Has Lim forced McQuaid to resign by voting NO to EU ?
- Thread starter poulidor
- Start date
poulidor said:
I did vote NO - as it happens.
Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel have both declared war on our great little nation!
God bless the Republic.
As I already stated, hats off to the Irish for letting voters decide on Lisbon (apparently Brussels does not like it when citizens are asked things). And hats off to Irish voters for seeing through what was clearly a rejigged 'constitution'...
Powerful Pete said:
PP : I suspect that if the other democracies in the EU allowed their citizens to vote that they would have also voted NO to Lisbon too.
The Irish goverment had no choice but to allow us vote on the Treaty.
All consitutional decisions have to be put before the people in this country.
(we also voted against the Nice treaty)
Yup, the rest of Europe is so democratic that the politicans are too afraid to let their citizens have a say on the treaty... 
Powerful Pete said:Yup, the rest of Europe is so democratic that the politicans are too afraid to let their citizens have a say on the treaty...
PP : just watching the fallout from the Irish vote against the Lisbon Treaty.
Already Europe is suggesting that Lisbon can be ratified - despite the fact that France, Holland, and now Ireland, electorates have voted NO to Lisbon.
Europe is using the argument that Lisbon if ratified by the goverments of the 26 of the 27 EU States (and remember the majority of those 27 countries will not ask their citizens to vote on this Treaty), then Ireland will be consigned to less integration in the EU.
This is in total contravention of the Treaty : the Treaty explicitly states that Lisbon can only be enacted if ALL 27 countries ratify the Treaty.
If anyone of the 27 countries doesn't ratify the Treaty - then the Treaty is dead.
The reason why the Treaty failed to be passed is interesting.
Canvassing opinion as to why people voted NO here - shows the following :
1.Lisbon would enact abortion
2.Lisbon would inact tax harmonisation to the deteriment of this country.
3.Lisbon would transfer too many sovereign powers from national goverment to Brussels.
4.Brussels could enact amendments to existing legislation without referral to
national goverments and/or national electorates, after Lisbon has been ratified.
5.Lisbon could enact an EU defense policy.
6.Lisbon, through the complexity of the Treaty (500 pages of legal language referenced to thousands of declarations/directives issued since the Treaty of Rome 1957-2008), is highly complex and very very difficult to understand yet alone forecast.
Reasons 1 - 5 above brought together a pretty strange coalition of disparate political parties and focus groups from the far left, centre and right.
You had Sinn Fein (irish republican party), roman catholic church, labour party, free enterprise alliance (opposing tax harmonisation), groups interested in maintaining irish military neutrality, other pressure groups : all advocating a NO vote.
Lisbon failed here for may reasons - reasons which hopefully our politicans will bring to the EU's attention.
Yup - regarding fallout, the Northern League, the junior coalition partner in the Berlusconi government is now demanding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. And everyone else is running scared. With the Italian President bloviating about moving ahead without Ireland.
Hypocrits, not wanting to let citizens decide on this.
Hypocrits, not wanting to let citizens decide on this.
Powerful Pete said:
Yeah - in the European parliament yesterday, you had British Eurosceptic MPs, wearing green jerseys and carrying placards saying that the irish vote should be recognised and that the Treaty should be consigned to the rubbish bin.
Given that these Eurosceptics hate the EU - people like LePen, Haider, the british Conservative Euroscpetics are now using the Irish result to back their dubious policies about EU integration.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm pro-Europe. I believe in the integration of Europe and that we should all work together.
But do we have to sacrifice our ability to make decisions that directly affect our own country?
I would not expect any Italian/French/German/Spanish etc people to sacrifice their right to legislate for decision in their own country.
Rant over!
This is a bit like the US before the "United" days. But Europe has probably more cultural divergence than the US ever did. Not that that is a deal breaker. Like you say Lim... merging makes sense for a lot of reasons... but it requires a lot of trust to abdicate governance to others who may not share the same concern for any single country's interests.
But why are the leaders so eager to get the treaty passed if they don't think that the citizens would approve? Will they get any kickbacks from the process?Powerful Pete said:
Interestingly enough, the EU integration process has always been a top-down approach, and at least through Schengen, the politicians were correct in their calculations: the citizens would appreciate the benefits and accept them ' after the fact '.
This made sense when we there were practical elements that were being enacted - most of us here can remember having to wait at borders in Europe and having gendarmes/carabineiri/police making you wait hours to check your passports and the like. Now all that is history.
The fact is that there is a faction in Brussels that is pushing for a significant ' abdication ' of national sovreignty... and the benefits to the average citizen are less clear, especially with the increasingly stifling Eurocracy that is not representative and increasingly seen as being wasteful and distant from the needs of the citizens.
Just my two cents...
This made sense when we there were practical elements that were being enacted - most of us here can remember having to wait at borders in Europe and having gendarmes/carabineiri/police making you wait hours to check your passports and the like. Now all that is history.
The fact is that there is a faction in Brussels that is pushing for a significant ' abdication ' of national sovreignty... and the benefits to the average citizen are less clear, especially with the increasingly stifling Eurocracy that is not representative and increasingly seen as being wasteful and distant from the needs of the citizens.
Just my two cents...
Powerful Pete said:
This is a correct and interesting observation. It is also interesting to put this into the historical context of the 1700s and 1800s where progress was achieved through the actions of more or less benevolent sovereigns.
Just as a clarification - I think that most of what has been accomplished by the EU is notable... we have now enjoyed the longest recorded period of peace (or at least, absence of major continental wars) in our recorded history. This is the result of the economic growth we have experienced (ergo, we all have a lot more to lose) and the presence of the Americans and NATO.
The free circulation of goods and citizens is another great thing that makes our lives much easier. Our integration within Europe is simply an awesome development. I would add in the introduction of the Euro were it not for the huge inflationary pressures we have all had to suffer since its arrival.
The structural funds have done a lot for many of the underdeveloped regions, including large bits of southern Italy. Ok, some of that many leaks due to corruption and political pork barrel, but it a source of funding that would not have been there without the EU.
I would even go so far as to support quite a bit of the regulatary framework that the EU has helped establish. Many of the norms that we now take for granted would not have been introduced in my own country at least were it not for the EU.
The problem now is the overt push with a superstate concept that is not, IMVHO, in the interests of most citizens. And the creeping red tape and bureaucracy that are becoming synonymous with Europe these days...
The free circulation of goods and citizens is another great thing that makes our lives much easier. Our integration within Europe is simply an awesome development. I would add in the introduction of the Euro were it not for the huge inflationary pressures we have all had to suffer since its arrival.
The structural funds have done a lot for many of the underdeveloped regions, including large bits of southern Italy. Ok, some of that many leaks due to corruption and political pork barrel, but it a source of funding that would not have been there without the EU.
I would even go so far as to support quite a bit of the regulatary framework that the EU has helped establish. Many of the norms that we now take for granted would not have been introduced in my own country at least were it not for the EU.
The problem now is the overt push with a superstate concept that is not, IMVHO, in the interests of most citizens. And the creeping red tape and bureaucracy that are becoming synonymous with Europe these days...
It's a difficult one to call.
The majority of people in my country are pro-EU.
It's important to set out the context of our relationship with the EU.
We joined the EU in 1973 with Britain and Denmark.
Since 1973, britain has remained our biggest trading partner - even though Britain has chosen to not fully integrate to the EU.
Despite this our country decided to try to integrate as fully as possible in to the EU at political/economic/social level.
While wanting to retain our national identity, I think that it is fair to say that as a people we want to be on good terms with all our fellow citizens in the EU.
And I think that it would be accurate to say that we view the EU as the most important external political relationship that we have.
My country, because we have integrated fully, has been a net beneficiary in terms of funding.
In the last few years, we have become a nett contributor to the EU and the majority of people here are happy to continue to contribute to the EU and to integrate and to accept the free movement of fellow EU citizens in to our country, who may want to make a life for themselves and to give them a chance to earn a living.
(we have had a large influx of people from the former eastern block countries like Poland/Lithuania/Latvia etc).
However, this Treaty, due to it's complexity and it's apparent transfer of power from our legislature to the EU legislature is a huge step.
And I would wager that the citizens of the other 25 EU nations would also agree that they too will surrender significant powers - if they were allowed a referendum on the Treaty too.
The majority of people in my country are pro-EU.
It's important to set out the context of our relationship with the EU.
We joined the EU in 1973 with Britain and Denmark.
Since 1973, britain has remained our biggest trading partner - even though Britain has chosen to not fully integrate to the EU.
Despite this our country decided to try to integrate as fully as possible in to the EU at political/economic/social level.
While wanting to retain our national identity, I think that it is fair to say that as a people we want to be on good terms with all our fellow citizens in the EU.
And I think that it would be accurate to say that we view the EU as the most important external political relationship that we have.
My country, because we have integrated fully, has been a net beneficiary in terms of funding.
In the last few years, we have become a nett contributor to the EU and the majority of people here are happy to continue to contribute to the EU and to integrate and to accept the free movement of fellow EU citizens in to our country, who may want to make a life for themselves and to give them a chance to earn a living.
(we have had a large influx of people from the former eastern block countries like Poland/Lithuania/Latvia etc).
However, this Treaty, due to it's complexity and it's apparent transfer of power from our legislature to the EU legislature is a huge step.
And I would wager that the citizens of the other 25 EU nations would also agree that they too will surrender significant powers - if they were allowed a referendum on the Treaty too.
