Lisbon Treaty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I'll phrase my question slightly differently.

Is the only the pro-Treaty bodies that eschewed democracy and went against the will of their members?

---

My point was that you were implying that pro-Lisbon Unions were expressing the will of their members. The fact is we don't know. Joining a union is usually not a political decision. Joining a political organisation is. I know the parties and organisations on the left would have few members if any that supported the treaty so its not really an issue but unions would represent a broad base. I'm not even arguing that they should consult their members every time they make a decision, it would be impractical but that doesn't mean the thousands of SIPTU members supported their executive's reccomendation.

I'd also like to add that in this case some sort of debate among the membership would have been useful. My union didn't even consult the branch committees. Generally at the very least the parties and organisations on the no side would have discussed the Treaty at branch level but in a union the vast majority are not activists (unfortunately) and when you don't even speak to that small fraction who are activists, you're decision lacks legitimacy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...ows_bitte.html

That's it then :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...ows_bitte.html

That's it then :(

---

Milliband or Blair - tough choice, both right w.................:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...ows_bitte.html

That's it then :(

---

It really only postpones the next decision point until the Tories get in and they decide whether to put up or shut up (i.e. withdraw or buy-in).

Lisbon is an irrelevance and the real future of the EU will be shaped over the next 18 months, particularly if the economic woes continue and the US recovers.

You seemed very keen on it for "an irrelevance" ORA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

You seemed very keen on it for "an irrelevance" ORA.

---

Au contraire Adam, I think my position has been fairly consistent.

http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p...postcount=1081
We are an irrelevance to where the EU is going. We think we matter, but we don't. We probably never did, but since our newfound wealth disappeared we probably matter less.

There was only downside to us saying No to Lisbon as we would be the scapegoat. There is no real upside.

We are pretty much bound into going whatever way Europe goes (if not by law by realpolitik) and by Europe, I mean the big countries.

The UK staying out of the Euro was 100 times more important to Ireland than Lisbon. If the UK, our biggest trading partner, were to withdraw from the EU this would be infinitely more important than Lisbon.

In the 1950/60's we decided to move from a protectionist economy to a small open-economy and the minute we did this we effectively threw our lot in with whatever structures our trading partners set up.

If something meaningful happens with the EU it will have nothing to do with Lisbon. It will be because of Germany, France or the UK.

Be honest with you ORA, I've never understood your logic on Lisbon, it flits around and makes very little sense. "Because we'll be slapped on the wrist if we don't" is probably the worst I've heard. I don't know why you take an interest in politics if you think that's ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Be honest with you ORA, I've never understood your logic on Lisbon, it flits around and makes very little sense. "Because we'll be slapped on the wrist if we don't" is probably the worst I've heard. I don't know why you take an interest in politics if you think that's ok.

---

I have an interest in politics to the extent that it influences how we as a nation live our lives and the direction in which it takes the country.

I genuinely don't believe Lisbon will make any difference to how we interact with, and are governed by, the EU.

Only time will tell whether I'm right.

By all means disagree with me, but please don't misrepresent my views.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, you're all over the shop. You argued forcefully against Lisbon before the referendum, then you say it's irrelevant, then you say there'd be a downside if we voted against it - how something with a downside can be irrelevant is beyond me - then you say, again, if won't make any difference. If it doesn't make any difference, if our votes don't make any difference, what possible interest could you have in politics. Surely your time would be better spent watching a football match; you have an equal level of control, but it's much more entertaining...

adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I'm not misrepresenting anything, you're all over the shop. You argued forcefully against Lisbon before the referendum, then you say it's irrelevant, then you say there'd be a downside if we voted against it - how something with a downside can be irrelevant is beyond me - then you say, again, if won't make any difference. If it doesn't make any difference, if our votes don't make any difference, what possible interest could you have in politics. Surely your time would be better spent watching a football match; you have an equal level of control, but it's much more entertaining...

adam

---

I argued forcefully against Lisbon?!?

I argued forcefully against having a referendum. I did this because:
1. The Supreme Court made a flawed decision (IMO) 20 years ago on what is and isn't a constitutional amendment and successive Governments/AGs haven't had the cojones to challenge it.
2. A sizeable percentage of the voting public don't stand a chance of understanding Lisbon. Two votes on effectively the same document producing very different results support this view, IMO.
3. No other country had a referendum. Why us?
4. I'm pro-EU in my outlook and Lisbon was a trojan horse for the anti-EU movement to push back against previous Treaties and agreements.

As for the Treaty itself, I repeatedly made the point that it was about procedure and efficiency and thats an impossible sell to anyone who isn't directly impacted by the legislative process. I also said that just because it doesn't have a direct and material impact on Joe Bloggs isn't a good enough reason not to pass it.

And finally, I said the consequences of not passing it were greater than the benefits of passing it. Its not a zero sum game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I argued forcefully against Lisbon?!?

I argued forcefully against having a referendum. I did this because....
1. The Supreme Court made a flawed decision (IMO) 20 years ago on what is and isn't a constitutional amendment and successive Governments/AGs haven't had the cojones to challenge it.
2. A sizeable percentage of the voting public don't stand a chance of understanding Lisbon. Two votes on effectively the same document producing very different results support this view, IMO.
3. No other country had a referendum. Why us?
4. I'm pro-EU in my outlook and Lisbon was a trojan horse for the anti-EU movement to push back against previous Treaties and agreements.

As for the Treaty itself, I repeatedly made the point that it was about procedure and efficiency and thats an impossible sell to anyone who isn't directly impacted by the legislative process. I also said that just because it doesn't have a direct and material impact on Joe Bloggs isn't a good enough reason not to pass it.

And finally, I said the consequences of not passing it were greater than the benefits of passing it. Its not a zero sum game.

---

We had a referendum because under our constitution, EU Treaties required referendums here in order to be ratified. I don't know how hard that is to understand.

The Yes side told Joe Bloggs, that passing it would revive the economy and create jobs. It has done neither for Joe Bloggs. But Joe Bureaucrat is happy.

You can be pro-EU, without selling your soul at every turn. We did last month.

For Lisbon. You argued for Lisbon. My mistake, although I would have thought it was obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

We had a referendum because under our constitution, EU Treaties required referendums here in order to be ratified.

---

Given our constitution was written over a half century before the EU and their subsequent treaties came into being, in the absence of time travel, I beg to differ.

You're missing the words "one Supreme Court's split decision interpretation of one particular treaty" between the words "under" and "our constitution".

As for the rest, lets wait and see what happens with Lisbon. The next major issue with the EU will have nothing remotely to do with Lisbon would be my prediction. Whether its the Brits or Scandinavians pulling out or Turks or Icelandics wanting in, Lisbon won't be relevant.

Not sure there's much to discuss until there's some evidence of impact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

As for the rest, lets wait and see what happens with Lisbon. Whether its the Brits or Scandinavians pulling out or Turks or Icelandics wanting in, Lisbon won't be relevant.

---

The Brits can't pull out of the EU, they like us, are ruled from Brussels now. Every piece of EU legislation becomes their own, and is impossible to distance themselves from.

Of course they can pull out, don't be ridiculous.

I wish we could pull out, but that's not going to happen with the people in charge here at the moment. I've enough of Europe.

adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Of course they can pull out, don't be ridiculous.

I wish we could pull out, but that's not going to happen with the people in charge here at the moment. I've enough of Europe.

adam

---

What was the tipping point Adam that made you want to leave (I'm assuming Lisbon was the final straw rather than the whole reason)?

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with it, if the UK were to leave the EU in the next couple of years, I'd say its 50-50 that we would go with them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8343022.stm

Interesting to see, assuming the Tories get in, if they do try and roll back already transferred powers.

Lock...stable...horse...bolted

EU law takes precedence over UK law under Lisbon. Cameron has no choice but to go along with what Brussels says. Same also goes for us.

He gave a "cast iron" assurance that Lisbon would go to referendum 2 years ago, so you'd have to wonder at people that would believe him.

Nice II was probably what started turning me against Europe, in particular the arrogance and disdain with which we were treated by the likes of Prodi, and of course our own representatives. Lisbon I annoyed me in light of the rejection of the Constitution, so yes, Lisbon II is the straw that broke the camel's back. There might have been some hope if it had been rejected again, but I doubt it.

We can do without Europe if we handle ourselves right. Don't walk out in a huff, just ride the ass out of it. They simply can't throw us out in the short term, not least because they don't have the balls to do it. In the medium term they might, but it's unlikely. If they do, we won't lose access to the markets, which is all they've got over us.

Of course we'd need better brains than Cowen at the helm. Or Kenny. Or any of them, for that matter.

adam

So the Lisbon treaty was all for transparency and a more democratic way?

What you make of the never elected new foreign minister?
The Belgian president who is a well known federalist and is just itching for a EU wide tax bloc.:mad: