Charlie McCreevy claims today that most EU countries would reject Lisbon

Morgans

I'd accept that as being fair, and knew the makeup beforehand. The last IGC for Lisbon was far shorter than those that went previously, given the work done by the European Convention who did prepare the work for Constitution and by extension, the Lisbon treaty.

I wouldn't accept that because the national govts had 80% of the representatives means that they had 80% input - its doubtful that a commissioner or personalities/authorities like Giscard D'estaing would have the same influence of as an accession state representative. But its a minor point.

BlitzKrieg

conchubhar1 wrote: »

the un does not function in the same was as the eu

I know it doesnt but I am pointing out that the UN is not a federal system yet by the logic you gave earlier (flags, courts etc) it could be considered one, not that the EU and the UN are the same.

it did not have a constitution nearly put through

It has a charter, the reason its not a constitution or treaty instead is because the UN is built on a philosaphy of willfull cooperation, it works on the trust that the members will abide by its policies out of goodwill and trust and not being able to live with the shame of other states saying *shame on you*. The result we all very much know that when UN interests conflict with national interests, the charter gets ignored, hence the forever existing limitation of the UN to do good. The EU is different because in its creation it was decided to make it so that states would be legally obliged to cooperate while members, hence all these treaties.

and it does not have a parliament

While federations commonly do have parliaments, its not required to have one in the central government. Therefore you say parliament is proof of the EU as a federal process, I cant see why the Assembly cant be proof of a federal process in the UN, they both can be observed as the *central governments* of their federations?

And again I ask, if the UN does establish a parlimentary assembly, will you consider it as a process to forming a UN federal state by your logic?

comparing the two is not appropriate

appropiate is such an unusual word to use there?

as i have stated before - the jump to federal states is possible

Possible but you have to accept that every member state (including the UK) will have to agree to not only concede ridiculous amount of national power to the EU but also completely restructure huge parts of their own governments and the EU itself.

Also

There are no amount of powers in the EU treaties or any international treaty that at the moment or in any forseeable future that would allow such a process pass without a referendum in every state. Annnd good luck getting that pass most states, especially the UK. This is not like Lisbon where the changes to the EU can be allowed to pass as a treaty. TO make the changes required to create a USE to each states current legal/political framework would be impossible to pass it without a referendum in the vast majority of states (I dont say all because Germany does not have referendums, but its such an unprecedented situation, I assume the individual states of Germany (A federation within a federation) will have some due process on the issue.

Scofflaw

Morgans wrote: »

I'd accept that as being fair, and knew the makeup beforehand. The last IGC for Lisbon was far shorter than those that went previously, given the work done by the European Convention who did prepare the work for Constitution and by extension, the Lisbon treaty.

Yes, that's fair. Mind you, like many Yes people, I don't regard Lisbon as in any way an earth-shattering EU treaty. Useful and necessary, yes, and very appealing in parts, but not exactly a dramatic change to the status quo in the short term.

I'm aware that not everyone would agree with that analysis....

Morgans wrote: »

I wouldn't accept that because the national govts had 80% of the representatives means that they had 80% input - its doubtful that a commissioner or personalities/authorities like Giscard D'estaing would have the same influence of as an accession state representative. But its a minor point.

It's also an extremely debatable one, of course, given we don't know who said what and to whom...! It's quite possible that the two people from the Commission ran the show - or that John Bruton did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

again you can try to compare the two
or
use the un as basis of thrashing the idea that the eu could become a federal union - we are just going to have to disagree

i implied having a flag etc are or could be steps to becoming a federal union or entity or call it what you like

now - it is not. but it is becoming more and more like one

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

again you can try to compare the two
or
use the un as basis of thrashing the idea that the eu could become a federal union - we are just going to have to disagree

i implied having a flag etc are or could be steps to becoming a federal union or entity or call it what you like

now - it is not. but it is becoming more and more like one

Which is fair enough, as long as you accept (and I think you do) that because it is more like one than it was, you can't simply extrapolate the line forward and say that it will therefore become one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

but it is becoming more and more like one

And if the UN creates the proposed parlimentary assembly will that be becoming more like one aswell? (I think this is the only reason I'm dragging this on, I'd actually like to know your answer to this question, and this is my third time asking.)

again you can try to compare the two

As I already said I know full well that the UN and the EU are different.

use the un as basis of thrashing the idea that the eu could become a federal union

I was using the UN as an example to trash your suggestion that things like flags and anthems courts and international parliaments as proof that the EU is on a road to federalism. Not the idea that the EU could become a federal union, that's all well and possible but very unlikely in the current structure.

- we are just going to have to disagree

I guess we got to.

oscarBravo

I'm assuming this post was addressed to me - as always, it takes several readings to try to figure out what you're talking about.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

my statement and your not so amusing statements are not on the same level

Never was a truer word spoken.

and your use of them is idiotic at a feeble attempt at what you are trying to do - maybe we should reopen the debate forum?

Again with the "idiotic" and "feeble" - if you can't challenge what I say, why bother throwing pejorative terms around?

blackgold>>

oscarBravo wrote: »

We have to be impartial in our role as moderator - we're still allowed to have and express opinions on the topics being discussed.

And why do you all have the "same opinion"?.... It's obvious you push an agenda on here anyone with half a brain can see that.The amount of time put into some mods posts is frightning.

It's nice to hear a politition speak some truth for a change.

BlitzKrieg

And why do you all have the "same opinion"?

Well obviously a euroskeptic would not be a good mod for the EU forum no0t because they are a skeptic but because they dont bother with the EU when there is not an election or referendum. So that would mean they'd only bother once every five years and the odd time there's a referendum

blackgold>>

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Well obviously a euroskeptic would not be a good mod for the EU forum no0t because they are a skeptic but because they dont bother with the EU when there is not an election or referendum. So that would mean they'd only bother once every five years and the odd time there's a referendum

A "euroskeptic" is the wrong term to use for such a mod.How can you label someones stance on europe akin to a 300 page document that points to 3000 other pages of amendments as a euroskeptic...

I wonder will charlie be voting yes?

Scofflaw

blackgold>> wrote: »

And why do you all have the "same opinion"?.... It's obvious you push an agenda on here anyone with half a brain can see that.The amount of time put into some mods posts is frightning.

Heavens! I'm terribly sorry to have put thought into my posts - I hadn't realised it was so objectionable.

As to why we "all" have the "same opinion" - we don't. We're all pro-EU to some degree or other, but that's true of 80% of the Irish population, so it's statistically pretty likely.

blackgold>> wrote: »

It's nice to hear a politition speak some truth for a change.

Truth being defined as something you agree with, apparently.

regards,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

I'm enjoying this thread as is, but here's more on what Charlie actually said. While I'm not particularly a fan of his, he comes across quite well in these comments.

conchubhar1

it is becoming more like one and it is a logical step and a possible step

but so is having nuclear weapons, conflicts and a possible war - never said either would definitely happen
but both are likely and shouldnt be totally dismissed or even lightly brushed aside

if the u.n adopts a flag, anthem and motto under a proposed bill called a ''constitution'' and encompasses a parliament of 27 or more states of comparable size and clout then yes
they would be comparable

does that answer your questions?

conchubhar1

Scofflaw wrote: »

Truth being defined as something you agree with, apparently.

this is a side point


but how would you define truth?

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

this is a side point


but how would you define truth?

Personally: Objective Reality.

Just thought I might pop in and say hello as the resident federalist lunatic, here to get the EU to kill your babies and marry your gays

I actually disagree that Federalism is a logical 'step' from Lisbon, or even the Constitution. Unfortunately we are still many many 'steps' away from Federalism. To describe Federalism as being one 'step' away is just not accurate.

BlitzKrieg

blackgold>> wrote: »

A "euroskeptic" is the wrong term to use for such a mod.How can you label someones stance on europe akin to a 300 page document that points to 3000 other pages of amendments as a euroskeptic...

noyivr the at the end of my comment? Its usually a sign that what I was saying wasnt meant to be taken seriously.

Personnally though regardless whether he is euroskeptic or not I would expect any mod of this forum to have an interest in the EU outside of Lisbon or elections to encoruge the forum to keep active, and Scafflow has shown again and again to have a keen interest in EU affairs.

it is becoming more like one and it is a logical step and a possible step

Is this answering my question on the UN parliamentary assembly or something else? You didnt quote so not sure.

If you are, then you are agreeing that the UN forming a parlimentary assembly is a move to creating a Federal UN superstate?

but so is having nuclear weapons, conflicts and a possible war - never said either would definitely happen
but both are likely and shouldnt be totally dismissed or even lightly brushed aside

Are you saying having nuclear weapons is a logical step towards war?

Sorry i'm not following this segment?

if the u.n adopts a flag, anthem and motto under a proposed bill called a ''constitution'' and encompasses a parliament of 27 or more states of comparable size and clout then yes
they would be comparable

Again the UN does have a flag and it has a charter and I already pointed out it has an assembly and is in the process of developing a parliamentary assembly. An anthem has been written and performed at UN events, it just hasnt been officially written into any documents that recognise it as official.

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

this is a side point


but how would you define truth?

What is objectively real, what can be empirically shown to be the case, what is supported by the evidence.

In the case referred to, the poster is simply describing as 'truth' a position he agrees with. When you really consider it, there is no objective answer to whether Lisbon is "good for Ireland" or not - only subjective views*. That's nothing to do with the Treaty at all - it's simply a reflection of the fact that we (a) don't know the future; and (b) disagree on how society should be organised.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*although we can dismiss some specific claims as being at odds with the evidence

hatrickpatrick

Just to throw in my two cents - If it is indeed true that 98% of the European population would have rejected the treaty then it is also true that the treaty is fundamentally undemocratic. This is why I always felt it was unfair to say Ireland was the only country to reject the treaty, when in fact we were the only ones who were given a real choicd about it.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just to throw in my two cents - If it is indeed true that 98% of the European population would have rejected the treaty then it is also true that the treaty is fundamentally undemocratic. This is why I always felt it was unfair to say Ireland was the only country to reject the treaty, when in fact we were the only ones who were given a real choicd about it.

No, we were the only ones who voted on it at referendum. That's not the same as not having the choice, Look across the water - the British are eurosceptical. They have, as a result, strong eurosceptical parties, who they can vote into power. The same is true of other countries with strong eurosceptical tendencies. They are therefore quite able to form governments who would reject Lisbon - as Cameron in the UK is threatening to do. Therefore, any government that really sold its people down the river (as you all like to claim Lisbon would do) can be replaced at the next election, and knows it.

That is perfectly normal democratic accountability. As to the figure of 98%, I have no idea where you got that. I say 98% of Europe would vote Yes, you can say the opposite if you like. Neither of us have the slightest backing for those figures - but only one of us is going to try to build a position on that unsubstantiated figure, and it won't be me.

regards,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, we were the only ones who voted on it at referendum. That's not the same as not having the choice, Look across the water - the British are eurosceptical. They have, as a result, strong eurosceptical parties, who they can vote into power. The same is true of other countries with strong eurosceptical tendencies. They are therefore quite able to form governments who would reject Lisbon - as Cameron in the UK is threatening to do. Therefore, any government that really sold its people down the river (as you all like to claim Lisbon would do) can be replaced at the next election, and knows it.

That is perfectly normal democratic accountability. As to the figure of 98%, I have no idea where you got that. I say 98% of Europe would vote Yes, you can say the opposite if you like. Neither of us have the slightest backing for those figures - but only one of us is going to try to build a position on that unsubstantiated figure, and it won;t be me.

regards,
Scofflaw

I think it is more convoluted than you are trying to portray.....

I agree with you that most european countries are not constitutionally obliged to hold a referendum on EU treaties unlike the case of Ireland( which incidentally I think should be best practice).If I use your example of the UK where you agreed that most are euroskeptics and invitably would have voted NO to a lisbon treaty...the Labour party promised a vote on the treaty as a matter of party manifesto but declined to do so because they empirically assumed what the outcome would be,...

The opposing party ...the tories theoritically have a far better chance of getting to power...BUT not until the the treaty would have been passed .

Innately,despite the fact that ,ostensibly the vast majority of the English people do not favour the Lisbon treaty ...it would be passed.If they ,as a result of such inconsideration of their views...and amongst other factors decide to vote out the current labour party and the tories win...it would essentially have no impact on their wishes in terms of the Lisbon treaty.
So your statements about voting out the government do not hold water in this case...it would be too late.It would only increase their distrust and hatred of the EU.The same can also be applied to some other Member nations of the EU.

hatrickpatrick

McCreevy said it.

""On the other hand, I think all of the politicians of Europe would have known quite well that if a similar question had been put to their electorate in a referendum the answer in 95 per cent of countries would have been 'No' as well," Mr McCreevy told a meeting of accountants in Dublin."

If that is the case, this treaty is undemocratic. The vast majority of the people do not want it to be passed.

And I'm not going to get into this again but we all know that Lisbon and the EU constitution are very very similar except for what are basically cosmetic changes - changes specifically designed to allow governments to pass the treaty without holding referendums on it.

turgon

Asfaik countries werent required to have refenda for the constitution, its was a token measure?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

McCreevy said it.

""On the other hand, I think all of the politicians of Europe would have known quite well that if a similar question had been put to their electorate in a referendum the answer in 95 per cent of countries would have been 'No' as well," Mr McCreevy told a meeting of accountants in Dublin."

If that is the case, this treaty is undemocratic. The vast majority of the people do not want it to be passed.

And I'm not going to get into this again but we all know that Lisbon and the EU constitution are very very similar except for what are basically cosmetic changes - changes specifically designed to allow governments to pass the treaty without holding referendums on it.

I'm aware that McCreevy said "95% of countries" - what I asked you was where you got the "98% of Europeans", which neither McCreevy nor any reasonably sane commentator has come out with.

I do appreciate that both you and he are plucking figures out of the air - after all, McCreevy's 95% would be 25 and a half countries. Possibly the left hand side of Malta?

I don't know. Figures plucked out of the air, random quotes out of context, arguments that are entirely irrelevant...smells like No spirit to me.

wearily,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

I think it is more convoluted than you are trying to portray.....

I agree with you that most european countries are not constitutionally obliged to hold a referendum on EU treaties unlike the case of Ireland( which incidentally I think should be best practice).If I use your example of the UK where you agreed that most are euroskeptics and invitably would have voted NO to a lisbon treaty...the Labour party promised a vote on the treaty as a matter of party manifesto but declined to do so because they empirically assumed what the outcome would be,...

The opposing party ...the tories theoritically have a far better chance of getting to power...BUT not until the the treaty would have been passed .

Innately,despite the fact that ,ostensibly the vast majority of the English people do not favour the Lisbon treaty ...it would be passed.If they ,as a result of such inconsideration of their views...and amongst other factors decide to vote out the current labour party and the tories win...it would essentially have no impact on their wishes in terms of the Lisbon treaty.
So your statements about voting out the government do not hold water in this case...it would be too late.It would only increase their distrust and hatred of the EU.The same can also be applied to some other Member nations of the EU.

I think that's a fair description of the UK. However, the UK frankly ought not to be in the EU, and most English voters would almost certainly vote to leave it. I'd be willing to see the UK hold a referendum on Lisbon, but only after they'd held one on leaving the EU, because if they want to leave, then they have no good call to make decisions on the progress of the EU itself. The same actually does go for a couple of other countries - what would be fair is for them to hold referendums on leaving, and then Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think that's a fair description of the UK. However, the UK frankly ought not to be in the EU, and most English voters would almost certainly vote to leave it. I'd be willing to see the UK hold a referendum on Lisbon, but only after they'd held one on leaving the EU, because if they want to leave, then they have no good call to make decisions on the progress of the EU itself. The same actually does go for a couple of other countries - what would be fair is for them to hold referendums on leaving, and then Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You have a fair point...but I ,as a matter of personal opinion think that some citizens of member countries eg Poland,Czech ...(which parodoxically have had much to gain from their membership of the EU) would have voted NO as well.I do not think opposing the Lisbon treaty can be viewed as been intrinsically being anti-europe in most instances.

The problem stems from the fact that some of us are not as knowledgable as you..( and probably a lot on this forum )about the intrincasies and complexities of the European Union and as such view it on basic face value in terms of its democratic fabric...

Ireland voted NO....we have to vote again because we apparently did not get it right.The Toicheach has supposedly gone to Brussels to get assurances on the concerns of the No voters...that is quite suspicious IMOH...as there would have been far more more reasons why majority of people voted No.

The popular notion is that most people voted against the treaty because of the three reasons stated ... which have now been apparently sorted out...that in my opinion was an ingenious stroke ...as they were able to effectively compartmentalize the voters concerns.....People arrive to same conclusions because of a vast spectrum of reasons.

My arguement is that Brussels can,and would probably get away with it this time BUT such manipulative tendencies would eventually backfire at some point.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

You have a fair point...but I ,as a matter of personal opinion think that some citizens of member countries eg Poland,Czech ...(which parodoxically have had much to gain from their membership of the EU) would have voted NO as well.I do not think opposing the Lisbon treaty can be viewed as been intrinsically being anti-europe in most instances.

There are certainly positions available that are pro-EU but anti-Lisbon - however, the vast majority of No proponents don't seem to occupy those positions. In the case of Lisbon, we can safely say that right now virtually nobody in the UK electorate has any notion what's in it - yet we can also safely say that right now they'd vote No to it. That makes it pretty clear what their No vote would be based on, and it isn't Lisbon.

KINGVictor wrote: »

The problem stems from the fact that some of us are not as knowledgable as you..( and probably a lot on this forum )about the intrincasies and complexities of the European Union and as such view it on basic face value in terms of its democratic fabric...

I wasn't knowledgeable 18 months ago, but I could still spot rhetorical sleights of hand and dodgy claims.

KINGVictor wrote: »

Ireland voted NO....we have to vote again because we apparently did not get it right.The Toicheach has supposedly gone to Brussels to get assurances on the concerns of the No voters...that is quite suspicious IMOH...as there would have been far more more reasons why majority of people voted No.

The popular notion is that most people voted against the treaty because of the three reasons stated ... which have now been apparently sorted out...that in my opinion was an ingenious stroke ...as they were able to effectively compartmentalize the voters concerns.....People arrive to same conclusions because of a vast spectrum of reasons.

And if their concerns haven't been addressed they'll vote No. You're saying - and I paraphrase, but only slightly - that the government claims people voted No for reasons they didn't, gets a bunch of assurances that address those non-existent concerns, and expects people to say "oh well, they've addressed somebody else's concerns, so I'll vote Yes even though they haven't addressed mine"? A child of four wouldn't fall for that - if you're correct, then the No side has absolutely nothing to worry about, right? But you do seem worried, so that can't be what's happening...are you worried that the No vote was soft as warm butter, and that all people need is an excuse? If that's the case, isn't that a justification in itself for holding a second referendum?

KINGVictor wrote: »

My arguement is that Brussels can,and would probably get away with it this time BUT such manipulative tendencies would eventually backfire at some point.

Why are you blaming the Belgians, though? What did they have to do with it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

Ireland voted NO....we have to vote again because we apparently did not get it right.The Toicheach has supposedly gone to Brussels to get assurances on the concerns of the No voters...that is quite suspicious IMOH...as there would have been far more more reasons why majority of people voted No.

The popular notion is that most people voted against the treaty because of the three reasons stated ... which have now been apparently sorted out...that in my opinion was an ingenious stroke ...as they were able to effectively compartmentalize the voters concerns.....People arrive to same conclusions because of a vast spectrum of reasons.

Governments can only deal with the information provided. The biggest factor as I think everybody admits was "lack of understanding". Hopefully they'll address that in this Referendum.

So the Commissioner was dealt with, Abortion, Tax and Neutrality. Hopefully lack of info will not be as big an issue. After that I don't think there is much they can do.

Democracy isn't about addressing every single want or need of the electorate, otherwise there wouldn't be Referenda!

ChocolateSauce

the_dark_side wrote: »

In the Irish Independant 26th June

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/mccreevy-admits-most-eu-voters-would-reject-lisbon-1792297.html

I'm sure it's been said already, but I'll say it too...Admits? Claims is more like it.

carveone

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think that's a fair description of the UK. However, the UK frankly ought not to be in the EU, and most English voters would almost certainly vote to leave it. I'd be willing to see the UK hold a referendum on Lisbon, but only after they'd held one on leaving the EU, because if they want to leave, then they have no good call to make decisions on the progress of the EU itself.

I think I just fell over. I was never sure when watching "Yes, Minister" whether there was any truth in the jokes about joining the EEC in order to disrupt it. :rolleyes: The UK joined the EEC in 1973, the same year Ireland did. The BBC website says that previous applications to join in 1963 and 1967 were refused. They seemed desperate during the 60s to join, presumably on the basis of market access.

Um. Do you think this love affair has ended? I'm not sure why you say that the UK should not be in the EU. The UK has always had strong national views, amply demonstrated by its refusal to join the ECU (as opposed to Ireland who seemed to have strong views but didn't seem to give a toss about the old pound!). But, oh, I dunno. Do you think Ireland would go freaking nuts if Britain left?

PopeBuckfastXVI

I think he's saying that if the British General Public don't want to be in the EU, then they should leave, rather than voting on how the EU is run.

Or else stay in and leave it to the Government. I don't think anyone is suggesting the UK should be asked to leave, just that if they want to go, then let them actually say that, rather than saying they don't want Lisbon, or any other EU treaty. Why should they have to vote on Lisbon, when they could vote on Membership?

I don't know that anyone in Ireland would go particularly nuts if Britain left the EU, maybe some of the euroskeptic tory boys on this forum, but probably not too many more?