Re: EU becoming like the USSR

marco_polo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Whether its on EU soil or not point making, there is no official EU army as yet so why do they act as if there is one?

It is not a true EU army for one. The Eurocorp (Founded 1992) are a part of the Western European Union common defence initiatives, the WEU was established long before we even joined the EU (1954). This is not news.

View

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Whether its on EU soil or not point making, there is no official EU army as yet so why do they act as if there is one?

The fact that Eurocorp played/attended the "Ode to Joy" at an official opening to the EP session doesn't make them an "official EU Army", not does it mean they are "acting as one".

If I recall correctly, when the European Council met in Dublin back in 2004, one of the (Irish) Army bands played/attended the "Ode to Joy" at the official opening/flag-raising at the start of the European Council.

Does that make the Irish Army the "official EU Army"? If so, then I'd imagine that there are lots of "official EU Armies" - probably around one per member state in fact....

Nobody, apart from No campaigners are claiming that Eurocorps is an "official EU Army". And, it lacks credibility - after all, if the local Strasbourg unit of the French Army had played/attended the official opening of the EP, would they be claiming that the French Army was the "official EU Army"?

turgon

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

why do they act as if there is one?

The only people who act as if there is an EU army is the No-side, solely because it could potentially be a way to get another gullible voter to vote No.

ninty9er

@OP: Your first mistake was reading the Telegraph, your second was referencing it.

ei.sdraob

ninty9er wrote: »

@OP: Your first mistake was reading the Telegraph, your second was referencing it.

the daily telegraph are the pinnacle of the eurosceptisim they claim every other week that the euro is about to collapse

anyways this explains it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think the country is run by another country...

KINGVictor

ninty9er wrote: »

@OP: Your first mistake was reading the Telegraph, your second was referencing it.

The newspapers I decide to read and reference (as you put it) is no one's business really.In all honesty what exactly constitutes a balanced newspaper,the answer would be relative depending on the reader's ideology,so as such ,I would not apologise for my interest in a particular newspaper.Incidentally I have not come across a position from you regarding the issue.

The fact remains,unless this forum is renamed "Pro-Lisbon European Forum", some of us who are against the Lisbon treaty have every right to voice our opinion.I am very comfortable being Irish first and foremost and do not desperately need to have dreams about being a citizen of some superstate "United states of Europe".I have relayed in previous posts that Brussels trying to rival the United states is not a bad proposition in itself but after the way we were vilified after the Lisbon 1 vote is a reflection IMO signs of how the union would be run.

Dinner

KINGVictor wrote: »

but after the way we were vilified after the Lisbon 1 vote is a reflection IMO signs of how the union would be run.

Ye mean the part where the EU asked us what our concerns were so they could address them through a series of legally binding guarentees.

Yep, I feel vilified. I can't think of anything worse then somebody having the gall to ask me what concerns I had. The cheek...

KINGVictor

Dinner wrote: »

Ye mean the part where the EU asked us what our concerns were so they could address them through a series of legally binding guarentees.

Yep, I feel vilified. I can't think of anything worse then somebody having the gall to ask me what concerns I had. The cheek...

http://euobserver.com/9/26299/?rk=1
That above in my opinion is vilification

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7461209.stm

This might of be of interest to you as well.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

http://euobserver.com/9/26299/?rk=1
That above in my opinion is vilification

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7461209.stm

This might of be of interest to you as well.

So you'd leave any group in which any member grumbled at all about the way another member behaved? The problem seems to be that, as far as I can see, you're assuming that Ireland is "run from Europe", and therefore the grumbling of the French is taken as threats and/or vilification by our 'masters'.

regards,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

KINGVictor wrote: »

http://euobserver.com/9/26299/?rk=1
That above in my opinion is vilification

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7461209.stm

This might of be of interest to you as well.

I didn't want to post on a thread with such a rediculous title, but seeing as how it has strayed away from the original topic I just want to pick up on this.

Your first link is a story from *before* the referendum, so it hardly backs up any claims about what happened *after*.

KINGVictor wrote:

but after the way we were vilified after the Lisbon 1 vote is a reflection IMO signs of how the union would be run

Your second link is one of these BBC vox pop articles giving the opinions of the following EU power brokers:
* A Financial Manager from France
* A Business Man from Denmark
* An Assistant Professor from Greece
* A Lecturer from Germany

You'll forgive me if I don't give 2 cents for what they have to say.

KINGVictor

Dinner wrote: »

Ye mean the part where the EU asked us what our concerns were so they could address them through a series of legally binding guarentees.

Yep, I feel vilified. I can't think of anything worse then somebody having the gall to ask me what concerns I had. The cheek...

I think the idea of addressing concerns is quite patronising.In a democracy,the popular vote carries weight and decides the result ( shocking but true).If Ireland voted Yes to the referendum,there would have been no need to address the concerns of the No voters.During the recent the european elections Britain,Holland etc voted in Euroskeptics why wasn't there a call for a re-run of elections.

Legally binding guarantees...indeed.If it was a geniune concern for Irish voters ..why not add it to the Lisbon treaty...No....because there would be a spill over of requests from other member nations...so lets treat the Irish like fools like they seem to be and issue protocols and promise to include in a future treaty.You might fall for it...A lot won't.

KINGVictor

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I didn't want to post on a thread with such a rediculous title, but seeing as how it has strayed away from the original topic I just want to pick up on this.

Your first link is a story from *before* the referendum, so it hardly backs up any claims about what happened *after*.



Your second link is one of these BBC vox pop articles giving the opinions of the following EU power brokers:
* A Financial Manager from France
* A Business Man from Denmark
* An Assistant Professor from Greece
* A Lecturer from Germany

You'll forgive me if I don't give 2 cents for what they have to say.

If you truly read the first post and you no issues or concerns about how an elected official of a member country can make statements about how he feels on what the outcome of the referendum should go....then we cannot have a positive discussion.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/jun/22/one-interpretation-of-lisbon-that-isnt-a-blatant-i/?q=etynan

Maybe the above would be clearer.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

If you truly read the first post and you no issues or concerns about how an elected official of a member country can make statements about how he feels on what the outcome of the referendum should go....then we cannot have a positive discussion.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/jun/22/one-interpretation-of-lisbon-that-isnt-a-blatant-i/?q=etynan

Maybe the above would be clearer.

Sorry? Look, the French are part of the EU, we're part of the EU. They have as much right to comment on how we do things as you have to mouth off about how bad it is that they do, and how they're railroading Ireland and the small countries. How do you think the comments here come across in France and Germany?

Those comments were made to a French audience on a French provincial radio station. French minister talking to a French audience - something you wouldn't even have heard of if it weren't for the relentless digging of British eurosceptics.

regards,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

KINGVictor wrote: »

I think the idea of addressing concerns is quite patronising.In a democracy,the popular vote carries weight and decides the result ( shocking but true).If Ireland voted Yes to the referendum,there would have been no need to address the concerns of the No voters.During the recent the european elections Britain,Holland etc voted in Euroskeptics why wasn't there a call for a re-run of elections.

Excuse me?!!! Let's be clear on this. You want to vote no, for whatever reason. Then you do NOT want your concerns for voting no to be addressed?!!! You want to vote no and then you want all progress halted with no discussions whatsoever about why you voted no? Therefore no future treaties ever ever ever...

If Ireland voted or votes yes, it will still be possible to address any concerns in the future through a new treaty or through legislation. It will be up to you to express those concerns to your MEPs and other representatives.

KINGVictor wrote: »

Legally binding guarantees...indeed.If it was a geniune concern for Irish voters ..why not add it to the Lisbon treaty...No....because there would be a spill over of requests from other member nations...so lets treat the Irish like fools like they seem to be and issue protocols and promise to include in a future treaty.You might fall for it...A lot won't.

There is no need to add anything to the treaty because the guarantees are only clarifications of what already is (or more accurately is not) in the treaty. You may say you don't trust the other EU states, but if you take this position then logically we must immediately withdraw from the EU, as we cannot trust the other states in anything, and we need to immediately start building up the Irish army and navy and prepare for invasion since the EU treaties don't as far as I know guarantee that for example Germany will not invade us. You will say that is ridiculous. Indeed it is, just as ridiculous as suggesting that the EU states will break a formal international treaty (the guarantees) which includes nothing more than clarification of issues which almost everyone says are valid.

Ix.

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sorry? Look, the French are part of the EU, we're part of the EU. They have as much right to comment on how we do things as you have to mouth off about how bad it is that they do, and how they're railroading Ireland and the small countries. How do you think the comments here come across in France and Germany?

Those comments were made to a French audience on a French provincial radio station. French minister talking to a French audience - something you wouldn't even have heard of if it weren't for the relentless digging of British eurosceptics.

regards,
Scofflaw

Right...you made a valid point.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0629/1224249725160.html

Well The German Ambassador made the remarks in Ireland about how we would throw away our Future if we voted No again.Irish times is based in Ireland as far as I know.

P. Breathnach

KINGVictor wrote: »

If you truly read the first post and you no issues or concerns about how an elected official of a member country can make statements about how he feels on what the outcome of the referendum should go....then we cannot have a positive discussion.

Lisbon is an agreement between 27 states. It seems to me very reasonable that people in the other 26 might have, and give voice to, an interest in its implementation. Do you mean to suggest that the treaty proposal be remitted to the Irish electorate and we decide for everybody?

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/jun/22/one-interpretation-of-lisbon-that-isnt-a-blatant-i/?q=etynan

Maybe the above would be clearer.

Clear? It's a poor piece of polemic. But I did enjoy the note at the end: "Diarmuid Doyle is on leave".

P. Breathnach

KINGVictor wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0629/1224249725160.html

Well The German Ambassador made the remarks in Ireland about how we would throw away our Future if we voted No again.Irish times is based in Ireland as far as I know.

I suppose it matters less that he might be right.

KINGVictor

ixtlan wrote: »

Excuse me?!!! Let's be clear on this. You want to vote no, for whatever reason. Then you do NOT want your concerns for voting no to be addressed?!!! You want to vote no and then you want all progress halted with no discussions whatsoever about why you voted no? Therefore no future treaties ever ever ever...

If Ireland voted or votes yes, it will still be possible to address any concerns in the future through a new treaty or through legislation. It will be up to you to express those concerns to your MEPs and other representatives.



There is no need to add anything to the treaty because the guarantees are only clarifications of what already is (or more accurately is not) in the treaty. You may say you don't trust the other EU states, but if you take this position then logically we must immediately withdraw from the EU, as we cannot trust the other states in anything, and we need to immediately start building up the Irish army and navy and prepare for invasion since the EU treaties don't as far as I know guarantee that for example Germany will not invade us. You will say that is ridiculous. Indeed it is, just as ridiculous as suggesting that the EU states will break a formal international treaty (the guarantees) which includes nothing more than clarification of issues which almost everyone says are valid.

Ix.

I think you grossly misunderstand my position.I have never said nor would I ever imply we leave the EU.My arguement is that the EU as a body is very detached from its citizenry and increasingly trying to enforce its political objectives ( however noble they are).It would backfire at some point.If I use your analogy...we had concerns and they tried to address them but did not include them in the treaty we are to vote on again...but like you said they might(being the operation word) include it in a future treaty....how plausible is that?

Dinner

KINGVictor wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0629/1224249725160.html

Well The German Ambassador made the remarks in Ireland about how we would throw away our Future if we voted No again.Irish times is based in Ireland as far as I know.

And Nigel Farage (in that YouTube clip you posted in several, now deleted, threads) said that the future of democracy in Europe rests on Irish shoulders, before rabbiting on about the EU turning into the Soviet Union.

So the former German Ambassador says that we 'throw away our future' with a no vote. Farage says we through it away with a yes. No complaints from you where Farage sticks his oar in to say he will assist the No camp for Lisbon II?

Of course not, you agree with him, don't you?

KINGVictor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I suppose it matters less that he might be right.

Exactly....

Just like the Euroskeptics,libertas,dailymail,Indo etc could be as well.


That is why it is the European Union forum and not Pro -European or pro-lisbon treaty forum.

Gd night .

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

Right...you made a valid point.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0629/1224249725160.html

Well The German Ambassador made the remarks in Ireland about how we would throw away our Future if we voted No again.Irish times is based in Ireland as far as I know.

And the Ambassador is famously outspoken, which rather takes away from the point I think you're trying to make, since he's not issuing the official opinion of Germany, but his own opinion - something he's entitled both to have, and to voice.

After all, you don't seem to have any problem with Nigel Farage proposing to attack the Irish guarantees, do you? This whole thread - and the previous attempts - is based on the efforts of British eurosceptic politicians to interfere with the Irish vote, something which you seem entirely happy to collaborate with.

regards,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

Dinner wrote: »

And Nigel Farage (in that YouTube clip you posted in several, now deleted, threads) said that the future of democracy in Europe rests on Irish shoulders, before rabbiting on about the EU turning into the Soviet Union.

So the former German Ambassador says that we 'throw away our future' with a no vote. Farage says we through it away with a yes. No complaints from you where Farage sticks his oar in to say he will assist the No camp for Lisbon II?

Of course not, you agree with him, don't you?

That is precisely why the thread was started .....


How dare a diplomat preach to us about the repercussions of our actions (us...being a soveriegn nation)...Incredible!!!!....well unless mandated by his own country.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

That is precisely why the thread was started .....


How dare a diplomat preach to us about the repercussions of our actions (us...being a soveriegn nation)...Incredible!!!!....well unless mandated by his own country.

See point above - the thread is actually based on you repeating the words of a British eurosceptic, which makes your complaints about pro-European "interference" rather ironic.

regards,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

KINGVictor wrote: »

we had concerns and they tried to address them but did not include them in the treaty we are to vote on again...but like you said they might(being the operation word) include it in a future treaty....how plausible is that?

Do you think the guarantees are not legally binding?

Which of them do you think our EU partners will break? Abortion? Conscription? Common Defence?

Come on, I've heard all of these issues being dismissed time and again by 'no' voters on this very forum, oh those are all ridiculous 'yes' campaign strawmen they say.

So which one concerns you KINGVictor, enlighten us?

And to pre-emptively set your mind at ease, the guarantees are legally binding international treaties in their own right, which will be given the force of law on the same day as Lisbon, they are as binding as Lisbon, or the Belfast Agreement.

I'm sick of people on this forum who on the one hand decry the claims that concerns about abortion etc. are made up by the 'yes' side, or only come from a handful of nut jobs on the 'no' side, and yet call into question both the bona fide's of our EU partners, as well as the legally binding nature of the guarantees on those very subjects.

I can't help but wonder what the purpose of the creation of such uncertainty is, if there really is no concern about the issues the guarantees address. I find it very hard to see any other purpose than the crude and base creation of fear, uncertainty and doubt for their own sakes.

Obviously this doesn't apply to you KINGVictor, if you are genuinely concerned that our partners in the EU will not only be willing, but able, to use the Lisbon treaty to force in Abortion, Conscription or something else?

The guarantees will be given the force of law on the same day as Lisbon, so if you are genuinely concerned about what they are addressing, you've no need to be.

I just have to say, (and I know its off topic, and he could well give out about it) but scoflaw, you always always amuse the f*ck outa me..

cordially,
cqd

ART6

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Do you think the guarantees are not legally binding?

And to pre-emptively set your mind at ease, the guarantees are legally binding international treaties in their own right, which will be given the force of law on the same day as Lisbon, they are as binding as Lisbon, or the Belfast Agreement.


The guarantees will be given the force of law on the same day as Lisbon, so if you are genuinely concerned about what they are addressing, you've no need to be.

So why do a number of newspapers (and, I believe, some senior EU politicians although I can't immediately name them) keep insisting without challenge that the "guarantees" have no basis in law? My (admittedly limited) understanding of the issue is that the Treaty would have to be ratified again by all member states if Ireland's "guarantees" were actually made legally binding. That at least is what the media seem to be saying, is it not? Are they wrong?

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

And the Ambassador is famously outspoken, which rather takes away from the point I think you're trying to make, since he's not issuing the official opinion of Germany, but his own opinion - something he's entitled both to have, and to voice.

Oh please, he was speaking as an ambassador, he doesn't clock in and out on that job, when he makes a statement its as an ambassador unless retired.

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

Oh please, he was speaking as an ambassador, he doesn't clock in and out on that job, when he makes a statement its as an ambassador unless retired.

I disagree. People are allowed to wear different 'hats', as such.

P. Breathnach

ART6 wrote: »

So why do a number of newspapers (and, I believe, some senior EU politicians although I can't immediately name them) keep insisting without challenge that the "guarantees" have no basis in law? My (admittedly limited) understanding of the issue is that the Treaty would have to be ratified again by all member states if Ireland's "guarantees" were actually made legally binding. That at least is what the media seem to be saying, is it not? Are they wrong?

If they say what you suggest, they are wrong.

The guarantees at this point are international agreements, rather like side agreements to Lisbon.

Yes, it is true that they are not being inserted in the Lisbon Treaty because to insert them now would put an elaborate ratification process right back to square one. In any event, they are redundant, as what they tell us is that the treaty does not do certain things -- in effect, they are clarifications.

But to keep us happy, our partners are prepared to insert them in the next accession treaty just to copper-fasten things for the doubters.

P. Breathnach

brianthebard wrote: »

Oh please, he was speaking as an ambassador, he doesn't clock in and out on that job, when he makes a statement its as an ambassador unless retired.

Whether he was speaking as an ambassador, or as a German, or as a friend of Ireland, doesn't matter that much: was he speaking the truth?