement:

A majority of us has elected their respective leaders who decided to form a union, which some of us have elected to participate in by holding a public referendum. Now, all of a sudden our elected leaders aren't good enough anymore to make descisions in our name and each and everybody has to be asked again? only to find out that barely 1.6 million people (if I remember right only 55something% of the 45% total voters said NO) are enough to bring the whole system to a halt? Strange... :oh:

zalt
15th Jun 2008, 04:06
Phil77

JAA as a rule making body are long gone and now really only represent the non-EU European states at EASA.

Fareastdriver
15th Jun 2008, 04:14
You have to remember that the Irish are the only ones who had a chance to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. The other 99% of the population of Europe were going to have it stuffed down their throat, regardless.

SASless
15th Jun 2008, 04:41
What is Plan B?

Phil77
15th Jun 2008, 05:16
fareastdriver: "stuffed down your throat" by your elected leader! (maybe not yours personally ;)) ...I guess you can't please everybody and I'm sure there are much more things they didn't ask for your opinion first either!?

zalt: even worse! isn't that a good reason to unify and straighten things out?

SASless: I just quote out of a newspaper:

1: second referendum: basically ask until they say yes. It worked already in 2002! :ugh:

2: whole new treaty: supposedly very unlikely

3: keep going with the old one (Treaty of Nice): will still have the unanimity problem

4: split europe and have some countries ratify it and allow others to stick with the old system: unpopular but has happened already with the Schengen Treaty (no inner european border control) where england and ireland not participated

Wingswinger
15th Jun 2008, 07:49
where england and ireland not participated

Er, you do mean BRITAIN and Ireland don't you?

airship
15th Jun 2008, 08:15
Long time no see SASless?! Welcome back. BTW, there are already 2 other threads running here in JB addressing the same issue. In the good olde days, a mod would already have merged the threads. I guess noone wants to be accused of precipitous rescues à la Bear Stearns anymore...?! :}

garp
15th Jun 2008, 09:01
Why not while we're at it ?

radeng
15th Jun 2008, 09:17
I suspect the result of a referendum would be pretty close. The problem is that especially the Commission, but some other institutions as well, want to reduce the powers currently held by the member states. I was recently in Italy, having dinner at a table with a Frenchman, a German and Dutchman. All four of us agreed that our individual countries would probably be better off out of the EU but in the EEA. The real problem seems to have been the hijacking of the original common market idea into something much bigger, less democratic and more riddled with dogma than religion is. Increasing the number of poorer states in Eastern Europe drains resources, too, so we can expect to need to pay more tax......

Another problem is the loose wording of so many Directives. The argument from the Commission is that this provides flexibility. In practice, it elads to lots of argument as to what is and is not allowable. It does not help that the meanings of Directives when translated into the various languages aren't always the same.....

Beatriz Fontana
15th Jun 2008, 09:54
It does rather seem that the Utopian idea that was the EU as a way of rebuilding (economically and physically) Europe following the Second World War has all got a little out of hand. However, I can't see a referendum happening in the UK for a fair few years, there's no political will for one.

Imagine the campaigning! There would be weeks of bickering to decide the exact phraseology of the question. A polarised newspaper industry having a xenophobic field day against the French, the Germans, the Belgians; the broadcasters in news bulletins would have to cover both sides (the Gods bless the Representation of the People Act!)... There would be carnage followed by a half-hearted turn out. It would cost a fortune, too.

So worth a go just for the hell of it!

ORAC
15th Jun 2008, 09:58
Grauniad: Europe must not be derailed by lies and disinformation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/15/eu.ireland)

.......Crucially, the treaty contains a clause that states that do not agree to its provisions are required to leave the European Union. The existing treaty can certainly be made more obviously Ireland-friendly within its existing provisions, but beyond that, the EU will have to get tough and invoke the clause. It will have to ask Ireland to resubmit essentially the same treaty for a second referendum early in 2009, rather as Ireland held a second referendum over the Nice treaty in 2002.

If Ireland votes similarly again, then it will have to accept associate status in the EU and not be a member of its governing structures. The EU will proceed without Ireland...............

Shamrogue
15th Jun 2008, 10:10
The "NO" campaigners lapped the Yes lobby. The government was in the process of seeing of the great and mighty Bertie and introducing us to Mr. Cowen. So by the time all the parties were over, Lisbon was upon us. Since 1973 Sinn Fein has just about opposed everything and the usual arguements came out "Europe will raise taxes and make abortion legal". Job done. Mention taxes and your safe.
The EU has been exceptionally good for Ireland. Ireland is now and has been for a few years a nett contributor to Europe.

I would suspect if the referendum was a month later, Ireland would have voted yes. The government would have made the push forward and gotten the real comments on Lisbon out there.

However, the pamphlets which came through the door from the YES lobby completely confused everyone. So if you don't understand, you'll still say no.

Anyways that's my 2 Cents worth.

Shamrogue

Overdrive
15th Jun 2008, 12:47
Overdrive: I'm not sure what you're saying :confused:
Maybe: they have made a democratic descision, so deal with it - could have been the other way around?!




Phil, I have dealt with it, I applaud the decision of the Irish. I was saying that the Irish vote was the only democratic part of the whole treaty process (or its introduction), and if democracy had been allowed in the wider sense, then 490 million would've voted in the same manner.

I don't agree that we ever elected leaders to participate on our behalf in the manner they have. Proxy decisions on even the largest of home affairs are very different from decisions about the very core of our whole political system, particularly when subterfuge has been the order of the day throughout most of the proceedings.



which some of us have elected to participate in by holding a public referendum.


We have? I'd love to elect to participate in a referendum. Gordon Brown knows how strongly we feel this, so he with others, used this strength of feeling to continue in power in 2005, by including it it their manifesto.


This whole topic is a bit off as far as rotorheads is concerned but if I'm alowed one more statement:


It is, but luckily, we're in Jet Blast ;)

Overdrive
15th Jun 2008, 12:51
It does not help that the meanings of Directives when translated into the various languages aren't always the same.....


Yes... Esperanto anyone?

Effluent Man
15th Jun 2008, 12:59
The main problem with a referendum is how many people understand the question? I am interested in politics,current affairs etc and probably spend an hour a day reading a serious newspaper (Torygraph)I watch Newsnight two or three times a week and yet faced with a vote I honestly don't know enough about the Lisbon Treaty to make a decision.

There are two possibilities here.1 I am thick compared to the general population. 2.The vast majority of them don't understand the question either.

skydriller
15th Jun 2008, 13:45
A majority of us has elected their respective leaders who decided to form a union, which some of us have elected to participate in by holding a public referendum. Now, all of a sudden our elected leaders aren't good enough anymore to make descisions in our name and each and everybody has to be asked again? only to find out that barely 1.6 million people (if I remember right only 55something% of the 45% total voters said NO) are enough to bring the whole system to a halt?

Well, at the last UK general election, the current government declared in its manifesto that they would hold a referendum about this, just as has recently happened in Ireland. :suspect:

However, surprise, surprise, there has been no referendum in the UK, and the government has declared they will not be holding one.....in fact they say they are now going to go ahead with ratifying the treaty in the UK anyway....:ugh::ugh:

The Irish were the only ones in Europe offered a referendum on this.

ZH875
15th Jun 2008, 13:49
Yes... Esperanto anyone?

Better still a real language that is the international language.....



....English

(and not the US version)

candoo
15th Jun 2008, 14:45
Lisbon treaty

177 pages of polispeak

If the peeps who are voting don't get it what hope is there?

Clear and precise leadership has not been achieved since Thatcher.

Runs and hides under duvet.

tony draper
15th Jun 2008, 15:39
If I remember the referendum we did have on staying in or coming out of the common market was the yes vote had the full power of the State behind it whereas the no lobby had no help,made no difference at the time to me, I believed in the common market,what a bloody fool I was.
:(

Cyclic Hotline
15th Jun 2008, 23:28
Excellent job in stopping the European dictators!

We are going to be forever in your debt. :ok:

Conan The Barber
15th Jun 2008, 23:38
Would you care to explain further why you consider it a victory?

Or is the length of your opening post an indication of your knowledge of the subject?

Phil77
16th Jun 2008, 04:05
Overdrive: by "some of us participating in public referendum" I meant the election wheather to join the EU or not; I am aware that most members do not hold a public referendum, because it would probably lead into a perfect desaster...

"dictatorship" :ugh: Who the f*** put them in charge? It was your democratic election!
Don't like it? That's the pitty with majority systems - but don't act if nobody asked you! Try the "democracies" in Russia or Iran instead!

Oh and I figured we'll be moved out of the comfortzone (rotorheads) soon!

ZH875
17th Jun 2008, 16:50
Excellent job in stopping the European dictators!

We are going to be forever in your debt. :ok:

If only....

Looks like the Irish Vote was the wrong one, so will just be ignored.
Whatever happened to "The treaty cannot be implemented unless approved by all 27 EU states."

The European Union must not embark on drafting a new treaty after Irish voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty, France's Europe minister has said.


Jean-Pierre Jouyet was presenting France's plans for its six-month presidency of the EU, which starts next month, to the French Senate.
Mr Jouyet said there was broad agreement in the EU that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty should continue.


"One thing is certain - we won't start drafting a new treaty," he said.
"Europe didn't come to a halt on 13 June," when the Republic of Ireland's No vote on Lisbon was announced, he told the upper house of parliament on Tuesday.


"We cannot allow ourselves to delay decisions... which can be dealt with independently of institutional matters."




Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7458839.stm)

Solid Rust Twotter
17th Jun 2008, 19:37
ZH, that has to be the most telling example of what it's all about. Power at any cost...:ooh:

airship
17th Jun 2008, 21:37
Why not have a referendum on taxes? But let's keep it simple, offer a multiple choice:

1) [ ] I vote for zero taxation (and will live with the resulting anarchy).
2) [ ] I vote for keeping taxation as it is (and none of it going to the EU).
3) [ ] I vote for a 100% tax rate (the government should credit my account with 'pocket money' after all living expenses are deducted).

If governments had referendums on any subject of importance, there probably wouldn't be any minorities (coloured or otherwise) left in the UK today. There wouldn't be any Muslims in France. And anyone caught exceeding the speed limit would be serving 20 years to life...?! :}

Gimme a break (or a reasonably sane dictator anyday). But please don't let's have anymore referendums on serious subjects...?! :ok:

BlooMoo
17th Jun 2008, 21:42
45% out of 3 million eligible voters decided that the other 26 member states (population: 490 million) cannot proceed with the negotiated contract. That's beyond me...

45% of 3m eligible (your choice of word, and an important one) voters = approx 1.35m voters = approx 0.27% of the EU electorate.

A few politicians (say 500 if you count their secretaries, pets and children) = approx 0.0001% of the EU electorate.

However, an EU citizen only gets to vote for approx 3.5% of the 'politicians' in question.

Given Lisbon is about the constitutional arrangements under which EU citizens are governed and how much say we have in that, then I for one will take the considered opinion of even just 10 Irish tax-paying working citizens (let alone well over a million of them) a long way before all the few hundred money-grubbing, socialist, gravy-train riding egoists that make up the EU political class.

The Irish decision is superficially seen as undemocratic due to the 0.27% representation but in my view it is at least 2,700 times more democratic than the EU's alternative. The remaining existing nation states of the EU can be democratic and address the eligibility factor but they choose not to. Why exactly is that I wonder?

The EU is slowly regressing to fascism as its political beneficiaries realize that any even remotely democratic approach is a direct and real threat to their existence. Apologists, for the resulting 'pavane' that the EU does as a response to any democratic expressed opinion they let slip, actually have the nerve to assert (after their other arguments fail) that this very same EU offers the only protection against exactly that.

...but I'm just a simple pilot
What I think you're trying to imply is more like 'I'm just an ordinary person, but I'm also a pilot so I'm certainly more clever and wise than you so you disagree with me at your peril'. EU political attitude sounds just up your street. No?

BlooMoo
17th Jun 2008, 21:53
Gimme a break (or a reasonably sane dictator anyday). But please don't let's have anymore referendums on serious subjects...?!

Interesting that it's always the lefties that are pro-EU (same applies to Global Warming).

airship
17th Jun 2008, 22:07
Funny you say that, because I always thought I was a bit of a closet-fascist who happens to like pudicats myself. Whatever, I recognise a good thing (the EU) when I see it. It certainly beats WWIII and having the Americans coming over once again in order to rescue us from our petty disagreements... :}

obgraham
18th Jun 2008, 01:41
Whatever, I recognise a good thing (the EU) when I see it. It certainly beats WWIII and having the Americans coming over once again in order to rescue us from our petty disagreements... :}Since when was it an "either-or" choice?

aidanf
18th Jun 2008, 07:23
Being from Ireland, this whole thing is now really getting on me tits. I, and many of my family, friends and colleagues voted 'no' simply because we wanted the brakes applied. We felt the treaty was confusing at best, and potentially counter to our own interests (eg - losing some powers). Most of the people in my circle are pro-Europe (including myself), but felt that this treaty was a step too far. What has cemented this attitude is what we're now hearing from Europe about them finding a way around the 'problem which we've created'. Look, it's very simple - under our constitutional rights we were granted a referendum on this thing, we said 'no'. The rules of the treaty are very clear - all countries must ratify it, and it falls if any one rejects it. Just how hard is it for Europe to understand 'no', or more importantly why won't they listen to our democratic voice. It reflects poorly on Europe and doesn't auger well for us.

oldshuck
18th Jun 2008, 12:05
Just came across this, does this mean you are getting it like it or not?

or carry on voting till you get it right!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2150302/EU-treaty-likely-to-win-House-of-Lords-backing-despite-Irish-vote.html

S'land
18th Jun 2008, 12:28
Ireland was the only country in the EU that held a referendum on the treaty, and then only because it it a point of Irish law that they do so. As we all know they voted No.

The population of no other EU member country has been allowed the choice. If they had been allowed freedom of choice how many countries would have also voted no?

I support the idea of the EU, but not to the extent that the member countries lose their individual identities, etc. When, in the seventies, the UK voted for admission to the group it was for admission to the European Economic Community. Later this became European Community and is now the European Union. It is the latter version that seems to be power mad.

airship
18th Jun 2008, 13:07
Oh puhleeease! I support the idea of the EU, but not to the extent that the member countries lose their individual identities, etc. So tell me, just how are the Irish so different to other Europeans? Don't all Europeans share some very simple common interests and want to:

1) Be able to marry and raise their families in a safe (or relatively war-free) environment?
2) Live in well-insulated and comfortable homes?
3) Live, work or holiday elsewhere in Europe without a lot of fuss and go wider afield with fewer visa formalities?
4) Go out have a pint or carafe, finish off with an Indian or Chinese meal?
5) Consume food, buy medicines and electrical goods or whatever knowing that these were safe?

I could go on, but I've yet to see exactly how the EU 'strips away the Irishness from the Irish'? It's not like Brussels forces the Irish to speak French or make Germans swill Guiness is it?!

Like I said, you can't always allow the average citizen a vote on every issue because (we're) just not responsible enough and it is all too easy to awaken our most unrealistic or at least unjustifiable deeply-held (or hidden) fascist / prejudiced / other feelings of insecurity...as appears to have just happened in Ireland. :ugh:

Overdrive
18th Jun 2008, 13:45
and it is all too easy to awaken our most unrealistic or at least unjustifiable deeply-held (or hidden) fascist / prejudiced / other feelings of insecurity...as appears to have just happened in Ireland. :ugh:


...or perhaps awaken simply their freely-held opinions, about their country?

Not everybody buys it airship. Nor are they obliged to.

Nick Riviera
18th Jun 2008, 14:33
To address Airship's points about the benefits of being in the EU:


1) Be able to marry and raise their families in a safe (or relatively war-free) environment?

Done without being in the EU because of an organisation called NATO.

2) Live in well-insulated and comfortable homes?

Done without being in the EU.

3) Live, work or holiday elsewhere in Europe without a lot of fuss and go wider afield with fewer visa formalities?

Living and working entails a bit of hassle, but plenty of people were doing this before we joined the EU. Visas never a big problem previously with a GB passport.

4) Go out have a pint or carafe, finish off with an Indian or Chinese meal?

Going on long before we joined the EU.

5) Consume food, buy medicines and electrical goods or whatever knowing that these were safe?

Done without being in the EU.

So it appears that apart from the hassle of arranging living and working arrangements in another country in the EU, there is no point being a member. QED

airship
18th Jun 2008, 14:43
Nah, it's all those insecure Irish and UK huggy-fluffies worrying that noone will be able to tell the difference between them and any Greek-Cypriot in the new Europe - it would all be rather hilarious if it wasn't so tragic... :rolleyes:

ZH875
18th Jun 2008, 15:04
I could go on, but I've yet to see exactly how the EU 'strips away the Irishness from the Irish'? It's not like Brussels forces the Irish to speak French or make Germans swill Guiness is it?!


Not yet, but if I were a betting man....;)

tony draper
18th Jun 2008, 17:02
If the vermin in Brussels have their way ten years from now it will be a offense to call yourself an Irishman or a Frenchman or a indeed a German,only the term European will be allowed.
:rolleyes:

ORAC
18th Jun 2008, 18:16
Downing Street Offers Lisbon Treaty Referendum Today (http://www.order-order.com/2008/06/downing-street-offers-lisbon-treaty.html) :E:E

As of 1815 local today:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Respect the result of the Irish referendum and abandon the attempt to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

Submitted by Richard North and Neil O'Brien – Deadline to sign up by: 22 June 2008 – Signatures: 18,367 :D:D

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Ignore the result of the Irish referendum and ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

Submitted by Edward Oliver Sebastian Teo – Deadline to sign up by: 23 June 2008 – Signatures: 8 :ouch::}

brickhistory
18th Jun 2008, 19:10
Like I said, you can't always allow the average citizen a vote on every issue because (we're) just not responsible enough

And the hits just keep on comin' from Radio Airship.....

aidanf
19th Jun 2008, 11:25
Airship - I'm guessing that you're just baiting ... but nonetheless, my no vote had nothing to with insecurities. Yes there was some madness spouted about what a 'yes' vote would result in ... but there was equally a lot of intelligent discourse. It's only late at night that us little people come out to Irish dance at the crossroad with the pixies, then get drunk and have a fight. The rest of the time you'll find that we're reasonably well educated and capable of holding a considered debate on matters such as this treaty.

airship
19th Jun 2008, 19:06
I'm actually trying to be quite serious about it all.

Let's be honest: Eire would not be what it is today without the EU or former EEC.

And just because there's an EU gravy-train (time may tell whether or not there's more or less gravy in national assemblies), that doesn't mean that those elected are any less-likely to have 'the interests of their fellow-citizens at heart' (after their own immediate needs have been satisfied obviously) in determining the future course of their countries within a European Union.

Do the Irish have national standards when it comes to the width of pavements? Do the Irish want to have a referendum over the width of pavements? Is that a pointless discussion? Does the EU have anything to say about the width of pavements? They probably do (though I remain ignorant of the precise requirements). Is it worthwhile having pavements or even standards for them?

That's a pretty inane example, I'll admit. Sort of like my surprise the other day when I read that the EU was relaxing certain rules on how straight cucumbers had to be if they were officially allowed to go on sale in European supermarkets.

But in these troubled times, I happen to like the idea that there's a supra-European organisation that is able to set and impose minimum criteria for lots of stuff from the safety of child-car seats to the respect of human-rights. Especially since the UK will now be able to operate Guantanamo-style camps on a (renewable?) 42-day basis.

'Checks and balances' is how I see things. I'm glad there's a furore whenever the EU apparently imposes something silly. But more than ever, we need an EU to maintain some semblance of order in member States who are rapidly losing all inhibitions with regards to the extent and manner to which they wish to exert control over their populations.

That is all. Dismissed...?! :ok:

ZH875
1st Jul 2008, 13:30
Seeing as we have so many Polish migrants in the UK, could we have the Polish President as our Prime Minister.

Poland's President Lech Kaczynski says he will not sign the EU's reform treaty at present, following its defeat in an Irish referendum last month.
He said it would be "pointless" to sign the Lisbon Treaty, even though Poland's parliament has ratified it. All 27 EU members must ratify the documentMaybe the French are beginning to learn the truth: French President Nicolas Sarkozy said "something isn't right" with the EU and warned citizens may be losing faith.Source BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7482660.stm)

ORAC
11th Sep 2008, 07:53
I hope this time you naughty children will vote the way you were told; otherwise you might have to it yet again. :=:=

Torygraph: EU officals expect Ireland to hold second Lisbon Treaty referendum (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/2778154/EU-officals-expect-Ireland-to-hold-second-Lisbon-Treaty-referendum.html)

European Union officials expect Ireland to cave in and hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Autumn 2009.

An internal EU briefing paper, entitled The Solution to the Irish Problem, predicts that Dublin will accede to the re-run at a meeting of Europe's leaders on October 15.

Ireland has been under French and German pressure to hold a second vote and Autumn 2009 has emerged as the favoured date among officials and diplomats ahead of the European Union summit on the future of the Lisbon Treaty next month.

Ireland has refused to deny that a second referendum could occur, following the 'No' vote in June.

The document has been written by an influential group of French officials, called Le Amis du Traite de Lisbonne or Friends of the Lisbon Treaty.

According to the briefing, a second Irish vote will follow a guarantee that Ireland will not lose its European Commissioner and "declarations" on neutrality, abortion and taxation - all issues that dominated the Irish campaign.

"The second Irish referendum could take place, on this new basis, during Autumn 2009, pushing back the coming into force of the Treaty of Lisbon until 2010," says the document.

The text, by a senior European official called Jean-Guy Giraud, who is based in Paris, is widely regarded as reflecting the view in France, current holder of the EU's rotating presidency.

Other EU officials have confirmed that next year's Autumn referendum fixture is gaining ground in informal and formal talks between diplomats ahead of the summit next month.

"This date is the one being mentioned in discussions," said a source......