Lisbon: One Week On, Anyone got Buyers Remorse?

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

As if the Yes campaigners were any better.

We weren't talking about the Yes campaigners.* We were talking about the liars in Libertas. Do you dispute that a lot of what they said was lies and scaremongering?



*FWIW - the yes campaigners were a bunch of incompetent fools.

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

We weren't talking about the Yes campaigners.* We were talking about the liars in Libertas. Do you dispute that a lot of what they said was lies and scaremongering?



*FWIW - the yes campaigners were a bunch of incompetent fools.

Canvassing is all about lying and propaganda with all elections. The best at it wins the poll in the end. I must say the NO campaigners were excellent at their job. You only have to search through Utube to see the amount of them, and very convincing. I must say the Yes campaign was nothing more than pathetic.

Sam Vimes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Canvassing is all about lying and propaganda, the best at it wins the poll in the end. I must say the NO campaigners were excellent at their job. You only have to search through Utube to see the amount of them. I must say the Yes campaign was nothing more than pathetic.

i think you're mistaking ireland for zimbabwe there mate. it's generally frowned on in civilised society when groups tell people lies to make them vote a certain way

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

libertas did a great job in informing the Irish people about the truth of the Lisbon referendum. Some of their campaign posters are still up on lamp posts and can stay up until the next referendum

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Canvassing is all about lying and propaganda with all elections. The best at it wins the poll in the end. I must say the NO campaigners were excellent at their job. You only have to search through Utube to see the amount of them, and very convincing. I must say the Yes campaign was nothing more than pathetic.

:rolleyes: Brilliant

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

:rolleyes: Brilliant

The European referendum or Nice Treaty, oops I meant Lisbon Treaty is another big decieving lie.

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The European referendum or Nice Treaty, oops I meant Lisbon Treaty is another big decieving lie.

Keep digging.

Giblet

Oh no, the New World Order, RFID tagging in our EFlow tags which will track everything we do, whatever next?

I'd recommend a psych evaluation before voting on anything else, or do they brainwash you?

SimpleSam06

Sam Vimes wrote: »

what it says to me is that the treaty is a very complex document that's meant to be read by lawyers and not the average citizen and they didn't want a situation like in ireland where people voted it down because they didn't understand it and people were filling their head with lies

No, I don't buy that. It took five years to put together the constitution, which was summarily rejected by major European nations. The EU's solution? Mash it up into an illegible mess of documents and just put it through the politicians. Much easier than having to admit that most of Europe doesn't want a superstate, complete with well funded super beaurocracy.

If you read that economist article I posted, the list of powers being given to the EU is fairly alarming, and you can bet whatever you hold dear that thats not the end of the road. A president of Europe?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Having our governments vote on things for us is representative democracy and it's not a bad thing.

It is if you're starting to get the sneaking suspicion that your government, consisting of various politicians, is starting to look after the interests of the politicians before the people. Of course, they would never do that, pillars of the community that they are.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

why would they vote on something that was bad for their countries?

Why would they care as long as they are looked after personally? The EU represents an upward career route for politicians who otherwise would have to stop wherever they were.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

if it's so bad for us i don't see why it's good for the other 26 countries

If its so good for them, let them vote on it. Oh yes, thats right, they are too stupid to vote on it, unlike the politicians, and what a scintillating rainbow of IQs they represent to be sure.

Run_to_da_hills

The Hitcher wrote: »

Oh no, the New World Order, RFID tagging in our EFlow tags which will track everything we do, whatever next?

Nothing in the European constitution about RFID or the New World Order but there is mention of combating illegal immigration and terrorism. :eek:

Real Act HR418 Personal ID card put foreward to May 5th 2011 designed to combat illegal immigration and terrorism throughout the United States. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FwWpelV6Ic&feature=related

"What a great Idea, lets just copy this card and improve on it". :eek:

marco_polo

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

No, I don't buy that. It took five years to put together the constitution, which was summarily rejected by major European nations. The EU's solution? Mash it up into an illegible mess of documents and just put it through the politicians. Much easier than having to admit that most of Europe doesn't want a superstate, complete with well funded super beaurocracy.

If you read that economist article I posted, the list of powers being given to the EU is fairly alarming, and you can bet whatever you hold dear that thats not the end of the road. A president of Europe?


It is if you're starting to get the sneaking suspicion that your government, consisting of various politicians, is starting to look after the interests of the politicians before the people. Of course, they would never do that, pillars of the community that they are.


Why would they care as long as they are looked after personally? The EU represents an upward career route for politicians who otherwise would have to stop wherever they were.


If its so good for them, let them vote on it. Oh yes, thats right, they are too stupid to vote on it, unlike the politicians, and what a scintillating rainbow of IQs they represent to be sure.

Of those new powers the justice and immigrations parts do not apply to us at all unless we choose to enact certain provisions, the president is a purely non-executive role with no powers over EU policy or legislation, and is moving more power from the Commission to the European Parliament, the most democratic institution in the EU, somehow a bad thing?

Disturbing stuff alright.

SimpleSam06

marco_polo wrote: »

Disturbing stuff alright.

Disturbing enough to have it voted down by European nations first time round, then not allowed to vote the second time.

Its not so much the scenery whizzing past your window, its the view out the windscreen thats alarming.

portomar

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Interesting comment from someone who almost got himself banned for his first few remarks in the thread. What exactly are you trying to say, I'm honestly having difficulty pinning down your point.

Dont recall this simple?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

What exactly are you trying to say, I'm honestly having difficulty pinning down your point

if you read the articles, you can see that iceland was on the brink of financial calamity in the last couple of years because hedge funds were attacking their currency. WE. CANT. GO. IT. ALONE. ANYMORE. thats my point. the uk, with 60 odd million people, and a huge economy to go with it, can have its own currency, set its own interest rates. we cant. we either throw our lot in with the eu, ecb at al, or we accept that we refloat the punt, and let our interest rates be set in london, where we have no seat, or in frankfurt, where we do. we also risk having our currency attacked and undermined by hedge funds. the iseq lost 30% of its value last year, how much would the punt have lost!? would microsoft want to stay here if those risks were present? if the punt moved the way the icelandic krone does against the pound or the dollar, how would it keep its costs v sales in order? would it not prefer to just use a currency that 12 countries (and growing) use? that is now the second largest reserve currency on the planet, and the largest by transaction. it would be an act of insanity to pull out of th eu. we would lose multinationals at the rate of knotts, and im not sure that your average software engineer working in sandyford would take to fishing off our abundant west coast waters so quick.

that quote was brilliant by the way, how libertas told the truth/best lies! great.

portomar

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Disturbing enough to have it voted down by European nations first time round, then not allowed to vote the second time.

"not allowed to vote" is a red herring. their constitutions either oblige them to or doesnt, simple as that. sarkozy got elected saying hed put lisbon through with no referendum.

The_Hustler

The No side said nothing would change. They lied. The Yes side's threats have come true, they told the truth.

SimpleSam06

portomar wrote: »

Dont recall this simple?

Should I link the post for you?

portomar wrote: »

WE. CANT. GO. IT. ALONE. ANYMORE.

Great, well if thats your point, I don't see anyone realistically arguing against it. I see the advantages in the single currency, and tbh they do outweigh the disadvantages to an extent.

Even if we could drop our interest rates to help debtors it would only drag out the pain of the property bubble bursting for 15+ years (like Japan), or if we cranked them up to combat inflation we'd be back in the 80s again, with high inflation and high interest rates, with the added twist that all the public debt has been transferred to the private sector. Also, as you pointed out, it does provide a buffer against runs on the currency, but I'd call that a fairly minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

I also see the clear advantages of staying in the free trade area, in fact it would be economic suicide to leave that.

However what I don't see are the advantages of surrendering large areas of legislative power to a beaurocratic layer in the EU, I don't see the advantages of financing that layer, I don't see that we need to be anything more than part of a trading block that cooperates in other areas without one size fits all regulations being handed down. I just don't think we need a united states of Europe. And finally, I once again wouldn't see any harm in returning our one natural resource to us, the fishing grounds. The EU has extracted enough value from them.

portomar wrote: »

"not allowed to vote" is a red herring. their constitutions either oblige them to or doesnt, simple as that.

So it doesn't strike you as odd that the Lisbon treaty is very much the same as the EU constitution, except reworded to remove the neccessity for a popular vote to carry it through? Almost as if the EU acknowledges that most people (rightly) don't want a superstate, but is hell bound for leather to see it through anyway?

ART6

Definition of "bureaucracy" according to my thesaurus:

Bossy
Officious
Self-important
Overbearing
Interfering
Intrusive
Fussy

Just about sums the EU up for me if the words "anti democratic" are added.:rolleyes:

portomar

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Should I link the post for you?

yes please

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Great, well if thats your point, I don't see anyone realistically arguing against it. I see the advantages in the single currency, and tbh they do outweigh the disadvantages to an extent.

Even if we could drop our interest rates to help debtors it would only drag out the pain of the property bubble bursting for 15+ years (like Japan), or if we cranked them up to combat inflation we'd be back in the 80s again, with high inflation and high interest rates, with the added twist that all the public debt has been transferred to the private sector. Also, as you pointed out, it does provide a buffer against runs on the currency, but I'd call that a fairly minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

I also see the clear advantages of staying in the free trade area, in fact it would be economic suicide to leave that.
However what I don't see are the advantages of surrendering large areas of legislative power to a beaurocratic layer in the EU, I don't see the advantages of financing that layer, I don't see that we need to be anything more than part of a trading block that cooperates in other areas without one size fits all regulations being handed down. I just don't think we need a united states of Europe. And finally, I once again wouldn't see any harm in returning our one natural resource to us, the fishing grounds. The EU has extracted enough value from them.

well, thats the point isnt it? the eu is rapidly evolving past a free trade area. in fact, it has been since the late seventies. a free trade bloc would see no point in funding the roads, rail, even hotels! (the burlington among others) of one of its regions, yet it suited us just fine to take those. beaurocracy for some reason, is an increasingly dirty word. i do not understand that. obviously, too much beauracracy is a bad thing in any institution. health service is a classic example. it has too much "beuaracracy", fair enough, it also has too many canteen ladies and janitors on index linked pensions, when it could be done cheaper and more efficiently by the private sector. without beauracracy, there is chaos, and just beacause some of the eu budget (a fraction of it) goes to sustaining that, should not be viewed if a bad thing(which i dont think it is) it should at worst be viewed as a neccessary evil. with lisbon, we get more power over that beauracracy anyway because we can elect and not elect the ones who will have increasingly have the power, i.e. the parliament.

so if you like the single currency, and agree that we need the trading bloc, whats the alternative? somewhere between iceland and montenegro? turn half the people working in finance etc. into fishermen, refloat the punt, then cash it all in for reserves of euro? similar to montenegro, who have gone down a route similar to central/south american countries, who GLADLY give up their small, volatile and vulnerable currencies for US dollars? and give up our seat on the ECB when we could have kept it, having no input once again into our own financial policy, as we have for the vast majority of our history?

what needs to be grasped, we need to understand this, is that THERE IS NO OTHER EU THAN THIS TREATY. there may be a different path for ireland, but thats a separate issue. mark my words, there will be no major changes to the lisbon treaty to placate irish voters, we will be given a stark choice, eu lisbon, or external association. people of your views (which i understand and respect, if not agree with) have a stark choice to make, eu warts and all or no eu membership.

portomar

ART6 wrote: »

Definition of "bureaucracy" according to my thesaurus:

think you need to look up "thesaurus" in the dictionary mate

marco_polo

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So it doesn't strike you as odd that the Lisbon treaty is very much the same as the EU constitution, except reworded to remove the neccessity for a popular vote to carry it through? Almost as if the EU acknowledges that most people (rightly) don't want a superstate, but is hell bound for leather to see it through anyway?

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the French, who rejected the orignal treaty, would elected as leader a man who stated quite clearly that he would ratify the treaty through parliament if elected, if they considered it to be the same document and if none of their concerns had been addresses.

It also seems the High Court in the UK agrees with the French voters interpretation as well.

UK High Court wrote:

The claimant's first difficulty, as it seems to us, is that the promise related specifically to the constitutional treaty and not to the Lisbon treaty, which, on any view, is a distinct treaty, agreed more than three years later than the constitutional treaty and stemming from a separate mandate and set of intergovernmental negotiations.

"There are undoubted differences between the two treaties. Unlike the constitutional treaty, the Lisbon treaty does not purport, either by its title or in its terms, to lay down a constitution for Europe. Unlike the constitutional treaty, it does not repeal the existing treaties and replace them by a single text, but proceeds by way of amendment of the existing treaties; and it leaves in place the existing entities and institutions (save that the European Community is subsumed into the European Union) rather than replacing them with a new legal entity. We see no basis for dismissing such differences as obviously immaterial even if they are treated as differences of form rather than of substance."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/25/eu.foreignpolicy1

portomar

marco_polo wrote: »

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the French, who rejected the orignal treaty, would elected as leader a man who stated quite clearly that he would ratify the treaty through parliament if elected, if they considered it to be the same document and if none of their concerns had been addresses.

+1

on a more important point, its no business of mine how france ratifys or otherwise treaties. just as its no business og theirs how we ratify or not.

SimpleSam06

portomar wrote: »

yes please

My pleasure. Are you forgetting posts you made even in this thread now? With a selective memory like that you must be a politician.

portomar wrote: »

well, thats the point isnt it? the eu is rapidly evolving past a free trade area.

I think the word evolution is misleading here, as it implies some sort of natural progression. There is no need to progress down this road, so theres nothing natural about it.

portomar wrote: »

yet it suited us just fine to take those.

Then again, no one had floated an EU constitution during those years either. Eh I just got where Douglas Adams came up with the title for that book, "So long and thanks for all the fish". The man was a true visionary.

portomar wrote: »

it should at worst be viewed as a neccessary evil.

And right there is where your clogs drop off. Its not a necessary evil because its not necessary.

portomar wrote: »

and give up our seat on the ECB when we could have kept it, having no input once again into our own financial policy, as we have for the vast majority of our history?

Ahahaha, what sort of influence do you think we have now? The ECB doesn't give a tinkers curse about the miniscule economy hanging off the edge of the map. I love it. I'm missing that influence already.

portomar wrote: »

what needs to be grasped, we need to understand this, is that THERE IS NO OTHER EU THAN THIS TREATY.

You know of course that typing in all caps makes you correcter.

portomar wrote: »

have a stark choice to make, eu warts and all or no eu membership.

Who cares. You are trying to paint some desperate situation where we either bend over to the EU or we descend into third world chaos, which is absoloute bollocks. Any longtime member leaving the EU is going to cause shockwaves throughout the world. The strength of the Euro which you prize so dearly will be rocked to its foundations when confidence is lost. The replacement of the dollar with the euro as the de facto global currency might even be threatened. They would recover and no doubt press ahead with their plans regardless, but don't think they will sacrifice a union member lightly.

marco_polo wrote: »

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the French, who rejected the orignal treaty, would elected as leader a man who stated quite clearly that he would ratify the treaty through parliament if elected, if they considered it to be the same document and if none of their concerns had been addresses.

Well let see here, man runs for office on a variety of platforms, health, taxation, foreign policy, economics, etc, and somewhere down the line he'll also ratify some sort of obscure hard to understand treaty as well. Sure why not, he scores well on the main points.

Anyone waving the French leader around as saying the French gave implied acceptance to a refried constitution must have missed the shenanigans going on around the recent treaty referendum.

marco_polo wrote: »

It also seems the High Court in the UK agrees with the French voters interpretation as well.

Thats odd, because the UK electorate is having a fit trying to get a referendum on the thing.

We see no basis for dismissing such differences as obviously immaterial even if they are treated as differences of form rather than of substance. The means might be different but the end results are the same.

portomar wrote: »

on a more important point, its no business of mine how france ratifys or otherwise treaties. just as its no business og theirs how we ratify or not.

You know whose business it is? Everyone that the treaty affects.

portomar

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

My pleasure. Are you forgetting posts you made even in this thread now? With a selective memory like that you must be a politician.

no i remeber that alright, just doesnt look like a threat of banning to me?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I think the word evolution is misleading here, as it implies some sort of natural progression. There is no need to progress down this road, so theres nothing natural about it.

need is an inappropriate word to use, theres no "need" for there to be a free trade bloc at all, never mind an eu, but there is and ireland has and will continue to benefit from it.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Then again, no one had floated an EU constitution during those years either. Eh I just got where Douglas Adams came up with the title for that book, "So long and thanks for all the fish". The man was a true visionary.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

indeed they hadnt, so what?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

And right there is where your clogs drop off. Its not a necessary evil because its not necessary.

again, necessary is a strange word to use, as you say, we can go back to being an economic basket case as in the eighties, we have choice in all these matters, i can think of no more democratic institutuion than one who allows its members to chose the path the vast majority have chosen, or else go their own way. i think it would be dangerous to do so if we want to keep a strong economy. my point is that in a union of this size a seemingly large beauracracy is par for the course.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Ahahaha, what sort of influence do you think we have now? The ECB doesn't give a tinkers curse about the miniscule economy hanging off the edge of the map. I love it. I'm missing that influence already.

sam, neither me or you have access to the ecb meetings. what we do know is that we have a representative on it, and that the ecb makes decisions based on whats best for the union as a whole, rather than whats best for each individual nation

from above link (cnbc europe)

"So, is there a Greek voice for rate cuts in the ECB council? - Not likely, says Prof. Panagiotis Korliras, former Deputy Governor of the Greek national bank. "From the outside, people often think that ECB councilors and policy discussion run along national lines. That is not so", he points out. "The members of the council think much more European. They make decisions for the region as a whole and don't fight a trench war for national interests." - Interesting. THAT is certainly what EBC president Jean-Claude Trichet usually insists as well. Maybe it was time we started believing it."

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You know of course that typing in all caps makes you correcter.

course it doesnt, just put my main points in bold thats all

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Who cares. You are trying to paint some desperate situation where we either bend over to the EU or we descend into third world chaos, which is absoloute bollocks. Any longtime member leaving the EU is going to cause shockwaves throughout the world. The strength of the Euro which you prize so dearly will be rocked to its foundations when confidence is lost. The replacement of the dollar with the euro as the de facto global currency might even be threatened. They would recover and no doubt press ahead with their plans regardless, but don't think they will sacrifice a union member lightly.

me and everyone i know, im not saying the world will collapse, but it might just take a few decades to become the fish engined superpower you envisage. quite an upheaval me thinks.

it amazes me how you on one hand presume that they dont give a toss about us in brussels or frankfurt, but would worry that much about losing us. doesnt square for me.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You know whose business it is? Everyone that the treaty affects

just because the treaty affects the french, makes no legal basis for having a referendum on it. government here are about to introduce civil partnership, many people would claim to be affected, whatayaknow? no referendum! no business of mine how the frenchies ratify or otherwise.

SimpleSam06

portomar wrote: »

need is an inappropriate word to use, theres no "need" for there to be a free trade bloc at all, never mind an eu, but there is and ireland has and will continue to benefit from it.

Ah passive aggression, as well as plenty of time for posting. You must either be in academia or the public sector.

portomar wrote: »

we can go back to being an economic basket case as in the eighties, we have choice in all these matters, i can think of no more democratic institutuion than one who allows its members to chose the path the vast majority have chosen, or else go their own way.

The vast majority of members weren't give an option. And as I recall, if "going your own way" means "threaten them with being the first to suffer," you've hit the nail on the head.

portomar wrote: »

sam, neither me or you have access to the ecb meetings.

Ah no you're right, the ECB gives as much time to the concerns of Ireland as it does to the concerns of Germany or France. Naturally.

portomar wrote: »

me and everyone i know, im not saying the world will collapse, but it might just take a few decades to become the fish engined superpower you envisage. quite an upheaval me thinks.

Not quite with it yet are you. If you could go back through the thread and find any bolded text in red there, in fact the one and only sentence like that in the entire thread, like a good man, you'd save yourself some trouble.

portomar wrote: »

it amazes me how you on one hand presume that they dont give a toss about us in brussels or frankfurt, but would worry that much about losing us. doesnt square for me.

I'll paint it large for you so. They don't give a toss about us in the day to day running of the EU. They do give a toss about us when we hurl a mighty monkey wrench into the works.

portomar wrote: »

government here are about to introduce civil partnership, many people would claim to be affected, whatayaknow? no referendum!

Does the partnership entail changing the constitution? No? Whatayaknow? no referendum! This is just facetious at this stage, comparing some whatever the hell you are talking about to the future of the country and its involvement in Europe.

Alright enough of this unrefined bullshit. While I'm sure someones taxes somewhere are paying for your fingers to paddle those keys, I have neither the time nor the patience. My original point was this:

SimpleSam06 wrote:

However what I don't see are the advantages of surrendering large areas of legislative power to a beaurocratic layer in the EU, I don't see the advantages of financing that layer, I don't see that we need to be anything more than part of a trading block that cooperates in other areas without one size fits all regulations being handed down. I just don't think we need a united states of Europe. And finally, I once again wouldn't see any harm in returning our one natural resource to us, the fishing grounds. The EU has extracted enough value from them.

To which you responded "oh noes teh turd world will be usss! or teh eyoo can go in unlubed". Thats a false dichotomy intended to scare up support, a tactic that worked so well for the yes side prior to the referendum.

marco_polo

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well let see here, man runs for office on a variety of platforms, health, taxation, foreign policy, economics, etc, and somewhere down the line he'll also ratify some sort of obscure hard to understand treaty as well. Sure why not, he scores well on the main points.

Anyone waving the French leader around as saying the French gave implied acceptance to a refried constitution must have missed the shenanigans going on around the recent treaty referendum.

Its called representitive democracy. Clearly the French people had no major issues with the treaty otherwise they would not have elected him. French people tend to be more politically aware than us so it is likely that they understood perfectly well the consequences of the treaty for their nation and were not unduly concerned about it. One thing that is certain is if they had held a referendum on the treaty, the French people would have made the effort to inform themselves properly.

As much as you would like to believe that there is deep civil unrest in France because the parliament ratified the treaty,there appears to be very little evidence that this is the case at all.

Thats odd, because the UK electorate is having a fit trying to get a referendum on the thing.

We see no basis for dismissing such differences as obviously immaterial even if they are treated as differences of form rather than of substance. The means might be different but the end results are the same.

Thanks I have read it already, in case you misunderstood it what that sentence is saying is that the differences between the two documents are very important indeed. Why hightlight only the second half of the quote though. Just for balance I will do the opposite.

We see no basis for dismissing such differences as obviously immaterial even if they are treated as differences of form rather than of substance. The means might be different but the end results are the same.

You know whose business it is? Everyone that the treaty affects.

No it is a purely national issue for the French as to how they decide on whether or not to sign up to the terms of an international treaty.

If you look at these figures you will see that eight other countries rank higher than Ireland in terms of the fairness of their democratic systems, all of whom are ratifying the Treaty using their parliamentary systems. And 13 of the top twenty most democratic nations in the world are in the EU. So who are you to lecture other countries on the adequacies of otherwise of their political systems?

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

The economist figures are pretty similar as well.

http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438

Perhaps we should also get Germany to change their national laws with regard to referendums so they can legally hold one?

SimpleSam06

marco_polo wrote: »

Clearly the French people had no major issues with the treaty otherwise they would not have elected him.

So he ran purely on one single issue throughout the entire election. Just the lisbon treaty. He didn't run on, say for example, health, education, or any of those other minor details?

marco_polo wrote: »

French people tend to be more politically aware than us so it is likely that they understood perfectly well the consequences of the treaty for their nation and were not unduly concerned about it.

Hahaha, I know a couple of solicitors who tried to read it and couldn't. I'm glad to see the French people have made Masters in European Law mandatory for school graduation, however.

marco_polo wrote: »

As much as you would like to believe that there is deep civil unrest in France because the parliament ratified the treaty,there appears to be very little evidence that this is the case at all.

Eh no, I didn't say that. Whats probably happened is they shrugged their shoulders and let it be. I mean what can they really do about it now?

marco_polo wrote: »

So who are you to lecture other countries on the adequacies of otherwise of their political systems?

You've lost me. The constitution was mangled so it wouldn't have to go to referendum. All the leaderboards and charts in the world won't change that. I suggest you get used to it.

marco_polo wrote: »

Perhaps we should also get Germany to change their national laws with regard to referendums so they can legally hold one?

I know the UK certainly wants a crack at it, handy how you didn't bother answering that one however.

marco_polo

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So he ran purely on one single issue throughout the entire election. Just the lisbon treaty. He didn't run on, say for example, health, education, or any of those other minor details?

Representative democracy: A type of democracy in which the citizens delegate authority to elected representatives.

If the treaty was a major issue for the French people then it would have become a major issue at election time. You wishing it to be a major issue does not make it so.

Hahaha, I know a couple of solicitors who tried to read it and couldn't. I'm glad to see the French people have made Masters in European Law mandatory for school graduation, however.

Maybe they are in the wrong profession then. Where did I say that the French were all law experts? Even the politican who negotiate the treaty would delegate the drafting of the treaty to a team of legal experts, although probably better ones than your friends of course. Is it a prerequisite for the public to read a the whole treaty in order to be well informed on the contents? If that was the case no treaty would ever get ratified.

Eh no, I didn't say that. Whats probably happened is they shrugged their shoulders and let it be. I mean what can they really do about it now?

That is a real traditional French characteristic alright, meekly obeying their political overlords.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4781880.stm
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/17/europe/EU-GEN-France-Workweek.php
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_re_eu/france_wine_protest
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/world/europe/17fuel.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

You've lost me. The constitution was mangled so it wouldn't have to go to referendum. All the leaderboards and charts in the world won't change that. I suggest you get used to it.

The point was that they are in not "lesser" democracies than ours in any way, despite how you are trying to spin that they are.

I know the UK certainly wants a crack at it, handy how you didn't bother answering that one however.

The British people will take that up with the Labour party in the next general election don't you worry about that. Then the Conservatives will almost certainly withdraw to a lesser relationship with the EU, like the majority of British people want them to do from the EU as it currently stands. I'd prefer not to follow them all the same, although if the worst comes to worst we can always join the Commonwealth again.

eoin2nc

Guess theirs no point in going to college. I should invest in a good pair of pull-ups and hit the trawler for a few weeks. Thats were the money is

ART6

portomar wrote: »

think you need to look up "thesaurus" in the dictionary mate

???

A book that lists words related to each other in meaning, usually giving synonyms and antonyms.

In other words, a book that defines common usage of the English language. I am at loss to understand your problem with that.

portomar

i happen to work in private broadcasting, and i work shift.as if it was any of ur business.il address the rest tmrw.

passive

ART6 wrote: »

???

A book that lists words related to each other in meaning, usually giving synonyms and antonyms.

In other words, a book that defines common usage of the English language. I am at loss to understand your problem with that.

so... you got the definition of thesaurus from a dictionary, posted it here, then gave the definition of a dictionary, and tried to pass it off as being the same as the first (thesaurus) definition?

hardcore.

ART6

passive wrote: »

so... you got the definition of thesaurus from a dictionary, posted it here, then gave the definition of a dictionary, and tried to pass it off as being the same as the first (thesaurus) definition?

hardcore.

Now you've really lost me! I simply posted a definition of "bureaucracy" from a thesaurus since it seemed to me to fit what a lot of posters have said in this thread. You then suggested that I look up the word "thesaurus" in a dictionary. While I couldn't imagine that you didn't know what "thesaurus" meant, I did oblige you by doing so. Now you criticise that and go on to accuse me of posting the definition of a dictionary, which I never did since I assumed that you would be familiar with that word at least.

You are very hard to please:D

SimpleSam06

marco_polo wrote: »

If the treaty was a major issue for the French people then it would have become a major issue at election time. You wishing it to be a major issue does not make it so.

But it is a major issue. That they were not informed properly does not make it less of a major issue.

marco_polo wrote: »

Even the politican who negotiate the treaty would delegate the drafting of the treaty to a team of legal experts,

Who in my opinion were told, "make just like the constitution, but too hard to read, but still legally binding." I mean ffs, if solicitors are having trouble with it who the hell knows what we could be signing up for. Any amount of open ended clauses or expandable options.

marco_polo wrote: »

The point was that they are in not "lesser" democracies than ours in any way, despite how you are trying to spin that they are.

This right here is the heart of the problem. I'm in no way saying they are lesser democracies, I have a great deal of respect for the democratic machinery of our fellow states. However its by an unfortunate happenstance that the treaty was worded in such a way that it wouldn't require a referendum, or their constitutions were worded in such a way that politicians could change them.

What you're trying to paint a picture of is a Europe marching in serene buddhist harmonic gooselock-step towards some sort of glowing nirvana of the future, while silly little Ireland is left cowering in ther corner. What I'm saying is I don't think the picture is that serene or unified at all.

What I think is that eurocrats have done an end run around the democratic process.

marco_polo wrote: »

don't you worry about that.

I don't. Ironically, had they allowed the damn referendum in the UK in first place, they would have had a fighting chance of winning. Now they run the risk of destabilising the entire EU. After the sorts of comments bubbling to the surface in the aftermath of Ireland's discarding of the treaty, they've pretty much blown their own foot off.

SimpleSam06

Just as a follow up, lets take a closer look at this French President that swept to power apparently upon the single strength of promising to pass the Lisbon treaty. It makes for interesting reading.

Nicolas Sarkozy born Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa on January 28, 1955 in the 17th arrondissement of Paris is the President of France and ex officio Co-Prince of Andorra.

Sarkozy is known for his strong stance on law and order issues and his desire to revitalise the French economy. In foreign affairs, he has promised closer cooperation with the United States and a strengthening of the entente cordiale. His nickname "Sarko" is used by both supporters and opponents.

Sarkozy has said that having been abandoned by his father shaped much of who he is today. As a young boy and teenager, he felt inferior in relation to his wealthy classmates. He suffered from insecurities (his physical shortness of 1.65 m, 5 feet 5 inches, or his family's lack of money, at least relatively to their 17th Arrondissement or Neuilly neighbours), and is said to have harboured a considerable amount of resentment against his absent father. “What made me who I am now is the sum of all the humiliations suffered during childhood”, he said later.

During his second term at the Ministry of the Interior, Sarkozy was initially more discreet about his ministerial activities: instead of focusing on his own topic of law and order, many of his declarations addressed wider issues, since he was expressing his opinions as head of the UMP party.

However, the civil unrest in autumn 2005 put law enforcement in the spotlight again. Sarkozy was accused of having provoked the unrest by calling young delinquents from housing projects “rabble” (“racaille”) in Argenteuil near Paris. After the accidental death of two youths, which sparked the riots, Sarkozy first blamed it on “hoodlums” and gangsters. These remarks were sharply criticised by many on the left wing and by a member of his own government, Delegate Minister for Equal Opportunities Azouz Begag.

After the rioting, he made a number of announcements on future policy: selection of immigrants, greater tracking of immigrants, and a reform on the 1945 ordinance government justice measures for young delinquents.

On 14 January 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy was chosen by the UMP to be its candidate in the 2007 presidential election. Sarkozy, who was running unopposed, won 98% of the votes. Of the 327,000 UMP members who could vote, 69% participated in the online ballot.

In February 2007 Sarkozy appeared on a televised debate on TF1 where he expressed his support for affirmative action for minorities and the freedom to work overtime. Despite his opposition to same-sex marriage, he advocated civil unions and the possibility for same-sex partners to inherit under the same regime as married couples. The law has been voted in July 2007.

On 7 February, Nicolas Sarkozy decided in favour of a projected second, non-nuclear, aircraft carrier for the national Navy (adding to the nuclear Charles de Gaulle), during an official visit in Toulon with Defence Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie. “This would allow permanently having an operational ship, taking into account the constraints of maintenance”, he explained.

On 21 March, President Jacques Chirac announced his support for Sarkozy, adding that he had his vote. Chirac pointed out that Sarkozy had been chosen as presidential candidate for the ruling UMP party, and said: “So it is totally natural that I give him my vote and my support.” To focus on his campaign, Sarkozy stepped down as interior minister on 26 March.

During the campaign, rival candidates had accused Sarkozy of being a “candidate for brutality” and of presenting overly hardline views about France’s future. He was also criticised by opponents for allegedly courting conservative voters in policy-making in a bid to capitalise on right-wing sentiments among some communities. However, his popularity was sufficient to see him polling as the frontrunner throughout the later campaign period, consistently ahead of rival Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal.

The first round of the presidential election was held on 22 April 2007. Nicolas Sarkozy came in first with 31.18% of the votes, ahead of Ségolène Royal of the Socialists with 25.87%. In the second round, Sarkozy came out on top to win the election with 53.06% of the votes ahead of Ségolène Royal with 46.94%. In his speech immediately following the announcement of the election results, Sarkozy stressed the need for France’s modernisation, but also called for national unity, mentioning that Royal was in his thoughts. In that speech, he claimed “The French have chosen to break with the ideas, habits and behaviour of the past. I will restore the value of work, authority, merit and respect for the nation."

Throughout 2005, Sarkozy became increasingly vocal in calling for radical changes in France's economic and social policies. These calls culminated in an interview with Le Monde on 8 September 2005, during which he claimed that the French had been misled for 30 years by false promises, and denounced what he considers to be unrealistic policies. Among other issues:

• he called for a simplified and "fairer" taxation system, with fewer loopholes and a maximum taxation rate (all direct taxes combined) at 50% of revenue;
• he approved measures reducing or denying social support to unemployed workers who refuse work offered to them;
• he pressed for a reduction in the budget deficit, claiming that the French state has been living off credit for some time.

On Friday, July 27, 2007, Sarkozy delivered a speech in Senegal, written by Henri Guaino, in which he made reference to “African peasants" (note that the French word “paysans” can be translated as either “peasants” or as “rural people”) and said that colonialism was not the cause of all of Africa’s problems, and denied that France had ever exploited an African country.

Sarkozy declared to the Constitutional Council a net worth of €2 million, most of the assets being in the form of life insurance policies. As the French President, he earns a yearly salary of € 101,000 and is entitled to a mayoral pension because he was mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine until 2002. He also receives a yearly council pension, because he has been previously a member of the council of the Hauts-de-Seine department. Sarkozy's salary will more than double to € 240,000 as a result of an amendment to the 2008 budget.

So, a fairly detailed picture of a charismatic strongman with a chip on his shoulder who came to power on the promise of restoring law and order and addressing the fears of the French people with regard to immigrants, as well as bringing in more wealth. The last bolded part is especially lollerific, remind you of anyone? I wonder are the French people starting to have second thoughts about their charismatic leader now. Oddly I don't see the Lisbon treaty as a major selling point anywhere in there.

If he goes all wrinkly and busts out a lightsaber though, it'll put a big ol' smile on my face, damn me for a hypocrite.

portomar

ART6 wrote: »

Now you've really lost me! I simply posted a definition of "bureaucracy" from a thesaurus since it seemed to me to fit what a lot of posters have said in this thread. You then suggested that I look up the word "thesaurus" in a dictionary. While I couldn't imagine that you didn't know what "thesaurus" meant, I did oblige you by doing so. Now you criticise that and go on to accuse me of posting the definition of a dictionary, which I never did since I assumed that you would be familiar with that word at least.

You are very hard to please:D

art, you, in trying to dismiss my point about the word beauracracy, have outlined exacxtly what i mean.

You do not get DEFINITIONS from a dictionary, you get a list of words that are sometimes used in the words place. that and its definition are very different things. A while a go i said that beauracracy was a dirty word, when it shouldnt be, and you have proved my right by the list of words you have given which you found in your thesaurus next to beauracracy.

thanks

portomar

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Just as a follow up, lets take a closer look at this French President that swept to power apparently upon the single strength of promising to pass the Lisbon treaty. It makes for interesting reading.

i dont think anyone claimed that he won the election on this single issue. the point is that he won, and was entitled within french law to have the lisbon treaty passed through parliament with no referendum

portomar

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Ah no you're right, the ECB gives as much time to the concerns of Ireland as it does to the concerns of Germany or France. Naturally.

.

im detecting sarcasm. what i mean is that its looked on as a zone, now that has its own drawbacks for any small country in it, which i believe are far outweighed by the positives. i dont believe that they look at it the way you think they do, and my above link would seem to bare that out.my point is that we're either in, with a seat, or go back to a de-facto satelite currency of the british pound, with no seat and no power. Denmark with the euro for example.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

To which you responded "oh noes teh turd world will be usss! or teh eyoo can go in unlubed". Thats a false dichotomy intended to scare up support, a tactic that worked so well for the yes side prior to the referendum.

dont understand this last bit. really, not event tryna be smart.

funny how we both have barbed comments about the wasteful public service in our recent comments, mine werent directed at anyone mind you.

passive

passive wrote: »

so... you got the definition of thesaurus from a dictionary, posted it here, then gave the definition of a dictionary, and tried to pass it off as being the same as the first (thesaurus) definition?

hardcore.

ART6 wrote: »

Now you've really lost me! I simply posted a definition of "bureaucracy" from a thesaurus since it seemed to me to fit what a lot of posters have said in this thread. You then suggested that I look up the word "thesaurus" in a dictionary. While I couldn't imagine that you didn't know what "thesaurus" meant, I did oblige you by doing so. Now you criticise that and go on to accuse me of posting the definition of a dictionary, which I never did since I assumed that you would be familiar with that word at least.

You are very hard to please:D

"A book that lists words related to each other in meaning, usually giving synonyms and antonyms." = Thesaurus. Correct so far.

"In other words," this is where you get creative...
"a book that defines common usage of the English language." No... That would be a dictionary. With me now?

Definitions come from dictionaries. Synonyms come from thesaurus..es... thesauri? And I think the first word "dictionary" in portomar's post above is supposed to be "thesaurus."

SimpleSam06

portomar wrote: »

i dont think anyone claimed that he won the election on this single issue. the point is that he won, and was entitled within french law to have the lisbon treaty passed through parliament with no referendum

Yes, the point I was making though was that the French people, who voted down the original constitution, might not have been given the full lowdown on exactly what the Lisbon treaty represented.

In the case of a general election you don't vote for the side which represents 100% of your views, you vote for the side that best represents your views. You might agree with 8 of the ten points of one side, but only six of the ten points of the other, so its clear who your vote goes to.

Sarkozy came to power largely on a mandate of controlling immigration and revitalising the economy, not for his forward looking views on Europe. The idea that the majority of the French people gave their blessing specifically to Lisbon is therefore fallacious.

portomar wrote: »

what i mean is that its looked on as a zone, now that has its own drawbacks for any small country in it, which i believe are far outweighed by the positives.

My thinking is that we'd hardly miss whatever little influence we already have on the ECB. I do agree that we gain more than we lose by involvement in the Euro.

We're not far from arguing on the same side here, you know. You say that leaving the EU entirely would be a disaster, I have no problem with that. You also say that the alternative is to let the EU run in roughshod and ratify a treaty rejected by the Irish people (what are we signing up to here? You're too stupid to understand it, just sign on the dotted line), which I don't agree with.

I think there must be a middle ground where the twain can meet, in that we keep our involvement in the free market and preferably the Euro, but aren't saddled with supporting a gigantic beaurocracy that as far as I can see doesn't offer much in the way of advantages.

As part of this, I would also like to see the restoration of our one major natural resource so that we can build indigenous industries on it and hopefully wean ourselves off ever needing to get another handout again, or being completely dependent on US corporations who can up stakes and leave us high and dry any time they like. Once the ball gets rolling on that we can construct subsidiary industry after subsidiary industry, branching out into whole related areas.

The correct approach to reach this middle ground is where I'm uncertain. This is uncharted territory for both Ireland and the EU.