We've voted NO - now lets tell Fianna Fail why

turgon

Yesterday afternoon cornbb started a post asking the No voters to explain what message we wanted to send to Europe. My opinions on that topic are on the other thread.

However he raised an interesting proposal. Now that we have voted No we should somehow make clear why we voted so. And I totally agree - the best way the politicians can come to understand us is if we tell them directly. This way they would be able to inform our EU neighbours why the only direct democracy ratification on the continent was completely against the grain.

So as a result of this I am sending a letter to the minister for foreign affairs outlining my concerns in the treaty, namely the militarization and the "democratic deficit". I would invite all other people who have voted NO for rational reasons (not abortion or boundary issues) to follow suit, and help the government not make a complete àss of themselves.

What do ye think of this idea?

ixtlan

It's a good idea, but why exclude the "boundary" issues?

Many people did vote no because of these. People accuse the yes side of being elitist. It's also elitist for the no side to say the only valid concerns are the rational ones.

I think the military concerns are boundary, and the democratic deficit is (while I understand the concerns about it) very difficult to resolve without swinging into an equally acceptable super-state concern. Do you want an EU-wide vote on the council president?

So, yes, please do, and everyone who feels like it should do so, including those people who did not understand. What needed to be done to help you understand?

Ix.

JimiTime

As someone who doesn't vote, but listened to the two camps without knowing a hell of alot about the treaty; the yes side(the politicians that is) came across as threatening. While the no vote pushers were mentioning specifics (be they false or not). I found The yes side were never convincing and always vague. It always seemed like they were annoyed, yet rather than convince, they seemed to be more 'just vote yes, its good for us'. those that like a good conspiracy would maybe question if the politicians really did want a yes vote. If it was about presentation, i thought the No camp came across better to the ignorant (i.e. Me). My 2 cent.

ixtlan

JimiTime wrote: »

the yes side(the politicians that is) came across as threatening. While the no vote pushers were mentioning specifics (be they false or not). I found The yes side were never convincing and always vague. It always seemed like they were annoyed, yet rather than convince, they seemed to be more 'just vote yes, its good for us'.

As a yes voter I agree. In fact I've never been so close to wanting to get into politics to try to shake up the fools who ran the yes campaign. One problem is that their poster campaign was primarily focused on promoting their candidates. It's extraordinary that all the yes parties made this mistake. Though to be fair the slogans of the non-party yes groups were just as bland.

Ix

irish_bob

putting the local td and in many cased the local councillor on the poster they were blooding for the next election was a mistake , you could understand fianna fail doing it, they cant resist at least resorting to cute hoorism in some way but i would have expected more from the other parties , didnt think they would be as inclined to try and kill 2 birds with one stone
besides , the yes campaign wasnt near as in your face enough as the no campaign
the no campaign knew that scarring people was the way to go , people make stupid descisions when there afraid , like ignoring 160 out 166 td,s in the dail and listening to sinn fein and some shady org called libertas

nesf

JimiTime wrote: »

As someone who doesn't vote, but listened to the two camps without knowing a hell of alot about the treaty; the yes side(the politicians that is) came across as threatening. While the no vote pushers were mentioning specifics (be they false or not). I found The yes side were never convincing and always vague.

Here's the thing. To argue for the treaty meant you needed to sell an argument for all of it. To argue against it, meant you just needed to pick one piece of it and attack it while ignoring all else.

It's far easier to scaremonger on a single issue than to argue for a hundred.

nesf

turgon wrote: »

Yesterday afternoon cornbb started a post asking the No voters to explain what message we wanted to send to Europe. My opinions on that topic are on the other thread.

However he raised an interesting proposal. Now that we have voted No we should somehow make clear why we voted so. And I totally agree - the best way the politicians can come to understand us is if we tell them directly.

This needs to be done. If we are to stay at the heart of the EU we need to figure out what it would take to get this reform treaty, or something like it, passed in this country. With Nice the main issue was neutrality, once that was dealt with the nation passed it. With this, I don't know. There wasn't one unifying theme. Would guarantees on independence to set our own fiscal policy do it (i.e. taxes) or would we need further assurances on neutrality, abortion etc? Would we need guarantees for a commissioner or was that ever really an issue that mattered?

It's going to be a mess to sort out.

ixtlan

nesf wrote: »

Here's the thing. To argue for the treaty meant you needed to sell an argument for all of it. To argue against it, meant you just needed to pick one piece of it and attack it while ignoring all else.

It's far easier to scaremonger on a single issue than to argue for a hundred.

Oh, I'm not too sure about that. Maybe I'm getting cynical, but I have all kinds of scaremongering yes slogans in mind apart from the bland ones that were used...

How about...

You are at the end of of a 2000Km gas pipeline. Will Brian get a good deal from Russia on his own? Yes - for cheaper gas.

Help the EU combat people and drug trafficing. Make life hard for the criminals, vote yes.

Stop global warning. Trust the EU to save the planet. Vote yes.

Stop jobs for the boys. Stop the waste. Reduce the commission now, with equal rotation for all states. Vote yes.

Dictators and warmongers of the world beware. The EU speaks with one voice. Vote yes for a common foreign policy (decisions must be unanimous).

Stop the Waste. Let the EU parliament review the entire EU budget.

I could go on. This is what should have been on the posters.

Ix.

carveone

ixtlan wrote: »

As a yes voter I agree. In fact I've never been so close to wanting to get into politics to try to shake up the fools who ran the yes campaign.

+1.

I just don't get it. For something this important, none of the Yes posters stood out. Many posters I saw didn't even have a Yes on them! Just a face and a name. What is wrong with this picture. And there's this new invention called television that enables you to impartially inform a million people simultanously.

Give that Mary Lou McDonald had precisely the same posters as the Yes campaign, I have the creepiest feeling that what Sinn Fein were looking for here was face time, public relations. The treaty may have been secondary to them...

ixtlan

nesf wrote: »

This needs to be done. If we are to stay at the heart of the EU we need to figure out what it would take to get this reform treaty, or something like it, passed in this country. With Nice the main issue was neutrality, once that was dealt with the nation passed it. With this, I don't know. There wasn't one unifying theme. Would guarantees on independence to set our own fiscal policy do it (i.e. taxes) or would we need further assurances on neutrality, abortion etc? Would we need guarantees for a commissioner or was that ever really an issue that mattered?

It's going to be a mess to sort out.

Yes... I suggest exempting Ireland from the entire military clause specifically. Obviously people did not trust the "progressively improve" wording. So either remove it or opt Ireland out. P. McKenna would still vote no because we would allow the other states to continue but what can you do. We might also need to withdraw from the Battlegroups and have a referendum on this later. I think on it's own that would be won.

Then we need to somehow convince people that we would have to have a referendum on a CCTB. Obviously people simply did not believe that this was secure.

Commissioner... I don't know. It was a big reason for a no certainly. However many people did not understand what the commission does, and did not understand that it does not veto and that there was equal rotation. Having said that there may have to be the appearance of change for this to be put again, so I don't know...

Ix

carveone

ixtlan wrote: »

Oh, I'm not too sure about that. Maybe I'm getting cynical, but I have all kinds of scaremongering yes slogans in mind apart from the bland ones that were used...

Brilliant stuff! I love them! Why don't senior government officials lurk on boards.ie. Frankly, why aren't they required too! Yourself, sink, scofflaw would have been enough to secure a yes, I'm totally convinced of that. Hell I was convinced to vote yes within an hour of clicking the EU board.

ircoha

carveone wrote: »

Brilliant stuff! I love them! Why don't senior government officials lurk on boards.ie. Frankly, why aren't they required too! Yourself, sink, scofflaw would have been enough to secure a yes, I'm totally convinced of that. Hell I was convinced to vote yes within an hour of clicking the EU board.

Interesting: did the yes side use the internet in any way like the no side:

I gather the No side was all over Bebo/Facebook/My space/boards etc

Drift

I'm really annoyed by the way the politicians are suggesting that the majority of people who voted no didn't understand the treaty or were swayed by lies from no campaigners. Yes there were some ridiculously inaccurate statements from the No campaign but there were just as many from the Yes campaign and I think the population of Ireland is easily intelligent enough to filter the wheat from the chaff. The two main reasons I voted No are:

1. I believe the proposed system of Qualified Majority Voting would make it too easy for the EU in general to pass proposed new laws and too difficult for a concerned minority to block proposed new laws.

2. I disliked the self-ammending section contained within the treaty. Although I recognise it was a limited capacity to self ammend, I believe the way it was written was deliberately left vague so it could be used in a variety of circumstances in the future that are unforseen as yet. This disturbed me.

I also had a secondary reason for voting no that I realise is not directly related to the treaty. I believe that the treaty itself further cemented the powerful status given to unelected officials in Europe. I personally think too much power in the European Union's administration is held by unelected officials. I realise that the rejecting the Lisbon Treaty does not affect this status but I believe to accept it would have further cemented this inappropriate setup.

Sorry if I went slightly off-topic but I've been getting more annoyed all morning about the condascending way in which this no vote is viewed by a significant portion of politicians and the general public. The suggestion is rife that the Irish people voted no for reasons that were nothing to do with the treaty. I believe that the majority of people who voted no to the treaty did so on it's own merits and after intelligent consideration of it and I think that the elected officials should now go to Europe strongly championing the mandate given to them by the electorate (their bosses!). Unfortunately I believe they will go and apologise for the "stupidity" of the Irish people.

nesf

ixtlan wrote: »

Commissioner... I don't know. It was a big reason for a no certainly. However many people did not understand what the commission does, and did not understand that it does not veto and that there was equal rotation. Having said that there may have to be the appearance of change for this to be put again, so I don't know...

That's my issue with it. I'm not sure if people were voting for the right reasons when it came to the loss of a commissioner for five years. Is it really a big issue for us? Should we not focus more on changes in the Council of Ministers etc?

I think a campaign to educate the general public on how the EU works might be worthwhile with respect to this side of the issue.

JimiTime

ixtlan wrote: »

Oh, I'm not too sure about that. Maybe I'm getting cynical, but I have all kinds of scaremongering yes slogans in mind apart from the bland ones that were used...

How about...

You are at the end of of a 2000Km gas pipeline. Will Brian get a good deal from Russia on his own? Yes - for cheaper gas.

Help the EU combat people and drug trafficing. Make life hard for the criminals, vote yes.

Stop global warning. Trust the EU to save the planet. Vote yes.

Stop jobs for the boys. Stop the waste. Reduce the commission now, with equal rotation for all states. Vote yes.

Dictators and warmongers of the world beware. The EU speaks with one voice. Vote yes for a common foreign policy (decisions must be unanimous).

Stop the Waste. Let the EU parliament review the entire EU budget.

I could go on. This is what should have been on the posters.

Ix.

I tend to wonder if they really did want a yes vote. If they truly did, then their campaign was terrible, and their ignorance of the people and stupidity would call into question their positions. It should be a very interesting year in europe.

ixtlan

Drift, that is a reasoned comment, and I would not say you were ill-informed.

However for example with the new QMV system, we can argue whether the old system or the new one is "better", but we would both agree that saying "Ireland's vote halves and Germany's doubles" is terribly misleading? IRLConnor has a good analysis of the effect, but in the end the change in "power" if you put it that way is minimal. Yet many people have voted no because they believed there was to be a drastic change. Those that voted yes whether they knew it or not were accepting a minor change.

I accept that it is condescending, but I honestly believe that many (I won't say majority but surely enough to swing the result) of the no voters did not know what they were voting on. Just look at the vox pops on TV. I don't know... it's too hard to understand, etc.

Now to be fair I would have to acknowledge that probably as many from the yes side were equally uninformed. Of course I am biased in that I think they made the right choice.;)

On the opposite side to the admitted condescension is the hardening "I voted no, and no means no, and don't dare ask me to approve anything even close to this treaty again" attitude. Along with "this whole treaty is a mess, toss the entire thing in the bin and come up with a brand new one with no elements at all from Lisbon".

Ix.

Rb

ixtlan wrote: »

(decisions must be unanimous).

To be fair, after yesterdays reactions from several political figures, one would wonder if those in the EU understand the meaning of unanimity

carveone

Drift wrote: »

I'm really annoyed by the way the politicians are suggesting that the majority of people who voted no didn't understand the treaty or were swayed by lies from no campaigners.

I think it's pretty clear you informed yourself and voted according to your conscience. And of course, I don't believe anyone will say you were stupid or didn't understand the content based on the reasoned post you just made.

However (you knew I'd say that), most of us are going on the pre voting polls like tns/mrbi/red-c which stated that the biggest number of those indicating that they are voting NO told the pollsters that there were doing so because they 'didn't know what they were voting for/didn't understand it'.

I'm not sure how much that changed in the last week however.

carveone

ixtlan wrote: »

Now to be fair I would have to acknowledge that probably as many from the yes side were equally uninformed. Of course I am biased in that I think they made the right choice.;)

Indeed! The question is whether the yes response "I don't know, but I trust my politicians to make the choice for me" is an, um, more reasonable way to act than the no responses. I'm torn on that one.
Ideally everyone that voted (both sides) would have informed themselves to their best ability and those that didn't inform themselves would have abstained. That's my ideally of course, your ideally may vary

nesf

carveone wrote: »

Indeed! The question is whether the yes response "I don't know, but I trust my politicians to make the choice for me" is an, um, more reasonable way to act than the no responses. I'm torn on that one.

Well, it's a pretty standard position for voters in General Elections worldwide really.

ixtlan

Rb wrote: »

To be fair, after yesterdays reactions from several political figures, one would wonder if those in the EU understand the meaning of unanimity

Well, if I might be permitted an analogy. If we had the Lisbon system in place during the Iraq war, it would have come to the table. The UK would have wanted agreement for war, France and Germany would have wanted more time for inspections. This would have been debated in public. Most likely a unanimous agreement would not have been reached and the foreign policy "minister" would have been unable to articulate a common position.

However you can imagine that after the meeting each country would have explained their view.

So, unanimous agreement, but countries still have a right to moving forward as they wish, in that case to war, or not.

As for the EU as a whole, changes to the existing treaties must be unanimous. However if one country refuses to allow reform, at some point the time must come when those who want to move forward will want to do so, through whatever mechanism they can agree unanimously with the other country.

To be honest this is not going to happen. The EU will limp on and some arrangement will be come to to suit everyone as best it can be done. However it certainly is a mess.

Ix

bug

Dear Mr Cowan,

I voted No because I never wanted to be part of a European Superstate.
And with the exception of Nice I & II and this treaty, in my voting life- no one ever asked me.

To present a document full of amendments other treaties to the people of Ireland is an affront to us.
I also wasn't sure that if I voted on this treaty that further amendments would be made until the document I voted on was unrecognisable.

I also find the amendment to article 32 section 2a an affront to the constitution of Ireland. They can argue that it was an adminstrative excercise regarding the need to ratify the treaty in all states, however to me it was an affront to the referendum process in Ireland and showed me the complete disrepect the EU hold for our national constitution.

Since the result of the referendum, I hold the reactions of the EU president and deputy president with contempt.

Please don't put this in front of me again.
I am even more sure of my No decision than I was when I cast the vote.

Drift

ixtlan wrote: »

we would both agree that saying "Ireland's vote halves and Germany's doubles" is terribly misleading?

I completely agree that this is totally misleading. I said in my post that the No campaign were guilty of some terrible statements that were completely inaccurate. (As were the Yes campaign.) I however, read the treaty and the treaties it ammends more than once and stand by my view that the proposed system of QMV, in my opinion, makes it too difficult for a concerned minority of countries within the EU to challenge proposed new laws.

ixtlan wrote: »

I accept that it is condescending, but I honestly believe that many (I won't say majority but surely enough to swing the result) of the no voters did not know what they were voting on.

Enough to swing the result would be 54982 people. I don't think that many were so badly misinformed that they would change their mind if they were "better" informed.

ixtlan wrote: »

Now to be fair I would have to acknowledge that probably as many from the yes side were equally uninformed. Of course I am biased in that I think they made the right choice.;)

Thats an important point ixtlan that doesn't get broadcast but I still think too many people underestimate the Irish electorate. I think a minority of very vocal Irish people (predominantly on the yes side, and not on boards I might add) see themselves as above and better than their fellow voters. I don't think that the Irish electorate is as uninformed as we're led to believe by the so-called "political elite."

carveone wrote: »

However (you knew I'd say that), most of us are going on the pre voting polls like tns/mrbi/red-c which stated that the biggest number of those indicating that they are voting NO told the pollsters that there were doing so because they 'didn't know what they were voting for/didn't understand it'.

I'm not sure how much that changed in the last week however.

I understand what you're saying carveone and I do think that it is up to the individual to educate themselves on the content of the referendum. There is no doubt that the information was out there for anyone willing to look. The implication in the media seems to be that if these people did understand it better they would all have voted Yes! I think this is unlikely.

nesf

Drift wrote: »

Enough to swing the result would be 54982 people. I don't think that many were so badly misinformed that they would change their mind if they were "better" informed.

I'd disagree. That's a very small number of people, especially when you consider how many would possibly have voted if better informed. The Yes side dropped the ball on this one I think.

Darragh29

bug wrote: »

Dear Mr Cowan,

I voted No because I never wanted to be part of a European Superstate.
And with the exception of Nice I & II and this treaty, in my voting life- no one ever asked me.

To present a document full of amendments other treaties to the people of Ireland is an affront to us.
I also wasn't sure that if I voted on this treaty that further amendments would be made until the document I voted on was unrecognisable.

I also find the amendment to article 32 section 2a an affront to the constitution of Ireland. They can argue that it was an adminstrative excercise regarding the need to ratify the treaty in all states, however to me it was an affront to the referendum process in Ireland and showed me the complete disrepect the EU hold for our national constitution.

Since the result of the referendum, I hold the reactions of the EU president and deputy president with contempt.

Please don't put this in front of me again.
I am even more sure of my No decision than I was when I cast the vote.

Excellent!

ircoha

Its not just FF, FG Lab?Greens need to know also:

Anyone got a easily accessible list of our elected politicians so as I can send 164- SF a personalized letter as to what they need to address: not email addresses: they block them

Tar.Aldarion

JimiTime wrote: »

I tend to wonder if they really did want a yes vote. If they truly did, then their campaign was terrible, and their ignorance of the people and stupidity would call into question their positions. It should be a very interesting year in europe.

Actually I heard this from my housemate, my housemate's theory is this: They ran such a bad yes campaign never giving reasons for a yes because they wanted a no vote, they thought it was a bad deal for us. However they could not publicly say this as it would be suicide in europe, ie they have to say yes no matter what the treaty said, he also went on to say that's why a conservative britain ratified it.

turgon

ixtlan wrote: »

I accept that it is condescending, but I honestly believe that many (I won't say majority but surely enough to swing the result) of the no voters did not know what they were voting on. Just look at the vox pops on TV. I don't know... it's too hard to understand, etc.

Its not condescending, your just expressing you view!! I know many people give out about people who voted 'no' because they didnt understand it but in fairness: what else would they do? Obviously not voting would be an option, but then the Referendum Commission were telling us all to vote. And you would hardly accept them to approve something they didnt have a clue about, and who were they to trust? Were not Fianna Fail the people who gave us Nice II, and in the eyes of many Nice I & II were the same. Plus Berties thing. Trust is key.

As regards the letter I have decided to put up what is now sealed in an envelope waiting to be sent. My letter:

Letter to the Minister of Foreign Affiars wrote:

I am writing to you today to outline what are to me the rational reasons I have voted ‘No’ in the recent 28th Constitutional Amendment referendum. As a young person voting for the first time, who took a great interest in the treaty, I made every effort to inform myself by reading a wide amount of material and attending the Forum on Europe. My decision to vote ‘No’ was based on issues I felt weren’t tackled in the treaty, and issues that shouldn’t have been in the treaty at all. In writing I hope I can communicate what I feel are genuine concerns, so that you will not feel that all of the ‘No’ side voted out of ignorance.

The primary reason I voted ‘No’ was because of the increased militarization of the EU the Treaty of Lisbon would have entailed. Even though I am fully aware that Ireland’s neutrality would not have been affected, I am still of the opinion that a militarised EU is not a good EU. I feel that common defence pacts should be kept between individual nations and NATO, and should certainly not interfere with the otherwise excellent work the EU engages in.

The second reason I voted against was because of the continuing of the “democratic deficit” inherent to the workings of the Union. Although the treaty attempted to alleviate some problems, I still felt that many of these were trivial. For example, the Citizens Initiative, although seeming to be at first promising, endowed no obligation on the commission to act, thus allowing it to be completely ignored. I also felt that if this treaty were passed it would be some time before another reform; some time before an increased democratic system could be installed.

I am not going to in anyway advise you on a course of action, as I have stated I am very young, and would not seek to overstep my own intelligence. My purpose in writing was to outline my concerns with the Treaty. Whether or not you will act on these, or take them into consideration, I leave to you. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

IRLConor

Drift wrote: »

I however, read the treaty and the treaties it ammends more than once and stand by my view that the proposed system of QMV, in my opinion, makes it too difficult for a concerned minority of countries within the EU to challenge proposed new laws.

The maths would tend to disagree with you I'm afraid. The way the system works makes it trivial for any four countries regardless of size* to block anything.

Here are the outcomes of the two major QMV voting procedures proposed in the Lisbon Treaty:

TEU 16 (4) method (default method):
Result|Number of scenarios which lead to that result
Yes|3294
No (Blocking minority)|134214424
No (Less than 55% of countries in favour)|0
No (Less than 65% of population in favour)|10
No (Neither 55% rule or 65% rule applied)|0


TFEU 238 (2) method (used when not acting on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy):
Result|Number of scenarios which lead to that result
Yes|1070838
No (Less than 72% of countries in favour)|21847333
No (Less than 65% of population in favour)|214786
No (Neither 72% rule or 65% rule applied)|111084771


* The only time size comes into a blocking minority it is when there's a vote on something being proposed under an 'enhanced cooperation' system where not all of the member states are voting. I haven't simulated those, so I can't provide figures.

ixtlan

Quoting turgon...
"For example, the Citizens Initiative, although seeming to be at first promising, endowed no obligation on the commission to act, thus allowing it to be completely ignored."

You have to look at the realities of life though. All something like this can do is raise an issue and get proper consideration and a formal response.

You cannot possibly make it binding for the commission. There are many interest groups who will be able to get a million signatures easily, and you can come up with all kinds of crazy requests that might be made. Suppose 2 groups sign petitions with exactly the opposite views. Which one gets implemented?

It's a good addition for the EU, and I also think it's appropriate that the EU is not compelled to act on it. Let's see...

Suppose a Muslim group demanded a ban on imports from Israel?
Suppose a group demanded a zero alcohol limit? Not an EU competence but however...
Suppose a women's group demanded a quota on elected representatives?
Suppose some group asked for an EU-wide minimum wage?
Suppose some group demanded Playboy be banned from the EU.

Ix.

turgon

ixtlan wrote: »

You have to look at the realities of life though. All something like this can do is raise an issue and get proper consideration and a formal response.

Totally agree. However, I was just using it as an example of how the democratic reforms dont go far enough. I suppose you might say its silly. But having no obligation, and considering the apparent gap between politicians and people, no obligation might turn into dont care.

nesf

turgon wrote: »

Totally agree. However, I was just using it as an example of how the democratic reforms dont go far enough. I suppose you might say its silly. But having no obligation, and considering the apparent gap between politicians and people, no obligation might turn into dont care.

As a mechanism though it's a good compromise between on one hand the genuine concerns of the electorate and on the other the potential for abuse by special interest groups. Recommendations can be taken in the context of whether or not they truly are a popular concern. The broader and more varied the signatures and the bigger geographic distribution of them the more seriously the issue should be taken.

I've no idea if the actual implementation would match this "ideal" but at least it's a step in the right direction. As with anything in an EU treaty, it'll be a compromise, taken in that context I thought it was a good idea, or at least a good first step.

turgon

nesf wrote: »

a good first step.

Well the point I made in the letter, is that if this treaty was passed it would be some time until the next step.

ixtlan

turgon wrote: »

Well the point I made in the letter, is that if this treaty was passed it would be some time until the next step.

That's a good point, but politicians are caught between groups saying clauses do not go far enough, citizens initative and charter of rights, and those that think they go too far, military clause and charter of rights (again).

Ix.

limklad

carveone wrote: »

Brilliant stuff! I love them! Why don't senior government officials lurk on boards.ie. Frankly, why aren't they required too! Yourself, sink, scofflaw would have been enough to secure a yes, I'm totally convinced of that. Hell I was convinced to vote yes within an hour of clicking the EU board.

They only time they listen to the people is when elections are coming up.

I have read lots of opinions and still vote no in the next round. Especially the Bad behaviour of our EU partners and Piss off why the treaty only list amendments of other treaties. They only gave us the Lisbon treaty not the others treaties they amended. A full document of the working of the EU and current court decisions/view in Luxembourg would be nice to go over. What are they truly hiding? They claim openness and transparency. I do not see that.

brianthebard

I've said before but i honestly the best way to deal with the militarisation issue is to have a referendum on neutrality.after that was dealt with we could then proceed one way or the other.
Posted via Mobile Device

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

I've said before but i honestly the best way to deal with the militarisation issue is to have a referendum on neutrality.after that was dealt with we could then proceed one way or the other.
Posted via Mobile Device

Absolutely.