Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty
Options
Comments
-
brianthebard wrote: »Firstly, as a republic, France has a duty to its citizens to allow them to vote on the treaty, seperately from the general election.
Why? Referendums are not the only way to determine the 'public will', nor are they the best way. If they were the only valid way, then we'd have direct democracy, we don't we have representative democracy. Referendums are a very Irish thing in relation to Europe, and really only are by one court decision. Whether or not referendums are a good thing is an intersting debate, but its a different debate.Secondly, Sarkozy insisted that Chirac put the constitution to a referendum, but now he will not do it himself. hypocrisy, cowardice, etc, etc.
A. This is changed in a couple of key ways, in that this is a reform treaty, to fix what we currently had, while the constitution was a statement of what we have and to an extent, what we'd like to become
B. The people elected Sarkozy knowing that he never really planned to put it to a referendum. They tacticly approved his decision. If they really disagree with it, they can vote for somebody who wants to pull out of it in the next electionThirdly, some of the French people chose some of the French government. All of the French people did not chose the government exactly as it exists.
Some of the French people would choose the treaty. Some of the French people wouldn't choose the treaty. All the French people would not choose the outcome of the treaty. In conclusion, welcome to democracy.
They are a different country. How they do their business is up to them. If they don't like their government, and how they are dealing with it, they should vote them out.
What is terribly ironic is that for somebody who doesn't seem to want to be part of a European super-state, you are awfully concerned about the prospects for democracy in one of those European states. It's almost as if your position doesn't make much sense, and this is just an excuse put forward by people who are against the EU in general, and this treaty as a reflection of it.0 -
If the EU is so democratic, then why are the people of only one country out of the 27 getting to decide the outcome?0
-
The other countries' citizens had democratically voted in a government that chose to approve the plan in parliament instead of national referendum (which may be the norm on continental Europe, I'm not sure).
They have done their stuff democratically and now it's up to us to go through our process democratically (which means by referendum in this country). I'm still leaning towards a no vote right now but like I said above I'm waiting for the interest groups to condense the treaty to its controversial (and easily readable) points before deciding.0 -
-
If the EU is so democratic, then why are the people of only one country out of the 27 getting to decide the outcome?
The answer to that is that democracy, as a concept, is still claimed to be the political system in most EU countries.
In face, very few have democracy and have instead a sort of elected dictatorship, such as we have here and in the UK. Add to that the fact that most of our laws are now passed by statutory instruments which have no need to even be mentioned in our parliaments
It is quite amazing,when one sees the level of disgust at George Bush, to realise that he was, at least, elected but the people he purports to represent and then had the chance to kick him out at the ballot box.
In Europe we do things differently and our president is not elected by the people he is supposed to serve, not are any of the commissioner which is where the real power lies in Europe. Most importantly, not one of the citizens of Europe have any means to get rid of the President or Commission.
In my view, this lack of democracy will have serious consequences, and that we continue to allow this undemocratic, and anti democratic, body to continue shames us all.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I think this topic would be enhanced by the addition of a pole, Yes, No, and Undecided.
I am very interested in this Treaty. I am concerned about the lack of referendums in all the member states, this unifying legislation should be carefully and democratically weighed up. It is my basic understanding that the only reason Ireland is having a referendum in the first place is because we are constitutionally protected by our far sited ancestors.
The EU has been mostly positive for Ireland but I fail to see why as superstate is necessary in today's world. In my opinion interventionist superstates have been responsible for enough bloodshed this century.
Every country in Europe has a different history, forged through struggle for generations. We have a responsibility to both past and future generations to resist all forms of anti democratic developments which undermine the individuals ability to shape there community; and that community's role in the world.
Globalisation is a developing reality today, and I can appreciate the desire to create a more competitive Europe, but I fear sweeping changes to the structure of decision making. Economic powers such as China and India have huge growth, but most people will agree the standard of life and the power of the individual bear the burden of this growth. Without the power to hold the political elites accountable, we impose the risk of future wars of independence on our children.0 -
No, he was elected by the electoral college.
You are of course quite right. I wondered if you might tell us who votes for the electors in the electors college? And, once you have explained that, perhaps you might explain how that compares to the way the current president of the EU is "elected"?
Which is the more democratic? Which is the more transparent?0 -
One of the main tenets of Republics is that they actively involve the citizens in decisions that affect them.Why? Referendums are not the only way to determine the 'public will', nor are they the best way. If they were the only valid way, then we'd have direct democracy, we don't we have representative democracy. Referendums are a very Irish thing in relation to Europe, and really only are by one court decision. Whether or not referendums are a good thing is an intersting debate, but its a different debate.
Sarkozy was voted in with teh 0ver 60's vote. They were the ones that swung it. They are also the ones who won't have to deal with the fallout of the treaty. In any case a vote for a president is not a vote for an entirely different issue, no matter how much you want it to be.
B. The people elected Sarkozy knowing that he never really planned to put it to a referendum. They tacticly approved his decision. If they really disagree with it, they can vote for somebody who wants to pull out of it in the next electionThey are a different country. How they do their business is up to them. If they don't like their government, and how they are dealing with it, they should vote them out.
What is terribly ironic is that for somebody who doesn't seem to want to be part of a European super-state, you are awfully concerned about the prospects for democracy in one of those European states. It's almost as if your position doesn't make much sense, and this is just an excuse put forward by people who are against the EU in general, and this treaty as a reflection of it.
It was very presumptious of you to assume I am anti-EU, I'm not. I simply want to see it run in a democratic way, to best serve the citizens of the member states. I don't think that the treaty and the way it is being instituted is democratic, or the best thing for the citizens of the EU.0 -
Im trying to get some information on the Lisbon treaty and how it will affect Ireland both positively and negatively. Ive been having some trouble finding information relating to it.
Anyone here know much about it ? Or possibly someone can point me in the right direction ?
Thanks.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think the wikipedia page has a digestable amount of information and isn't very biased.
The truth is there won't be any severe reprucussions if we do vote yes, it'll mostly allow the EU to operate better. Most of the 'no' vote issues are ideological in nature. But if we fail to pass this referendum it will only come back to haunt us in a few years with a few amendments. There also the possibility that european investment will decrease if we are viewed as eurosceptics.0 -
This issue is too complicated. I think each side necessarily simplifies the issues to make a political point, whether ideological, opportunistic, or both.
For example, IMO, FF is behind the treaty because it's good, pragmatic politics and largely suits business interests. Labour is behind it because it suits internationalism; it's more progressive to have a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights which citizens (and the European social democrats) can use to create a social Europe. Sinn Féin opposes it, IMO, because they're riding a crest of an insular nationalist wave at local level, betraying its socialist internationalist pretensions, and the Socialists have gone barmy. Half of the Greens oppose it because of their attachment to pure local democracy and peaceism. FG seem a little fuzzy about things.
From the little I know about it, preliminary assessments about the Charter component of the treaty are that the effect will be moderately positive, but will only be as good as how people use their fundamental rights to push for change. The Charter won't extend the power of the EU, but other aspects of the treaty will. However, I remain intensely baffled about exactly how power will be exercised under this new regime; like, as in the precise balance between pooled-sovereignty and national-sovereignty.
Anyway, the heads are saying that the Charter, at least, introduces little that doesn't already exist. Just, it regularises things in law so courts don't have to trudge through tonnes of legal precendents.
Oh, I dunno.
What exactly are we voting on, anyway?0 -
I'm voting no because I don't like mass immigration into Ireland and I don't want to be ruled from Belgium anymore.0
-
Can this be merged with the largre Lisbon thread?0
-
'berliner'?berliner wrote:I'm voting no because I don't like mass immigration into Ireland and I don't want to be ruled from Belgium anymore.
Hmm, maybe you're right. If one crowd is right about things, voting no will destroy the Irish economy. With all us living in poverty, no one will want to come here to work. Sound.0 -
-
I am not too keyed up on the Lisbon Treaty either, but I do believe that Ireland is probably the only member state (I may be wrong) to allow a referendum on the issue. Also a new position of EU President is being created with Tony Blair supposedly up for the post. He has run into opposition from a website petition group WWW.stopblair.eu and also the Germans and Benelux are opposed. I do not think we will have any option but to sanction it whether we like it or not, I know we can vote yes or no but it will be ratified by the Parliaments of the other member states anyway.0
-
I know we can vote yes or no but it will be ratified by the Parliaments of the other member states anyway.
Yes but It has to be ratified by every country. So Ireland could prove to be a spanner in the works!!! Personally I would love to see the Bert groveling at the feet of the European leaders as he tries to explain how his country voted no!!0 -
Yes but It has to be ratified by every country. So Ireland could prove to be a spanner in the works!!! Personally I would love to see the Bert groveling at the feet of the European leaders as he tries to explain how his country voted no!!
Yes that's very interesting, I did not realize it had to be ratified by every country. A bit of a risky strategy then from the Government? Any chance of Bertie putting his neck on the line if it does not get ratified and threatening to resign?0 -
If bertie does threaten to reign it will just be another good reason to vote no!!!!!!0
-
Advertisement
-
Threads merged.0
-
If we vote no they will make us vote again until they get a yes vote like they did in the nice treaty.Europe is undemocratic.I don't want to be ruled from Belgium anymore.I hate the whole EU project.It stinks.Kaiser_Sma wrote: »Could someone try to explain to me how this treaty is undemocratic? Obviously the lack of referendum around europe is not directly democratic, but it's still decided by elected representatives.
The real reason this hasn't gone to referendum is because (as polls have shown) there is a vast amount of apathy towards european affairs and in particular this treaty. If it does go to referendum everywhere it will only be the very opposed who will vote, and they represent a tiny minority of voters at present.
The treaty itself if anything increases the democratic nature of the EU by making the directly elected european parliment as powerful as the european council. There are enough stipulations in the treaty to prevent it from completly superseeding a national veto.
It will also allow the EU to make diplomatic relations on it's own providing that they do not interfere with individual foreign policies.
The affirmation of fundemental rights and tougher restrictions on entry are reason alone to vote for this.0 -
Thankfully, you're very much in the minority.0
-
-
-
Yes that's very interesting, I did not realize it had to be ratified by every country. A bit of a risky strategy then from the Government? Any chance of Bertie putting his neck on the line if it does not get ratified and threatening to resign?
It's not a strategy, if they had any chance of not having a referendum they wouldn't. But thankfully the Supreme Court doesn't think the same way.0 -
http://www.eureform.net
STATEMENTS BY EUROPEAN POLITICIANS ON THE EU CONSTITUTION
(These are in chronological order backwards)
"Naturally it (i.e. the Lisbon Treaty) is still far from the clarity of our constitution on how powers are really delineated."
-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speech at Berlin Conference, EUobserver, 7 December 2007
________
"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments... A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK... Now we have got to resolve the political issues and to broach them without fear. We have got to debate them without taboos: budgetary policy, trade policy, monetary policy, industrial policy, taxation, all policies, any policies. "
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at meeting of MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007
_______________
"The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary ... But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention."
- V.Giscard D'Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew u the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007
_________________
"I think it's a bit upsetting... to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity", Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said on Sunday(21 October), according to the Irish Independent. If you believe in something ...why not let your people have a say in it. I think the Irish people should take the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that they believe in the cause, and perhaps others shouldn't be so afraid of it," he added."
- Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, EU Observer, Brussels, 22 October 2007__________
"They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say 'Look, you see, it's absolutely unreadable, it's the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.' Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new."
- Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007
_________________
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
- V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007
______________
" The most striklng change ( between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."
- Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Prime Minister(Taoiseach), Irish Times, 30 June 2007
_________________
"The substance of the constitution is preserved.That is a fact."
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Parliament, 27 June 2007
____________
"The good thing is...that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left."
- Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007______________
"The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'constitution'."
- Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007
__________________
"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004."
- Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007
_________________
"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007____________
"It is psychological terrorism to suggest the spectre of a European superstate."
- Giorgio Napolitano, President of Italy, Sunday Express, London, 17 June 2007
________________
"The good thing about not calling it a Constltution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."
- Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007
________________
"Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable ... I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU much more difficult. If a referendum had to be held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed? ... If you have signed a treaty, you should also ratify it. And if you can't, you should at least contribute to a solution."
- Commission President Jose M. Barroso, Irish Times, 8 Feb.2007; quoting remarks in Het Financieele Dag and De Volkskrant, Holland; also quoted in EUobserver, 6 February 2007
___________
" It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin ... Against the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, the essential European legislative functions lie with the members of the executive ... The figures stated by the German Ministry of Justice make it quite clear. By far the large majority of legislation valid in Germany is adopted by the German Government in the Council of Ministers, and not by the German Parliament ... And so the question arises whether Germany can still be referred to unconditionally as a parliamentary democracy at all, because the separation of powers as a fundamental constituting principle of the constitutional order in Germany has been cancelled out for large sections of the legislation applying to this country ... The proposed draft Constitution does not contain the possibility of restoring individual competencies to the national level as a centralisation brake. Instead, it counts on the same one-way street as before, heading towards ever greater centralisation ... Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something is going wrong, that an untransparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competencies and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this."
- Former German President Roman Herzog, also former President of Germany's Constitutional Court. article on the EU Constitution, jointly written with Lüder Gerken, Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007
___________
" People say 'We cannot vote again.' What is this joke? We have to vote again until the French see what the stakes are."
- V.Giscard d'Estaing, Agence Presse, 12 June 2006
__________
"We need a European defence, a European army, not just on paper but a force genuinely capable of operating in the field, including beyond the European borders ... The philosophy behind all these proposals - economic, political, military - is always the same. I believe that the citiizens' doubts and uncertainty, as for example reflected in the two referendums, actually constitute a plea for more Europe, a strong Europe, and not for less Europe. And I am also quite clear that I am advocating a more powerful Europe, also a more closely integrated Europe ... In short I am advocating a United States of Europe."
- Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, speech at the London School of Economics, 21 March 2006
______________
"A political union is the logical end-point of a currency union. But if that political union fails to materialise, then in the long term the euro area cannot continue to exist. Now that nobody appears to want that political union, you can begin to wonder whether monetary union was such a good idea. I hardly dare predict that, in the longer term, the monetary union will collapse. Not next year, but on a time-frame of ten or twenty years. There is not a single monetary union which survived without political union. They have all collapsed. You invariably get big shocks. A monetary union becomes very fragile without a political framework. With the exception of a Don Quixote like Guy Verhofstadt, I see nobody who is pushing the case for a political union ... A large free trade zone remains the only feasible option for Europe. It's an illusion that we can realise a political union in Europe in the near future. Political unification has failed. But that is a big problem for the currency union. That is in danger."
- Professor Paul de Grauwe, economic adviser to Commission President J. M. Barroso, author of "The Economics of Monetary Integration" and other books, interview in De Morgen, Belgium, 18 March 2006______________
"The rejection of the Constitution is a mistake which will have to be corrected ? If the Irish and the Danes can vote Yes in the end, so the French can do it too."
- V.Giscard d'Estaing, speech at the London School of Economics, 28 February 2006
__________
"After Nice the forces of political Europe joined others in stoking the fire. The Commission, the Parliament, the federalists, French proponents of integration, the media, all found Nice too 'intergovernmental'. Together, they imposed the idea that Nice was a disaster, that we urgently needed a new treaty. Soon a 'new treaty' wasn't enough. It had to be a 'Constitution', and little did it matter that it was legally inappropriate. When the time came, the result had to be ratified. What tiny national parliament, what people, would then dare to stand in the way of this new meaning of history? The results of the Convention, at first deemed insufficient by maximalists, became the holy word when it was realised that selfish governments might water it down.
"At every stage of this craze, from 1996 until 2005, a more reasonable choice could have been made, a calmer rhythm could have been adopted, that would not have deepened the gap between the elites and the population, that would have better consolidated the real Europe and spared us the present crisis. But in saying this, I understimate the religious fervour that has seized the European project. For all those who believed in the various ideologies of the second half of the 20th century, but survived their ruin, the rush into European integration became a substitute ideology.
"They planned urgently to end the nation state. Everything outside this objective was heresy and had to be fought. This was in the spirit of Jean Monnet, the rejection of self and of history, of all common sense. 'European power' was a variation, the code name for a counterweight to America that excited France alone for years and towards which the 'Constitution' was supposed to offer a magical shortcut. And let us not forget the periodic French incantations for a Franco-German union.
"As the train sped on, these two groups, instead of braking the convoy, kept stoking the locomotive, some to enlarge and others to integrate, deaf to the complaints coming from the carriages. Since we had to ask for confirmation from time to time, the recalcitrant peoples were told they had no choice, that it was for their own good, that all rejection or delay would be a sign of egotism, sovereignty, turning inward, hatred of others, xenophobia, even Le Penism or fascism. But it didn't work. The passengers unhooked the carriages?"
- Hubert Vedrine, French Foreign Minister 1999-2005, Irish Times, 8 August 2005
____________
"If its a Yes, we will say 'On we go", and if it's a No we will say 'We continue.'"
- Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister and holder of the EU Presidency, Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2005___________
"We decide on something. We leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most poeple don't know what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
- Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, The Economist, 24 September 2004
_________
"The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State"
- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004
__________
"The Convention (which drafted the EU Constitution) brought together a self-selected group of the European political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level, which is dependent on more and more integration and who see national governments and parliaments as an obstacle. Not once in the sixteen months I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union. The debates focused solely on where we could do more at the European Union level. None of the existing policies were questioned."
- Gisela Stuart MP, The Making of Europe's Constitution, Fabian Society, London, 2003.
__________
"Once the European Union acquires legal personality under the new Constitutional Treaty, this will dispel any remaining tendency to see it as just another international organisation and will free it from a constraint that has hitherto frustrated its ability to act on the world stage. As a fully-fledged political entity, the Union will be able to establish a foreign policy that is consistent with its specific values and principles, a policy seeking a more stable, more equitable international order, and it will be able to combine the internal policies of the Member States in a common area of freedom, security and justice ...The Constitution will be the constituent act of the Europe of the future, the new, enlarged Europe. Europe, and, a fortiori, each individual Member State, can only become influential if they are united, and not divided."
- Carlo Ciampi, President of Italy, address to Conference of European Parliament group presidents, 30 September 2003
__________
"When we build the euro - and with what a success - when we advance on the European defence, with difficulties but with considerable progress, when we build a European arrest-warrant, when we move towards creating a European prosecutor, we are building something deeply federal, or a true union of states. . . The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must become a charter of rights that is applicable and effective... I wish this Constitution to be the Constitution of a rebuilt Union, able to reflect its social cohesion, deepen its political unity, express its power externally."
- M.Pierre Moscovici, French Minister for Europe, Le Monde,28 February 2002
_________
"European monetary union has to be complemented by a political union - that was always the presumption of Europeans including those who made active politics before us. . .What we need to Europeanise is everything to do with economic and financial policy. In this area we need much more, let's call it co-ordination and co-operation to suit British feelings, than we had before. That hangs together with the success of the euro."
- German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, The Times, London, 22 February 2002
__________
"Defence is the hard core of sovereignty. Now we have a single currency, then why should we not have a common defence one day?"
- Spanish Defence Minister Federico Trillo, European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, 19 February 2002________
"It (the introduction of the euro) is not economic at all.It is a completely political step . . .The historical significance of the euro is to constuct a bipolar economy in the world. The two poles are the dollar and the euro. This is the political meaning of the single European currency. It is a step beyond which there will be others. The euro is just an antipasto."
- Commission President Romano Prodi, interview on CNN, 1 January 2002
__________
"The currency union will fall apart if we don't follow through with the consequences of such a union. I am convinced we will need a common tax system."
- German Finance Minister Hans Eichel, The Sunday Times, London, 23 December 2001
________
"We need a European Constitution. The European Constitution is not the 'final touch' of the European structure; it must become its foundation. The European Constitution should prescribe that . . .we are building a Federation of Nation-States. . .The first part should be based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed at the European summit at Nice. . . If we transform the EU into a Federation of Nation-States, we will enhance the democratic legitimacy. . .We should not prescribe what the EU should never be allowed to . . . I believe that the Parliament and the Council of Ministers should be developed into a genuine bicameral parliament."
- Dr Johannes Rau, President of the Federal Republic of Germany, European Parliament, 4 April 2001
__________
"Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage."
- Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001
___________
- "Thanks to the euro, our pockets will soon hold solid evidence of a European identity. We need to build on this, and make the euro more than a currency and Europe more than a territory . . . In the next six months, we will talk a lot about political union, and rightly so. Political union is inseparable from economic union. Stronger growth and Euorpean integration are related issues. In both areas we will take concrete steps forward."
- French Finance Minister Laurent Fabius, The Financial Times, London, 24 July 2000
___________
"One must act 'as if' in Europe: as if one wanted only very few things, in order to obtain a great deal. As if nations were to remain sovereign, in order to convince them to surrender their sovereignty. The Commission in Brussels, for example, must act as if it were a technical organism, in order to operate like a government ... and so on, camouflaging and toning down. The sovereignty lost at national level does not pass to any new subject. It is entrusted to a faceless entity: NATO, the UN and eventually the EU. the Union is the vanguard of this changing world: it indicates a future of Princes without sovereignty. The new entity is faceless and those who are in command can neither be pinned down nor elected ...That is the way Europe was made too: by creating communitarian organisms without giving the organisms presided over by national governments the impression that they they were being subjected to a higher power. That is how the Court of Justice as a supra-national organ was born. It was a sort of unseen atom bomb, which Schuman and Monnet slipped into the negotiations on the Coal and Steel Community. That was what the 'CSC' itself was: a random, mixture of national egotisms which became communitarian. I don't think it is a good idea to replace this slow and effective method - which keeps national States free from anxiety while they are being stripped of power - with great institutional leaps...Therefore I prefer to go slowly, to crumble pieces of sovereignty up little by little, avoiding brusque transitions from national to federal power. That is the way I think we will have to build Europe's common policies..."
- Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, later Vice-President of the EU Constitutional Convention, interview with Barbara Spinelli, La Stampa, 13 July 2000
____________
"We already have a federation. The 11, soon to be 12, member States adopting the euro have already given up part of their sovereignty, monetary sovereignty, and formed a monetary union, and that is the first step towards a federation."
- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Financial Times, 7 July 2000
___________
"We will have to create an avant-garde ... We could have a Union for the enlarged Europe, and a Federation for the avant-garde."
- Former EU Commission President Jacques Delors, Liberation, 17 June 2000
__________
"The last step will then be the completion of integration in a European Federation. . . such a group of States would conclude a new European framework treaty, the nucleus of a constitution of the Federation. On the basis of this treaty, the Federation would develop its own institutions, establish a government which, within the EU, should speak with one voice. . . a strong parliament and a directly elected president. Such a driving force would have to be the avant-garde, the driving force for the completion of political integration. . . This latest stage of European Union . . . will depend decisively on France and Germany."
- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, speech at Humboldt University Berlin, 12 May 20000 -
EU court ‘opens door’ to cuts in Irish wages
A Danish MEP has warned that Irish workers could be forced to take a big cut in wages or see their jobs go to foreign workers following a landmark judgment by the EU’s highest court.
The court decided that under EU law (Directive 96/71) a company based in one EU state can bring migrant workers to another country and pay them no more than the minimum wage.
“The ruling in the Laval case was given by the European Court of Justice on 18th December last,” said Jens-Peter Bonde.
“It outlawed trade union efforts to take action for higher wages against foreign companies paying wages lower than the normal national rates.”
He added that “the European Court of Justice has a long tradition of inventing laws,” and that its latest ruling is likely to be important in the coming Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Trade unionists and politicians across Europe have attacked the landmark ruling, claiming it is a blow to workers’ rights and opens the door to “wage dumping”.
“It strikes at the very heart of employment rights in the EU and could lead to a race to the bottom in terms of wages,” said UK Green MEP Jean Lambert.
Another MEP, Poul Rasmussen of Denmark, believed that the ruling may send out the message “that Europe is more interested in competition between workers than in raising living standards for all families.”
For John Monks who heads the European Trade Union Confederation, “the ruling has imposed restrictions on unions’ ability to protect workers, be they native or foreign.”
The Luxembourg court found against pickets in Sweden who blocked a site in order to halt lower-paid Latvian workers from doing electrical and building work in a school.
The ruling against the Swedish workers was described as “a disappointment” by Sweden’s government but welcomed by Latvia.
Jens-Peter Bonde was speaking at a seminar in Dublin organised by Kathy Sinnott MEP to provide information on the Lisbon Treaty which will be put to Irish voters in the coming months.
Other figures addressing the meeting included Patricia McKenna of the Green Party and Sharon Bonici from Malta.
Ms Bonici pointed out that right across Europe people were being denied any say on the Lisbon Treaty. “Yet,” she said, “the EU’s own statistics show that more than 50% of voters in the bloc are opposed to it.”
Former MEP Patricia McKenna slammed the Irish government for weakening the powers of the Referendum Commission.
In the past this body published the arguments for both sides in a balanced way. But the government has removed that task from the Commission, apparently afraid of a fair, open and honest debate.
http://www.alive.ie/headline1.php0 -
A real eye opener.This information should be given to Irish people but unfortunately they won't get it and they'll vote yes.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the whole EU project will end in disaster.EU court ‘opens door’ to cuts in Irish wages
A Danish MEP has warned that Irish workers could be forced to take a big cut in wages or see their jobs go to foreign workers following a landmark judgment by the EU’s highest court.
The court decided that under EU law (Directive 96/71) a company based in one EU state can bring migrant workers to another country and pay them no more than the minimum wage.
“The ruling in the Laval case was given by the European Court of Justice on 18th December last,” said Jens-Peter Bonde.
“It outlawed trade union efforts to take action for higher wages against foreign companies paying wages lower than the normal national rates.”
He added that “the European Court of Justice has a long tradition of inventing laws,” and that its latest ruling is likely to be important in the coming Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Trade unionists and politicians across Europe have attacked the landmark ruling, claiming it is a blow to workers’ rights and opens the door to “wage dumping”.
“It strikes at the very heart of employment rights in the EU and could lead to a race to the bottom in terms of wages,” said UK Green MEP Jean Lambert.
Another MEP, Poul Rasmussen of Denmark, believed that the ruling may send out the message “that Europe is more interested in competition between workers than in raising living standards for all families.”
For John Monks who heads the European Trade Union Confederation, “the ruling has imposed restrictions on unions’ ability to protect workers, be they native or foreign.”
The Luxembourg court found against pickets in Sweden who blocked a site in order to halt lower-paid Latvian workers from doing electrical and building work in a school.
The ruling against the Swedish workers was described as “a disappointment” by Sweden’s government but welcomed by Latvia.
Jens-Peter Bonde was speaking at a seminar in Dublin organised by Kathy Sinnott MEP to provide information on the Lisbon Treaty which will be put to Irish voters in the coming months.
Other figures addressing the meeting included Patricia McKenna of the Green Party and Sharon Bonici from Malta.
Ms Bonici pointed out that right across Europe people were being denied any say on the Lisbon Treaty. “Yet,” she said, “the EU’s own statistics show that more than 50% of voters in the bloc are opposed to it.”
Former MEP Patricia McKenna slammed the Irish government for weakening the powers of the Referendum Commission.
In the past this body published the arguments for both sides in a balanced way. But the government has removed that task from the Commission, apparently afraid of a fair, open and honest debate.
http://www.alive.ie/headline1.php0 -
Advertisement
-
A real eye opener.This information should be given to Irish people but unfortunately they won't get it and they'll vote yes.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the whole EU project will end in disaster.
Of course - the 50 years since the foundation of the EU has been so much worse than the 50 years before it, or the 50 years before that...or....by the way, I assume everyone knows that Jens-Peter Bonde is a eurosceptic?
amused,
Scofflaw0
Advertisement