Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why are you voting yes
Options
Comments
-
can anyone actually say you have read all the treaty text
along with the pieces, ammenedents to other pieces - and are a lawyer or have extensive knowledge of how europe works and are great with words
if not - can we actually name this thread - 'why i am voting yes on something i clearly cant properly comment on and am only voting yes because ff and fg said so - but am really putting it under the guise of ''oh ye i read it (very little) and if we dont vote yes we will be out of europe (becos bertie is great and is not scaremongering at all - either is cowen now hes in) . .. ''
because thats really whats going on0 -
"People died for your freedom. Vote No". Nice. I'm tempted to say "Yeah, mostly American and British troops, with some unrecognised Irish...", but that might start a flame war!
1 - vote yes you will have a bigger appendage
2 - people did die for our freedoms
3 - have you read all the treaty and outlieing ammendments
4 - british soldiers - peare,plunkett,ceannt,clarke,connoly,macdonagh etc etc - they were british soldiers? - not to mention previous people who died before and after0 -
-
is that not a fact
simple question - did i lie there - do those posters lie when they said that?0 -
There are plenty of resources and explanations of the treaty available all over the place. Are we really a nation that needs special "Ann and Barry Read The Lisbon Treaty" books because we can't be arsed finding stuff out for ourselves?conchubhar1 wrote: »can anyone actually say you have read all the treaty text
along with the pieces, ammenedents to other pieces - and are a lawyer or have extensive knowledge of how europe works and are great with words
if not - can we actually name this thread - 'why i am voting yes on something i clearly cant properly comment on and am only voting yes because ff and fg said so - but am really putting it under the guise of ''oh ye i read it (very little) and if we dont vote yes we will be out of europe (becos bertie is great and is not scaremongering at all - either is cowen now hes in) . .. ''
because thats really whats going on0 -
Advertisement
-
have you read the acyual text
i know there are summaries - have you heard of bias and/or interpretation?0 -
Are we really a nation that needs special "Ann and Barry Read The Lisbon Treaty" books because we can't be arsed finding stuff out for ourselves?
one of those nations - well for this treaty - the use of nations is funny
we are the only ones being allowed to vote - democracy - dictionary.com0 -
I'm voting yes because I'm pro-EU integration. Specifically relating to the treaty, the clause I most strongly support is the removal of the veto. It really irritates me when people bang on about how we'll be marginalised. Unfair us us? We'll still have several times the relative voting weight of Germany, France, Italy and Britain. It's unfair on them as it currently stands.
I also don't fear those countries, or the EU. I'm not afraid of them forcing laws on us, (apart from the fact that they won't be able to) because as far as I can see, the only laws they'd adopt and Ireland would reject are laws I'd vote for.
Besides, the fact that Sinn Fein and the Socialist party are voting No is enough reason for me to vote yes.0 -
conchubhar1 wrote: »have you read the acyual text
i know there are summaries - have you heard of bias and/or interpretation?
And that's why you don't take everything as gospel. You go through it all and discover it yourself. Otherwise, just toss a coin.0 -
i am pro european integration
what i am not pro for is an unreadble document
and your point about sinn fein and the socialists says it all really0 -
Advertisement
-
And that's why you don't take everything as gospel. You go through it all and discover it yourself. Otherwise, just toss a coin.
again - have you read it all?
including ammendments and their originals?
where did you get it?
have you a job (to have the time to read something this huge)?0 -
I have gone through large portions of it and understood bugger all of it. So instead of going off in a strop and voting no without knowing why, I went off and tried to find out as much as I could about it. I still am, and probably will be until the day of the vote.0
-
Two more things:
Ok, so it's hard to read. So what? So are most international treaties. What is important isn't how "user friendly" it is, it's the legal framework it lays out, which has been nicely summarised for us. The summary doesn't omit important details either.
And back to vetoes and our voting weight... 17 states are needed to reach the voting threshhold, and it is this half of the double majority which protects small states. It means that just 10 states, representing as little as only tens of millions of people (somewhere between 4-12% of total EU population) could block a proposal, even if all the big states banded together to try and push something disadvantagous to us and to other small states. That seems like an acceptable situation to me.0 -
so am i - i will continue to read till the end
im not just taking ff and fg word on it - expecially after yfg riducolous posters
yes- i am not saying its easy to push through votes
or that it will
but it is possible - and the only advantages to europe - ended with the eec
union-flag-currency- anthem tried to be introduced
come on does that all sound hunky-dorey to you?0 -
"Tried" to be introduced, failed. So what if an anthem is introduced, when do you ever hear a national anthem being played? Somehow I doubt the EU anthem would be played in Croke Park over Amhrán na bhFiann. Is Amhrán na bhFiann mentioned in our own constitution? I'll be honest, I don't know if it is, but if it is then a referendum would surely be needed to change our national anthem?conchubhar1 wrote: »so am i - i will continue to read till the end
im not just taking ff and fg word on it - expecially after yfg riducolous posters
yes- i am not saying its easy to push through votes
or that it will
but it is possible - and the only advantages to europe - ended with the eec
union-flag-currency- anthem tried to be introduced
come on does that all sound hunky-dorey to you?
I've almost made up my mind to vote yes, haven't heard anything (that can't easily be refuted by referring to the actual text of the treaty) but I'm wondering if it's possible to get a physical copy of the treaty. I want to read as much as I can of it, but I don't think it's worth going blind to make an informed decision.0 -
Anyone thinking about voting on Lisbon might like to have a look at this analysis by Anthony Coughlan, Secretary of the National Platform Research Centre. There is a story going around that the Lisbon treaty is only a bit of minor EU administrative housekeeping. It would be hard to defend that view after reading this.
Lisbon: a major historical moment
It is surely a major historical moment by any standard: this attempt to turn four million Irish people and nearly 500 million Europeans into real citizens of a real EU federation, without most of them being aware of it, and without any but us Irish being allowed to have a direct say on itLisbon would turn Ireland into a province or region of an EU superstate and make us citizens of it first rather than of our Republic.
THE PUSH to turn the European Union into a superpower with many of the features of a federal state goes back to the second World War, when the continental imperial powers - France, Germany, Italy, Holland and Belgium - experienced the trauma of defeat and occupation. After 1945 they found themselves much diminished in a world dominated by the US and the Soviet Union.
One response of their political elites was to decide that if they could no longer be big powers individually on their own, they would seek to be a big power collectively.
The Lisbon Treaty is the constitutional culmination of the federalist project which has been the political dynamic of European integration ever since the Schumann Declaration of 1950 proclaimed the European Coal and Steel Community to be "the first step in the federation of Europe".
The EU commemorates that declaration on May 9th each year - Europe Day. Fifty years later, in 2004, Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt proclaimed the EU constitution to be "the capstone of a European federal state".
When the French and Dutch rejected the EU constitution in their 2005 referendums, the prime ministers and presidents decided to give the EU the constitutional form of a federation indirectly rather than directly. This the Lisbon Treaty does by amending the two existing European treaties instead of replacing them entirely by a formally titled constitution. But the legal-political effect is the same.
The first sentence of the amendment which the Government is asking us to insert into the Irish Constitution provides that the State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon and "may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that treaty".
This sentence shows that the European Union which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty, although having the same name, is constitutionally and politically a different union from that which we are currently members of, which was established by the 1993 Maastricht Treaty.
The second sentence of the constitutional amendment would then give the constitution of this post-Lisbon union supremacy over the Irish Constitution: "No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State."
This post-Lisbon EU would have the constitutional form of a supranational European federation - in effect a state - in which Ireland and the other member states would have the constitutional status of provincial or regional states. From the inside the union would look like something based on treaties between states. From the outside it would look like a state itself. This constitutional revolution in both the union and its member states would be brought about by four legal steps which are set out in the treaty, as they were in the previous EU constitution.
Firstly, Lisbon would give the post-Lisbon union full legal personality separate from and superior to its member states, so that it could act as a state in the international community of states, sign treaties with other states in all areas of its powers, have its own political president, foreign minister (high representative), diplomatic service, embassies and public prosecutor, and make most of our laws.
Secondly, Lisbon would abolish the European Community which we joined in 1973 and which still exists as part of the present EU, and replace it by the new union. Thirdly, it would give the new union a unified constitutional structure so that all areas of government would come within its aegis either actually or potentially. The only major feature of a fully developed federation which the EU would then lack would be the power to force its member states to go to war against their will.
Finally, Lisbon would make us all real citizens for the first time of this post-Lisbon union, rather than our being notional or honorary EU "citizens" as at present. One can only be a citizen of a state and all states must have citizens. As real EU citizens we would owe it the duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority over and above our obedience and loyalty to Ireland and its Constitution and laws.
We would retain our national Irish citizenship, but our new dual citizenship post-Lisbon would not be citizenship of two different states, but of the federal and regional/provincial levels of one state, as is normal in such classical federations as the US, federal Germany, Switzerland and Canada. The Irish Constitution would remain - just as the various states of the federal US still retain their constitutions - but it would be subordinate to the EU constitution.
One indicator of the constitutional change which Lisbon would bring about is that Members of the European Parliament, who under the present treaties are "representatives of the peoples of the member states brought together in the Community", would become "representatives of the union's citizens" in the post-Lisbon EU.
Another is that the European Council, the summit meetings of prime ministers and presidents, would become an EU institution for the first time, legally bound to forward the interests of the union, not of the national governments or electorates concerned, so that its acts or its failing to act would be subject to judicial review by the EU Court of Justice.
Couple these constitutional changes with the power-political changes which Lisbon would bring about and it is clear that the Lisbon referendum confronts us with a momentous choice. The most important power-political change is that Lisbon would base lawmaking in the post-Lisbon union primarily on population size. This would double Germany's relative voting strength on the Council of Ministers from its present 8 per cent to 17 per cent. It would increase the voting weight of France, Britain and Italy from their present 8 per cent to 12 per cent each and it would halve Ireland's weight from 2 per cent to 0.8 per cent.
As well as being deprived of a voice on the EU Commission, the body which proposes all EU laws, for five years out of every 15, a little noticed feature of Lisbon's provisions is that when it comes to Ireland's turn to have a commissioner, we would lose the right to decide who he or she would be. Henceforth Ireland would be able to make "suggestions" only, for the new commission president to decide.
It is surely a major historical moment by any standard: this attempt to turn four million Irish people and nearly 500 million Europeans into real citizens of a real EU federation, without most of them being aware of it, and without any but us Irish being allowed to have a direct say on it.
If Lisbon is ratified it is bound to lead to major democratic reactions across Europe when people discover that their national independence and democracy have been filched from them. That is why the best course is for us to vote No for our own sakes and for Europe's.0 -
Anyone thinking about voting on Lisbon might like to have a look at this analysis by Anthony Coughlan, Secretary of the National Platform Research Centre. There is a story going around that the Lisbon treaty is only a bit of minor EU administrative housekeeping. It would be hard to defend that view after reading this.
I find this piece an extremely biased interpretation of the EU after the Lisbon treaty.Lisbon would turn Ireland into a province or region of an EU superstate and make us citizens of it first rather than of our Republic.
This is plainly wrong as the EU does not have the right to confer citizenship to anyone. It clearly states that a citizen of the EU must first be a citizen of a member state. And if that member state leaves the EU all citizens of that state cease to be EU citizens. This way individual countries still decide who gets citizenship. The Lisbon treaty gives member states for the first time a clear path to secede from the union. In a federal "state" such as the USA, Germany, Russia, Brazil and Australia their "provinces or regions" can not secede from the state and they also have no power to conduct foreign relations.ever since the Schumann Declaration of 1950 proclaimed the European Coal and Steel Community to be "the first step in the federation of Europe".
Wow got anything more recent? I think if you go back far enough you will find a thing called the act of union which declared the island of Ireland to be part of the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' but thing is, it has been replaced much like the Schumann declaration has been replaced and is no longer relevant.The EU commemorates that declaration on May 9th each year - Europe Day. Fifty years later, in 2004, Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt proclaimed the EU constitution to be "the capstone of a European federal state".
The rejected constitution right?prime ministers and presidents decided to give the EU the constitutional form of a federation indirectly rather than directly.
As has been pointed out many time the failed Constitution and the Lisbon treaty fall far short of a federal state. As member states still have exclusive rights to conduct their own affairs in areas such as Taxation and Foreign Policy. An the EU can not act with out unanimity in the area of foreign policy.This sentence shows that the European Union which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty, although having the same name, is constitutionally and politically a different union from that which we are currently members of, which was established by the 1993 Maastricht Treaty.
Now he's arguing semantics. It's like being a member of the football team and your contract is due up for negotiation, you negotiate a different and better contract and you sign that you will become a member of the team under this new agreement. It does not mean the team itself is different, it means how you partake in the team is different.The second sentence of the constitutional amendment would then give the constitution of this post-Lisbon union supremacy over the Irish Constitution: "No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State."
That's basically saying we agree to the follow the laws laid down in European Law. If your a member of any organisation you have to follow the laws of that organisation. I'm sure you've signed a contract for work, it's basically the same thing, you have to follow the rules or else you can leave. And remember if the EU wants to change the treaties in the future it must comply with member states constitutions.
I'm going for lunch, I'll get back to debunking the rest later.0 -
You think the EU has no power to confer citizenship on anyone? You obviously haven't read the treaty then.
Why don't you do that over lunch and start again.0 -
You think the EU has no power to confer citizenship on anyone? You obviously haven't read the treaty then.
Why don't you do that over lunch and start again.Article 9
In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens,
who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every
national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall
be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it.
Source: Institute of International and European Affairs
http://www.iiea.com/publicationx.php?publication_id=33
Care to show me your source?0 -
This post-Lisbon EU would have the constitutional form of a supranational European federation - in effect a state - in which Ireland and the other member states would have the constitutional status of provincial or regional states. From the inside the union would look like something based on treaties between states. From the outside it would look like a state itself. This constitutional revolution in both the union and its member states would be brought about by four legal steps which are set out in the treaty, as they were in the previous EU constitution.
Wrong, his very definition of a Federation is wrong.Wikipedia wrote:The component states of a federation usually possess no powers in relation to foreign policy and so they enjoy no independent status under international law.
Each member state still has individual representation in the UN and can conduct their own foreign policy. Ireland will still be recognised as completely sovereign in the eyes of international law. So by this definition the EU is not a Federation.Firstly, Lisbon would give the post-Lisbon union full legal personality separate from and superior to its member states, so that it could act as a state in the international community of states, sign treaties with other states in all areas of its powers, have its own political president, foreign minister (high representative), diplomatic service, embassies and public prosecutor, and make most of our laws.
The Lisbon treaty affords the EU a legal personality so it can sign treaties on it's members behalf, but these treaties have to unanimously agreed by member states. It basically provides a short cut so treaties don't have to be signed by each individual member when they are all in agreement. Anything our government doesn't agree to, the EU can not sign on our behalf.Secondly, Lisbon would abolish the European Community which we joined in 1973 and which still exists as part of the present EU, and replace it by the new union.
It doesn't "abolish" EC, it absorbs it into the EU. This is to cut down on administration costs and bureaucracy, because it can now directly be administered by the EU rather that being completely separate.Thirdly, it would give the new union a unified constitutional structure so that all areas of government would come within its aegis either actually or potentially.
It does not have a constitutional structure, the constitution was rejected remember. It remains under the structure of a supra-national organisation like the UN or NATO.
The areas where the EU has competences are clearly laid out. Any new 'potential' areas would require by law a referendum in Ireland.Referendum Commission wrote:A. Areas of Competence
The EU has the competence to decide policies and make laws only in those areas which are set out in the treaties. This has always been the case.
The Lisbon Treaty would specify who has the power to do what by listing the areas in which:
• the EU has exclusive competence – this means that the decisions must be made at EU level and not at national government level;
• the EU and national governments have joint competence;
• the national governments have exclusive competence but the EU may support and help to co-ordinate.
EU exclusive competence
The Lisbon Treaty states that the EU has exclusive competence in a number of areas including the customs union, the establishment of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market and monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the Euro.
Joint competence of EU and Member States
The Lisbon Treaty states that the EU and the Member States have joint competence in a number of areas including the internal market, agriculture, environment, consumer protection and energy.
Member States’ exclusive competence, but with the EU having competence to support Member State action
The Lisbon Treaty states that the EU would have competence to carry out actions to support, co-ordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States in various areas including human health, industry, culture, tourism and education.
Changes in competence
The Lisbon Treaty would give the EU joint competence with Member States in a number of new areas. These include energy and aspects of the environment and public health. It does not propose to give the EU any new exclusive competence.The only major feature of a fully developed federation which the EU would then lack would be the power to force its member states to go to war against their will.
And the ability to conduct foreign policy individually, and the ability to secede from the union at a time of our choosing, and the recognition of our sovereignty by the UN and international law.Finally, Lisbon would make us all real citizens for the first time of this post-Lisbon union, rather than our being notional or honorary EU "citizens" as at present. One can only be a citizen of a state and all states must have citizens. As real EU citizens we would owe it the duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority over and above our obedience and loyalty to Ireland and its Constitution and laws.
We would retain our national Irish citizenship, but our new dual citizenship post-Lisbon would not be citizenship of two different states, but of the federal and regional/provincial levels of one state, as is normal in such classical federations as the US, federal Germany, Switzerland and Canada. The Irish Constitution would remain - just as the various states of the federal US still retain their constitutions - but it would be subordinate to the EU constitution.
Unlike the US, Germany, Switzerland, Canada or any other federation you care to mention. Citizenship is decided at national level. I will re-direct you to article 9 of the amended Treaty of the European Union.
And our constitution is not be subordinate to the EU accepting for those areas of competences we have given it in various treaties through referendum. I will point you back to the quote above from the referendum commission. Any expansion competences will require another referendum.One indicator of the constitutional change which Lisbon would bring about is that Members of the European Parliament, who under the present treaties are "representatives of the peoples of the member states brought together in the Community", would become "representatives of the union's citizens" in the post-Lisbon EU.
This is just semantics and is not going have any real effect. A member of the peoples of member states is an EU citizen and vice-versa.Another is that the European Council, the summit meetings of prime ministers and presidents, would become an EU institution for the first time, legally bound to forward the interests of the union, not of the national governments or electorates concerned, so that its acts or its failing to act would be subject to judicial review by the EU Court of Justice.
The interest of the European Union are the interests of EU citizens. So basically it is saying that Ireland is not allowed to act at the European level in any way which would harm the interests of any EU citizen in any member state. This works the other way round too, so Germany, France or Britain can not act at EU level against the interests of Irish citizens. I completely support this and anyone who doesn't is mad or stupid.Couple these constitutional changes with the power-political changes which Lisbon would bring about and it is clear that the Lisbon referendum confronts us with a momentous choice. The most important power-political change is that Lisbon would base lawmaking in the post-Lisbon union primarily on population size. This would double Germany's relative voting strength on the Council of Ministers from its present 8 per cent to 17 per cent. It would increase the voting weight of France, Britain and Italy from their present 8 per cent to 12 per cent each and it would halve Ireland's weight from 2 per cent to 0.8 per cent.
All the no campaign side focus on our weight by population size. In a democracy every citizen is supposed to have equal weight, Irish citizens shouldn't have twice as much power individually as German citizens as is now the case. The no campaign conveniently leaves out the second requirement which requires 55% of member states to agree, in this criteria we have as much weight as Germany a country 20 times our size. So in actuality Irish citizens do individually have slightly more influence than larger countries.As well as being deprived of a voice on the EU Commission, the body which proposes all EU laws, for five years out of every 15, a little noticed feature of Lisbon's provisions is that when it comes to Ireland's turn to have a commissioner, we would lose the right to decide who he or she would be. Henceforth Ireland would be able to make "suggestions" only, for the new commission president to decide.
This goes for all countries, it is designed to streamline EU law making. Have you ever tried to chair a meeting of 27 people, it is near impossible. Every single state is equally represented, and the commissioners are decided by a QMV vote in the council.It is surely a major historical moment by any standard: this attempt to turn four million Irish people and nearly 500 million Europeans into real citizens of a real EU federation, without most of them being aware of it, and without any but us Irish being allowed to have a direct say on it.
I'm unaware of becoming the Citizen of an EU federation, because i'm not, the EU is not a federation. I'm pretty sure anyone with half a bean will realise that their country is ratifying the EU treaty. And the EU has no remit to force member states to hold a referendum, that is up to individual governments. So you can not blame the EU.If Lisbon is ratified it is bound to lead to major democratic reactions across Europe when people discover that their national independence and democracy have been filched from them. That is why the best course is for us to vote No for our own sakes and for Europe's.
I'll be waiting patiently for this to happen, I won't be holding my breath. I'm voting yes for my own sake and for the sake of a better Europe.0 -
Advertisement
-
I am glad you found it. Now all you need to do is read and understand it.
It might help if you read this bit too from the beginning of the TEU, which gives you another clue as to why you are completely and utterly wrong to say the EU has no power to confer citizenship on anyone. :
RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries,
That citizenship is conferred by the very Article you quoted and did not understand.
EU citizenship is a real citizenship and it is a citizenship that is additional to national citizenship. To be eligible a person must also be a citizen of an EU state. If they are, the EU confers citizenship on them, whether they want it or not. It is vague at the moment on what the duties an EU citizen might owe the EU.0 -
I am glad you found it. Now all you need to do is read and understand it.
It might help if you read this bit too from the beginning of the TEU, which gives you another clue as to why you are completely and utterly wrong to say the EU has no power to confer citizenship on anyone. :
RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries,
That citizenship is conferred by the very Article you quoted and did not understand.
EU citizenship is a real citizenship and it is a citizenship that is additional to national citizenship. To be eligible a person must also be a citizen of an EU state. If they are, the EU confers citizenship on them, whether they want it or not. It is vague at the moment on what the duties an EU citizen might owe the EU.
But what you seem to be implying is that the EU can give citizenship to anyone it chooses, it can not! The EU automatically gives citizenship to it's member states citizens, it can not give citizenship to anyone who is not a citizen of a member state. Unlike a federation where the federal government in say Germany or the US can grant citizenship to anyone it pleases. I understand it perfectly, you are the one who is trying to put a spin on it.0 -
And besides, anyone who is a citizen of a member state is already a citizen of the EU. That is not going to change with the Lisbon treaty.0
-
Spare me your efforts to put words in my mouth.
This is what you said
...the EU does not have the right to confer citizenship to anyone.
You were wrong.0 -
Spare me your efforts to put words in my mouth.
This is what you said
...the EU does not have the right to confer citizenship to anyone.
You were wrong.
No please read the definition of "anyone". The EU has a right to confer citizenship to citizens of member states. It does not have the right to confer citizenship to just "anyone". How are you not getting this?0 -
the EU does not have the right to confer citizenship to anyone. It clearly states that a citizen of the EU must first be a citizen of a member state. And if that member state leaves the EU all citizens of that state cease to be EU citizens. This way individual countries still decide who gets citizenship. The Lisbon treaty gives member states for the first time a clear path to secede from the union. In a federal "state" such as the USA, Germany, Russia, Brazil and Australia their "provinces or regions" can not secede from the state and they also have no power to conduct foreign relations.
Lol, I think eurostate-lingo may view 'citizenship' and 'foreign policy' as a shared or decentralised competence.sink wrote:It doesn't "abolish" EC, it absorbs it into the EU. This is to cut down on administration costs and bureaucracy, because it can now directly be administered by the EU rather that being completely separate.
Yeah I guess in the same way that Germany didn't 'abolish' Austria, it just 'absorbed' it :rolleyes:
Once the treaty is passed, 'european community law' becomes 'european union' law, so to say that the European Economic Community which is what Ireland signed up to, is just going to be 'absorbed' as you say for administative reasons is a bit rich.
This is a whole new entity we are signing up to, giving it military power, real citizens, an unelected president and foreign minister, a constitution (without the name) and based on a different set of objectives. All with 99% of its new 'citizens' not being given a vote on this whole new phase of european integration.
Ha, these being the citizens not allowed vote on its legal creation. It makes me sick. This new 'union' has only promised to reflect the interests of the politicians who have supressed the person's right to vote because of a legal technicality.sink wrote:The interest of the European Union are the interests of EU citizens0 -
Ha, these being the citizens not allowed vote on its legal creation. It makes me sick. This new 'union' has only promised to reflect the interests of the politicians who have supressed the person's right to vote because of a legal technicality.Article 3
1. The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.
Believe what you like, but so far I have not seen the EU act in anyway that's not in my interests.0 -
-
Believe what you like, but so far I have not seen the EU act in anyway that's not in my interests.
Well obviously! the 'European Economic Community' as the EU currently stands have promoted a free market economic system which has benefited many people (some left-wing economists may validly disagree here).
Let's see, the EU as a military power... (which is so nice for unelected eurocrats to have a military force behind them when they don't have a democratic backing).
Well, let's go back to the Iraq war. If a EU military force was as developed as this treaty proposes, a EU force would most likely have been there - representing the EU which we in Ireland are members of - promoting 'peace' and the 'values' which turned out to be an absolute lie leading to the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqies.
True, France was opposed but would it have had the backbone to prevent British, Spanish, Italian and other european countries fighting on behalf of this illegal war under the EU flag. It probably would have *cough* abstained *cough* a bit like our government's policy on EU defence aggression.
The development of the EU is turning into a whirlwind where everyone is afraid to shout stop. Every government seems to be afraid of calling for a pause to reflect on where the EU is heading. When Brian Cowen is threatening to excommunicate members of his party over this issue I think someone (probably unelected) is certainly holding a shotgun to his head.0 -
Advertisement
-
I suppose you can look at it that way, but here's another. If Ireland ever becomes united, NI won't be abolished it will just be absorbed into the Republic.
Of course the citizens of NI would be able to vote on whether they would be 'absorbed' - still can't get over the use of this word, lol, it appears so harmless almost cosy and fuzzy!
Don't forget, Austria didn't have a choice and it's citizens for a second time wont have a choice on whether to become real citizens of this new sprawling entity.0
Advertisement