Polish president refuses to sign EU reform treaty

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

While I understand and agree with your points Scofflaw I think mine might have gotten lost in all the to-ing and fro-ing! I was basically saying that if people wanted a referendum on this issue in the likes of Germany and Italy it was up to the people of that country to challenege and enforce change in their system, just as Crotty did here. The Italians have until the middle of next year to decide whether to ratify or not and have yet to set a date on it. If the Italian people, for example, want a referendum on it then there is (I would imagine) both the time and the ability to do it should they push for it. As you said there is no mechanism for it there now, and the Government are not going to change the law on this without there being sufficient drive from the people for it. Otherwise this point of "The people of Europe want to vote on this" becomes null and void. If they really do they'd push for it themselves.

Well, it wasn't lost on me, at least! People can very easily say "oh I'd like a referendum on this or that", but making constitutional changes on the back of opinion polls is a lousy way to run a country.

As I said during the campaign, where is the push to have referendums in those countries? Where are their Ramond Crottys? All the countries have mechanisms for changing their constitutions, yet none of them have made that particular change, even though many of them also have referendum mechanisms, and several of them have specific mechanisms for EU treaties.

It's more than slightly reminiscent of the way the No campaign simply sort of evaporates once the vote is over - if there was genuine commitment to issues like pan-EU referendums, where the heck is it the rest of the time?

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, it wasn't lost on me, at least! People can very easily say "oh I'd like a referendum on this or that", but making constitutional changes on the back of opinion polls is a lousy way to run a country.

As I said during the campaign, where is the push to have referendums in those countries? Where are their Ramond Crottys? All the countries have mechanisms for changing their constitutions, yet none of them have made that particular change, even though many of them also have referendum mechanisms, and several of them have specific mechanisms for EU treaties.

It more than slightly reminiscent of the way the No campaign simply sort of evaporates once the vote is over - if there was genuine commitment to issues like pan-EU referendums, where the heck is it the rest of the time?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amen to that! As you said in a different thread the Treaty has stirred an extraordinary interest in the EU as a whole, which is as likely to pass as quickly as it appeared. With it comes a lot of ignorance (I'm not any different in that regard ) and therefore a lot of hasty conclusions on things that we really don't know that much about. Thankfully I've found these threads to be very informative and have learned a lot by coming here. Its one good thing to come from all of this, i.e. people coming together to discuss and learn about the issues. I wonder has it been the same on the continent?

CtrlSource

i would also like to say that i have found this forum very informative and interesting in the run up to and since the Lisbon Referendum. Many of the discussions here have helped focus my mind and develop my opinions on a number of issues.

Talking to friends about politics can be a turn off for many and can quickly lead to unproductive arguing and a rush to judge. Here, the same happens, but at least we all want to be here having debate and in general we all respect each others' often differing view points

dresden8

CtrlSource wrote: »

i would also like to say that i have found this forum very informative and interesting in the run up to and since the Lisbon Referendum. Many of the discussions here have helped focus my mind and develop my opinions on a number of issues.

Talking to friends about politics can be a turn off for many and can quickly lead to unproductive arguing and a rush to judge. Here, the same happens, but at least we all want to be here having debate and in general we all respect each others' often differing view points

You're wrong!!!!!!!!

No, only messing.

free-man

ixtlan wrote: »

The thing is, as others have said, is that every country has a mechanism to have a referendum on a treaty. The public needs to make it an election issue and elect a government that promises a vote.
Ix.

An excellent point. You would hope that an elected government would follow through on their promises of referendums on key issues.

"I have not changed my mind on the constitutional treaty...
We may believe, rightly, that parliamentary democracy is the nor mal way in which these things ought to be decided…None the less, the hon. Gentleman and I must accept that if we are to make the case, we will have to take it out and make it to the
British people"

Tony Blair - House of Commons 2004 referring to the EU Constitution

This was followed by:

“Frank Field: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that if other countries veto the constitution before he calls a referendum, the British people will still have their say on what they think of this move?

The Prime Minister: Yes. There is no question of any constitutional treaty going through without the express consent of the British people….Regardless of how other members vote, we will have a referendum on the subject.”
Tony Blair - House of Commons - 21st June 2004

Followed by this quote from Tony Blair on April 18th 2005
"I've always said we' ll have a vote on the constitution. It doesn't matter what other countries do; we'll have a vote on the constitution.

It would be pertinent now to suggest that the prime minister was referring to the Constitution and has every right to u-turn on granting a referendum despite said comments on the basis that the Lisbon treaty's position on foreign affairs was materially different however the findings of the Report on the House of Common Foreign Affairs Committee came to a more logical conclusion in Jan 2008

"We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied"

Back to post election - May 5th 2005

David Heathcoat-*Amory
“Will the Minister confirm that the referendum on the European constitution will go ahead in any event? Before he answers, I remind him t hat I asked the Prime Minister that question last year and raised the possibility that the Government might cancel the referendum here if another member state turned down the constitution.
Tony Blair
"No, of course not. The referendum should go ahead in any event."

There were 2 legal challenges made to the UK Courts yet the UK Government proceeded to ratify before awaiting the outcome of the judgment.

This situation is agrevated by speculation in the press that Tony Blair is apparently being considered for the EU President role.

The below is my personal (laymans) opinion:
It would seem that despite promising numerous times in the British Parliament and British media that Blair would hold a referendum on a treaty which is similar (except in name) to Lisbon - he has reneged. Joining the dots (to me) it seems that someone who is being mooted at high level for the EU presidency would present a large conflict of interest.

The fact that British Parliament (lead by Blair) went ahead with Ratification while judgement had not been passed on a legal appeal case is astounding and shows contempt for legal process.

It appears that the case presented to the courts (eventually lost and seeking appeal) was flawed on legal grounds but not moral grounds.

The UK aspect relevant as the thread began with a discussion on Polish Presidency vs Parliament and widened into debate on other member states parliamentary ratification.

molloyjh

free-man wrote: »

An excellent point. You would hope that an elected government would follow through on their promises of referendums on key issues.

"I have not changed my mind on the constitutional treaty...
We may believe, rightly, that parliamentary democracy is the nor mal way in which these things ought to be decided…None the less, the hon. Gentleman and I must accept that if we are to make the case, we will have to take it out and make it to the
British people"

Tony Blair - House of Commons 2004 referring to the EU Constitution

This was followed by:

“Frank Field: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that if other countries veto the constitution before he calls a referendum, the British people will still have their say on what they think of this move?

The Prime Minister: Yes. There is no question of any constitutional treaty going through without the express consent of the British people….Regardless of how other members vote, we will have a referendum on the subject.”
Tony Blair - House of Commons - 21st June 2004

Followed by this quote from Tony Blair on April 18th 2005
"I've always said we' ll have a vote on the constitution. It doesn't matter what other countries do; we'll have a vote on the constitution.

It would be pertinent now to suggest that the prime minister was referring to the Constitution and has every right to u-turn on granting a referendum despite said comments on the basis that the Lisbon treaty's position on foreign affairs was materially different however the findings of the Report on the House of Common Foreign Affairs Committee came to a more logical conclusion in Jan 2008

"We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied"

Back to post election - May 5th 2005

David Heathcoat-*Amory
“Will the Minister confirm that the referendum on the European constitution will go ahead in any event? Before he answers, I remind him t hat I asked the Prime Minister that question last year and raised the possibility that the Government might cancel the referendum here if another member state turned down the constitution.
Tony Blair
"No, of course not. The referendum should go ahead in any event."

There were 2 legal challenges made to the UK Courts yet the UK Government proceeded to ratify before awaiting the outcome of the judgment.

This situation is agrevated by speculation in the press that Tony Blair is apparently being considered for the EU President role.

The below is my personal (laymans) opinion:
It would seem that despite promising numerous times in the British Parliament and British media that Blair would hold a referendum on a treaty which is similar (except in name) to Lisbon - he has reneged. Joining the dots (to me) it seems that someone who is being mooted at high level for the EU presidency would present a large conflict of interest.

The fact that British Parliament (lead by Blair) went ahead with Ratification while judgement had not been passed on a legal appeal case is astounding and shows contempt for legal process.

It appears that the case presented to the courts (eventually lost and seeking appeal) was flawed on legal grounds but not moral grounds.

The UK aspect relevant as the thread began with a discussion on Polish Presidency vs Parliament and widened into debate on other member states parliamentary ratification.

Actually free-man, when the court challeneged Browne on his statement to them that he would proceed with the ratification process, he said that he meant that he would make sure everything was in place for ratification, but that it wouldn't actually be ratified until the court had reached a decision.

Scofflaw

free-man wrote: »

An excellent point. You would hope that an elected government would follow through on their promises of referendums on key issues.

"I have not changed my mind on the constitutional treaty...
We may believe, rightly, that parliamentary democracy is the nor mal way in which these things ought to be decided…None the less, the hon. Gentleman and I must accept that if we are to make the case, we will have to take it out and make it to the
British people"

Tony Blair - House of Commons 2004 referring to the EU Constitution

This was followed by:

“Frank Field: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that if other countries veto the constitution before he calls a referendum, the British people will still have their say on what they think of this move?

The Prime Minister: Yes. There is no question of any constitutional treaty going through without the express consent of the British people….Regardless of how other members vote, we will have a referendum on the subject.”
Tony Blair - House of Commons - 21st June 2004

Followed by this quote from Tony Blair on April 18th 2005
"I've always said we' ll have a vote on the constitution. It doesn't matter what other countries do; we'll have a vote on the constitution.

It would be pertinent now to suggest that the prime minister was referring to the Constitution and has every right to u-turn on granting a referendum despite said comments on the basis that the Lisbon treaty's position on foreign affairs was materially different however the findings of the Report on the House of Common Foreign Affairs Committee came to a more logical conclusion in Jan 2008

"We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied"

Back to post election - May 5th 2005

David Heathcoat-*Amory
“Will the Minister confirm that the referendum on the European constitution will go ahead in any event? Before he answers, I remind him t hat I asked the Prime Minister that question last year and raised the possibility that the Government might cancel the referendum here if another member state turned down the constitution.
Tony Blair
"No, of course not. The referendum should go ahead in any event."

There were 2 legal challenges made to the UK Courts yet the UK Government proceeded to ratify before awaiting the outcome of the judgment.

This situation is agrevated by speculation in the press that Tony Blair is apparently being considered for the EU President role.

The below is my personal (laymans) opinion:
It would seem that despite promising numerous times in the British Parliament and British media that Blair would hold a referendum on a treaty which is similar (except in name) to Lisbon - he has reneged. Joining the dots (to me) it seems that someone who is being mooted at high level for the EU presidency would present a large conflict of interest.

The fact that British Parliament (lead by Blair) went ahead with Ratification while judgement had not been passed on a legal appeal case is astounding and shows contempt for legal process.

It appears that the case presented to the courts (eventually lost and seeking appeal) was flawed on legal grounds but not moral grounds.

Are we talking about the same case? Wheeler's challenge? The one the government waited for a ruling on before ratification, and which was turned down in no uncertain terms:

"The judges have confirmed the government's position that the Lisbon Treaty differs in both form and substance from the defunct constitution."

Or are we talking about Bill Cash's case, which was rejected even more firmly:

But in a ruling, Mr Justice Collins said: "It will be for Parliament, not the court, to decide whether the Bill should be passed."

He said ratification was "a matter of political not judicial decision" and Mr Cash's case was "totally without merit since it is an attempt to pursue a political agenda through the court".

On the other hand, the view that the British government would cheerfully do a U-turn on a dime is certainly historically justifiable...

cordially,
Scofflaw

free-man

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are we talking about the same case? Wheeler's challenge? The one the government waited for a ruling on before ratification, and which was turned down in no uncertain terms:

"The judges have confirmed the government's position that the Lisbon Treaty differs in both form and substance from the defunct constitution."

Or are we talking about Bill Cash's case, which was rejected even more firmly:

But in a ruling, Mr Justice Collins said: "It will be for Parliament, not the court, to decide whether the Bill should be passed."

He said ratification was "a matter of political not judicial decision" and Mr Cash's case was "totally without merit since it is an attempt to pursue a political agenda through the court".

On the other hand, the view that the British government would cheerfully do a U-turn on a dime is certainly historically justifiable...

cordially,
Scofflaw

I was referring to Wheeler's challenge - noted you disagree with it but I did say it was flawed on legal grounds but not on moral grounds IMO.

free-man

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the other hand, the view that the British government would cheerfully do a U-turn on a dime is certainly historically justifiable...

I also feel very uncomfortable that the very individual who has maneuvered a complete U-Turn on a public vote is the very person being mooted as the EU President. IMO this is the last person you would want representing a stronger, more powerful ("efficient") Europe.

Scofflaw

free-man wrote: »

I was referring to Wheeler's challenge - noted you disagree with it but I did say it was flawed on legal grounds but not on moral grounds IMO.

Hmm. That is, I think, an opinion, to which one is entirely entitled.

I also feel very uncomfortable that the very individual who has maneuvered a complete U-Turn on a public vote is the very person being mooted as the EU President. IMO this is the last person you would want representing a stronger, more powerful ("efficient") Europe.

Actually, someone like Blair would probably be a good choice for President of the European Council. Germany and France would watch like hawks to ensure that he didn't do anything but be a figurehead, and he'd set a precedent for the office that way. He was tolerably OK as President in 2005, but on the whole, Bertie did a better job.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rb

From here

Looks like he's backpeddling, wonder what Sarkozy said to him behind closed doors...?

Also

Sarkozy is due to go to Dublin on July 11 to try to address Irish voters' concerns and make it possible for the government to call a new vote next year, diplomats say.

I.e to pressure our Government to put the same treaty before us for vote again next year, or at least that's how it reads.

Christ I hate that slimy, scummy príck.

sink

Rb wrote: »

From here

Looks like he's backpeddling, wonder what Sarkozy said to him behind closed doors...?

Also



I.e to pressure our Government to put the same treaty before us for vote again next year, or at least that's how it reads.

Christ I hate that slimy, scummy príck.

I'm not a big fan of Sarko either but I don't think it was him that caused Kaczinski to back pedal. The polls showed a clear majority of Poles supported the treaty and it passed the parliament by a large majority. Kaczinsky's approval rating is down in the 20's, if he ever wants to be re-elected he has to soften his position so he was probably advised by his close allies to do so.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of Sarko either but I don't think it was him that caused Kaczinski to back pedal. The polls showed a clear majority of Poles supported the treaty and it passed the parliament by a large majority. Kaczinsky's approval rating is down in the 20's, if he ever wants to be re-elected he has to soften his position so he was probably advised by his close allies to do so.

He may be one of the few leaders with an approval rating lower than GW.

impressed,
Scofflaw

is_that_so

sink wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of Sarko either but I don't think it was him that caused Kaczinski to back pedal. The polls showed a clear majority of Poles supported the treaty and it passed the parliament by a large majority. Kaczinsky's approval rating is down in the 20's, if he ever wants to be re-elected he has to soften his position so he was probably advised by his close allies to do so.

Re-election is extremely unlikely. He got in in 2005 in a second round run off against Tusk, by pushing traditional values and picking up the votes for the right wing candidate from the first round, Lepper I think his name was. A combination of a solid platform and a campaign of personal attacks against him, helped him beat Tusk. Since then the Poles have become increasingly embarrassed by the antics of himself and his brother and he is even more of a lame duck than Bush. The only problem is that they could be stuck with him until 2010.

And Sarko, love him or hate him had a very good day today, well-deserved IMO, with Ingrid Betancourt coming home.

teetotaller

conceited wrote: »

Kaczynksi's

is_that_so wrote: »

Kaczinski

seamus wrote: »

Kaczinski

is_that_so wrote: »

Kaczinskis.

sink wrote: »

Kasinsky's

is_that_so wrote: »

Kaczinsky

sink wrote: »

Kaczinski
Kaczinsky's

His surname is Kaczyński

djpbarry wrote: »

Perhaps he's a petty, anti-German, homophobic idiot?

sink wrote: »

Don't forget he's also an authoritarian, anti-Russian, anti-European, xenophobic racist idiot!

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Whilst throwing insults lets not forget that he's fat as well.

WTF?

is_that_so

teetotaller wrote: »

His surname is Kaczyński







WTF?

Yes I am aware that it is and I was too damned lazy to bother putting in the ń, which I am also aware is pronounced as a nye sound. So apart from the fact that we are incapable of spelling his name do you have a point?

teetotaller

Not really - as many Polish people here I try to live far away from politicians and all problems that we have with government.

I'd be happy if somebody could put a bomb somewhere close to parliament building...

Few years ago a lot of people voted for PIS and kaczynski's twins. Now our president is not too popular and he won't win next election.

Thats it basically, and I'm happy to be here in Ireland