Thank you Ireland..

marco_polo

ktex2 wrote: »

I just posted a link to the entire document. Im not going to bore persons to death with the intricate details of a document which was purposely designed to confuse people. See its easier to pass it by if people don't understand it. I think thats what they were thinking when they made it up. If they made it so confusing then they could get the politicans to explain it to the people and hey presto it would pass. Too bad half the poiliticans didn't understand it themselves.

But thank god the irish people are not that easily fooled. See if they put the real contents of this treaty down in simple plain english it would be rejected time and time again. Hiding things from the public is their game.

Well you are in a politics forum, people tend to be interested by this sort of 'boring' stuff like. Bore me away, I don't mind.

Their vision of a militarised europe is incompatible with the irish neutrality issue.

Which is why we kept our veto on defence matters.

ktex2

marco_polo wrote: »

Well you are in a politics forum, people tend to be interested by this sort of 'boring' stuff like. Bore me away, I don't mind.

Your comments smack of a singular viewpoint. I think that would be pointless to be honest but feel free to read it yourself. Im open to the fact this may be a grand scale experiement for europe to work better in a global environment but outside that it just stinks of totalitarianism. The fact that they are asking brian cowen to go and 'explain' how to progress this situation so they can implement the treaty shows (a)they aren't listening to the people or (b) they don't care what the people think because they are pressing ahead with their plans regardless of the people. See that is fascism to me.

The same politicans in france who said during the referendum that a no vote would mean the end of the treaty are now saying no we don't respect their opinion lets go ahead and do it anyway and hey i know lets keep asking them until they say yes.



If you asked someone whether they thought something was a good idea 3 times and every time they told you no why would you continue to ask them?.

marco_polo

ktex2 wrote: »

Your comments smack of a singular viewpoint. I think that would be pointless to be honest but feel free to read it yourself.

I have but it seems that I forgot to print out the New World Order section.

I repeat, which articles in the treaty are you using in support of you arguments that Lisbon is moving us closer to a single world government?

zig

ktex2 wrote: »

Your comments smack of a singular viewpoint. I think that would be pointless to be honest but feel free to read it yourself.

I dont think you get it... marcopolo is asking you to point out your theories by using references to particular parts of the treaty, anyone can post a link to the treaty

ktex2

Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister
“The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable...The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.” - in Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007.


The Economist of 9 August 2007 quoted some revealing remarks by the former Belgian prime minister, and former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution, Jean-Luc Dehaene. The Economist said that in an interview in Le Soir, he said it was “dangerous talk” to want “too much transparency and clarity” in the EU. On 17 October 2007 European Voice quoted him as saying, “The paper [the Reform Treaty] is incomprehensible. Good! We need incomprehensible papers if we are to make progress . . . We have to be realistic.”


This policy of non-engagement with the European people was taken even further by Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and the other former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution. His remarks on the writing of the Reform Treaty show contempt for eurocitizens. He said, at a meeting of the Centre for European Reform on 12 July 2007 that EU leaders “decided that the document should be unreadable. . . In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand!”
"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it." - 21 February 2007.


On 26 October 2007, Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution said, “The Lisbon Treaty itself cannot be understood by ordinary citizens since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. . . The institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties. - What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”

Wasn't it eamonn dunphy who said he wouldn't vote on something he couldn't understand. The question he should have been asking is why did they make the document so complex and unreadable for the lay person..

marco_polo

ktex2 wrote: »

Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister
“The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable...The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.” - in Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007.


The Economist of 9 August 2007 quoted some revealing remarks by the former Belgian prime minister, and former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution, Jean-Luc Dehaene. The Economist said that in an interview in Le Soir, he said it was “dangerous talk” to want “too much transparency and clarity” in the EU. On 17 October 2007 European Voice quoted him as saying, “The paper [the Reform Treaty] is incomprehensible. Good! We need incomprehensible papers if we are to make progress . . . We have to be realistic.”


This policy of non-engagement with the European people was taken even further by Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and the other former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution. His remarks on the writing of the Reform Treaty show contempt for eurocitizens. He said, at a meeting of the Centre for European Reform on 12 July 2007 that EU leaders “decided that the document should be unreadable. . . In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand!”
"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it." - 21 February 2007.


On 26 October 2007, Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution said, “The Lisbon Treaty itself cannot be understood by ordinary citizens since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. . . The institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties. - What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”

Wasn't it eamonn dunphy who said he wouldn't vote on something he couldn't understand. The question he should have been asking is why did they make the document so complex and unreadable for the lay person..

Granted they are ill judged comments alright, I have no doubt that some countries had a vested interest in getting the treaty passed as easily as possible. But the treaty was negotiated by 27 democratically elected leader of EU states including our own Three of four stupid comments does not a worldwide conspiracy make.

Cow Moolester

I'm still not seeing the references to particular text which back up your New world order babble which Marco Polo has asked for twice now. Instead you choose to dodge the request just like you will most likely do to my post.

tolosenc

@Mr. Nice Guy

My Portugueese isn't great, but I'm pretty sure he didn't mention that he was disappointed that we couldn't all have abortions.

IMHO, he showed honest concern that a good thing had been derailed by a misled Irish public, who had been force fed a pack of lies, for some as yet unknown reason...

limklad

ktex2 wrote: »

The road to hell is paved with gold you know. I have no doubt they will water it down somewhat throw out a rehased version to meet the irish concerns and ask the irish to vote on it again.

They probally will not watered it down, or at best make the font smaller :eek:so it looks like they took things out of it.:(

free-man

I find it incorrigible that people can talk of how the Treaty is moving us towards a more democratic era when I see polls like the below:

If the treaty was a good thing, why was it rejected by Holland and France and why was it re-worded and re-titled so that these Nations could not hold a referendum on it?

Also why is it that the EU elite were afraid to put it to public vote in their member states, the evidence shows that the public wanted to vote.. why were they not allowed?

Check the financial times poll that states:

Quote:
A substantial majority of voters in five large European Union countries want a referendum on the bloc's new reform treaty.

and:
Quote:
According to the poll, 76 percent of Germans, 75 percent of Britons, 72 percent of Italians, 65 percent of Spaniards and 63 percent of French wanted a referendum ...

Please explain now how the EU is in step with it's public? And why is it that despite overwhelming public demand this has not been put to vote?*


*in countries where it is constitutional to do so

zig

free-man wrote: »

I find it incorrigible that people can talk of how the Treaty is moving us towards a more democratic era when I see polls like the below:

If the treaty was a good thing, why was it rejected by Holland and France and why was it re-worded and re-titled so that these Nations could not hold a referendum on it?

Also why is it that the EU elite were afraid to put it to public vote in their member states, the evidence shows that the public wanted to vote.. why were they not allowed?

Check the financial times poll that states:

Quote:
A substantial majority of voters in five large European Union countries want a referendum on the bloc's new reform treaty.

and:
Quote:
According to the poll, 76 percent of Germans, 75 percent of Britons, 72 percent of Italians, 65 percent of Spaniards and 63 percent of French wanted a referendum ...

Please explain now how the EU is in step with it's public? And why is it that despite overwhelming public demand this has not been put to vote?*


*in countries where it is constitutional to do so

maybe because despite the fact that they might think the treaty is best for their people they genuinely still believe the people will vote no for various reasons like giving two fingers to their own government. not saying they are right to act like this, im just giving a probable reason.

turgon

zig wrote: »

maybe because despite the fact that they might think the treaty is best for their people they genuinely still believe the people will vote no for various reasons like giving two fingers to their own government. not saying they are right to act like this, im just giving a probable reason.

The Yes side politicians know best I suppose. :rolleyes:

zig

maybe not but I would say they think they know best

turgon

marco_polo wrote: »

Which is why we kept our veto on defence matters.

A militarized EU can hardly be a fully neutral one. And because Ireland is apart of that, well...

turgon

zig wrote: »

maybe not but I would say they think know best

Yes well at least they dont have the full means to do what they want. Dev saves the day!

free-man

zig wrote: »

maybe because despite the fact that they might think the treaty is best for their people they genuinely still believe the people will vote no for various reasons like giving two fingers to their own government. not saying they are right to act like this, im just giving a probable reason.

I'm sorry?

Are you saying that the reason why the citizens weren't allowed vote is because they can't be trusted to vote yes?

Sounds like a dictatorship to me?

zig

free-man wrote: »

I'm sorry?

Are you saying that the reason why the citizens weren't allowed vote is because they can't be trusted to vote yes?

Sounds like a dictatorship to me?

Its one of the main reasons I was considering a no vote. But I decided I would use my own judgement of the treaty to decide whether to vote yes or no.

free-man

zig wrote: »

Its one of the main reasons I was considering a no vote. But I decided I would use my own judgement of the treaty to decide whether to vote yes or no.

Your vote which you are entitled to..

Im glad you used your own judgement and of the treaty and democracy prevailed.

zig

free-man wrote: »

Your vote which you are entitled to..

Im glad you used your own judgement and of the treaty and democracy prevailed.

So am I beleive it or not. I fully respect the result and am proud to be a citizen of the only country that actually got to vote. But despite the way the politicians behaved in these countries it doesnt change my view of the treaty itself.

Admittedly I cant think of any excuses for that behaviour only that they probably worked very very hard on negotiating the document to suit every country, and realised it will get a yes vote eventually(with alot of explaining, promotion, campaigning).

However Maybe after all that it will still get a no vote,And if so Why? Because the treaty is also a compromise for everyone to work together, if it took that long to get the politicians to agree on it. How long do you think it would take to get the people to agree on each compromise and each small little thing they might not have been too keen on. Throw that in with no campaigns that have no agenda with EU,just with their own government and this would go on forever.
As I said its not an excuse, just a reason I justified to myself.