At least the Irish have the guts

Originally Posted by timwilky

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.

Originally Posted by Pedrosa

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Baph

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by northwind

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]

Originally Posted by Baph

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.

Originally Posted by northwind

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by northwind

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.