pixelburp wrote: » There are fewer more tedious and disingenuous political urban myths than the "Ireland voted on the Lisbon Treaty 'til we said 'yes'". In fact I think it's such a blatant myth and falsehood, IMO it should be red flagged as conspiracy theory. It's well documented the second vote came after Ireland secured a bunch of concessions, and voted on that revised form (plus, didn't the Dutch & French also reject one of the Lisbons?). But reality doesn't seem to deter those with an inherently anti-EU confirmation bias threading their thinking. Or possess any paranoia towards conspiracy, and that they are the keepers of "the truth", against all those "sheeple" that voted for Lisbon II. It's a broken record, disproven by facts, but hey ho. Should every referendum then be subject to this same bias? Presumably then the Abortion referendum can be considered hostile to democracy as we voted TWICE(!) on the same issue. The divorce amendment too perhaps.
nc6000 wrote: » Why are they so obsessed with fishing and fishing rights? My understanding is that the whole fishing industry is only a fraction of a percent of their GDP.
MrMusician18 wrote: » To be fair, the concessions won by Ireland were fairly meaningless, and related to things that weren't in the treaty anyway. i.e. one confirming that abortion policy was a domestic competence. There was some other BS about neutrality too afaik.
MrMusician18 wrote: » To be fair, the concessions won by Ireland were fairly meaningless, and related to things that weren't in the treaty anyway. i.e. one confirming that abortion policy was a domestic competence. There was some other BS about neutrality too afaik. The only meaningful concession that was won was after Nice rejection, that every country got a commissioner. It was an easy sell since most countries were a little miffed by that lost opportunity for patronage, even if it did make the commission more workable.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Are people forgetting the French and Dutch said no and did not get another vote? The public couldn't be trusted to vote the right way. Again most likely in my view, unless the course is changed, the EU will end in separation, public disorder and economic pain. Brexit is the start but it really happens when a Euro member leaves. When one leaves (likely Italy in my opinion) the economic contagion to the other weak countries will be too hard for those countries to take. It doesn't have to be that way but that's where we are going unfortunately.
Stop moaning ffs wrote: » So we’re headed for an EU federal superstate or the EU is doomed to break up. Which is it?
kunst nugget wrote: » They voted no against the Constitution, the constitution was scrapped. Why would they have to vote again for something that was already gone? Italy's support for the EU stands at over 70% currently. I sincerely doubt they are gong to leave anytime soon.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Are people forgetting the French and Dutch said no and did not get another vote? The public couldn't be trusted to vote the right way.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Of course even if views were not ignored most people are not diplomats so presenting them with 100's of pages of diplomatic text is never right.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » unless the course is changed, the EU will end in separation, public disorder and economic pain.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: This is a disaster. We will forever be the debtor countries. The Germans will NEVER sign up to fiscal transfers for the feckless countries.
Podge_irl wrote: » They voted against the EU Constitution - the EU does not now have a constitution.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » You must not be aware of how the Italian government is disobeying the budgetary rules of the Commission and threatening the ECB.
PeadarCo wrote: » So what you are saying here is that there will never be a European super state and its not something anyone should worry about. Fiscal transfers between rich and poor area's are a key part of any state.
CelticRambler wrote: » France has disobeyed the EEC/EC/EU's budgetary rules for decades, and now they've got one of their own nominated to head the ECB ... :rolleyes:
Kermit.de.frog wrote: We are stuck in an economic prison which allows us ONLY devalue through our budgets. Meanwhile Germany has the full backing of the ECB!...how is this in any of our interests?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » France isn't introducing parallel currency! That is a precursor to leaving the Euro and a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the ECB.
Podge_irl wrote: » Ultimately the EU is not some kind of overlord and it makes no sense to talk of it in that fashion. We are the EU, and ultimately any decisions about moving towards a superstate will be the decision of the member states (not that I expect it to happen anyway.
Bit cynical wrote: » Of course it depends on how you define "we". What happens, for example, when the general population doesn't care much for the EU as it is presently constituted but their politicians are happy with it? Who is the "we" in this case? This might be considered the situation prior to the Brexit referendum in the UK.
Podge_irl wrote: » It does depend somewhat but ultimately it’s no different from any other decision our elected representatives make. The point really is that the EU doesn’t really exist as a stand-alone body. It is not a overseer or overload and even an entity with its own agency really.
Bit cynical wrote: » There is no equivalent to this carry on at the level of the nation state.
Bit cynical wrote: » For example, during the recent parliamentary elections, EU Presidential debates were held on television. In Germany spitzenkandidats (lead candidates) were on election posters. After making their decision to elect MEPs, partial consideration for these lead candidates would have informed their voting decision. Then, somewhere in the cloud the decision was made to appoint someone that did not take part in the debates and was not a lead candidate. The electorate was simply told to put up with it. There is no equivalent to this carry on at the level of the nation state.
eire4 wrote: » IMHO the EU has been a success. It has given us peace in Europe and that in of itself is a very laudable achievement. I cannot speak to the whole EU economically but it seems to me Ireland has overall done well out of EU membership economically. So for me while an imperfect organization I think overall the EU has been and is a good thing.
Melanchthon wrote: » Peace is to do with NATO and the USA vs USSR rivalry. My question is, has the EU been a success when compared to the EC that preceded it till 1993, I am not sure that can be said, there was extended prosperity til 2008 but after that point its a pretty mixed record. The USA pulled out of the debt crises much faster than EU, countries like Italy and Greece never really recovered and particularly if you look at Italy vs Germany pre 1993 compared to within the EU its clear that there has been a significant lopsidedness happening. This is one of the problems with Brexit, the UK pressing the nuclear button has obscured some very real issues that need to be dealt with in a less destructive way
eire4 wrote: » I was not talking about peace with outside countries or Russia I was talking about peace between the EU countries. The EU has made the idea of for example France and Germany going to war laughable and that is a tremendous accomplishment considering the wars those 2 have fought prior.
