Re: EU becoming like the USSR

KINGVictor

I came across this article today by the Daily Telegraph and I found it quite interesting.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/9299395/Vaclav_Klaus_warns_against_the_EUs_Soviet_tendencies/

Essentially the Czech president says The Brussels system, is starting to resemble the old Soviet bloc. The Czech President is alarmed by the EU’s disdain for democracy, by its arbitrary application of its own rules, by its refusal to countenance criticism.

While he acknowledges that the EU project has been largely a success but it was in danger of drifting away from its people.


I completely agree with him that the EU has been a very successful body especially considering the convoluted nature of the Union itself but I also do agree that it is becoming like the Soviet bloc especially considering the fact that the Irish are been asked to yet on a treaty that they rejected a year ago simply because the outcome of the referendum did not go down well with them .While they may not be using the same modus operandi of the Soviet Union..the effect is basically the same.
I would greatly appreciate a discussion on this.Thanks

Iwasfrozen

Do you know anything about the Soviet Union ?
I reserve my judgement untill I see communal farming.

Scofflaw

I wasn't aware that voting on treaties was a major feature of the old Soviet Union.

If you're asking for a general opinion on Hannan's piece, I think it's extremely weak. He doesn't actually draw any worthwhile parallels, and I don't think Hannan's experience of being asked not to disrupt European Parliament proceedings by holding a internal protest rally during a sitting - and removed when he wouldn't either stop or leave - has anything Soviet about it. He certainly wouldn't get away with it in either the Dáil or the House of Commons, but he curiously fails to liken those institutions to Soviet Russia.

Nor does there seem to be any difficulty for Hannan in the ways he puts forward as the kind of soft harassment suffered by dissidents in Soviet Eastern Europe:

Dissidents were still harassed, but were rarely imprisoned or tortured. Indeed, they were rarely put on trial. That was the scary thing. If you criticised the authorities, things would mysteriously start becoming awkward for you. Your driving licence would not be renewed. You would be unable to find any but menial jobs. Your children would be expelled from university.

Does Daniel Hannan suffer any of these things? It doesn't seem likely. He's certainly been able to find something other than a menial job. If he has children, I somehow doubt their academic careers are suffering as a result. Nor, as far as I can tell, does he suffer any difficulties in his travel arrangements.

In short, he's drawing a pathetically sad comparison between his inability to run protest rallies during Parliamentary sittings and Soviet repression. Most of us grow out of that kind of self-involvement when we're teenagers, although certainly a lot of 'young' right-wing politicians don't seem to. Perhaps he should have spent some more time in the real world between Oxford and politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills

This is not the first time the EU was referred to the former Soviet Union, Vladimir Bukovksy who was a former Soviet dissident made a similar comment back in 2006 He also feared that the European Union could end up to becoming just like the former block.

In a speech he delivered in Brussels in 2006 Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it developed into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

KINGVictor

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you know anything about the Soviet Union ?
I reserve my judgement untill I see communal farming.

If you read my post ,
Klaus was not trying to draw parallels between the two systems,the EU clearly has democratic governments as opposed to the Soviet Union which was a despotic Government.The comparisons are more with the similarities which include lack of respect for its own peoples opinion/decisions which clearly can be seen by the manner is been subjugated into voting for a second time.

The French and the Dutch voted NO and were not required to do the same.

Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This is not the first time the EU was referred to the former Soviet Union, Vladimir Bukovksy who was a former Soviet dissident made a similar comment back in 2006 He also feared that the European Union could end up to becoming just like the former block.

In a speech he delivered in Brussels in 2006 Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it developed into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

And, much like Hannan and Klaus, he offered no convincing arguments for the belief other than his own conviction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Iwasfrozen

KINGVictor wrote: »

Klaus was not trying to draw parallels between the two systems,the EU clearly has democratic governments as opposed to the Soviet Union which was a despotic Government.The comparisons are more with the similarities which include lack of respect for its own peoples opinion/decisions which clearly can be seen by the manner is been subjugated into voting for a second time.

For the last time: The European Union is not totalitarian and is not to balme for the second referendum. That blame falls squarly on the Irish Governments shoulders. After the first treaty was rejected the Irish Government could have went back to Brussels and told the EU that Lisbon is dead as we voted no. And would have been well within their rights to do that. Instead they negociated guarantees to adress the Irish electorates problems with the treaty, something for which the Union was more than happy to co-operate with.

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

And, much like Hannan and Klaus, he offered no convincing arguments for the belief other than his own conviction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am really not bothered with the personalities of the authors but concerned and interested in the contents.
If I was to use your analogy then I would be very terrified about the EU and especially the upcoming Lisbon 11 referendum that is been supported by Brian Cowen and cohorts,and if we rightly recollect the Labour leader Gilmore that is now supporting the Yes campaign said the treaty was dead before the machinations of Brussels came to fore.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

I am really not bothered with the personalities of the authors but concerned and interested in the contents.
If I was to use your analogy then I would be very terrified about the EU and especially the upcoming Lisbon 11 referendum that is been supported by Brian Cowen and cohorts,and if we rightly recollect the Labour leader Gilmore that is now supporting the Yes campaign said the treaty was dead before the machinations of Brussels came to fore.

Er, no, I'm not attacking the personalities involved (well, Daniel Hannan a bit, granted, but ex-youth-politics right-wingers rub me up that way), I'm pointing out that the "evidence" they offer is essentially just their belief - in Hannan's case, all he's offering is his own sense of self-importance.

As to the bit about Cowen - I don't need his word for the positive impact of the EU on Ireland. I was here for it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For the last time: The European Union is not totalitarian and is not to balme for the second referendum. That blame falls squarly on the Irish Governments shoulders. After the first treaty was rejected the Irish Government could have went back to Brussels and told the EU that Lisbon is dead as we voted no. And would have been well within their rights to do that. Instead they negociated guarantees to adress the Irish electorates problems with the treaty, something for which the Union was more than happy to co-operate with.

After the uproar ...the German and French leaders saying we have to vote again.Not to talk of the noices and speculations that there could be a two-speed europe and the general talk about how ungrateful Ireland was?

After the rejection of the referendum in france...no contest...constitution declared dead.And as you are well aware this is not an isolated incidence...it happens all the time Ireland or any "small " nation votes NO.

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

After the uproar ...the German and French leaders saying we have to vote again.Not to talk of the noices and speculations that there could be a two-speed europe and the general talk about how ungrateful Ireland was?

After the rejection of the referendum in france...no contest...constitution declared dead.And as you are well aware this is not an isolated incidence...it happens all the time Ireland or any "small " nation votes NO.

The first paragraph is your opinion and really if I provided proof that it wasn't case, you'll probably still say the same.

The constitution was not declared dead after France voted No.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

After the uproar ...the German and French leaders saying we have to vote again.Not to talk of the noices and speculations that there could be a two-speed europe and the general talk about how ungrateful Ireland was?

After the rejection of the referendum in france...no contest...constitution declared dead.And as you are well aware this is not an isolated incidence...it happens all the time Ireland or any "small " nation votes NO.

Actually, the Dutch vote was held after the French one, and it was the combination of the two that halted the process.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dinner

KINGVictor wrote: »

After the rejection of the referendum in france...no contest...constitution declared dead.And as you are well aware this is not an isolated incidence...it happens all the time Ireland or any "small " nation votes NO.

Because there were issues actually in the Constitution that the French objected to. There were no such issues with Lisbon. Most of the big issues that the public had with Lisbon were not in Lisbon.

KINGVictor

K-9 wrote: »

The first paragraph is your opinion and really if I provided proof that it wasn't case, you'll probably still say the same.

The constitution was not declared dead after France voted No.

The French president Sarkozy expressly demanded a second vote as can be deduced from the following links in which he demanded such.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4340086.ece

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0716/1216073118110.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0715/eulisbon.html

Likewise the German chancellor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4187792.ece

So not entirely my opinion.


And contrary to your position the Frech vote albeit alongside with the Dutch vote killed the Eu constitution as evidenced below

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1492025/France-buries-the-EU-constitution.html


and incidentally that is what was generally expected to happen after the Irish vote

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL1163265720080612

The French prime minister even acknowledged that the treaty would be expired if the Irish voted no.

Scofflaw

If the Irish government hadn't wanted a second vote, and felt that one might return a Yes, Sarkozy could have asked for a second Irish vote until he was blue in the face.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

The French president Sarkozy expressly demanded a second vote as can be deduced from the following links in which he demanded such.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4340086.ece

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0716/1216073118110.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0715/eulisbon.html

Likewise the German chancellor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4187792.ece

So not entirely my opinion.


And contrary to your position the Frech vote albeit alongside with the Dutch vote killed the Eu constitution as evidenced below

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1492025/France-buries-the-EU-constitution.html


and incidentally that is what was generally expected to happen after the Irish vote

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL1163265720080612

The French prime minister even acknowledged that the treaty would be expired if the Irish voted no.

Yep, seen it all before. I'm not even going to bother posting pieces to the contrary as it will be ignored. You could do a search of the forum just after the result and see opinions different to this though, if you are bothered that is.

KingVictor wrote:

And contrary to your position the Frech vote albeit alongside with the Dutch vote killed the Eu constitution as evidenced below

That isn't what you said originally, far from it:

KingVictor wrote:

After the rejection of the referendum in france...no contest...constitution declared dead.And as you are well aware this is not an isolated incidence...it happens all the time Ireland or any "small " nation votes NO.

Why do you think they bothered holding the Dutch referendum then?

Scofflaw

After the rejection of the referendum in france...no contest...constitution declared dead.And as you are well aware this is not an isolated incidence...it happens all the time Ireland or any "small " nation votes NO.

Not exactly much in the way of precedent there, I fear.These are the No votes:

Treaty|Country|Result|Subsequent
Maastricht|Denmark|Edinburgh Agreement negotiated|Voted Yes in second referendum
Nice|Ireland|Seville Declaration negotiated|Voted Yes in second referendum
Constitution|France & Holland|Treaty abandoned|Lisbon Treaty
Lisbon|Ireland|Guarantees negotiated|?


That's a grand total of 4 data points on which to base your theory. One could equally well draw the conclusion that it takes two countries to politically kill a treaty, and that what otherwise happens, if there isa single dissenting country, is that negotiations take place to address the issues that were found to have been important. I find it hard to muster a sensation of outrage over that, myself, but others apparently find it relatively easy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

One could equally well draw the conclusion that it takes two countries to politically kill a treaty

Sure it's the same treaty!

Steviemak

If the EU is the USSR in the making why is Joe Higgins so upset with it?

Lets all get real and stop listening to the British Imperialist press:mad:

Run_to_da_hills

Steviemak wrote: »

If the EU is the USSR in the making why is Joe Higgins so upset with it?

Lets all get real and stop listening to the British Imperialist press:mad:

You don't have to "listen" to the British press. just listen to Nigel Farage as I had mentioned on a previous thread. His speech last Tuesday in Strasbourg draws up a lot of similarities between the EU and the former Soviet Union such as having its own international anthem, orchestra, military, and most importantly its undemocratic manner of railroading over the Irish electorate..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG2yz...layer_embedded

P. Breathnach

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

... just listen to Nigel Farage ...

I have better things to do.

Daftendirekt

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You don't have to "listen" to the British press. just listen to Nigel Farage as I had mentioned on a previous thread. His speech last Tuesday in Strasbourg draws up a lot of similarities between the EU and the former Soviet Union such as having its own international anthem, orchestra, military, and most importantly its undemocratic manner of railroading over the Irish electorate..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG2yz...layer_embedded

The EU doesn't have it's own anthem or military. I don't know, or care, about whether it has an orchestra or not.

And besides, why are these things intrinsically linked with the Soviet Union?

ei.sdraob

Ah yes

the "If you vote yes we will end up like USSR" lie

more lies, this one is so dumb its not fracking funny

when i heard that back last year i burst out laughing (living in USSR at one stage didnt help!)

what a load of bull

Btw Ireland is already more socialist than USSR ever was! they never paid people money to sit at home and do nothing, the concept of welfare was inexistent :mad: tho there are similarities in levels of alcoholism and "jobs for boys" and corruption

ei.sdraob | boards.ie

Run_to_da_hills

Daftendirekt wrote: »

The EU doesn't have it's own anthem or military. I don't know, or care, about whether it has an orchestra or not.

And besides, why are these things intrinsically linked with the Soviet Union?

Then why are those armed "Eurocorps" doing outside the Parliament building in Strasbourg draping the EU flag, Shouldn't these guys be French military in French drab?

Isn't "Ode to Joy" now accepted as the official anthem of the EU? http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/anthem/index_en.htm

Scofflaw

Daftendirekt wrote: »

The EU doesn't have it's own anthem or military. I don't know, or care, about whether it has an orchestra or not.

And besides, why are these things intrinsically linked with the Soviet Union?

Because...well, thus far, because Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage say so, in a blog piece and a Youtube video respectively.

KINGVictor, RTDH, if the next post isn't a substantive discussion of why they believe that to be the case, and why you agree with them, then this thread gets booted to the CT forum, because so far I'm not seeing a political discussion here.

Alternatively, people are welcome to discuss the motives of the two gentlemen, and whether the tinfoil hat element is a major contributor to eurosceptical politics.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Then why are those armed "Eurocorps" doing outside the Parliament building draping the EU flag, Shouldn't these guys be French military in French drab?

Why?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Isn't "Ode to Joy" now accepted as the official anthem of the EU? http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/anthem/index_en.htm

Isn't the Olympic Anthem the anthem of the Olympic Movement? And when you say "now" do you mean "for the last 25 years", as it says in the link you gave?

amused,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Anthems, orchestras :eek:. Are we being enslaved through the medium of song and dance?

Run_to_da_hills

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why?

Because the EU Parlament is on French soil.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

View

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Because the EU Parlament is on French soil.

I think you'll find that the EU Parliament is on "EU soil" rather than "French soil". That is to say, it is extra-territorial much like embassies and the seats of other international bodies usually are (That means it a really dumb idea to try something stupid in an embassy, as the embassy guards operate under the laws of their home countries).

Also, Eurocorp consists of more than French troops, hence they would not use a French uniform.

Run_to_da_hills

View wrote: »

I think you'll find that the EU Parliament is on "EU soil" rather than "French soil".

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?

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 .