Lisbon Treaty

[OneRedArmy]

All the states signed up for the EU on the basis that they would all have equal say regardless of population size. European parliament is a democracy - the EU is a union of democratic states.The original founder states signed up for a customs and free trade area, but I'm not sure how relevant that is now:confused:

Things change. As more members join and the level of decision making gets more detailed, unanimity makes less and less sense.

If we don't want that level of decision making taking place at an EU level then we don't have the right to stop other countries moving forward. Most of the no camp want to have their cake (retain an effective veto and disproportionate representation) and eat it (still remain at the "centre" of Europe).

Which is patently unrealistic aswell a ridiculous overestimation of our worth and importance as a nation.

[Billsthoughts]

The original founder states signed up for a customs and free trade area, but I'm not sure how relevant that is now:confused:

Things change. As more members join and the level of decision making gets more detailed, unanimity makes less and less sense.

If we don't want that level of decision making taking place at an EU level then we don't have the right to stop other countries moving forward. Most of the no camp want to have their cake (retain an effective veto and disproportionate representation) and eat it (still remain at the "centre" of Europe).

Which is patently unrealistic aswell a ridiculous overestimation of our worth and importance as a nation.

The Eu was formed in 1992 by the Maastricht treaty. It was formed as an intergovermental union as opposed to some sort of Democratic superstate. This is why they need the Lisbon treaty to make the changes above. This was rejected. Your making a major assumption about what the EU is which is incorrect. Then you and Jebus are using this incorrect assumption to berate mypost.

[mypost]

Absolute nonsense. In what proper democracy should a state with 4m people have the same say as a state with 80m people?

In this country alone, despite it's small population, there's a PM from Offaly, and a Tanaiste from Donegal. Now, if we formed our government on the basis of population size, Dublin TD's would take about half the 88 seats, and the major cabinet roles. The likes of Offaly and Donegal, would barely get a look in.

But it doesn't work like that, nor should it. Similiar to the EU. Every country is equal, it's not our fault that there are 82 million people in Germany, and 4 in Ireland.

[jebus]

Rubbish comparison mypost. The man from Offaly's party was voted into power, not him, the party then elected him to be their leader....actually that comparison was so poor I'm not even going to bother with it

[OneRedArmy]

The Eu was formed in 1992 by the Maastricht treaty. It was formed as an intergovermental union as opposed to some sort of Democratic superstate. This is why they need the Lisbon treaty to make the changes above. This was rejected. Your making a major assumption about what the EU is which is incorrect. Then you and Jebus are using this incorrect assumption to berate mypost.The EU followed on from the EEC etc. etc. You have ignored the important part of my post which concerned the realpolitik about wanting to have our cake and eat it. You've ignored it because there is no answer to it, other than the fact that we are within our legal, if not our moral, right to do so.

[mypost]

The EU followed on from the EEC etc. etc. You have ignored the important part of my post which concerned the realpolitik about wanting to have our cake and eat it. the fact that we are within our legal, if not our moral, right to do so.

Anyone on the federalist side of the debate is in no position to lecture other countries about morality, when they refused to put the Constitution to refs in other countries. One of Miliband's comments after the vote here, was that there should be a "British view". The parliament is where you'll find a vote not a view. The anti-treaty sentiment there, is an accurate reflection of the "British view". But like everywhere else bar here, that view was not heard nor accepted. That to the British government, is "democracy".

[pete]

Sarkozy says we have to run a second Referendum. He is the President so I suppose we should obey.

[OneRedArmy]

Anyone on the federalist side of the debate is in no position to lecture other countries about morality, when they refused to put the Constitution to refs in other countries. One of Miliband's comments after the vote here, was that there should be a "British view". The parliament is where you'll find a vote not a view. The anti-treaty sentiment there, is an accurate reflection of the "British view". But like everywhere else bar here, that view was not heard nor accepted. That to the British government, is "democracy".At least the British people are clear, they would likely withdraw from the EU given the chance. They opted out of EMU. At least they don't make ridiculous comments about "being at the centre of Europe" whilst trying to dictate to 300million people....

[Billsthoughts]

The EU followed on from the EEC etc. etc. You have ignored the important part of my post which concerned the realpolitik about wanting to have our cake and eat it. You've ignored it because there is no answer to it, other than the fact that we are within our legal, if not our moral, right to do so.

I didnt ignore it. It was irrelevant to the point I made. To answer you whilst leaving aside emotional clap trap about our moral rights,you could just as easily level the same criticism as the yes side. They want to operate within agreed frameworks and then they want to ignore the same frameworks when things dont go their way.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Going by the language being used by any government minister with a camera in their face when asked about re-runs ...I think it's safe to say we're heading for a re-run.

Last night John Gormley wouldn't even be drawn on a "personal view" of whether or not there should be a re-run or whether Nicolas Sarkozy was right to call for one. Micháel Martin on the radio this morning used near verbatim language ..."reflect on the decision", "Wait and see", "careful consideration"...it all sounded very much like "we're going to wait til the heat dies a bit and then go again".

[OneRedArmy]

They want to operate within agreed frameworks and then they want to ignore the same frameworks when things dont go their way.I think its fundamentally clear for very obvious, rational and realistic reasons that they want to change the frameworks.

I'll ask the question again. Where do we go from here if we keep exercising our veto? The No side need to get real and accept that by not going with Lisbon the outcome is a two speed Europe, of which we are in the slow class, probably with the Brits and the Scandinavians.

If thats what we want as a nation, then so be it, but neither side have bothered to properly inform the people of the consequences.

The idea that we can somehow stall the process ad infinitum is ridiculous as is attempting to suggest that every country ratifying the Treaty is out of step with the view of the people.

We voted No for spurious reasons dreamt up by a plastic paddy from Watford with a hidden agenda, with the consequences of our vote being completely misrepresented to the people.

[mypost]

I'll ask the question again. Where do we go from here if we keep exercising our veto? The No side need to get real and accept that by not going with Lisbon the outcome is a two speed Europe, of which we are in the slow class, probably with the Brits and the Scandinavians.

If thats what we want as a nation, then so be it, but neither side have bothered to properly inform the people of the consequences.

The idea that we can somehow stall the process ad infinitum is ridiculous as is attempting to suggest that every country ratifying the Treaty is out of step with the view of the people.

Yes side propaganda.

There is nothing legally that the EU can do without us on board re: Lisbon. They can threaten, they can harass, they may feel that they can go ahead without us, but they can't, and that's the legal position. On EU treaties, it's unanimity or FA. Instead life in the EU goes on, as it does now.

The other countries can ratify what they like, but without the consent of Ireland, it's meaningless.

[pete]

The other countries can ratify what they like, but without the consent of Ireland, it's meaningless.

Do we really know that is fact & not just opinion. Voting issues cannot change without us but I suspect many other matters could.

In hindsight the Yes side did not challenge "it can be renegotiated" line of SF & Libertas. Whatever side you are on renegotiation means new Treaty as the other 26 countries would need to be part of & vote on again too.

In other news Libertas have announced they will run a campaign in the European Elections next year. I wait to see them announce the source of their Lisbon Treaty next spring.

[mypost]

Do we really know that is fact & not just opinion. Voting issues cannot change without us but I suspect many other matters could.

Listening to RTE's post-Lisbon coverage last night, which enquired about the legal position. The answer was that basically, nothing could be done without us. Anything that could be done to alter the treaty to facilitiate Ireland, would have to be re-ratified in every member state. No country that has already ratified this one, is going to go through the procedure again.

[OneRedArmy]

Listening to RTE's post-Lisbon coverage last night, which enquired about the legal position. The answer was that basically, nothing could be done without us. Anything that could be done to alter the treaty to facilitiate Ireland, would have to be re-ratified in every member state. No country that has already ratified this one, is going to go through the procedure again.
So what happens then? Where do we go? Are you saying that everyone says "oh well, we tried" and stays with the current approach ad infinitum just because we don't like it? Do you not accept a two speed Europe is almost inevitable?

I can guarantee you we won't be operating under the Nice arrangements in 3 years time, whatever you think.

[mypost]

We go on as we are now. The Constitution has been rejected by 3 countries, representing over 10% of the population. They can't do anything without Ireland, and so, talk of a "two-speed" Europe is just another aimless threat really. With political support from the UK, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe for us representing roughly half of the bloc, there's no chance of that happening either.

[Billsthoughts]

I think its fundamentally clear for very obvious, rational and realistic reasons that they want to change the frameworks.

Of course they want to change the framework. Unfortunately for them they wanted to make that change under the present framework and its been rejected. So either they respect the rules they have drawn up themselves or they ignore them. In which case why do we need to ratify treaties at all if they are just going to break them? Its your opinion that it is for “obvious rational and realistic”. Unfortunately for you the majority of voters in this country who expressed an interest disagree with you.



I'll ask the question again. Where do we go from here if we keep exercising our veto? The No side need to get real and accept that by not going with Lisbon the outcome is a two speed Europe, of which we are in the slow class, probably with the Brits and the Scandinavians.
The EU worked fine before Lisbon and works fine now. You would have to wonder why certain politicians are so keen to push this through at all costs.



If thats what we want as a nation, then so be it, but neither side have bothered to properly inform the people of the consequences.

I don’t think either side know the consequences. Hence the scaremongering by the Yes side and the No side playing up ignorance and confusion amongst the electorate.



The idea that we can somehow stall the process ad infinitum is ridiculous as is attempting to suggest that every country ratifying the Treaty is out of step with the view of the people.

Its not stalled its rejected. Over. Finito. Any suggestion otherwise makes the process –by which I mean the reform of the EU structures - meaningless anyway. If politicians and governments are going to just do what they want anyway regardless of its own rules then what is the point in trying to dress it up and give it any legitamacy at all.



We voted No for spurious reasons dreamt up by a plastic paddy from Watford with a hidden agenda, with the consequences of our vote being completely misrepresented to the people.
Plastic Paddy from Watford???:confused: Please say what his hidden agenda was?
I think we did vote no on very spurious reasons but equally if we had have voted yes it would have been for very spurious reasons as well.

[mypost]

The EU worked fine before Lisbon and works fine now. You would have to wonder why certain politicians are so keen to push this through at all costs.

Sure we need more enlargement, don't we?? :confused::rolleyes: The fact that Nice handles enlargement as well as Lisbon does, seems to escape those in Brussels. This is a power grab by France and Germany, plain and simple. They've always wanted to rule Europe, and they thought that railroading the conjob through without referendums, they could. Until we stepped in.

[OneRedArmy]

We go on as we are now. The Constitution has been rejected by 3 countries, representing over 10% of the population. .Factually incorrect. The Lisbon treaty has been rejected by one country. Us. The Dutch and French position on the Constitution is about as relevant as the view that we somehow hold the power in the EU.
They can't do anything without Ireland, and so, talk of a "two-speed" Europe is just another aimless threat really. With political support from the UK, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe for us representing roughly half of the bloc, there's no chance of that happening either.What a ridiculously naive post.

By your argument all EU nations either would be in the Euro or there would be no monetary union? Did you miss what happened with that? Where there's a will there's a way.

Once Europe starts turning the screw we'll come crawling back to the table.

[dahamsta]

ORA, it's a bit rich to call mypost's comments "ridiculously naive" at the same time as your own "factually incorrect" statement. Technical correctness is not the same as reality. The reality is that the Lisbon Treaty was a very slightly amended consitution. You know, he knows it and everyone else that isn't naive knows it.

[mypost]

Once Europe starts turning the screw we'll come crawling back to the table.

They can turn the whole table if they like, it's not going to change my stance. Freedom with democracy, is more important than fedaralism with dictatorship.

[OneRedArmy]

ORA, it's a bit rich to call mypost's comments "ridiculously naive" at the same time as your own "factually incorrect" statement. Technical correctness is not the same as reality. The reality is that the Lisbon Treaty was a very slightly amended consitution. You know, he knows it and everyone else that isn't naive knows it.Fair enough, but the no side seem to use the finer detail of European law to prop up their argument so I was throwing a bit of the detail back.

The European Constitution is legally different but practically identical to Lisbon in the same way Ireland is legally secure in its current blocking position but practically getting pushed to the outside.

[dahamsta]

I take your point, but tbh I'm sick of the dishonesty from both sides in this debate. Each side uses the dishonesty and deception of the other to justify their own dishonesty and deception, and that kind of debate is just a circular waste of time and effort. We're not politicians here, for the most part, it would be nice to see a little straight talking, acceptance of different points of view, etc. You know, adult talk.

adam

[John83]

We're not politicians here, for the most part, it would be nice to see a little straight talking, acceptance of different points of view, etc. You know, adult talk.
Adult talk on the internet seems to amount to calling someone a sophist instead of a poopoohead.

[mypost]

Fair enough, but the no side seem to use the finer detail of European law to prop up their argument so I was throwing a bit of the detail back.

The European Constitution is legally different but practically identical to Lisbon in the same way Ireland is legally secure in its current blocking position but practically getting pushed to the outside.

We're not the only country to have voted against Brussels diktats, and nothing happened to the ones before us. They were all threatened with two-speed Europe, loss of influence, thrown out of the EU, etc, and nothing happened. That's because nothing can happen. Practically and legally, the EU has to and does run as a family of 27 independent states.

Next up in the charade is Napoleon's day trip on Monday. Despite his arguments to save Europe, he has no right to interfere in the Irish political process, and it's not his decision to fest another referendum on us. There will be resistance to it from the people of Ireland whatever happens. When the outcome of our referendum is accepted and the EU Constitution in whatever guise is aborted, then the debate shall end. Until then...

[mypost]

Just returned from the Dublin protest against the Sarkosy visit. Good turnout, considering the time of day it was on, with speakers from France, Germany, and Austria making their voices heard, along with No side politicians and campaigners here. :)

[OneRedArmy]

Just returned from the Dublin protest against the Sarkosy visit. Good turnout, considering the time of day it was on, with speakers from France, Germany, and Austria making their voices heard, along with No side politicians and campaigners here. :)
I can't see why the No side are protesting against him, he's their biggest asset! :D

[pete]

Forgot about the protests yesterday. Would have good entertainment to look out for some of the wacko section.

Farmers moaning about the end of days. Over 50% of all farm & agrifood jobs to be lost. They may have some points but they always overdo it on the doom & gloom stuff. Fishermen also moaning about quotas. Sure if no quotas then all the fish would be gone. :rolleyes:

How any of this has anything to do with Lisbon escapes me...

I have noticed in the media that the Lisbon No vote has now turned into a debate whether the EU has been good for us or should we stay in it. Of all the stupid debates...

[dfx-]

Forgot about the protests yesterday. Would have good entertainment to look out for some of the wacko section.

Pro: We could rest assured that they were segregated away from the rest of us in one feld swoop. :cool:

Con: Turning up would arise suspicion of guilt by association with them. :eek:

[pete]

Pro: We could rest assured that they were segregated away from the rest of us in one feld swoop. :cool:


Apparently there was free fish too & we all know how expensive wild fish is.

[OneRedArmy]

Farmers moaning about the end of days. Over 50% of all farm & agrifood jobs to be lost. They may have some points but they always overdo it on the doom & gloom stuff. Fishermen also moaning about quotas. Sure if no quotas then all the fish would be gone. :rolleyes:

How any of this has anything to do with Lisbon escapes me...

I have noticed in the media that the Lisbon No vote has now turned into a debate whether the EU has been good for us or should we stay in it. Of all the stupid debates...But the people have had their say :rolleyes:

Ganley was back on the radio this morning, trotting out the same old guff that there is a strong basis for renegotiation.

Fact remains Lisbon has been legally ratified by 24 countries now. That isn't any basis for renegotiation.

What we have is stalemate. The only way you can move from stalemate is change. Some countries want, in terms of federalism, to move forwards (regardless of what some posters and the No camp say, this constitutes a simple majority of both people and countries), some want to move backwards (UK and it would appear, Ireland and some others).

The only logical conclusion one can draw is that we are heading to a two speed Europe. Schengen and EMU are two examples of where this is happening already.

Personally I'm all for a more federalist approach (both for perceived positive reasons and because of my own views on the achievements of Irish goverments and indeed the state over the years since independence), but I recognise there is a strong movement against this.

I can't believe that whatever about interpreting the result of the referendum, the media haven't blown a hole through the No camp vision of how we move forward as it is based squarely in cloud cuckoo land.

PS If anyone listening to Eamonn Gilmore this morning it should be readily apparent why the Yes side contributed to the referendum failing. Weak, shilly-shallying, naive, passive attempt at responding to Declan Ganley. FF and FG were worse, they appear to have buried their heads in the sand and treated it as if it was all a bad dream.

I'm not sure how history will portray the referendum decision, but I'm fairly sure the role of the main political parties will be viewed as a low point.

[pete]

The only logical conclusion one can draw is that we are heading to a two speed Europe. Schengen and EMU are two examples of where this is happening already.

I think that is the only thing certain. We need to decide where we stand as a nation on this & it is likely that countries will opt in to parts they like going forward. As it stands 24 countries have decided they want to move on Lisbon path so we can't hold them up for much longer. Does any one really know why we voted No?

I think Cowen is stalling & hoping the EU find a solution as he doesn't have a clue what to do. If he held another vote on the same Treaty he would have to do it before the EU Parliament elections which would be political suicide.

[mypost]

Fact remains Lisbon has been legally ratified by 24 countries now. That isn't any basis for renegotiation.

What we have is stalemate. The only way you can move from stalemate is change. Some countries want, in terms of federalism, to move forwards (regardless of what some posters and the No camp say, this constitutes a simple majority of both people and countries), some want to move backwards (UK and it would appear, Ireland and some others).

The only logical conclusion one can draw is that we are heading to a two speed Europe. Schengen and EMU are two examples of where this is happening already.

Personally I'm all for a more federalist approach (both for perceived positive reasons and because of my own views on the achievements of Irish goverments and indeed the state over the years since independence), but I recognise there is a strong movement against this.

Fact also remains that without us accepting Lisbon, it doesn't matter an iota whether 1 or 24 countries parliaments ratify it or not. We effectively have a veto on it, so basically what they do doesn't count. Without unanimity, it cannot take effect, and no country can move ahead on it without us. End of story.

Sarkosy and co have to understand that, as politicians, you can't get your way all the time in international affairs. As a No advocate, I don't want a renegotiation. We have a Treaty, it's called the Nice Treaty, and that is a perfectly acceptable way to run the European Union.


As it stands 24 have decided they want to move on Lisbon path so we can't hold them up for much longer.

Yes we can hold them up, and yes we will, for as long as we see fit.

Meanwhile, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Poland, and Czech Republic have yet to ratify or are awaiting legal challenges on ratification, so it's not quite 24 countries yet.

[OneRedArmy]

Yes we can hold them up, and yes we will, for as long as we see fit. So, just to clarify, what you have said it that we'll hold it up either
a) until we get our way; or
b) forever?

Its hard to debate with someone who is so out of touch with reality.

Lets wait and see, I can guarantee that whatever the outcome is, it will be neither a nor b.

PS What is your assumption that Nice is acceptable to the majority of the EU based on?

[mypost]

Its hard to debate with someone who is so out of touch with reality.

Lets wait and see, I can guarantee that whatever the outcome is, it will be neither a nor b.

It's also hard to debate with federalists who want Ireland treated as a pawn, to be bullied, threatened, and dictated to by those from other states with clearly no respect for democracy, nor who accept/respect the EU's own rules.

[OneRedArmy]

It's also hard to debate with federalists who want Ireland treated as a pawn, to be bullied, threatened, and dictated to by those from other states with clearly no respect for democracy, nor who accept/respect the EU's own rules.In danger of going way off topic, but given the way I perceive I've been represented (both as an Irish citizen and resident) by successive Governments (no respect for democracy, bullied, dictated and threatened would be words that would spring to mind, amongst others.....) I'm all up for giving the federalists a lash, they can hardly be worse.

[mypost]

In danger of going way off topic, but given the way I perceive I've been represented (both as an Irish citizen and resident) by successive Governments (no respect for democracy, bullied, dictated and threatened would be words that would spring to mind, amongst others.....)

You can throw out the sitting Irish government after 5 years. A federalist admin wouldn't be worse, it would be a disaster for Ireland.



Meanwhile, this old chestnut dragged up again by Vinny Brown:

"they insisted, there were serious problems and one of them had to do with the six-month EU rotating presidency...it was an obstruction." :mad:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0723/1216740954459.html

I don't see eye-to-eye with Sarkosy on many things re: the treaty, but one thing he is entitled to, like the other heads of state, is hold the Presidency for 6 months when France's turn comes around. He is therefore entitled to showcase himself, and his country as well if he sees fit while holding the office.

After the Greece Presidency in 2003, the EU decided to end the bi-annual heads of state conferences in the EU host country, as it was too much of an obstruction, and move them all back to Brussels. Why don't we get rid of other obstructions such as national vetoes, and referenda under Lisbon while we're at it?? Oh wait, that's happening as well. :eek::mad:

Sorry, no can do. As Brown writes, even with these so-called obstructions, "the EU continued to function...no gridlock, no chaos". As it will continue to do under Nice.

[pete]

Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0727/breaking3.html)


Some 71 per cent of those questioned in the Republic opposed a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, with just 24 per cent in favour. Of those who expressed an opinion, 62 per cent said they would vote No in a second referendum, compared to 38 per cent who would vote Yes.

I see a new poll yesterday shows increased opposition to a second Referendum. While I have no doubt many people are against a second vote the manner that poll was done was seriously misleading.

The question was asked along the lines of "Do you think as suggest by President Sarkozy that a second Referendum should be held".

I wonder what the results would have been if the following question was asked "Would you reject a second Referendum as suggested by UK Tory MP William Hague"

:rolleyes:

[superfrank]

On William Hague, did anyone see his piece in the Irish Times on Saturday?

I didn't actually read it. I got as far as the headline: Why Ireland shouldn't let foreigners tell them how to vote on Lisbon (or something to that effect).

:rolleyes:

[mypost]

I see a new poll yesterday shows increased opposition to a second Referendum. I have no doubt many people are against a second vote.

It is the truth however. The very idea that we would have more than one referendum to give the answer Cowen and co wants is an affront to democracy.

Napoleon last week: "The Ereesh must ave ze chance too geve ther opeenion".:mad:

In case you haven't noticed sir, we already have. You get one shot at it, and the federalists lost. Game Over.

[pete]

It is the truth however.

The very idea that we would have more than one referendum to give the answer Cowen and co wants is downright undemocratic.


If opinion polls ask leading questions such as Red C did in this instance we won't ever discover if voters have changed the minds. IMO Red C have lost any credibility they have & I will certainly not look at their future surveys at face value any more.

[mypost]

If opinion polls ask leading questions such as Red C did in this instance we won't ever discover if voters have changed the minds. IMO Red C have lost any credibility they have & I will certainly not look at their future surveys at face value any more.

It's no more interfering with the political process here, than the eurobarometer poll was. A number of different questions were asked, and 1,000 answers were given. Whether you agree with the answers or not, is another thing.

Having said that, it was a very small poll. It is an indication, but not the full picture of the state of play here at the moment.

[GavinZac]

Napoleon last week: "The Ereesh must ave ze chance too geve ther opeenion".:mad:

Would you give it a rest? Whats the point of this childishness?

[John83]

Would you give it a rest? Whats the point of this childishness?
The silly Francophobia or the persistent irritation at how this treaty refuses to die?

[GavinZac]

The silly Francophobia or the persistent irritation at how this treaty refuses to die?

The Francophobia - referring to Sarkozy as 'Napoleon' and the pathetic 'frenglish'. mypost seemingly not up on his history, Napoleon invented the nationalism that mypost is clinging to.

[John83]

The Francophobia - referring to Sarkozy as 'Napoleon' and the pathetic 'frenglish'. mypost seemingly not up on his history, Napoleon invented the nationalism that mypost is clinging to.
Oh, fair enough.

I am amused at the mental picture of mypost invading Russia in the winter. ;)

[Bald Student]

I am amused at the mental picture of mypost invading Russia in the winter. ;)
Mypost would call foul when the Russions stalled for time by keeping the war in a corner until winter arrived.

[John83]

Mypost would call foul when the Russions stalled for time by keeping the war in a corner until winter arrived.
Actually, in the Napoleonic ones, they just retreated, burning everything in sight. With the invention of motorised troop transports, they had to adapt the plan for later invasions.

[mypost]

Would you give it a rest? Whats the point of this childishness?

:confused:

http://www.hippolytic.com/0103/the_new_napolean.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-sarkozy-struts-in-napoleons-clothes-770014.html

http://euobserver.com/9/26510

That's the point. :rolleyes:

[GavinZac]

http://www.hippolytic.com/0103/the_new_napolean.htmlYale's student rag? thats a quotable source? really? :confused: also, try clicking any of the links...


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-sarkozy-struts-in-napoleons-clothes-770014.htmlsome rubbish about him and his wife? :confused:


http://euobserver.com/9/26510
That's the point. :rolleyes:
"To show that he meant what he said, Mr Sarkozy has also let it be known that he will personally veto any further European enlargement until the Lisbon provisions are in place.

On the other side of the continent, Croatia, another small nation that hopes to accede to the European Union in 2010, is feeling the Napoleonic heel."
Right, I wasn't aware that Napoleon had anything to do with restricting bureaucratic bloat. My mistake.

If this is the calibre of the literature you turn to for confirmation of your own world view, I'm not surprised by the flailing efforts of your own arguments. Of course, I could respond in kind by 're-quoting' everything you say in 'Dublinese' but I haven't the will nor the time.