It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EU, Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I've started this so as not to derail the threads about Ireland voting no in yesterdays referendum.

Whilst I am pleased that this has perhaps given the arrogant european governments who wouldn't allow a treaty referendum a kick in the pants, it must also be said that the NO vote in Ireland was the result of scare tactics, by fringe groups.

In particular, I'm concerned about the churches role in the vote, and the scare tactics about abortion, prostitution etc

One of the reasons why there is so much concern about the treaty is that the language seems deliberately vague and beurocratic, and seems intentionally designed to hide the meaning of the text.
Treaty Text

I'm not completely dumb, but I find the intent of the language quite hard to follow.

If there is nothing to hide, why is it couched in these terms?

OK, that's my first point.

My second point is to do with the EU as a whole and where they go from here?

Are we to see an attempt to circumvent the Irish vote, as has already been hinted at in a news conference by the Commision President?

Just so we're cler here, the Dutch and French killed the EU constitution, the Lisbon Treaty was very much plan B, with no further referendums allowed in the other 26 member states apart from Ireland - this is despite the FACT that Brown promised a referendum and then denied one to UK voters by coming up with the ridiculous argument that the 2 treaties were completely different.

The EU commission now want to meet with Irish representatives next week to "see what can be done" which I take to mean "is there any way we can ignore this, and carry on with the treaty"

One of the methods which has been rumoured is expulsion from the EU for the Irish - which is pretty much unthinkable.

So, where does the EU go from here?

Is there to be another treaty?

Will the Irish vote be ignored?

The commission president has repeatedly stated that 18 countries have ratified the treaty, and the remaining 8 will ratify the treaty - leaving one "rogue" member.

This also brings up other questions, such as the french reaction to this.

When the French people are displeased with their government, they are not known for their delicate sensibilities in making their feelings known.
Could this mean civil unrest? Not just in France but perhaps other countries as well.


It seems as though the NO vote has raised many questions.

What will happen remains to be seen.

The chinese proverb (actually an insult) "May you live in interesting times" springs to mind - it seems we are destined to do just that.

All thoughts, as usual are welcome.


[edit on 13/6/2008 by budski]




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Regardless of the nexus point for one's objection to the Lisbon Treaty and to globalism in general, stopping the globalist and Eurobeaurocrats is the point.

I could care less if someone voted No because they mistakenly thought Coddle would be outlawed after the Treaty so long as they voted NO.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Edit: Deleting an irrelevant contribution to the conversation...


[edit on 13-6-2008 by MemoryShock]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Thanks MS - some crossed wires there


Thanks again for your help



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
The more the EU tries to force itself onto the nations of Europe, the more the people will resent it. It really is that simple.

No one wants to do things when they're forced to do it. Whilst the EU itself has some legitimacy in the UK (since it was approved by a democratic referendum), the body in its present form has not been approved. It had changed significantly since the UK entered the (then) European Community in 1973, and no government (Labour or Conservative) has put any major Treaty to a referendum since then.

I think that, fundamentally, the EU can be a good thing. In its present form, however, it is not. Presently it is too opaque, too statist, too bureaucratic and it takes too many powers away from national governments. Europe is a highly complex and ancient bastion of modern civilisation. To try to force European peoples (I use the plural deliberately) to merge into one is doomed to fail from the start and risks unleashing dangerous nationalist movements in the long term.

So where do we go from here?

Well, legally the Lisbon Treaty cannot enter force because the Republic of Ireland has rejected it. All 27 member states were required to have ratified it for it to enter force. There may be changes to the Treaty to make it palatable for the Irish, but this would mean that the Treaty itself has changed and would require re-ratification (in theory at least... I suspect steps may be taken to skip this step). Any re-ratification would increase pressure for referendums across the nations of Europe intensely.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
i'm glad this thread was re-opened.
budski, i don't think the scare tactics regarding abortion, prostitution and euthanasia held much sway in the end, it felt to me the reasons for the no vote centred much more around plans for a european army, tax homogenisation and the loss of the every member states constitution. these were actually much more realistic threads running through the treaty, and it became clear in the last few weeks that these were real possibilities.

there is also a strong democratic belief in ireland, and the fact that this was pushed through europe a second time undemocratically when it had been rejected so soundly by france and holland the first time did bother more people than is being publicised by the MS media. the feeling coming from the uk is that the people didn't want it there either. i believe there were campaigns in other countries for referenda, which were all rejected by governments. this naturally enough leads to a feeling that this treaty is being pushed through for politicians and not for the people of europe, and who the hell trusts politicians.

the worrying thing is, brussels are calling for the process to push on regardless, it seems likely that they will attempt it again as a second vote changed the irish decision on the first constitutional attempt. if the anti-constitutional voices in the rest of europe aren't strong between now and the end of the year, and there are loud voices from the pro side, i can see ireland voting yes if it comes to another vote. alternatively, ireland will just implement anything that doesn't require a referendum and everybody else will implement the full thing and it will pass that way. i don't think this is over by a long shot.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I don't think the problems the Irish have with the treaty are going to go away unless it's written in plain english that the treaty won't force abortion etc on them - which was the scare tactics that were used.

In other words, I think it was the right result, but for the wrong reasons.

I'd also like to throw out a hypothetical:

Is it possible that the EU members could change the law to allow for one dissenting member vote, on (for example) the grounds that the turn out was only half or less of the population of the dissenting country?

Unlikely, I know, but I'd like to think about any eventuality.

Pieman:
I mentioned the abortion, prostitution etc issues, because after talking to my family in Ireland, it seems that these were the issues they were most concerned with


[edit on 13/6/2008 by budski]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Thanks to all the Europeans and Brits who are keeping us informed. I haven't seen anything of this in the MSM news and I am deeply interested in what happens to Europe. After all, if they can ram thru an EU dictatorship, they will try to do it here in America, as well.

Keep us posted, if you will.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I'd also like to throw out a hypothetical:

Is it possible that the EU members could change the law to allow for one dissenting member vote, on (for example) the grounds that the turn out was only half or less of the population of the dissenting country?


They could... but they'd require all 27 states to approve it wouldn't they?



Originally posted by endrun
Thanks to all the Europeans and Brits who are keeping us informed.


I just wanted to pick up something endrun said that I thought was very interesting (I'm not sure whether it was done deliberately or not though
). You separated Europe and Britain. Geographically the UK is part of Europe, and it is politically too. But I do get the impression that British people do see themselves as distinct from continental Europeans for some reason. I suspect Irish people have a similar outlook (partly because it used to be a part of the UK, and partly because it is physically isolated from continental Europe, much like Britain). Very interesting.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Ste2652
 


Yes they would need all 27 states approval - but let's not forget that the Irish government were in favour of the treaty, so if it could be done at government level with no need for a referendum, that would be a way around the law.

Just change it without asking the people



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
ste2652, realistically, i think the brits and the irish and the french and the germans and everybody else see themselves as national first and european second, i don't think it's isolated to us lot on the fringes.

budski, i'm not saying those thing weren't a concern, they were, and because we would no longer have control over our own laws they were perfectly plausable. what i'm saying is that most people didn't decide the issue until the last week or so and in the last week the emphasis moved more towards the issues i outlined so they were the issues that decided most of the people, IMHO, but then again they decided me so i could well be projecting, i can't speak for everyone but i really think most people saw through a lot of the scare mongering crap.

the other thing is that the things you talked about have been mentioned on both sky and bbc24 by different politicians today, and the feeling i got both times was that it was a bit of a "stupid paddy" thing. i don't mean you were suggesting this, although indoctrination isn't confined to ireland either, but i do think they might use the idea to put forward a case why our vote shouldn't be seen as a good gauge of the general european citizens view of the treaty.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


True, but wouldn't it warrant a referendum in Ireland at least (owing to their constitution)? Besides, some governments like to use the 'everyone has to approve' idea as a way of getting what they want so they might object even if it isn't put to a referendum.


Originally posted by pieman
ste2652, realistically, i think the brits and the irish and the french and the germans and everybody else see themselves as national first and european second, i don't think it's isolated to us lot on the fringes.


I agree with you; I just thought it was interesting that a non-European saw the UK as separate.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ste2652
 


An Irish referendum wouldn't be necessary as they would only be changing EU law, not Irish law - which was the reason they had one on the Lisbon treaty, because it made fundamental changes to Irish law.

That's if I'm not mistaken, and I might very well be.

Still, if I'm right, this may be one possible way around the decision.

pieman
Yes, I got that impression as well.
You wouldn't think to listen to them that the standard of primary and secondary education in Ireland is far higher than that in the UK, and for the most part higher education as well.

But the UK has always tried to look down their nose at the Irish - I remember my Dad telling me about when he first came to England, and boarding houses had signs in the windows saying "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish"

It's not so bad these days, but there is still an element of superiority towards the Irish.

They seem to think of all Irish people as uneducated bog paddies - and it just ain't true.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
It's not so bad these days, but there is still an element of superiority towards the Irish.

They seem to think of all Irish people as uneducated bog paddies - and it just ain't true.


Alas yes, that's still with us. There are still people that think race or nationality (or even gender) has an effect on intelligence and so on. It's not just towards the Irish, though - you hear people in, for example, England talk about the Scots and the Welsh in such terms. Indeed, there's also the same feeling towards northerners to some extent (and I speak as a Yorkshireman myself).

It's a load of nonsense. All it demonstrates is the ignorance of the person who holds that opinion.

Anyway, back on topic after that rant. Wouldn't a change like that mean the whole thing had to be re-ratified anyway? As I understand it, the EU chiefs want to change the Lisbon Treaty to placate the Irish but the EU heads of government are worried because it may force everyone to ratify it again. And let's face it, changing the way states vote is a major issue that can't just be added in on a whim.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
Anyway, back on topic after that rant. Wouldn't a change like that mean the whole thing had to be re-ratified anyway? As I understand it, the EU chiefs want to change the Lisbon Treaty to placate the Irish but the EU heads of government are worried because it may force everyone to ratify it again. And let's face it, changing the way states vote is a major issue that can't just be added in on a whim.


This is where I'm wondering if there's a way around it, or if the commission will make up a way around it.

I believe there is going to be a propaganda war about this (from the EU controllers), and then something will be slipped in the back door.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
There is no way around it without ignoring the will of the people

It goes like this

Closer European ties - Yes
Common Market - Yes
Monetary Union - Yes

United States of Europe - (to quote Mrs T.) NO! NO!! NO!!!

The sooner the numbskulls in all the various governments get this into their synaptic pathways the better.

I bet the treaty would be rejected in the vast majority of EU member states if it were put to a referendum....which of course is the reason why it wasn't

God bless the Irish......you may just have saved or asses here in the UK



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
In reference to the scaremongering by some of the groups in the lead up to the vote, most people I know saw through their tactics and the groups were being ignored or laughed at. Some of my friends who voted No feel "dirty" now because it associates them with those campaigners.

The main reasons I've heard for voting no are "I don't understand so I'm going to vote No to be on the safe side" or "The politicians all want us to vote Yes and that's too suspicious, there must be something in it for them so I'm voting No.".

I'd say most of the country hadn't a clue what the Treaty was about, even after reading about it. Hence the low turn-out.

On the other hand, the No campaigners were much better than the Yes side. The Yes side's argument seemed to consist of "Vote Yes, it'll be a good for Ireland, yay!". The No side actually put issues on their posters and seemed to talk more about the Treaty itself than just spout empty cliches.

One of the major No campaigners was a group called Libertas lead by businessman Declan Ganley. www.libertas.org...

The government here did not expect this outcome at all and they are pretty shocked by it. It's also a vote of "no-faith" in our political parties as every single one bar Sinn Fein were campaigning for the Yes vote.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Cheers to the Irish!

This is a slap in the Face to the Powers that be...

Kinda shocking that little Ireland was the only member to have a vote by Referendum...

A Europe that works together will be great for the world, but they have to straighten out the means on how to do it.

It will be intresting to see what happens next....



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I'm becoming increasingly worried that ALL other countries involved are being urged to ratify the treaty, despite the fact that it's supposed to be dead in the water.

There remains the possibility of legal shenanigans, or the introduction of a 2 tier europe.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join