Nicolas Sarkozy plans to bypass Irish no vote

RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
edited June 2008 in A Moving Train
"Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, is working with European Union officials and diplomats to plan a special "legal arrangement" to bypass Ireland's referendum rejection.

Mr Sarkozy takes over the EU's rotating presidency in July and will be tasked with resurrecting, for a second time, Lisbon Treaty proposals first contained in the European Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago.

Diplomats and officials have no intention of letting the Irish no vote sink a blueprint to boost the EU's powers on the international stage and to create a President of Europe.

Gordon Brown has already phoned Paris to promise Mr Sarkozy that Britain will ignore Ireland to continue parliamentary ratification of the EU Treaty.
Article continues
advertisement

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French Europe Minister, has hinted that Paris already has a legal "fix", such as plans revealed in The Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, to keep the EU Treaty alive.

"The most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found," he said.

"We must remain within the framework of the Lisbon treaty."

Eight countries are still engaged in parliamentary ratification of the Treaty but are expected to have finished, without any upsets by the autumn.

Plans to find a "mechanism" keeping Ireland within the EU but temporarily outside the Lisbon Treaty will then be tabled at an October or December meeting of Europe's leaders.

"Ireland must not stop the process of getting the Treaty through. Then we can take stock," said a diplomat close to negotiations.

Mr Brown will join Mr Sarkozy and other EU leaders at a Brussels summit next Thursday to vow that it is business as usual on pushing the Treaty through.

Brian Cowen, the Irish Taoiseach, is expected to support the calls for ratification to continue in other countries and to plead that Ireland is not left behind.

But the British Prime Minister will face strong domestic calls for Parliament's ratification of the Treaty to be halted.

The Conservatives will revive demands for a British referendum as a ICM poll yesterday found that Britons would vote against the Lisbon Treaty by 51 per cent to 28 per cent.

Neil O'Brien, Director of Open Europe, said: "The argument for a referendum in Britain is now overwhelming. Europe's political establishment plan to carry on regardless. Only a referendum in Britain can finally kill this thing off."

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, argued that the EU must honour the Irish vote, the only referendum to place on the Treaty in the EU's 27 member states.

"I suspect that the EU extremists will simply try to ignore it as they did the French and Dutch results," he said.

"The third reading of the treaty in the House of Lords next week must be halted because the project now has no legitimacy."

There are advanced plans in Brussels for a "bridging mechanism" to allow Ireland to be removed from the list of signatories to the Lisbon Treaty after the EU's 26 other member states have ratified it.'

Ireland will continue to remain in the euro and be covered by existing Treaties but will be left out of the creation of an EU president and foreign minister, which would proceed as planned.

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.

Ireland, like the rest of the Europe, does not hold referendums on EU enlargement treaties and with new protocol opt-outs Dublin may get the Treaty past the Irish parliament without another popular vote. "

edit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/2123816/EU-Treaty-Nicolas-Sarkozy-plans-to-bypass-Irish-no-vote.html
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.

http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13456711

Comments

  • This is bullshit... For one thing, this Treaty was supposed to go through if it was voted on unanimously, not if everyone agreed it was okay to ignore someone with the gall to say no. Secondly, despite Dunkman's trust in his leaders (;)) it seems a lot of Britain would really like to have a say on whether this treaty gets ratified. Thirdly, it seems more of the EU citizens agree with the Irish vote than with their own governments.

    I thought the EU was based on democracy. :confused:
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • Sarkozy...there's a lot of rumblings this guy still is/was a mossad spy...which would make him a Zionist #1 supporter.

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=30479&sectionid=351020603

    Olmert has a huge hard-on for him.

    He does seem very accommodating to the neo-con agenda.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    That's pretty messed up that they just keep changing the rules until those in power get what they want.
  • That's pretty messed up that they just keep changing the rules until those in power get what they want.


    Slip sliding away on the terrorist ticket.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    That's pretty messed up that they just keep changing the rules until those in power get what they want.

    It was never going to be any other way. The only thing is there more blatant about it now, as the people are more unaware or just don't care.

    The coming global recession/depression, is the shock therapy they will use to get us to agree to anything.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    This is bullshit... For one thing, this Treaty was supposed to go through if it was voted on unanimously, not if everyone agreed it was okay to ignore someone with the gall to say no. Secondly, despite Dunkman's trust in his leaders (;)) it seems a lot of Britain would really like to have a say on whether this treaty gets ratified. Thirdly, it seems more of the EU citizens agree with the Irish vote than with their own governments.

    I thought the EU was based on democracy. :confused:

    democracy... what's that?????


    i love how this works... we're all equal but if you dont do things the way we want, then we will simply ignore you. i believe this is called the american way. ;):p:D
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • democracy... what's that?????


    i love how this works... we're all equal but if you dont do things the way we want, then we will simply ignore you. i believe this is called the american way. ;):p:D

    You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it. :p

    I joke, but I'm majorly pissed about this. If they actually do bypass the Irish veto, that just proves us right on everything we were afraid of with this treaty.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it. :p

    I joke, but I'm majorly pissed about this. If they actually do bypass the Irish veto, that just proves us right on everything we were afraid of with this treaty.


    ha, i'm wearing my PJ shirt w/ that on the back from Hershey 03 right now

    that is pretty fucked up...what's the point of a vote? pr?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong wrote:
    ha, i'm wearing my PJ shirt w/ that on the back from Hershey 03 right now

    that is pretty fucked up...what's the point of a vote? pr?

    Oh, believe me, if the EU could have put this Lisbon Treaty through without the Irish public voting on it, they would have - we were the only country that even got a referendum on it. The only reason Ireland even got to vote is because of a peculiarity in our constitution.
    So even though even ONE country saying no to this treaty was supposed to send it back to the drawing board, if they can find a way to say "Ireland is small enough not to matter", they'll use it. :mad:
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • Carlos DCarlos D Posts: 638
    Why not save the bother and the money(which is obviously something important to them) and not give us a referendum next time?We have no say in the fact that Europe is descending into a soulless and empty society devoid of any purpose other than to make money so why not just skip the formalities and give us numbers instead of names and teach our kids that the only purpose in life is work and make money?

    One of the arguments(maybe threat would be a better word for it) for the treaty was that Europe has been so good for Ireland in the past 30 years,look at our suicide and alcoholic rate and tell me we're better off.I don't think being able to go McDonald's is a worthwhile reward for how miserable people are nowadays here.If Europe wants to kill itself with high levels of immigration and letting big companies do as they please then good luck to Europe,I for one voted No because I don't want to be a part of the cultural suicide taking place across the continent but it's hopeless really,the government decide these things,not me or the majority of voters in this country obviously.
    It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
    But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

    www.bebo.com/pearljam06
  • I love those democracies where your forced to shut up and do what you're told.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVp7lkH10Gc (album version)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpgataezz8M (on TV)

    ***edit*** i should warn you, yoko's voice is...i don't think terrible does enough justice


    If you had the luck of the Irish
    You'd be sorry and wish you were dead
    You should have the luck of the Irish
    And you'd wish you was English instead!

    A thousand years of torture and hunger
    Drove the people away from their land
    A land full of beauty and wonder
    Was raped by the British brigands! Goddamn! Goddamn!

    If you could keep voices like flowers
    There'd be shamrock all over the world
    If you could drink dreams like Irish streams
    Then the world would be high as the mountain of morn

    In the 'Pool they told us the story
    How the English divided the land
    Of the pain, the death and the glory
    And the poets of auld Eireland

    If we could make chains with the morning dew
    The world would be like Galway Bay
    Let's walk over rainbows like leprechauns
    The world would be one big Blarney stone

    Why the hell are the English there anyway?
    As they kill with God on their side
    Blame it all on the kids the IRA
    As the bastards commit genocide! Aye! Aye! Genocide!

    If you had the luck of the Irish
    You'd be sorry and wish you was dead
    You should have the luck of the Irish
    And you'd wish you was English instead!
    Yes you'd wish you was English instead!
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • Word is that Gordon Brown's gonna call for the Irish veto to stand - because if it gets to the point where the solution is a two-tier Europe, Britain will be in the second tier. They'll most likely still go ahead and ratify it to look good to Brussels though.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • JordyWordyJordyWordy Posts: 2,261
    Word is that Gordon Brown's gonna call for the Irish veto to stand - because if it gets to the point where the solution is a two-tier Europe, Britain will be in the second tier. They'll most likely still go ahead and ratify it to look good to Brussels though.

    and the polls in the UK showed a public majority for a no vote too.

    be curious to see polls across Europe to see just how many Govenrments are effectively disobeying what the people would order them to do if they could...
  • YieldedYielded Posts: 839
    Hmmm... So what exactly is the problem with implementing a treaty that will most probably be ratified by 26 out of 27 countries? Ireland's vote would be respected, since the new measures wouldn't apply to Ireland.
    I don't think it's particularly fair for one single country to stop this from happening for 26 others.
    Maybe I'm missing something, but Ireland's 'No' would be bypassed how exactly? Again, the article clearly states that only countries who ratify the treaty would implement those measures. Ireland would NOT be affected.
    "We get these pills to swallow... how they stick in your throat... Tastes like gold..."
  • Yielded wrote:
    Hmmm... So what exactly is the problem with implementing a treaty that will most probably be ratified by 26 out of 27 countries? Ireland's vote would be respected, since the new measures wouldn't apply to Ireland.
    I don't think it's particularly fair for one single country to stop this from happening for 26 others.
    Maybe I'm missing something, but Ireland's 'No' would be bypassed how exactly? Again, the article clearly states that only countries who ratify the treaty would implement those measures. Ireland would NOT be affected.

    Because Ireland has veto power. If France or Germany had said no, you can be damn sure the Lisbon Treaty would be dead in the water by now. But because we're a small country, we only have veto power if we're not dumb enough to try it, apparently.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • JordyWordyJordyWordy Posts: 2,261
    Yielded wrote:
    Hmmm... So what exactly is the problem with implementing a treaty that will most probably be ratified by 26 out of 27 countries? Ireland's vote would be respected, since the new measures wouldn't apply to Ireland.
    I don't think it's particularly fair for one single country to stop this from happening for 26 others.
    Maybe I'm missing something, but Ireland's 'No' would be bypassed how exactly? Again, the article clearly states that only countries who ratify the treaty would implement those measures. Ireland would NOT be affected.

    Rhino beat me to it.

    Unanimous vote = 27/27
    Failed Vote = 26/27

    All 3 public votes on this change have rejected it. The EU and certain governments still seem to think that its ok to ignore the collective wishes of the populations of France, Holland and Ireland.

    And like Rhino said, if France or Germany had rejected this in public vote the EU sure as shit wouldnt go on without them.

    Its double standards. Whats the point of Veto if its not respected? Whats the point of IMPOSING a power over Europeans citizens that has been rejected by the majority of the voters in the three countries that got to choose???????
  • JordyWordy wrote:
    Rhino beat me to it.

    Unanimous vote = 27/27
    Failed Vote = 26/27

    All 3 public votes on this change have rejected it. The EU and certain governments still seem to think that its ok to ignore the collective wishes of the populations of France, Holland and Ireland.

    And like Rhino said, if France or Germany had rejected this in public vote the EU sure as shit wouldnt go on without them.

    Its double standards. Whats the point of Veto if its not respected? Whats the point of IMPOSING a power over Europeans citizens that has been rejected by the majority of the voters in the three countries that got to choose???????

    They just keep asking over and over again until they get the answer they were looking for in the first place - carte blanche to expand EU powers however they want. And then they'll denounce the actions of Mugabe.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • JordyWordyJordyWordy Posts: 2,261
    They just keep asking over and over again until they get the answer they were looking for in the first place - carte blanche to expand EU powers however they want. And then they'll denounce the actions of Mugabe.

    if 26 ratify and Ireland dont, theyll probably find ways to get through cos the ECJ (EU Court Justice) wont make a decision thatd throw the future of the EU in doubt (if EU tries to leave Ireland behind- itd be a violation of EU law, but EU law is ridiculously complicated & the ECJ is ridiculously unpredicitable in its decisions.......

    but on the positive side only 18 countries have ratified. Thats probably why Sarkozy & Germans want to push the ratification through, so they have more weight to beat Ireland around with. Fuckers!
  • JordyWordy wrote:
    if 26 ratify and Ireland dont, theyll probably find ways to get through cos the ECJ (EU Court Justice) wont make a decision thatd throw the future of the EU in doubt (if EU tries to leave Ireland behind- itd be a violation of EU law, but EU law is ridiculously complicated & the ECJ is ridiculously unpredicitable in its decisions.......

    but on the positive side only 18 countries have ratified. Thats probably why Sarkozy & Germans want to push the ratification through, so they have more weight to beat Ireland around with. Fuckers!

    I keep hearing that if Lisbon doesn't go through, they'll just put the majority of it into the Croatian Accession Treaty that's coming up in 2010, which doesn't require any referenda to take place. :mad:
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • nobodynobody Posts: 353
    please don't pretend those referemdums (IRL, NL, FRA) were some kind of us against them victory for democracy. hardly half of the people having a right to vote actually bothered to go to the booth. and the parties opposing the future european integration most vehemently are right-wing, nationalist and/or religious groups. there simply is the fact that the traditional EU structures don't work anymore for the new EU with 27 countries. politicians (goverment AND oppositions) have made it a (bad) custom to blame brussels for everything that doesn't work in their countries, yet they (out of the public eye) are the ones making european policy. the new contract is trying to make EU policies more open for the public. aside from points like europe won't have a "soul" anymore (whatever that means) what exactly are the reasons for the heavy resistance against the contract. i don't understand the concernes about power being taken away from national states (i rather see that as a positive thing), as long as eurpean people are given direct control over eu policies, which the new treaty actually ensures a great deal better than the ones before.

    m.
    Godwin's Law:
    "As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
  • nobody wrote:
    please don't pretend those referemdums (IRL, NL, FRA) were some kind of us against them victory for democracy. hardly half of the people having a right to vote actually bothered to go to the booth. and the parties opposing the future european integration most vehemently are right-wing, nationalist and/or religious groups. there simply is the fact that the traditional EU structures don't work anymore for the new EU with 27 countries. politicians (goverment AND oppositions) have made it a (bad) custom to blame brussels for everything that doesn't work in their countries, yet they (out of the public eye) are the ones making european policy. the new contract is trying to make EU policies more open for the public. aside from points like europe won't have a "soul" anymore (whatever that means) what exactly are the reasons for the heavy resistance against the contract. i don't understand the concernes about power being taken away from national states (i rather see that as a positive thing), as long as eurpean people are given direct control over eu policies, which the new treaty actually ensures a great deal better than the ones before.

    m.

    If the Lisbon Treaty was supposed to inspire confidence in the EU body of power, then the Lisbon Treaty should have been legible to anyone without seventeen law degrees. If the Lisbon Treaty was supposed to inspire confidence in the EU body of power, then the Lisbon Treaty should have been put to a referendum in every EU country. If the Lisbon Treaty was supposed to inspire confidence in the EU body of power, then the EU body of power shouldn't be looking to bully Ireland into accepting it - that's hardly a victory for democracy.

    What I see when I look at the Lisbon Treaty is a shadowy, vague document that plenty of government officials don't understand. I see a treaty that gives those in power the opportunity to amend the treaty to give themselves more power.

    I'm proud that we voted no on it. I'm proud to have stuck a spanner in the ridiculously arrogant mindset of Sarkozy and his brethren.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    nobody wrote:
    please don't pretend those referemdums (IRL, NL, FRA) were some kind of us against them victory for democracy. hardly half of the people having a right to vote actually bothered to go to the booth. and the parties opposing the future european integration most vehemently are right-wing, nationalist and/or religious groups. there simply is the fact that the traditional EU structures don't work anymore for the new EU with 27 countries. politicians (goverment AND oppositions) have made it a (bad) custom to blame brussels for everything that doesn't work in their countries, yet they (out of the public eye) are the ones making european policy. the new contract is trying to make EU policies more open for the public. aside from points like europe won't have a "soul" anymore (whatever that means) what exactly are the reasons for the heavy resistance against the contract. i don't understand the concernes about power being taken away from national states (i rather see that as a positive thing), as long as eurpean people are given direct control over eu policies, which the new treaty actually ensures a great deal better than the ones before.

    m.
    Actually a referendum is the only vote where abstension has no meaning. If you don't vote at a presidential election it means you do not find what you are looking for in the choices given to you for example, if you don't vote at a referendum it doesn't mean anything except you don't care and leave the choice to others. As for the the rest, I agree with most of what you said, except that passing a law against the popular vote is undemocratic. And a EU built on undemocratic basis is not what I was voting for in the first place.
  • nobodynobody Posts: 353
    I simply think referendums don't work on the level of high politics, especially european politics. this is just hypothetical, but had there been referendums since the planning phase of the european union, there would be no european union. you think a popular vote would have lead to a treaty between france and germany after WWII? you think we would have a common currency? you think the eastern countries would have been able to join?
    as people have said elsewhere: there is an elected parliament to make decisions like this one. and I sincerely doubt the treaty is the result of some isreali-superrich-power hungry conspiracy that some people hint here, and that will leave the european goverments as mere marionettes of the all powerful elite in brussels. i don't mind having a common european foreign secretary or even a common military. i agree with reorganising decision making in the process of european policy. as a matter of fact the treaty was supposed to give more relative power to the vote of countries like Poland. and I also support common guidelines in working conditions and working security as well as comparable laws in punishment (like the strict exclusion of the death penalty) and minority protection. in short: the stagnation in reforming the eu has been going on long enough. the treaty might not be ideal, but it's better than a orientation- and powerless body. if some countries (proudly) decide against the new framework: more power to them, but if other countries want to go ahead, they have my support.

    m.
    Godwin's Law:
    "As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
  • nobody wrote:
    I simply think referendums don't work on the level of high politics, especially european politics. this is just hypothetical, but had there been referendums since the planning phase of the european union, there would be no european union. you think a popular vote would have lead to a treaty between france and germany after WWII? you think we would have a common currency? you think the eastern countries would have been able to join?
    as people have said elsewhere: there is an elected parliament to make decisions like this one. and I sincerely doubt the treaty is the result of some isreali-superrich-power hungry conspiracy that some people hint here, and that will leave the european goverments as mere marionettes of the all powerful elite in brussels. i don't mind having a common european foreign secretary or even a common military. i agree with reorganising decision making in the process of european policy. as a matter of fact the treaty was supposed to give more relative power to the vote of countries like Poland. and I also support common guidelines in working conditions and working security as well as comparable laws in punishment (like the strict exclusion of the death penalty) and minority protection. in short: the stagnation in reforming the eu has been going on long enough. the treaty might not be ideal, but it's better than a orientation- and powerless body. if some countries (proudly) decide against the new framework: more power to them, but if other countries want to go ahead, they have my support.

    m.

    We were actually constitutionally obligated to have a referendum on this.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/irish-constitution-1/constitution_introduction
    One of the most important Articles of the Constitution is Article 15.4, which states that the Oireachtas must not enact any law that is repugnant to the Constitution and that any such law is invalid. This means, that the law set down in the Constitution is superior to all other law, including legislation. If a proposed new law is repugnant to the Constitution, it cannot be enacted without first changing the Constitution by a constitutional referendum.

    So for the Irish government to ratify Lisbon, which supercedes the Irish constitution on certain laws, they needed to have a referendum. Otherwise, the Lisbon Treaty would have been illegal.

    And to further clarify the importance of this article, it's because of this need for a referendum that our neutrality is in the hands of the people rather than the government. If we had ratified the Lisbon Treaty, which is self-amending, it would have given our government control over our neutrality and any other constitutional law they saw fit to meddle with.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • JordyWordyJordyWordy Posts: 2,261
    nobody wrote:
    I simply think referendums don't work on the level of high politics, especially european politics. this is just hypothetical, but had there been referendums since the planning phase of the european union, there would be no european union. you think a popular vote would have lead to a treaty between france and germany after WWII? you think we would have a common currency? you think the eastern countries would have been able to join?
    as people have said elsewhere: there is an elected parliament to make decisions like this one. and I sincerely doubt the treaty is the result of some isreali-superrich-power hungry conspiracy that some people hint here, and that will leave the european goverments as mere marionettes of the all powerful elite in brussels. i don't mind having a common european foreign secretary or even a common military. i agree with reorganising decision making in the process of european policy. as a matter of fact the treaty was supposed to give more relative power to the vote of countries like Poland. and I also support common guidelines in working conditions and working security as well as comparable laws in punishment (like the strict exclusion of the death penalty) and minority protection. in short: the stagnation in reforming the eu has been going on long enough. the treaty might not be ideal, but it's better than a orientation- and powerless body. if some countries (proudly) decide against the new framework: more power to them, but if other countries want to go ahead, they have my support.

    m.

    i note the word "hypothetical" at the start of your post. I am VERY pro-EU. Im not a nationalist, right-wing or extreme in any way. But the practical remifications of Lisbon gave what seemed to me to be an unnecessarily large amount of power to EU officials with no other reason than expansion and to build an army. Why do they need to change the perogative of the Organization just because it has new members??
    its been getting new members continuously for the past fifty years, its not a new problem!!! I just dont want a single federal government for Europe. Not many people do!!!

    The biggest problem i had with the Lisbon Treaty itself was that it made the internal decision-making process a co-decision one, and thus removes the safeguard of the current system (one body proposes, the other approves/rejects, etc) . It also lowers the minimum requirement to pass laws.

    Its also important to note that the political parties that supported Yes in Ireland would have about 90% of the votes in general elections between them, but couldnt put up clear reasons or simple discussions of what was going on here to convince people why they should vote to change what seems to be a well-functioning EU to Irish people. The politicians here were lazy about it (on both sides of the debate).



    And Ireland has had referendums on EU issues before and passed them, so its not unrealistic to let people vote on such matters as you suggested. Are you genuinely standing by the underhand moves of a democratic body to remove the "problem of" democracy (the citizens votes)??
  • nobodynobody Posts: 353
    well, it doesn't matter what you are. on average it was mostly conservative/religious/right (or very left) groups that mobilised against the treaty, as it would have made abortion easier or granted more rights to homosexuals.

    and yes there have been expansions of the EU to include 15 countries over a span of 50 years. then 12 countries were added in ONE year. you really want to call that a well-known development?

    and since then the eu doesn't function as well as you might think. having that many members it is basically impossible to come to terms and get anything done under the old way of decision making. that's why a new design is needed, where less votes are necessary to make a decision (note that only 25% of the irish voters were enough to reject the treaty). and the treaty includes explicit clauses that allows countries to not follow decisions they don't support.
    your so called safe-guard guards you from any decision, cause 27 countries never will be all united in one question (as you can easily see right now). the new system would actually make it more transparent who (which government) voted for or against certain policies, and they wouldn't be able to pretent anymore that it is evil states like germany and france that are responsible for all the problems at home. that doesn't sound so bad to me.

    not that the new treaty would create a federal european state, but I don't generally oppose it: as long as I can elect its parliament and thus influence how the "goverment" is going to look like. right now, the european commision mainly makes the decisions, which is not elected by anyone. how can you say the eu in its common form is so much more democratic than the eu that would come out of the new treaty?
    and just a sidenote: I very much prefere a european army to 27 single national armies...don't you?

    m.

    ps. I support referendums on a local level where people are able to have a full overview of the problem at hand. for high politics (like european policy) there's a body of elected officials to make decisions. and if there are referendums fo higher issues, there should be a requierment that at least 85% of the voters must have attended in order for it to be valid.
    Godwin's Law:
    "As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
  • Heineken HelenHeineken Helen Posts: 18,095
    spiral out wrote:
    It was never going to be any other way. The only thing is there more blatant about it now, as the people are more unaware or just don't care.
    I don't know... one of two things will come from this... either they'll ignore our vote completely OR this WILL awaken people to how they operate in Europe... judging by the people I spoke to in Cardiff at the weekend, the latter is certainly happening. I think if they ignore us, there will be plenty of anger throughout Europe :(
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • Heineken HelenHeineken Helen Posts: 18,095
    I joke, but I'm majorly pissed about this. If they actually do bypass the Irish veto, that just proves us right on everything we were afraid of with this treaty.
    Exactly! I'm more positive now than ever that we did the right thing. A yes vote would have given them the go ahead to operate even more strongly like this. A no vote means they'll still go ahead probably but at least one country will have seen through it :(
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • Heineken HelenHeineken Helen Posts: 18,095
    Word is that Gordon Brown's gonna call for the Irish veto to stand - because if it gets to the point where the solution is a two-tier Europe, Britain will be in the second tier. They'll most likely still go ahead and ratify it to look good to Brussels though.
    Unfortunately... we find ourselves in the familiar position... our future probably depends on the support of Britain! :o

    There's still some hope in the Czech Republic though. If ONE country would stand up with us and say no, it certainly would NOT be ignored. The risk is much smaller for them to do so now that it's already been done... they will not get the blame.
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
Sign In or Register to comment.