• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Lisbon treaty

* ORM *

Still Loves Emma Bunton. Roy McDonough is God!
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
19,236
Location
Flying the flag for SUFC in Sai Kung, Hong Kong
Shooed in by the House of Lords last night. How meek this country has become since the poll tax riots. A few whimpers of protest and that's about it. This, to me, is the result of the way politics has been in the last 15 years. Too much spin doctoring and hot air have left people totally non-plussed.

I may well have voted yes if I understood what the treaty was actually about. Economically we need Europe and they certainly need us. If it is about centralisation of power and wrestling more control from our (Scottish) parliament then I'm a definite NO.
 
I wouldnt worry about it. Now the Irish have voted "no", it is dead in the water as EVERY state has to ratify it
 
The Czechs aren't keen either- apart from anything else, they're set to take over the EU presidency in 2009, which they won't do if Lisbon is ratified (because then the EU would have a permanent 'president' who chaired all the summits of member nations). By all accounts, the Czech's leader doesn't want to be denied his day in the sun.

Personally i don't think it's a bad treaty and would make the EU work a bit more efficiently, in theory. The difficulty (as has been the case throughout the history of the EU) is how to ensure that member countries all implement EU regs in a fair and equitable manner. It seems for example that a lot of UK animosity towards Europe can be traced to arguments about implementation- e.g. Spain on fisheries treaties, France on immigration and the Calais 'camps'. If some countries are going to refuse to take responsibility for their obligations, no amount of treaties are going to change that and the EU will continue to waddle along in a manner that just infuritates people.
 
Shooed in by the House of Lords last night. How meek this country has become since the poll tax riots. A few whimpers of protest and that's about it. This, to me, is the result of the way politics has been in the last 15 years. Too much spin doctoring and hot air have left people totally non-plussed.

I may well have voted yes if I understood what the treaty was actually about. Economically we need Europe and they certainly need us. If it is about centralisation of power and wrestling more control from our (Scottish) parliament then I'm a definite NO.


Thought it was all about Europe telling us when to breathe etc!!
 
I wouldnt worry about it. Now the Irish have voted "no", it is dead in the water as EVERY state has to ratify it

Sorry but that is very naive, it was dead in the water in 2005 when the Dutch & French voted against. It is supposedly dead in the water now the Irish have voted no.

It will be back in another guise or the Irish will be asked to vote again and again until they get the desired result.

I agree with ORM we need Europe as a trading / economic area, and it has to be said that the free market has made trade a whole lot easier.

However I am totally against a federal state of Europe, complete with President Blair (whoever), a European Army/Navy/Air Force etc.
 
Sorry but that is very naive, it was dead in the water in 2005 when the Dutch & French voted against. It is supposedly dead in the water now the Irish have voted no.

It will be back in another guise or the Irish will be asked to vote again and again until they get the desired result.

I agree with ORM we need Europe as a trading / economic area, and it has to be said that the free market has made trade a whole lot easier.

However I am totally against a federal state of Europe, complete with President Blair (whoever), a European Army/Navy/Air Force etc.

Surely a combined European armed forces is little different to Nato, and as long as the "contributions" from each country are balanced (and presumably the Un and Nato will have this European Army as representation as opposed to the Member states) then this will take the strain off our lads in Afghanistan / Iraq. It would also contribute to the prevention of "rogue" european states going on a war mongering rampage in the future.
I cannot see how this would not increase stability in the region tbh
 
I thought I would liik up the treaty as I don't know a great deal about it and the first thing I saw
A more democratic and transparent Europe, with a strengthened role for the European Parliament and national parliaments, more opportunities for citizens to have their voices heard and a clearer sense of who does what at European and national level.

yet the citizens don't get a say in the ratification...seems odd

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm
 
Sorry but that is very naive, it was dead in the water in 2005 when the Dutch & French voted against. It is supposedly dead in the water now the Irish have voted no.

It will be back in another guise or the Irish will be asked to vote again and again until they get the desired result.

I agree with ORM we need Europe as a trading / economic area, and it has to be said that the free market has made trade a whole lot easier.

However I am totally against a federal state of Europe, complete with President Blair (whoever), a European Army/Navy/Air Force etc.

Yeah i know but as the Irish have to ratify any change to their consitution, the EU can bring the treaty back again and again and the Irish could still keep saying no everytime
 
Shooed in by the House of Lords last night. How meek this country has become since the poll tax riots. A few whimpers of protest and that's about it. This, to me, is the result of the way politics has been in the last 15 years. Too much spin doctoring and hot air have left people totally non-plussed.

I may well have voted yes if I understood what the treaty was actually about. Economically we need Europe and they certainly need us. If it is about centralisation of power and wrestling more control from our (Scottish) parliament then I'm a definite NO.

Didn't realise you were in the Lords!

Economically we need Europe more than Europe needs us, although we are still useful to Europe.

My understanding of the Treaty is that it isn't about centralisation of power, but rather dealing with how matters that are already dealt with by Brussels/Strasbourg, are dealt. Having said that, like the vast majority of people, I haven't read the treaty. Personally I think it is ludicrous that people get to vote on something they haven't read and if they have read it, most don't understand it. If you have to hold a referendum on it, it should be on the principle of whether to stay in Europe or not, because this is the issue that the little-Englanders who would vote against the treaty are actually voting on.
 
Surely a combined European armed forces is little different to Nato, and as long as the "contributions" from each country are balanced (and presumably the Un and Nato will have this European Army as representation as opposed to the Member states) then this will take the strain off our lads in Afghanistan / Iraq. It would also contribute to the prevention of "rogue" european states going on a war mongering rampage in the future.
I cannot see how this would not increase stability in the region tbh

In theory that is a fine idea, however as we know from bitter experience the supply of troops equipment etc generally falls upon a few of the member nations of an such organisation.

The UN already have "peacekeeping" forces from numerous nations throughout the world so I am not sure how much difference this would make.
 
Yeah i know but as the Irish have to ratify any change to their consitution, the EU can bring the treaty back again and again and the Irish could still keep saying no everytime

I think it was after the Nice treaty in 2000 that the Irish voted no in a referndum, they were asked to vote again with various sweeteners added, and the second vote was yes.
 
yet the citizens don't get a say in the ratification...seems odd

well they do, insofar as they had the opportunity in their general elections to vote for parties who supported it, or parties who opposed it. That's the argument that's generally used anyway.

Not sure if i buy it entirely- i generally think citizens *should* have a direct vote on constitutional change. But as i think YB mentioned, this treaty is more about modifying EU procedures- in terms of the power balance between the EU and its member states, it doesn't make much difference. There's probably a stronger argument for a more general referendum on our position in the EU, i.e. one that covers treaties from Maastricht onwards.
 
Didn't realise you were in the Lords!

Economically we need Europe more than Europe needs us, although we are still useful to Europe.

My understanding of the Treaty is that it isn't about centralisation of power, but rather dealing with how matters that are already dealt with by Brussels/Strasbourg, are dealt. Having said that, like the vast majority of people, I haven't read the treaty. Personally I think it is ludicrous that people get to vote on something they haven't read and if they have read it, most don't understand it. If you have to hold a referendum on it, it should be on the principle of whether to stay in Europe or not, because this is the issue that the little-Englanders who would vote against the treaty are actually voting on.

My very first chance to vote was in the '75 referendum on whether to stay in the European Economic Community, and I voted for. However, over the years what was purely a Common Trading agreement has become much more political, and is quite different from what was voted on then. I am very happy to be part of that trade zone, but I do not want to see my country become just another State in a "United States of Europe", and the Lisbon Treaty is a step closer to that happening. It will reduce the individual influence of the member countries, it will institute a "President" rather than having a rotating Presidency of Democratically elected national leaders, and it will institute a "Foreign Minister" for the EC. What worries me most of all is that most of this will be once again organised and selected by UNELECTED BUERECRATS.

To categorise those who are worried by all this as "Little Englanders" is unhelpful and dismisses the very real worries and concerns of those who, like me, welcomed the European ECONOMIC Community and who now see a largely UNDEMOCRATIC Political Union taking shape. Before this goes any further there should be a multi-choice referendum where these different choices, ie Economic Union, Political and Economic Union, or Leave, are clearly and honestly (and there has been precious little honesty on either side of the argument) debated and the country given a choice based on the facts.
 
it will institute a "President" rather than having a rotating Presidency of Democratically elected national leaders, and it will institute a "Foreign Minister" for the EC. What worries me most of all is that most of this will be once again organised and selected by UNELECTED BUERECRATS.

Correct me if I'm wrong about this anyone, but my understanding of Lisbon is that the 'President' and Foreign Representative would be selected by the democratically elected leaders of the member states, not by bureaucrats?
 
Leaving aside the actual issues surrounding the Lisbon Treaty (and in many respects it safeguards certain opt-outs that we have already negotiated in addition to the negative stuff), I think a lot of the animosity surrounding it is related to the fact that prior to the 2005 General Election, the government, and around 600 or so MPs went to the country promising a referendum on the EU Constitution. Now they come back and say that it is a completely different document, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of EU lawyers (including my own lecturer) and even Valery Giscard-d'Estaing, who wrote the damn thing, say that it is 98% the same. I suspect that the real reason behind this is that Brown fears a backlash against his own leadership and yet another drubbing at the polls rather than any great personal belief in the Lisbon Treaty himself. He even turned up late when it was signed and famously signed it alone in a small room in order to avoid being closely associated with it!

In addition to this, all but one EU leader say that ratification should continue despite the Irish no vote, when the treaty clearly states that it must be ratified by all 27 member states. It is therefore dead and no amount of posturing can change that.

Sadly the trade benefits of the EU will never be fully recognised by the EU people as long as the bureaucrats continue to display such complete arrogance in the face of the peoples of the member states. They only have themselves to blame for the euroscepticism that is so rife, particularly in the UK.
 
My very first chance to vote was in the '75 referendum on whether to stay in the European Economic Community, and I voted for. However, over the years what was purely a Common Trading agreement has become much more political, and is quite different from what was voted on then. I am very happy to be part of that trade zone, but I do not want to see my country become just another State in a "United States of Europe", and the Lisbon Treaty is a step closer to that happening. It will reduce the individual influence of the member countries, it will institute a "President" rather than having a rotating Presidency of Democratically elected national leaders, and it will institute a "Foreign Minister" for the EC. What worries me most of all is that most of this will be once again organised and selected by UNELECTED BUERECRATS.

To categorise those who are worried by all this as "Little Englanders" is unhelpful and dismisses the very real worries and concerns of those who, like me, welcomed the European ECONOMIC Community and who now see a largely UNDEMOCRATIC Political Union taking shape. Before this goes any further there should be a multi-choice referendum where these different choices, ie Economic Union, Political and Economic Union, or Leave, are clearly and honestly (and there has been precious little honesty on either side of the argument) debated and the country given a choice based on the facts.

Wouldn't bother me. We have an UNELECTED Prime Minister!
 
Correct me if I'm wrong about this anyone, but my understanding of Lisbon is that the 'President' and Foreign Representative would be selected by the democratically elected leaders of the member states, not by bureaucrats?

But even then, Brown wasn't democratically elected as leader. Only as an MP. It was Labour who nominated him leader.
 
But even then, Brown wasn't democratically elected as leader. Only as an MP. It was Labour who nominated him leader.

true enough, but that's the fault of our political system rather than anything to do with Europe. Plus it was made very clear before the last election that Blair intended to step down during this period, so it's not like nobody knew.
 
true enough, but that's the fault of our political system rather than anything to do with Europe. Plus it was made very clear before the last election that Blair intended to step down during this period, so it's not like nobody knew.

Was it? I distinctly remember his smug butt ugly face when he said "I will serve a full third term". Those who voted for a Labour government for a third term deserve what they get though, it's just a shame about the rest of us :madman:
 
Back
Top