EU plays hardball. complaints lodged

nhughes100

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, you're in agreement with a comment by an MEP. There are seven hundred and fifty of them. It's like claiming that what a single TD says represents government policy.

wearily,
Scofflaw

Incorrect, read the link, The leader of the socialist group of MEP's called for this, so if Eamon Gilmore, a single TD who happens to be the leader of our socialist party made a statement - one could reasonably assume that to be Labour party policy?? So lets see what happens if this is put to a vote

karen3212

Jip wrote: »

Heard a clip of todays debate just now, it is fairly heated but there's some good rhetoric coming from the UK and many Euro-sceptic European MEPs saying Ireland shouldn't be bullied and they're also wearing "I support Ireland" jumpers or something like that.

Oh dear God, that's UKIP, UK independence party, they want out of the EU completely, I don't think they even want to go back to Britannia rules the world days - as some aristocratic decendents who are now UK MPs would like. At least the latter are desperate for the power of the old days and old ways, I can't make head nor tail of UKIP.

Scofflaw

nhughes100 wrote: »

Incorrect, read the link, The leader of the socialist group of MEP's called for this, so if Eamon Gilmore, a single TD who happens to be the leader of our socialist party made a statement - one could reasonably assume that to be Labour party policy?? So lets see what happens if this is put to a vote

One can reasonably choose to make that assumption, certainly, although EP parties are not the tight groupings we have here, but loose associations. I accept your point - and withdraw the comment about the "single MEP".

Nevertheless, my original comment, that this in no reasonable way can be construed as the position of the EU, stands. If the EP voted to censure McCreevy, that would be pretty meaningful, although it would still not represent the position of the Commission or the Council.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Seanies32 wrote: »

It seems the so called bullying by France isn't working.

Finland and Austria have said Ireland will not be bullied.

The No side lend far too much significance to France. They did it with CCTB and proposals to increase military spending as well. As Martin said, let them.

This is typical of France coming up with some mad idea and the smaller states saying No because they have the power. Doesn't suit some to see that though!

In fairness, some on the Yes side also used the early bullying and veiled threats in an attempt to support their case. "Look at what the No side have got us into" type of thing. It can be spun both ways by both sides.

Hitman Actual

brianthebard wrote: »

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbgbeygboj/

You couldn't have done that yourself lenny?

I think you'll agree that it's better that the person making a post should back up said post with a reliable link where necessary.

But I acknowledge that the issue is more serious than I thought. It's still not the whole EU leadership though.

And tbh, it was an extremely stupid comment by McCreevy in the first place. It's hardly surprising that there is some fall-out over it.

nhughes100

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nevertheless, my original comment, that this in no reasonable way can be construed as the position of the EU, stands. If the EP voted to censure McCreevy, that would be pretty meaningful, although it would still not represent the position of the Commission or the Council.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm not sure how this one will progress and I'm not even sure what the EU/commission/council censure processes are. It would be unlike Champagne Charlie to go down quietly in any case.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Look I haven't read this whole thread as I don't have time so please accept my apologies in advance if someone else has raised this.

MEP's are directly elected, the EP is the most democratic of the EU institutions.

One of the major complaints of the 'No' camp was the democratic deficit, well any noises from the EP are telling you what democratic Europe thinks.

molloyjh

clown bag wrote: »

fairly hardline stuff.

looks like the Irish government is being held to account because of their "failure to explain to the Irish people the benefits of the Lisbon treaty".

Regarding mc creavy it was asked "just what kind of people do we allow in this commission".

Looks like those who voted to stick 2 fingers up at the government have got their wish. The Irish government is on the end of a battering according to that snippet.

Re-negotiation also seems to be ruled out, by the sounds of it the "Governments failure" to produce a yes vote has turned european leaders against them. Sounded like the bold child being sent to bed without dinner.

Well to be fair, they did do a terrible job of promoting the Treaty. If only the Irish people were as tough with them!

Jip

karen3212 wrote: »

Oh dear God, that's UKIP, UK independence party, they want out of the EU completely,

Yeah, I now realise that after seeing the News @ 1, didn't know the details of who it was when I posted, they got a slating from the Irish MEPs because of it and their abuse of the Irish flag on Friday, using it as a beer mat as I noticed myself, and the fact that if Britain had respect for the Irish wishes decades ago they would have saved alot of trouble in the world

nesf

karen3212 wrote: »

Oh dear God, that's UKIP, UK independence party, they want out of the EU completely, I don't think they even want to go back to Britannia rules the world days - as some aristocratic decendents who are now UK MPs would like. At least the latter are desperate for the power of the old days and old ways, I can't make head nor tail of UKIP.

Yeah, watching them celebrating the Irish vote, while using the Irish flag as a tablecloth was, *interesting*.

nhughes100

I'm quite sure the UKIP/BNP etc consider us to still be part of the empire so I wouldn't put too much faith in their support for us.

limklad

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Look I haven't read this whole thread as I don't have time so please accept my apologies in advance if someone else has raised this.

MEP's are directly elected, the EP is the most democratic of the EU institutions.

One of the major complaints of the 'No' camp was the democratic deficit, well any noises from the EP are telling you what democratic Europe thinks.

Yes the EP is the most democratic institution of the EU.
You are forgetting something else.

They is unanimous agreement by all EU countries for any EU treaty for it to come into effect it must be unanimous. This is the principle in which each and every country within EU sign up for and was the basic for peace and cooperation and move forward with common goals in trade etc. The EU was born in the first place so a bigger country cannot bully smaller ones into unworkable situtions. They knew this would be an issue and accepted the consequences of that when they signed. They also sign up for respect for each member democratic rights and ratification process.

Denmark was in this very same situation with the Maastricht Treaty when the EU was born. They still have many opts outs, just as the UK. So this situation is not New or disastrous either.

Ponster

limklad wrote: »

Denmark was in this very same situation with the Maastricht Treaty when the EU was born. They still have many opts outs, just as the UK. So this situation is not New or disastrous either.

Funny you should mention that. Here's a article from the then foreign minister of Denmark, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, where he says "We in Denmark have been marred by those opt-outs ever since."

Ireland must agree to go.

limklad

Ponster wrote: »

Funny you should mention that. Here's a article from the then foreign minister of Denmark, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, where he says "We in Denmark have been marred by those opt-outs ever since."

Ireland must agree to go.

And the politicians never seam to learn from the past, that they need to communicate with their people and get the treaty right in the first place instead of the way they handled themselves getting the “Lisbon Treaty”.

PHB

It seems to me like the EU are trying to bully the Irish government, not necessarily the Irish people.

No matter what side of the campaign you are on, there's nobody who doens't think that the government went about the entire campaign the wrong way and royally ****ed up [whether that influenced the result of the referendum is another question]

Some countries in the EU will see the Irish government as a joke. The only real political reason not to put it to referendum again is either that it won't pass or that it'll hurt the government electorally.

People have an ashtonishing talent for blame. If the mood turns that the referendum was a mistake, i.e. in the people who voted no, I can see the blame being put on the government for not running a proper campaign. FF don't want this to happen obviously.

FF are trying to negotiate domestic pressures but at the same time have huge international pressures. They are probably trying to ensure the domestic pressures are best dealt with, and in all honestly, who doens't think that if FF was given the chance of leaving the EU or getting elected again they'd pick getting elected again.

Personally, even though I was in favour of the treaty, I'm quite enjoying FF get screwed in the ass which is what is happening right now.

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

And the politicians never seam to learn from the past, that they need to communicate with their people and get the treaty right in the first place instead of the way they handled themselves getting the “Lisbon Treaty”.

The cheek of 27 national governments to negotiate an international agreement. Why they didn't just book a conference room for all 500m of us first time around I'll never know.

Also it is not like the Treaty has been kept a secret all this time, all the main points covered in the treaty have been know about and openly available in the public domain for six-seven years now. There was plenty of time for the citizens of the EU to read up on and object to any aspects they disagreed with if they had been arsed.

Scofflaw

nhughes100 wrote: »

I'm not sure how this one will progress and I'm not even sure what the EU/commission/council censure processes are. It would be unlike Champagne Charlie to go down quietly in any case.

They'd need a vote of no confidence in the Commission, like the one that brought down the Santer Commission. Extraordinarily unlikely.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

PHB wrote: »

It seems to me like the EU are trying to bully the Irish government, not necessarily the Irish people.

No matter what side of the campaign you are on, there's nobody who doens't think that the government went about the entire campaign the wrong way and royally ****ed up [whether that influenced the result of the referendum is another question]

Some countries in the EU will see the Irish government as a joke. The only real political reason not to put it to referendum again is either that it won't pass or that it'll hurt the government electorally.

People have an ashtonishing talent for blame. If the mood turns that the referendum was a mistake, i.e. in the people who voted no, I can see the blame being put on the government for not running a proper campaign. FF don't want this to happen obviously.

FF are trying to negotiate domestic pressures but at the same time have huge international pressures. They are probably trying to ensure the domestic pressures are best dealt with, and in all honestly, who doens't think that if FF was given the chance of leaving the EU or getting elected again they'd pick getting elected again.

Personally, even though I was in favour of the treaty, I'm quite enjoying FF get screwed in the ass which is what is happening right now.

Ah, schadenfreude!

similarly,
Scofflaw

limklad

marco_polo wrote: »

The cheek of 27 national governments to negotiate an international agreement. Why they didn't just book a conference room for all 500m of us first time around I'll never know.

Also it is not like the Treaty has been kept a secret all this time, all the main points covered in the treaty have been know about and openly available in the public domain for six-seven years now. There was plenty of time for the citizens of the EU to read up on and object to any aspects they disagreed with if they had been arsed.

7 Years!! that the government had to educate us on it and they failed miserably, but there is also no point of reading a complex document when they are still in negotiation and horse trading, passing brown envelopes etc, on it until they finally agree.

But first they should have held meeting at both local and national level on the future of Ireland in the EU. They are well able to call party local and national meeting, so they are very competence on setting up meetings. It was just a combination of arrogance and ignorance on the government part believing that the people will do what they say.

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

7 Years!! that the government had to educate us on it and they failed miserably, but there is also no point of reading a complex document when they are still in negotiation and horse trading, passing brown envelopes etc, on it until they finally agree.

But first they should have held meeting at both local and national level on the future of Ireland in the EU. They are well able to call party local and national meeting, so they are very competence on setting up meetings. It was just a combination of arrogance and ignorance on the government part believing that the people will do what they say.

Well I am a firm believer that people have an obligation to educate themselves as well. Certainly if the kind of direct engagement that you propose is to work that must be a prequisite. Clearly alot of voters people believed there was no point in even reading a decent summary of said complex document.

If you don't trust the government telling you which way to vote (Not advocating that anyone should actually do this in a healthy democracy) then why on earth would you trust any interpretation of the treaty by given to you by them. Seems a bit of a contradiction to me. Let the citizens decide, but only if spoonfed by the government first.

I see what you have done with the brown envelope statement. Very clever. :rolleyes:

PHB

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah, schadenfreude!

similarly,
Scofflaw

Sometimes, that's all there is.

Ponster

Is there a thread for news reports? I guess this one will do :

If someone wants to practise their French then here's an article from Le Figaro from this evening (June 18).

Basically Sarkozy said this evening that Europe should push on with the ratifying process (much like after the French 'non' in 2005) and should the 26 other countries all accept the treaty that the Irish should be asked to vote again with whatever guarantees that the Irish people request but the treaty can not at this stage be negotiated.


Quick question, in Lisbon I remember the UK and Poland demanding and getting certain "opt-outs" which would make the treaty more acceptable to their public. Did Ireland do this? Was it not possible to see the potential "no" vote arguments and have them sorted in Lisbon before the vote ever begun ?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ponster wrote: »

Is there a thread for news reports? I guess this one will do :

If someone wants to practise their French then here's an article from Le Figaro from this evening (June 18).

Basically Sarkozy said this evening that Europe should push on with the ratifying process (much like after the French 'non' in 2005) and should the 26 other countries all accept the treaty that the Irish should be asked to vote again with whatever guarantees that the Irish people request but the treaty can not at this stage be negotiated.


Quick question, in Lisbon I remember the UK and Poland demanding and getting certain "opt-outs" which would make the treaty more acceptable to their public. Did Ireland do this? Was it not possible to see the potential "no" vote arguments and have them sorted in Lisbon before the vote ever begun ?

The problem with this is that a lot of the 'no' vote arguments aren't actually in the treaty for us to opt out of.

ionix5891

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The problem with this is that a lot of the 'no' vote arguments aren't actually in the treaty for us to opt out of.

are you implying we the people were lied to

Hitman Actual

Ponster wrote: »

Quick question, in Lisbon I remember the UK and Poland demanding and getting certain "opt-outs" which would make the treaty more acceptable to their public. Did Ireland do this? Was it not possible to see the potential "no" vote arguments and have them sorted in Lisbon before the vote ever begun?

I think we have opt-outs in this, although I'm not sure of the benefits that would be seen to suit the Irish public. [Scofflaw, sink???]

Of course the whole common defense/neutrality issue was supposed to have been negotiated in our favour, as was corporation tax, protection of abortion laws, etc.

nesf

Ponster wrote: »

Quick question, in Lisbon I remember the UK and Poland demanding and getting certain "opt-outs" which would make the treaty more acceptable to their public. Did Ireland do this?

Essentially yes but it wasn't communicated very clearly or very well to the general public early enough to help shape the debate rather than to sound like a rebuttal.

molloyjh

PHB wrote: »

It seems to me like the EU are trying to bully the Irish government, not necessarily the Irish people.

No matter what side of the campaign you are on, there's nobody who doens't think that the government went about the entire campaign the wrong way and royally ****ed up [whether that influenced the result of the referendum is another question]

Some countries in the EU will see the Irish government as a joke. The only real political reason not to put it to referendum again is either that it won't pass or that it'll hurt the government electorally.

People have an ashtonishing talent for blame. If the mood turns that the referendum was a mistake, i.e. in the people who voted no, I can see the blame being put on the government for not running a proper campaign. FF don't want this to happen obviously.

FF are trying to negotiate domestic pressures but at the same time have huge international pressures. They are probably trying to ensure the domestic pressures are best dealt with, and in all honestly, who doens't think that if FF was given the chance of leaving the EU or getting elected again they'd pick getting elected again.

Personally, even though I was in favour of the treaty, I'm quite enjoying FF get screwed in the ass which is what is happening right now.

An EU Commission survey found that 40% of No voters voted that way becase they didn't uderstand the Treaty, and a further 18% or so voted to protect something that we weren't even losing. On top of that another 20% voted no to protect our soverignty, whatever that means exactly. So thats about 58% of No voters that did so out of ignorance of the Treaty, and some of that other 20% I would imagine had a somewhat distorted view of the Treaty.

If 10% of the No voters had in fact voted Yes the Treaty would have been accepted, and I honestly believe the Yes camp could easily have gotten that 10% from the 60% odd of No voters as above. That leads me to the conclusion that the blame can be placed squarely at the feet of the Yes campaign. FF, FG, Labour, the Greens etc should all carry the blame for this result.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56289673#post56289673

murphaph

molloyjh wrote: »

An EU Commission survey...

Just out of interest, did they survey the yes voters to see if their vote was equally shrouded in ignorance ?(like most of my pals who voted YES, because the government told them to)

limklad

marco_polo wrote: »

If you don't trust the government telling you which way to vote (Not advocating that anyone should actually do this in a healthy democracy) then why on earth would you trust any interpretation of the treaty by given to you by them. Seems a bit of a contradiction to me. Let the citizens decide, but only if spoonfed by the government first.

Trust in government! Well that is their fault for lying to us in the past, but for new measures, I will always listen to their proposal.

After all Hitler did some good too as much I hate to say it, he set the basic measures that is Germany today, Things that people overlook today because of all the bad things he did. Good things he did or improve on: The Autobans industrial zone, scientific research (not all good, but some in other non-bad areas) etc,. The Autobans were used by the Allies to take over Germany quicker, while they struggled going through narrow roads in France and Italy, where it was easier for the Germans to hold the allies down which brought the German time.
Germany rebuilt many of Hitler projects for the economy and it is why we are in the situation today with mostly German money via EU. I will admit it was not Hitler who came up with the ideas but he approves of them and push for their implementation. In case anyone think falsely that I am a Hitler fan, I AM NOT as I am extremely Pro-democracy, not dictatorship. I am just proving a point that even bad people have good ideas and should not be readily dismiss because of their other extreme views.

marco_polo wrote: »

I see what you have done with the brown envelope statement. Very clever. :rolleyes:

Just having fun with Bertie Ahern and co. While I do not trust Bertie Financial situation and statements, serving in the Dail is a public service for the people who elected him and he did chooses under his own free will to go for. It is not meant to be to get rich quick scheme as so many TD's and other corrupt politicians seem to think.

I will never take from his ability to negotiate a deal for everyone to agree on and move forward. He has been brilliant at that. He clearly have a very good listening skill and able to communicate and build trust in other areas besides money. His ability to reach agreement help him to get things done, he even takes good suggestions from the opposition and amending bills to add them. That why Fianna Fail did well in elections and the people see that, and why he kept thing stable and why the opposition parties remain in opposition (with the exceptions of the greens). But money seems to be his downfall, a weakness many of us have. As some else quoted, "Money is the root of all evil and downfall"

molloyjh

murphaph wrote: »

Just out of interest, did they survey the yes voters to see if their vote was equally shrouded in ignorance ?(like most of my pals who voted YES, because the government told them to)

From the report I read, and you can read via the link, the survey covered everyone. The report itself was on the No side because it is the most relavent given that the result was a No. I don't doubt there was a level of ignorance on both sides. However it wouldn't take anyone long to realise that it was more prevalent on the No side assuming that the boards threads are anything to go by. One thread here asked of No voters where they want to go from here. I read 16 pages of that thread and came across 3 people who voted No for reasons related to the Treaty itself that were in any way accurate. There were far more who voted No based on lies or mis-representations or for reasons wholly unrelated to the Treaty. Thats shocking stuff.

No offense to your mates, but if they did indeed vote Yes purely because some politician told them to then they are as much lemmings as the people who voted No due to Libertas BS. In previous posts my stance has always been (and I'd say those posts are well buried now) that each and every voter has the right to cast their vote as they choose, but also the responsibility to inform themselves of the issue and make that vote an educated one. Whichever way they vote after that is up to them, and I will have as much respect for someone who voted differently to me as I will someone who voted the same as long as they at least try and live up to that responsibility.