At least the Irish have the guts

[timwilky]

To say no to a united states of Europe.


Will our government stand by its promises to let the British people have a choice. No they are gutless toadies of an unwanted european superstate.


Europe was sold to the British people as a trading organisation, free movement of goods and services between members. Not a bureaucratic monolith hell bent on interfering on all aspects of life within Britain.

It is Europe who state the minimum VAT that can be charged on Fuel. Europe who dictates what we can cannot buy. Europe that says it is illegal to buy outside of Europe for sale in Europe. That is not fair trade. It is restriction on trade etc.

Lisbon treaty or a constitution who cares. The sooner we take back britain for the british, the happier this country will be.

[Pedrosa]

So we are not likely to see young Tim adding a fetching blue T shirt,with lots of gold stars on it to his dapper wardrobe then?

[timwilky]

See typical. How pretentious is it for an organisation that was sold to us as a "Common Market" to even have a flag. Never mind demanding its presence on our passports etc.

Even my English driving license has got an EEC flag on it. I don't want to sell my licence so what has it to do with the common market

[Baph]

Timwilky for president!!

I was very pleased when i heard on the news that the Irish have said no.

However, this doesn't mean that the treaty won't go ahead (and simply ignore Ireland). Wouldn't be the first time the EU machine did something similar.

Options for the EU now:
- Scrap the treaty (yea, right, ok, whatever).
- Amend the treaty to account for the no votes.
- Order Ireland to have another referendum.
- Push on ahead & exclude Ireland from the treaty.

I hope they do the last of those. Ireland has some nice roads too...

[Frank]

well done to the Irish

[Lozzo]

When I collected my last company car I instructed the dealers to change the reg plates for ones that didn't have the EU blue flag on them. I had to go back the next day and collect the car cos they couldn't make them on the spot.

There's no way I was driving any motor with that crap on it.

[ThEGr33k]

Sorry to seem a bit slow but... whats happened? Is there a link to the news on bbc or whatever?

Cheers.

[Baph]

Sorry to seem a bit slow but... whats happened? Is there a link to the news on bbc or whatever?


Take alook here: http://news.google.com/news?q=Ireland+Lisbon+Treaty&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:%7Breferrer:source%3F%7D&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DMUK&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=3

Basically, the Irish have said "No" to the Lisbon Treaty in their referendum. You know, the one we were promised but will probably never have...

[ThEGr33k]

Ahhh yes. Its rediculous that our country calls its self a Democracy and cant give the people the vote on this crap. Why cant brown do anything right!?

[Pedrosa]

Forgive me for posing what might seem a ridiculous question. But how many of those slamming the treaty actually have any REAL knowledge of what it means and the changes that it includes? And how is it perceived that the changes put forward are likely to encroach unfairly upon the citizens of any member state?

This link might help educate:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6901353.stm

On the surface I do not PERSONALLY see a whole lot to be screaming objection about. I am though prepared to be enlightened. I might just be missing some valid reasons.

[Kinvig]

Even my English driving license has got an EEC flag on it.

EU flag, and that's Mo Mowlem's doing. God bless her cotton socks & all 10 pinkies in 'em.

[Baph]

But how many of those slamming the treaty actually have any REAL knowledge of what it means and the changes that it includes?
1) "Majority voting" - we can vote no to certain aspects of the EU, and they'll still be forced on to us. This is otherwise refered to as the "rachet clause."

2) New powers for EU Commission in justice and home affairs. Home affairs should, IMO, be dealt with at home, not in the EU! Our justice laws should be defined by our politicians (even that's bad enough, but someone has to do it) not by EU. The changes cover asylum and immigration laws.

3) Removal of vetoes for some countries - that's democracy for you! How can you block new legislation if you don't have the power of veto on that aspect of the EU?

4) The Lisbon treaty is a tweaked version of the Constitution - the UK wanted the Constitution changed because of #1 and #2 above in particular - yet they're still in it. However, a Constitution requires a referendum, a Treaty only requires parlimentary ratification.

5) It's only a matter of time until the UN seat for the UK is given up (along with France's seat) for an EU repesentative. That will lead to a loss of control over what happens within the UN, and therefore within our own armed services. This was first introduced in the Reform Treaty but the clause still exists in the Lisbon Treaty. Consider this along with the fact the the Lisbon Treaty removes vetos... EU could want a decision to go to war (or not as the case may be), we would have the power to veto that decision currently, in the future, we may not.

6) Each EU state will loose it's commissioner for a period of 5 years at a time. This leads to less representation.

Read the above any way you will, but to me, that means less control over the UK for the UK govt. That control transferring to the EU.

As others have stated in this thread, the EU is bad enough, why give them more power?

[Pedrosa]

And so Mr.Baph,not one word,not one line,not one clause not one paragraph of the ENTIRE proposal offers but the slightest hint of positivity?

I find that hard to believe and such a belief could only surely be adopted by an individual not willing to consider the entire proposals objectively.

I make no suggestion that you personally are such an individual of course.

On the question of power, many other threads in this neighbourhood have suggested that British governments are totally inept and so just perhaps outside help might be a good idea? You know just like they are doing with the English football team? (Titter)

[northwind]

3) Removal of vetoes for some countries - that's democracy for you! How can you block new legislation if you don't have the power of veto on that aspect of the EU?


This amused me... Vetos for some countries is an anti-democratic feature of the current system, you can have an overwhelming majority for a policy and still be vetoed. You talk about majority voting as if it's some new and terrifying concept, when in fact it's similiar to what we have in our own parliament, but with a higher requirement to pass a law (we can pass laws with a minority). Imagine giving some of our MPs a veto... How would that be good, or democratic?

Not that I'm for the Beauropean Union as it stands, I'm pro-Europe but not like this. But some of the opposition to Lisbon seems a bit silly frankly.

[Baph]

And so Mr.Baph,not one word,not one line,not one clause not one paragraph of the ENTIRE proposal offers but the slightest hint of positivity?

That's not really the point is it though?

The option we have now, is to accept it as-is, or to refuse it. I will admit that we have the option to opt-out of certain clauses. However, which clauses have the allowed opt-out, and the governments stance on those clauses is not clear.

Therefore, IMO, the only sensible option is to refuse the entire treaty, purely on the basis of a lack of information.

[Baph]

This amused me... Vetos for some countries is an anti-democratic feature of the current system, you can have an overwhelming majority for a policy and still be vetoed. You talk about majority voting as if it's some new and terrifying concept, when in fact it's similiar to what we have in our own parliament, but with a higher requirement to pass a law (we can pass laws with a minority). Imagine giving some of our MPs a veto... How would that be good, or democratic?


The "First past the post" system (and others like it) have been in existence for a long time. They are by no means the best solution to the problem.

I don't see why we should introduce other flawed system in an attempt to fix the previous (flawed) system.

[northwind]

I don't see why we should introduce other flawed system in an attempt to fix the previous (flawed) system.

So if you can't make something perfect you shouldn't improve it at all? Since by almost any gauge, this is an improvement.

[Baph]

So if you can't make something perfect you shouldn't improve it at all? Since by almost any gauge, this is an improvement.
Ah, now there, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sacrificing too much for too little gains IMO. There is afterall, a reason this thread started, and a reason the Irish said "No".

EDIT: On that subject, I had to laugh watching the Irish "Yes camp" representative on BBC news, contradicted herself everytime she opened her mouth. Great way to convince people that your way of thinking is correct. :lol:

[northwind]

Ah, I wasn't very clear, I was just talking about the voting systems changes, not the treaty as a whole. Like I say I'm against the treaty, not for what it does today but for what it could be used to do tomorrow.

[Baph]

I'm against the treaty, not for what it does today but for what it could be used to do tomorrow.
All of my points above (except #4) are objections looking to the future of the treaty. :D

[northwind]

1 and 3 aren't :-s They're about the general voting system. 2 5 and 6 are the troublesome ones, 1 and 3 are just changes to the way they do things, not changes to what they can do.

[Baph]

1) Majority voting - 55% required majority for certain aspects of the EU, which at the moment, require a unamimous vote. In future, this could be used to push through changes to the EU's powers etc, and if we vote no, we may be among the 45%.

3) If the UK looses it's veto (over anything), combined with #1, again, we can't stop legislation being forced upon us.

You said 6 was troublesome (lack of representation), but surely if our votes are not taken account of fully, then we're not being rightfully represented.

The "Majority voting" issue is one whereby the heads of governments decided (not the people) if a majority is OK rather than unanimous decision, ie, the government decides if it wants the possibility of being walked all over in the future. This is not a case by case decision, if it were, it wouldn't be an issue.

The issue only exists if (for example) the EU asks everyone "do you accept a majority vote in terms of minimum fuel duty (to take something topical)?". Our government then say "Yeah, no problem, we'll go with the flow." Next thing you know 55% of the EU pass a move to up "green tax" on fuel to £2/litre just to be eco-friendly. :shock:

OK, so I'm vastly exagerating, but that's the issue with "Majority voting."

[northwind]

OK, so I'm vastly exagerating, but that's the issue with "Majority voting."

What, that it's democratic? In what way does majority voting not take into account people's votes fully? Vetos undermine people's votes. You can't expect to always get your own way in any group larger than you.

[Filipe M.]

All I know is our PM, Socrates, was utterly ****ed off at the Irish "no". And that can only be a good thing :lol:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

What, that it's democratic? In what way does majority voting not take into account people's votes fully? Vetos undermine people's votes. You can't expect to always get your own way in any group larger than you.

It's not 'peoples' votes though is it, it's their government. I know we elect MPs to represent us so really, we don't as people have a vote, but the more layers of government you have the more opportunity for political meddling occurs.

The fact of the matter is though that Europe is profoundly corrupt. IIRC not once in the many many years that the EU has been going have accountants signed off the books. Millions (billions?) of pounds go 'missing' every year, and no-one seems to see this as any kind of problem.

[punyXpress]

[quote=Baph;1538532]1) Majority voting - 55% required majority for certain aspects of the EU, which at the moment, require a unamimous vote. In future, this could be used to push through changes to the EU's powers etc, and if we vote no, we may be among the 45%.

Is that similar to what happened in the Eurovision - we was well shafted & that might just be to familiarise ourselves with what living under the EU will be like. :(

[Davido]

Snore.