Just debating the meaning of that thread title is all.
Sure, then it appeared an invite to discuss.
But the title meaning was loaded, as it were!
it was not loaded, it was just a title... it's easy looking back AFTER the discussion and say 'hmm what did you mean by this?' when at the time it was just reminding people what's going on and getting a feel for what's going on across the continent.
No need to read too much into 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
But she explained in the very first post that she was voting no, and that it was just to get a idea of how the people of Europe felt. Asking me "How would you like me to vote for you?" isn't the exact same as saying "I'm gonna vote whichever way this poll goes".
I was just commenting on the thread title and the implication about voting for you. Never claimed that it was implied that Helen would vote according to the poll on the pit! Rather, that she would vote while other Europeans didn't have a vote. When they did - not in a referendum, but when they voted in their parliamentary elections. That was the implication I was arguing against.
Okay, I'll give you an example of why I think a referendum on particular issue would be a good thing. Say I just turned 18 - legal voting age - a few months ago, and I've never voted in a general election. I'm in no way democratically represented by the government. Yet, if they make the decision on Lisbon, their choice will impact on me for a lot longer than it does on them.
I know you'll say that it's just how democracy works, but I think that something that changes the core of how the EU works could be seen as an exceptional case.
I strongly believe - even more so now - that in matters of EU constitutional laws to ask the citizens a vote on it it's way too complex.
Indeed, much of the Lisbon Treaty were amendments to the other constitutional treaties of the EU, and that's why people lamented that the points of the Treaty were not expressed properly, etc etc.
You can have different type of referenda on EU issues [do you want to become a member in a closer EU outlining few key points of the differences] but the legal practicalities should be left to experts.
Too much can be manipulated by other interests via the media.
Besides, not all citizens can become legal experts even in a few months.
I strongly believe - even more so now - that in matters of EU constitutional laws to ask the citizens a vote on it it's way too complex.
Indeed, much of the Lisbon Treaty were amendments to the other constitutional treaties of the EU, and that's why people lamented that the points of the Treaty were not expressed properly, etc etc.
You can have different type of referenda on EU issues [do you want to become a member in a closer EU outlining few key points of the differences] but the legal practicalities should be left to experts.
Too much can be manipulated by other interests via the media.
Besides, not all citizens can become legal experts even in a few months.
The Lisbon Treaty wasn't even legible to legal experts - an Irish judge, a leading Irish businessman, and the EU's Internal Market Commissioner couldn't understand it. So I'm not sure I trust anyone with the legal practicalities. But even if you were to leave the legal stuffs to the "experts", why not put as much as possible to the people?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
You can have different type of referenda on EU issues [do you want to become a member in a closer EU outlining few key points of the differences] but the legal practicalities should be left to experts.
Too much can be manipulated by other interests via the media.
.
but they can't be manipulated by 'experts'? all we need to do is look at the American government in the run up to the war in Iraq... without changing the discussion TO the Iraqi war and the lies... that's simply ONE example of how a government can behave for their OWN interests and how it can effect the people negatively... and also how legal practicalities can be manipulated.
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
The Lisbon Treaty wasn't even legible to legal experts - an Irish judge, a leading Irish businessman, and the EU's Internal Market Commissioner couldn't understand it. So I'm not sure I trust anyone with the legal practicalities. But even if you were to leave the legal stuffs to the "experts", why not put as much as possible to the people?
SEVERAL leading Irish businessmen said there is NO WAY they'd sign a document like that because the wording is complete nonsense and open to interpretation on all sides.
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
SEVERAL leading Irish businessmen said there is NO WAY they'd sign a document like that because the wording is complete nonsense and open to interpretation on all sides.
I think what lgt and nobody aren't really getting is that, while we have some problems with the issues in the treaty, a lot of our gripes are with the treaty itself, and how vague and incomprehensible it is. And not just incomprehensible to the "people" - to the very people who definitely should understand it.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
I think what lgt and nobody aren't really getting is that, while we have some problems with the issues in the treaty, a lot of our gripes are with the treaty itself, and how vague and incomprehensible it is. And not just incomprehensible to the "people" - to the very people who definitely should understand it.
Like Charlie McCreevy who said he hadn't read it and no sane person WOULD :eek: thanks Charlie
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
The outcome of last week's referendum sparked a stormy debate in the European Parliament, where the leader of the Socialist group, Martin Schulz, demanded that Charlie McCreevy be removed as Internal Market Commissioner.
He said Mr McCreevy contributed to a No vote with comments about how one would have to be insane to have read the Treaty.
Just debating the meaning of that thread title is all.
Sure, then it appeared an invite to discuss.
But the title meaning was loaded, as it were!
As i understand it, before the vote took place, it was universally accepted that everyone had to ratify for the treaty to come into effect, therefore the vote did concern the whole of europe. it's only been since the NO! vote a lot of other, talk, of legal loopholes has been discussed.
The Lisbon Treaty wasn't even legible to legal experts - an Irish judge, a leading Irish businessman, and the EU's Internal Market Commissioner couldn't understand it. So I'm not sure I trust anyone with the legal practicalities. But even if you were to leave the legal stuffs to the "experts", why not put as much as possible to the people?
Depends on what issue the people are asked to express an vote, I guess.
I tend to trust informed and authoritative, as unbiased as possible, information and their proponents.
but they can't be manipulated by 'experts'? all we need to do is look at the American government in the run up to the war in Iraq... without changing the discussion TO the Iraqi war and the lies... that's simply ONE example of how a government can behave for their OWN interests and how it can effect the people negatively... and also how legal practicalities can be manipulated.
But the American government was an active player with clear motivations in pursuing that agenda. There were other contrary voices - see Nigergate and the US ambassador, etc etc. But let's avoid this topic here!
I'm talking about independent and unbiased experts, as far as that's possible.
Then one uses their critical rational abilities to sift through the propaganda and manipulation.
Depends on what issue the people are asked to express an vote, I guess.
I tend to trust informed and authoritative, as unbiased as possible, information and their proponents.
I steer clear of demagoguery.
Okay, so put yourself into the Irish situation as of one week ago. Our government is telling us to vote yes, without any clear information on why. Leading businessmen are saying the Treaty is untenable. A judge has said even he didn't understand, and Charlie McCreevy has said he hadn't even read it. If you were to go on informed, authoritative opinions, which way would you be voting?
I know a lot of personal bias comes in after that, but if the Irish were going solely on informed opinions available, I'd say there'd be a much bigger no vote.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Okay, so put yourself into the Irish situation as of one week ago. Our government is telling us to vote yes, without any clear information on why. Leading businessmen are saying the Treaty is untenable. A judge has said even he didn't understand, and Charlie McCreevy has said he hadn't even read it. If you were to go on informed, authoritative opinions, which way would you be voting?
I know a lot of personal bias comes in after that, but if the Irish were going solely on informed opinions available, I'd say there'd be a much bigger no vote.
Sorry, don't know who Charlie McCreevy is.
But I would first go to the source - the EU website to understand what the whole treaty is about. [I also posted a link, a while back, I believe]
Then check both the Yes and No campaign; find out the pressure groups behind each campaign and then make up my own mind.
According to the European press I've read - ignoring the rabid right-wing English position, which have a clear agenda - the Treaty was viewed as a good compromise after the failure of the EU constitution [with the French and Dutch no vote]
For instance, as nobody m pointed out, Germany would actually get less seats despite being the most populous state in the Union - so much for fear of the smaller states being ignored. But was this highlighted in the Irish referendum campaign?
But I would first go to the source - the EU website to understand what the whole treaty is about. [I also posted a link, a while back, I believe]
Then check both the Yes and No campaign; find out the pressure groups behind each campaign and then make up my own mind.
According to the European press I've read - ignoring the rabid right-wing English position, which have a clear agenda - the Treaty was viewed as a good compromise after the failure of the EU constitution [with the French and Dutch no vote]
For instance, as nobody m pointed out, Germany would actually get less seats despite being the most populous state in the Union - so much for fear of the smaller states being ignored. But was this highlighted in the Irish referendum campaign?
Charlie's the EU's Internal Market Commissioner - and he didn't even read the damn Treaty.
The Irish referendum campaign was a total mess - I couldn't honestly tell you if the number of German seats came up because after the first few go-rounds, I just tuned out most of the talk, and focused on researching the Treaty on my own terms.
And I'm not saying there was nothing good in the Treaty - I'm sure some of the reforms would have done the EU a world of good. But there was enough vague wording, and enough worrying implications for Ireland, to make me vote no. If another Treaty came up after being thought over and renegotiated, I'd certainly give a fair chance. But I'm not putting the internal workings of the EU as a higher priority to the internal workings of my own country, and I don't think that's wrong.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Charlie's the EU's Internal Market Commissioner - and he didn't even read the damn Treaty.
The Irish referendum campaign was a total mess - I couldn't honestly tell you if the number of German seats came up because after the first few go-rounds, I just tuned out most of the talk, and focused on researching the Treaty on my own terms.
And I'm not saying there was nothing good in the Treaty - I'm sure some of the reforms would have done the EU a world of good. But there was enough vague wording, and enough worrying implications for Ireland, to make me vote no. If another Treaty came up after being thought over and renegotiated, I'd certainly give a fair chance. But I'm not putting the internal workings of the EU as a higher priority to the internal workings of my own country, and I don't think that's wrong.
Fair enough.
In this situation, it's usually a preference for a nation-state view of international current affairs or supranational. That's what basically it boils down to.
Those who think that in this day and age the nation-state no longer is capable to effectively operate in an ever increasing globalised world and deal with global issues [the international banking system bypasses national bounderies, or climate change] VS. those who cling to national sovereignty and the nation-state as primary actor in the world stage.
P.S. Definitely, that politician is an embarassment and should be ashamed to hold the position of EU Internal Market Commissioner!!! Has he said anything after the result?
In this situation, it's usually a preference for a nation-state view of international current affairs or supranational. That's what basically it boils down to.
Those who think that in this day and age the nation-state no longer is capable to effectively operate in an ever increasing globalised world and deal with global issues [the international banking system bypasses national bounderies, or climate change] VS. those who cling to national sovereignty and the nation-state as primary actor in the world stage.
P.S. Definitely, that politician is an embarassment and should be ashamed to hold the position of EU Internal Market Commissioner!!! Has he said anything after the result?
I'll admit that I'm not very sure where I stand as far as integration in the future goes, but I'm not averse to Ireland being at least involved in discussions. It wasn't globalist vs nationalist for me - it was the fact that it stripped away arguably the most important part of our constitution. If the Lisbon Treaty hadn't involved handing over our right to a referendum, I would have had to think a lot harder about it.
I'll admit that I'm not very sure where I stand as far as integration in the future goes, but I'm not averse to Ireland being at least involved in discussions. It wasn't globalist vs nationalist for me - it was the fact that it stripped away arguably the most important part of our constitution. If the Lisbon Treaty hadn't involved handing over our right to a referendum, I would have had to think a lot harder about it.
I'll admit that I'm not very sure where I stand as far as integration in the future goes, but I'm not averse to Ireland being at least involved in discussions. It wasn't globalist vs nationalist for me - it was the fact that it stripped away arguably the most important part of our constitution. If the Lisbon Treaty hadn't involved handing over our right to a referendum, I would have had to think a lot harder about it.
Forgot to address this part of your post.
The key issue of supranationalism is the erosion of nation-states rights in favour of a supranational structure.
It is a balancing act and that's where most of the conflict resides.
Lisbon would have required for Ireland to drop the referendum for any constitutional changes? Is that what you mainly objected?
I agree that all the remaining EU countries must have their say on this Treaty, so they should proceed with ratification.
Then evaluation on what to do, based on results from the other states and what the Irish government wants to do based on the referendum.
Do you not find it a little worrying that he refuses to accept that the Lisbon Treaty is dead? You've said yourself, the politics of it will live on, but the Treaty itself is dead. If he had said "We'll get all the ratification out of the way, and see what kind of move we can make from there", I'd be fine. But the exact quote:
"One thing is certain - we won't start drafting a new treaty," he said.
It sounds like he wants the existing treaty to go through, unaltered.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
The key issue of supranationalism is the erosion of nation-states rights in favour of a supranational structure.
It is a balancing act and that's where most of the conflict resides.
Lisbon would have required for Ireland to drop the referendum for any constitutional changes? Is that what you mainly objected?
It was the change that I couldn't see myself agreeing to at any point in the future. Integration, immigration, whatever other issue people want to bring up... I'm open-minded enough not to shut out future possibilities on most issues. Lisbon wasn't the way I'd go about it, but we've been through that. But I see the Irish referendum system as a sort of checks and balances approach - we give our government so much control, but anything big they want to do, like neutrality or divorce or abortion, they still have to run it by the people.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
It was the change that I couldn't see myself agreeing to at any point in the future. Integration, immigration, whatever other issue people want to bring up... I'm open-minded enough not to shut out future possibilities on most issues. Lisbon wasn't the way I'd go about it, but we've been through that. But I see the Irish referendum system as a sort of checks and balances approach - we give our government so much control, but anything big they want to do, like neutrality or divorce or abortion, they still have to run it by the people.
offtopic...again;)
divorce is legal in Ireland though, isn't it?
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Do you not find it a little worrying that he refuses to accept that the Lisbon Treaty is dead? You've said yourself, the politics of it will live on, but the Treaty itself is dead. If he had said "We'll get all the ratification out of the way, and see what kind of move we can make from there", I'd be fine. But the exact quote:
It sounds like he wants the existing treaty to go through, unaltered.
hmmm, that's just a single quote...people don't just say one sentence usually...
not saying it's true, but he might be thinking about a special agreement with Ireland, like that the treaty isn't changed, but for ireland there's an extra document with special guarantees etc...dunno...like I said: this one sentence is all we have...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
hmmm, that's just a single quote...people don't just say one sentence usually...
not saying it's true, but he might be thinking about a special agreement with Ireland, like that the treaty isn't changed, but for ireland there's an extra document with special guarantees etc...dunno...like I said: this one sentence is all we have...
m.
If you read back over the news articles posted since last Thursday, Jouyet and Barroso have barely said anything except that the treaty can't die just because Ireland voted no. Like you said, it could just be vague quoting (how fitting for the Lisbon Treaty ), but I haven't seen anything to make me think he's eager to compromise either.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
If you read back over the news articles posted since last Thursday, Jouyet and Barroso have barely said anything except that the treaty can't die just because Ireland voted no. Like you said, it could just be vague quoting (how fitting for the Lisbon Treaty ), but I haven't seen anything to make me think he's eager to compromise either.
i've seen plenty of news pieces where it was said (mostly by german politicians because it was german news;), including steinmeier) that a solution has to be found with Ireland. also, almost everybody (except the czech PM) said that the ratification should continue regardless of Ireland's vote...and I think we agreed that that is the right thing to do...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
i've seen plenty of news pieces where it was said (mostly by german politicians because it was german news;), including steinmeier) that a solution has to be found with Ireland. also, almost everybody (except the czech PM) said that the ratification should continue regardless of Ireland's vote...and I think we agreed that that is the right thing to do...
m.
Yes, I've said ratification should continue. But only to figure out where each country stands, and work from that basis. Not in the hopes of saying "26 countries said yes... what does one no matter?" which is what Jouyet's and Barroso's words sound like to me. But that could just be paranoia from all the threats we got in the last few weeks.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Do you not find it a little worrying that he refuses to accept that the Lisbon Treaty is dead? You've said yourself, the politics of it will live on, but the Treaty itself is dead. If he had said "We'll get all the ratification out of the way, and see what kind of move we can make from there", I'd be fine. But the exact quote:
It sounds like he wants the existing treaty to go through, unaltered.
But in order to progress with the political process you MUST allow ALL member states to have their say.
Indeed, if more countries come out against it, it will definitely play in favour of Ireland position and strengthens it in the negotiations post-Lisbon.
I actually find his quote reassuring for Ireland. This is the EU position as Ireland knows as well. No changing of the terms for the moment.
hmmm, that's just a single quote...people don't just say one sentence usually...
not saying it's true, but he might be thinking about a special agreement with Ireland, like that the treaty isn't changed, but for ireland there's an extra document with special guarantees etc...dunno...like I said: this one sentence is all we have...
m.
Just to add -
That phrase makes perfect sense because all EU states must ratify Lisbon before any talk of revision of its terms takes place.
But in order to progress with the political process you MUST allow ALL member states to have their say.
Indeed, if more countries come out against it, it will definitely play in favour of Ireland position and strengthens it in the negotiations post-Lisbon.
I actually find his quote reassuring for Ireland. This is the EU position as Ireland knows as well. No changing of the terms for the moment.
Like I said - I think three times now, but who's counting? - I have no problem with ratification continuing. As long as it doesn't end up being used as a basis for bullying Ireland. But, again, like I said, maybe I'm just on the defensive after all the threats Ireland was privy to recently.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Comments
Just debating the meaning of that thread title is all.
Sure, then it appeared an invite to discuss.
But the title meaning was loaded, as it were!
No need to read too much into it
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
I was just commenting on the thread title and the implication about voting for you. Never claimed that it was implied that Helen would vote according to the poll on the pit! Rather, that she would vote while other Europeans didn't have a vote. When they did - not in a referendum, but when they voted in their parliamentary elections. That was the implication I was arguing against.
I strongly believe - even more so now - that in matters of EU constitutional laws to ask the citizens a vote on it it's way too complex.
Indeed, much of the Lisbon Treaty were amendments to the other constitutional treaties of the EU, and that's why people lamented that the points of the Treaty were not expressed properly, etc etc.
You can have different type of referenda on EU issues [do you want to become a member in a closer EU outlining few key points of the differences] but the legal practicalities should be left to experts.
Too much can be manipulated by other interests via the media.
Besides, not all citizens can become legal experts even in a few months.
The Lisbon Treaty wasn't even legible to legal experts - an Irish judge, a leading Irish businessman, and the EU's Internal Market Commissioner couldn't understand it. So I'm not sure I trust anyone with the legal practicalities. But even if you were to leave the legal stuffs to the "experts", why not put as much as possible to the people?
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
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
I think what lgt and nobody aren't really getting is that, while we have some problems with the issues in the treaty, a lot of our gripes are with the treaty itself, and how vague and incomprehensible it is. And not just incomprehensible to the "people" - to the very people who definitely should understand it.
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
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0618/eulisbon.html?rss
As i understand it, before the vote took place, it was universally accepted that everyone had to ratify for the treaty to come into effect, therefore the vote did concern the whole of europe. it's only been since the NO! vote a lot of other, talk, of legal loopholes has been discussed.
Depends on what issue the people are asked to express an vote, I guess.
I tend to trust informed and authoritative, as unbiased as possible, information and their proponents.
I steer clear of demagoguery.
But the American government was an active player with clear motivations in pursuing that agenda. There were other contrary voices - see Nigergate and the US ambassador, etc etc. But let's avoid this topic here!
I'm talking about independent and unbiased experts, as far as that's possible.
Then one uses their critical rational abilities to sift through the propaganda and manipulation.
Okay, so put yourself into the Irish situation as of one week ago. Our government is telling us to vote yes, without any clear information on why. Leading businessmen are saying the Treaty is untenable. A judge has said even he didn't understand, and Charlie McCreevy has said he hadn't even read it. If you were to go on informed, authoritative opinions, which way would you be voting?
I know a lot of personal bias comes in after that, but if the Irish were going solely on informed opinions available, I'd say there'd be a much bigger no vote.
Sorry, don't know who Charlie McCreevy is.
But I would first go to the source - the EU website to understand what the whole treaty is about. [I also posted a link, a while back, I believe]
Then check both the Yes and No campaign; find out the pressure groups behind each campaign and then make up my own mind.
According to the European press I've read - ignoring the rabid right-wing English position, which have a clear agenda - the Treaty was viewed as a good compromise after the failure of the EU constitution [with the French and Dutch no vote]
For instance, as nobody m pointed out, Germany would actually get less seats despite being the most populous state in the Union - so much for fear of the smaller states being ignored. But was this highlighted in the Irish referendum campaign?
Charlie's the EU's Internal Market Commissioner - and he didn't even read the damn Treaty.
The Irish referendum campaign was a total mess - I couldn't honestly tell you if the number of German seats came up because after the first few go-rounds, I just tuned out most of the talk, and focused on researching the Treaty on my own terms.
And I'm not saying there was nothing good in the Treaty - I'm sure some of the reforms would have done the EU a world of good. But there was enough vague wording, and enough worrying implications for Ireland, to make me vote no. If another Treaty came up after being thought over and renegotiated, I'd certainly give a fair chance. But I'm not putting the internal workings of the EU as a higher priority to the internal workings of my own country, and I don't think that's wrong.
Fair enough.
In this situation, it's usually a preference for a nation-state view of international current affairs or supranational. That's what basically it boils down to.
Those who think that in this day and age the nation-state no longer is capable to effectively operate in an ever increasing globalised world and deal with global issues [the international banking system bypasses national bounderies, or climate change] VS. those who cling to national sovereignty and the nation-state as primary actor in the world stage.
P.S. Definitely, that politician is an embarassment and should be ashamed to hold the position of EU Internal Market Commissioner!!! Has he said anything after the result?
I'll admit that I'm not very sure where I stand as far as integration in the future goes, but I'm not averse to Ireland being at least involved in discussions. It wasn't globalist vs nationalist for me - it was the fact that it stripped away arguably the most important part of our constitution. If the Lisbon Treaty hadn't involved handing over our right to a referendum, I would have had to think a lot harder about it.
Just wondering... what do you make of Jouyet's comments in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7458839.stm?
I agree that all the remaining EU countries must have their say on this Treaty, so they should proceed with ratification.
Then evaluation on what to do, based on results from the other states and what the Irish government wants to do based on the referendum.
Forgot to address this part of your post.
The key issue of supranationalism is the erosion of nation-states rights in favour of a supranational structure.
It is a balancing act and that's where most of the conflict resides.
Lisbon would have required for Ireland to drop the referendum for any constitutional changes? Is that what you mainly objected?
Do you not find it a little worrying that he refuses to accept that the Lisbon Treaty is dead? You've said yourself, the politics of it will live on, but the Treaty itself is dead. If he had said "We'll get all the ratification out of the way, and see what kind of move we can make from there", I'd be fine. But the exact quote:
It sounds like he wants the existing treaty to go through, unaltered.
It was the change that I couldn't see myself agreeing to at any point in the future. Integration, immigration, whatever other issue people want to bring up... I'm open-minded enough not to shut out future possibilities on most issues. Lisbon wasn't the way I'd go about it, but we've been through that. But I see the Irish referendum system as a sort of checks and balances approach - we give our government so much control, but anything big they want to do, like neutrality or divorce or abortion, they still have to run it by the people.
offtopic...again;)
divorce is legal in Ireland though, isn't it?
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
hmmm, that's just a single quote...people don't just say one sentence usually...
not saying it's true, but he might be thinking about a special agreement with Ireland, like that the treaty isn't changed, but for ireland there's an extra document with special guarantees etc...dunno...like I said: this one sentence is all we have...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Yep.. legalised by referendum in 95. And it's not really off-topic - the Lisbon Treaty would have meant no more referendums.
If you read back over the news articles posted since last Thursday, Jouyet and Barroso have barely said anything except that the treaty can't die just because Ireland voted no. Like you said, it could just be vague quoting (how fitting for the Lisbon Treaty
i've seen plenty of news pieces where it was said (mostly by german politicians because it was german news;), including steinmeier) that a solution has to be found with Ireland. also, almost everybody (except the czech PM) said that the ratification should continue regardless of Ireland's vote...and I think we agreed that that is the right thing to do...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Yes, I've said ratification should continue. But only to figure out where each country stands, and work from that basis. Not in the hopes of saying "26 countries said yes... what does one no matter?" which is what Jouyet's and Barroso's words sound like to me. But that could just be paranoia from all the threats we got in the last few weeks.
But in order to progress with the political process you MUST allow ALL member states to have their say.
Indeed, if more countries come out against it, it will definitely play in favour of Ireland position and strengthens it in the negotiations post-Lisbon.
I actually find his quote reassuring for Ireland. This is the EU position as Ireland knows as well. No changing of the terms for the moment.
Just to add -
That phrase makes perfect sense because all EU states must ratify Lisbon before any talk of revision of its terms takes place.
It is, indeed, to respect the democratic process.
Like I said - I think three times now, but who's counting?