17 Jun 08
Only 40 percent of the voters in Ireland was voting. A majority of these said no. A majority of the Irelanders, we don't know anything about what they think in the matter.
So a little minority in Irleand (25%?) said 'No' to the Lisbon declaration.
I didn't vote. I didn't have a chance to vote. My governement voted for me. I don't even know what the Lisbon declaration was about. I didn't know what my governement voted, i gues they voted 'Yes'.
17 Jun 08
2 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhat's the basic concept of EU? It's a partnership between nations to
promote peace, prosperity, easier trade and exchange across the
borders. That's what it is now, and the way I like it so far.
The EU’s future will be decided through dialogue, debate and
democracy.
From: http://europa.eu/abc/panorama/index_en.htm
In the spirit of democracy the Irish people owes EU nothing but what
they've already agreed to in order to enter the union. The very thought
that decisions should be made out of loyalty to EU even if you don't like
the direction it's taking is like a corrosion on the democratic process. If
this increased power to the leaders of EU is indeed a good idea, it's their
job to sell it to the voters. If the voters don't buy it, the EU leaders will
have to just accept that.
I really dislike your attitude that because you think the lisbon treaty to be
a good idea, you're willing to suggest that the Ireland voters is holding
back the "EU success story". Who are you to say EU can only get better
from ratifying this treaty? Again, if it's such a good idea, present it to the
voters such that they can see it for what it is, and trust them to make a
good decision. If they don't agree with you, it's really not your place to
pass judgement on that.
For me a President of the Council would increase Europe's voice
on the international stage. Better to have a figurehead than the
faceless bureaucrats we currently have. Lisbon, as far as I see it,
clarified the relationship between a Member State and the EU rather than
reduced Member State's sovereignty.
What makes EU interesting and useful in my own opinion is how it works
as a means to ease communication, trade and exchange between its
member nations. Having a president and giving EU increased political
influence over it's member nations, seems to me a step in the direction
of a superstate on top of the existing ones. According to you this is not
the direction intended though you give no concrete examples on what the
treaty would mean in reality, so I'll have to read up on the treaty then.
I'd say there were only a handful of people across Europe who
had actually read the Lisbon treaty and they had to for professional
reasons.
Which is exactly what I feel is wrong. Sweden hasn't voted yet, but it's
going to be a parliamentary vote, meaning we (the people of Sweden) will
be represented by Reinfeld and co. In fact, before the news on Ireland
I'm willing to bet that only relatively few Swedes even knew there was
such a treaty about to be ratified.
The fact that practically noone seems to know exactly what this treaty
would mean, is alarming at best. Also, when politicians do speak about it,
it's all praise and daisies. You know that when a politician speaks highly
of something, there's usually more than meets the eye there.
(Although SverigeDemokraterna - a Swedish nationalistic party with
racist undertones - doesn't want the lisbon treaty to be ratified, and it's
often a good idea to go in direct opposition with SD. 😕 )
Would you agree that the European project was originally setup
in spite of the popular will of the people of Europe, especially those of
Germany and France, not because of it?
I have no idea if that's the case, but what if it is? What does that prove?
Maybe people back then were kept in the dark as much as the voters on
Ireland today (in your opinion).
----
Whether or not the lisbon treaty is a good idea, I don't think that the way
it's been handled by EU ryhmes well with "dialogue, debate and
democracy". It seems it's been more push, shove and whinge about
not getting it all the way through.
18 Jun 08
The post that was quoted here has been removedRefer to my link above on this one.
The EU’s future will be decided through dialogue, debate and
democracy.
If you feel I passed judgement on you I apologise for that. The point I
made still stands though. If it's indeed such a good idea, and the people
of Ireland were allowed to vote on it, the 'Yes' campaign should've
shown clearly what the treaty is all about and then leave it to the Irish
voters. Also, if the great majority of the Irish voters made their decision
without all the facts, you can hardly blame the 'No' supporters for that.
Indeed I haven't read the treaty in full yet, but I'm starting to get a
picture. I will get back here when I've finished reading through it in its
entirety, and then maybe we can debate the pros and cons of the treaty?
Because like I said, even if this ship is sunk, it doesn't mean there won't
be another one in the future, and maybe EU will have learned to sell it's
ideas a little better then.
Unlike you, I am (and EU it seems) convinved that EU should work only
through a democratic process. Anything else, in my own opinion, would be
counterproductive as it would give a small majority way too much control
over the trade and sharing of information across the borders. The control
should be in the hands of the people directly affected by EU's decisions.
But that's another debate, I guess.