Printable View
No part of the Treaty can be ratified in part, it's either the whole shebang or none at all, and we have very specific requirements here, in order for it to be ratified. There is no possibility of seperately implementing issues in order to "get around" that legal position.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
On a forum that people write some very silly things the above statement rules supreme. A breath taking gem thats made all the better by question it starts off with.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Do explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
P.S. Read Student Mullet's post on the last page before you reply, it might save you some time.
"Ireland has destroyed the EU", they cry.
Really:rolleyes:
While French President Nicolas Sarkozy has played a useful role, with his six-point program, in de-escalating the war between Russia and Georgia, his conclusion that Europe could have acted more effectively had the Lisbon Treaty already been adopted, is all the more confusing. What if, for example, the European President had been Tony Blair, and the ambassador had been David Miliband or Giuliano Amato? In that event, the European Union would most likely already be at war with Russia today. The British Centre for European Reform is already calling for setting up EU combat units, so that we can wage our wars in Central Europe on our own, without the United States.
As the Italian journalist Paolo Bozzacchi has reported in the weekly Oggi, in the aftermath the Italian Parliament's ratification of the EU treaty, the Brussels EU bureaucracy is feeling a new surge of confidence, and now thinks that they could have the treaty signed, sealed, and delivered before next year's elections for European Parliament—despite Ireland's "No" vote.
That would be the worst possible outcome, because the design of the Lisbon Treaty, which foresees the militarization of the EU, along with the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the establishment of an oligarchical dictatorship in a federal state that could do whatever it pleased, stems from the same motivation as the policy of encirclement of Russia and China. The idea that Europe has to be transformed into a militarized empire, in order to meet "the great challenges" (by which is meant Russia, China, and, in the view of some, the United States), is a sure-fire recipe for World War III.
The events in the Caucasus should be enough to extinguish enthusiasm anyone might have for this monstrous Tower of Babel.
http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2008/...rld_war_3.html
Sarkozy might have a point regarding EU President as it might have helped the US & EU having some sort of reaction plan in place for Russia aggression in Georgia.
The Russians have already shown what they think of EU Presidents devising ceasefires. Just carry on regardless.
One can only shudder what they'd do, with a EU President they don't get on with, as outlined in my last post. And in that case, we'd all be screwed, given the "united" position.
Thats possibly the most ridiculous post you've ever made. Which is quite a feat, as you're fishing from a deep pool.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Whats it got to do with Lisbon anyway?
Its like step, step, enormous leap to something completely unrelated to the subject matter.
Surely what Sarkozy did was a Maastricht power. Are you against that too?
I can see it as a Libertas or Coir poster:
"Yote yes on Lisbon = certain nuclear annihilation"
It's the whole point of Lisbon. :o The creation of a EU President, representing 27 states, to tackle the challenges presented by Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Russia, an independent sovereign nation, have shown that they won't take notice of what the EU does, whether it's run under Lisbon or not.
So you want Ireland to follow Russia's lead and alienate ourselves from Europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
How long, how long must we sing this song?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
The vast majority of the French, Dutch, Germans etc. were against Lisbon. We are only p1ssing off the EU elite.
This is a different tune.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Russia is outside the EU and clearly doesn't care what the EU thinks. mypost seems to be happy with this attitude so I'm wondering would he want Ireland to act likewise?
Frankly, the EU has no right to hold "emergency meetings" over Russia. Russia and Georgia are non-EU, sovereign nations, and their disputes are local issues for them to sort out. The EU should not be getting involved, and any involvement, or "sanctions" meted out to Russia by Brussels is counter productive.
Don't be ridiculous. You don't think if Germany attacked Britain, the irish government would be holding meetings?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
The Georgian conflict great affects the EU, and they met to discuss it
Germany and the UK are part of the EU, therefore it would be in Ireland's interests. Not that we could do much in any case.
So you're not only against the Lisbon Treaty you're actually against the current powers the EU has? (despite you arguing in favour of the status quo in the Lisbon thread).Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Lets cut to the chase, are you in favour of any of the below
1) Ireland withdrawing from EU
2) EU reverting to a pre-Maastricht free trade area
3) Full break up of the EU
None of the above can/will happen, so pointless discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
I don't see what business it is that the EU should get involved in the Georgia-Russia war. Neither country is part of the EU, nor is a candidate country, while the Russians laughed at Sarkosy by not complying with his ceasefire. Not only that, but they're not going to respond well to summits and the idea of sanctions imposed on them, which may lead to a more hardline stance from Moscow towards the EU.
When do we think Lisbon II vote will be? This year or next spring?
Preferably Never. It will save the government time and money, and it will save us from having to uphold the original verdict.