|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 4, 2022 21:41:15 GMT
The problem with that so called Constitutional Treaty was that it was swallowed up, literally engulfed by, modifications needed to address the new member countries that had either joined or were joining the EU. So the masters at the EU drew up a constitution that wasn't fit for purpose, is that what you think? Did you ever think it drew it up in the belief it would pass without objection and that it would be waved through without a murmur? Do you think the Irish leader took it upon himself to call another referendum or do you think he was pressured by the EU? Why would he call another referendum when, after the first vote, he said he would not ask the Irish people to vote again? This is just a part of the reason Farage once compared the EU top brass to the Mafia and when told to retract it, calledf them gangsters. What goes on in the EU parliament is little different to what goes on in other parliaments and even in local councils right down to parish level, it is the major reason why the mainstream parties shy away from anything other than the status quo in terms of the electoral system. As I posted previously, events dramatically overtook and changed the original intended treaty. The EU expected the Original Constitutional Treaty to be voted on, just what the EVENTUAL outcome would have been is open to speculation, perhaps some changes made or rejection, or majority acceptance. AFAIA, the second Irish referendum was taken because so much nonsense had infiltrated into the first one. (Not unlike the English referendum) After clarifications the Irish people voted for the Treaty. Clearly the Irish people were happy to vote in a second referendum which would not have got off the ground if the Irish people didn't want it. Nobody did or could have twisted their arm to MAKE them vote for or against. IMO Farage was as dishonest as they come. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 4, 2022 22:03:50 GMT
Well now you are in the land of pure assumption. We do not know why it passed the second time. What we do is the differences in what was being voted for, the campaigns of both sides and the general change in economic circumstances from the first referendum. All may have had some effect but what a second referendum did was allowed the losing side to reassess their campaign, correct errors of prominence and downplay negative aspects of a yes vote and highlight negative aspects of a No vote. I am not saying any was definitive but they were all part of the event. I see you could not comment on the French having a referendum and rejecting a Constitution and then having an amending treaty that did exactly the same thing ratified by their government with no referendum What do you mean when you say we can't know why they voted for it the second time? What do you think the Irish are? Poodles? If the EU told them to vote one way, you can be pretty sure they'd vote the exact opposite way. Just as Obama telling the UK how to vote backfired. It's very simple: the Irish didn't like the entire proposal put to them in the first referendum, so they rejected it. The EU removed the part they didn't like, and then they wholeheartedly accepted it. The Irish spoke. The EU listened. Why bother with a new campaign then. Why not just say we have changed this, vote again. That did not happen. There was a new campaign, there were changed circumstances in the country, there were major efforts to bring out more of specific demographics to vote. All to no effect because it was one wee clause that changed everyone's mind. I do not think for one minute you believe that. I see you could not comment on the French. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 22:12:14 GMT
What do you mean when you say we can't know why they voted for it the second time? What do you think the Irish are? Poodles? If the EU told them to vote one way, you can be pretty sure they'd vote the exact opposite way. Just as Obama telling the UK how to vote backfired. It's very simple: the Irish didn't like the entire proposal put to them in the first referendum, so they rejected it. The EU removed the part they didn't like, and then they wholeheartedly accepted it. The Irish spoke. The EU listened. Why bother with a new campaign then. Why not just say we have changed this, vote again. That did not happen. There was a new campaign, there were changed circumstances in the country, there were major efforts to bring out more of specific demographics to vote. All to no effect because it was one wee clause that changed everyone's mind. I do not think for one minute you believe that. I see you could not comment on the French. Mate, if the EU had tried to tell Ireland what to do, the Irish would have made sure it had a nasty accident. The EU would have ended up at the bottom of the Senne wearing a pair of cement boots. The idea that the Irish would meekly walk down to the local polling station and put their x where they were told by the EU is a complete joke. Wake up! |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 4, 2022 22:22:56 GMT
Why bother with a new campaign then. Why not just say we have changed this, vote again. That did not happen. There was a new campaign, there were changed circumstances in the country, there were major efforts to bring out more of specific demographics to vote. All to no effect because it was one wee clause that changed everyone's mind. I do not think for one minute you believe that. I see you could not comment on the French. Mate, if the EU had tried to tell Ireland what to do, the Irish would have made sure it had a nasty accident. It would have ended up at the bottom of the Senne wearing a pair of cement boots. The idea that the EU would tell the Irish how to vote and they would meekly walk down to the local polling station and put their x where they were told is a complete joke. I do not think you are following. No one was told what to do or how to vote but the campaign was effectively rerun with changes to the wording of the treaty, different emphasis in the campaign, higher profile to bring out more voters and a more unsettled economic circumstance in teh country that was referred to in oblique and unsettling terms in the Yes campaign. No one was told how to vote just as you would not think if we had a rerun of our 2016 that people had been told how to vote but you would hope for a changed result and you would apply the lessons learned from 2016 to change how the campaign was run. This is the way the EU works it applies the democratic process in a rather corrupt way to attain the result it wishes. Which is exactly what happened in France who rejected the Constitutional Treaty in a referendum but got it anyway by ratification, without referendum, of an amending treaty. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 22:24:41 GMT
Mate, if the EU had tried to tell Ireland what to do, the Irish would have made sure it had a nasty accident. It would have ended up at the bottom of the Senne wearing a pair of cement boots. The idea that the EU would tell the Irish how to vote and they would meekly walk down to the local polling station and put their x where they were told is a complete joke. I do not think you are following. No one was told what to do or how to vote but the campaign was effectively rerun with changes to the wording of the treaty, different emphasis in the campaign, higher profile to bring out more voters and a more unsettled economic circumstance in teh country that was referred to in oblique and unsettling terms in the Yes campaign. No one was told how to vote just as you would not think if we had a rerun of our 2016 that people had been told how to vote but you would hope for a changed result and you would apply the lessons learned from 2016 to change how the campaign was run. This is the way the EU works it applies the democratic process in a rather corrupt way to attain the result it wishes. Which is exactly what happened in France who rejected the Constitutional Treaty in a referendum but got it anyway by ratification, without referendum, of an amending treaty. What year was this referendum? |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Nov 4, 2022 22:34:43 GMT
I do not think you are following. No one was told what to do or how to vote but the campaign was effectively rerun with changes to the wording of the treaty, different emphasis in the campaign, higher profile to bring out more voters and a more unsettled economic circumstance in teh country that was referred to in oblique and unsettling terms in the Yes campaign. No one was told how to vote just as you would not think if we had a rerun of our 2016 that people had been told how to vote but you would hope for a changed result and you would apply the lessons learned from 2016 to change how the campaign was run. This is the way the EU works it applies the democratic process in a rather corrupt way to attain the result it wishes. Which is exactly what happened in France who rejected the Constitutional Treaty in a referendum but got it anyway by ratification, without referendum, of an amending treaty. What year was this referendum? November 5, 1955 |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 22:41:12 GMT
What year was this referendum? November 5, 1955 No heckling! |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 4, 2022 22:49:41 GMT
Nope The Lisbon Treaty had significant amendments from that constitution for Ireland, Poland and the UK. Most importantly they took out the supremacy of the ECJ in all matters and so made it for us a treaty not a constitution establishing a one EU nation. Do not take my word for it leave to the Constitutional expert. The Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the rejected constitution. Only the format has been changed to avoid referendums.” Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and President of the Constitutional Convention in several European newspapers, 27 October 2007 Should we believe him or is he lying? Oh not that sad stupid story raked out again  I did at least think that you Sandy would know that France isn't Ireland or Poland or the UK. d'Estaing who was a passionate supporter of the Lisbon Constitution was trying to save face and alluding to the fact that for France there was virtually no change. Anyone that in the day looked at the then available on line side by side comparison knows that there were many key changes for Ireland, Poland and the UK |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 5, 2022 7:23:50 GMT
Some even had a referendum on a Constitution for the EU, which was rejected , but they got it anyway by means of something they could not have a referendum on. On such things are pictures drawn of what one is dealing with I don't quite know what you're talking about. Do you have a link? You don't really know much about the EU, do you? I suggest you do a bit of reading before posting more nonsense. You can't expect people to waste their time trying to educate you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2022 7:27:30 GMT
I don't quite know what you're talking about. Do you have a link? You don't really know much about the EU, do you? I suggest you do a bit of reading before posting more nonsense. You can't expect people to waste their time trying to educate you. You mean you can't be expected to offer up any evidence for anything you say? Because that is actually not an unreasonable request, otherwise where is the proof that you yourself are not posting nonsense? It is after all a common pastime of right wingers. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 5, 2022 9:31:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 5, 2022 10:56:57 GMT
I don't quite know what you're talking about. Do you have a link? You don't really know much about the EU, do you? I suggest you do a bit of reading before posting more nonsense. You can't expect people to waste their time trying to educate you. Steady on! Let me keep my self-respect. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 5, 2022 11:30:27 GMT
A very good read dismantling the real issues thanks |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 5, 2022 13:05:18 GMT
Do not take my word for it leave to the Constitutional expert. The Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the rejected constitution. Only the format has been changed to avoid referendums.” Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and President of the Constitutional Convention in several European newspapers, 27 October 2007 Should we believe him or is he lying? Oh not that sad stupid story raked out again I did at least think that you Sandy would know that France isn't Ireland or Poland or the UK. d'Estaing who was a passionate supporter of the Lisbon Constitution was trying to save face and alluding to the fact that for France there was virtually no change. Anyone that in the day looked at the then available on line side by side comparison knows that there were many key changes for Ireland, Poland and the UK So your excuse to ignore him is that he was lying. 'Key changes' are a matter of subjective consideration and the major changes were that referenda were expelled as a means of progressing the project wherever possible and the treaties were made largely impenetrable for the man in the street who nevertheless is bound by their content. The distinctive hallmark of an unresponsive bureaucracy to the wishes of the people and to tie them up with endless references. Simple governance it is not as I keep pointing out. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 5, 2022 13:25:41 GMT
I do not think for one minute that international cooperation is not a good thing. The problem occurs when that cooperation becomes a legal obligation. This we may swallow for small instances but like everything it has the habit of escalating beyond the control of governments and when sovereignty is concerned decisions can be passed to those distanced from direct influence through the electorate. Take the entente cordial around the turn of the 19/20th centuries. From it we agreed to send military assistance to France in the event of invasion. When asked how many troops they would expect the reply from the French military was a single British soldier and we shall ensure he is killed. Escalation is always a possibility of any action and that is exactly what the EU has become becasue once you start down the road it is difficult to pull back and the intent of others is always to draw you further in to meet their needs not yours. Cooperation is fine but we should keep a discreet and safe distance from entanglement. However the long term aim seems clear and that is to rejoin in some form. Brexit is only a hiccup. |
|
