|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 18:50:18 GMT
There's your answer, then. The Article deals with Ireland first. It makes it clear that the second referendum in Ireland was based on an amended proposal. So, there was no second referendum on the same issue. You've been told this dozens of times. 'In October 2002, more than 62% voted to back the Treaty of Nice on a turnout of almost 50%. Changing the people's minds would literally come down to vigorous campaigning and an amendment which promised to keep Ireland out of any future common European defence force.'The Irish voted against the Treaty because they had concerns about a European defence force. The EU listened to their concerns and removed details which allowed for that possibility. The Irish were listened to. They didn't vote on the same thing twice. The proposal they voted on the second time was materially different from the proposal they voted on the first time. Why are you talking about the Irish when I was referring by name to France and the Netherlands? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 18:52:03 GMT
There's your answer, then. The Article deals with Ireland first. It makes it clear that the second referendum in Ireland was based on an amended proposal. So, there was no second referendum on the same issue. You've been told this dozens of times. 'In October 2002, more than 62% voted to back the Treaty of Nice on a turnout of almost 50%. Changing the people's minds would literally come down to vigorous campaigning and an amendment which promised to keep Ireland out of any future common European defence force.'The Irish voted against the Treaty because they had concerns about a European defence force. The EU listened to their concerns and removed details which allowed for that possibility. The Irish were listened to. They didn't vote on the same thing twice. The proposal they voted on the second time was materially different from the proposal they voted on the first time. Why are you talking about the Irish when I was referring by name to France and the Netherlands? Because it was the first country dealt with in your article. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 18:53:38 GMT
There's your answer, then. The Article deals with Ireland first. It makes it clear that the second referendum in Ireland was based on an amended proposal. So, there was no second referendum on the same issue. You've been told this dozens of times. 'In October 2002, more than 62% voted to back the Treaty of Nice on a turnout of almost 50%. Changing the people's minds would literally come down to vigorous campaigning and an amendment which promised to keep Ireland out of any future common European defence force.'The Irish voted against the Treaty because they had concerns about a European defence force. The EU listened to their concerns and removed details which allowed for that possibility. The Irish were listened to. They didn't vote on the same thing twice. The proposal they voted on the second time was materially different from the proposal they voted on the first time. As a separate issue could that piece in black be called an army? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 18:54:11 GMT
There's your answer, then. The Article deals with Ireland first. It makes it clear that the second referendum in Ireland was based on an amended proposal. So, there was no second referendum on the same issue. You've been told this dozens of times. 'In October 2002, more than 62% voted to back the Treaty of Nice on a turnout of almost 50%. Changing the people's minds would literally come down to vigorous campaigning and an amendment which promised to keep Ireland out of any future common European defence force.'The Irish voted against the Treaty because they had concerns about a European defence force. The EU listened to their concerns and removed details which allowed for that possibility. The Irish were listened to. They didn't vote on the same thing twice. The proposal they voted on the second time was materially different from the proposal they voted on the first time. Why are you talking about the Irish when I was referring by name to France and the Netherlands? Your article makes exactly the same point about France and the Netherlands. They voted on two different things. Your article also emphasises amendments when discussing these countries: 'After voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution, EU leaders returned to the drawing board and came up with the Lisbon Treaty. In many ways, it was similar to the constitution. However, instead of replacing the previous treaties, it was an amendment.' |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 18:54:30 GMT
Why are you talking about the Irish when I was referring by name to France and the Netherlands? Because it was the first country dealt with in your article. So? The link was for you as requested as regards France and the Netherlands. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 18:55:27 GMT
Because it was the first country dealt with in your article. So? The link was for you as requested as regards France and the Netherlands. See my above post. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 19:01:30 GMT
Why are you talking about the Irish when I was referring by name to France and the Netherlands? Your article makes exactly the same point about France and the Netherlands. They voted on two different things. Your article also emphasises amendments when discussing these countries: What happened next? After voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution, EU leaders returned to the drawing board and came up with the Lisbon Treaty. In many ways, it was similar to the constitution. However, instead of replacing the previous treaties, it was an amendment.'The point as ever being that there was no referenda on the amending treaty which did the same job, according to Giscard d'Estang ( and he should know). The peoples of two Western European countries were denied the referenda that you said their Constitutions demanded; apparently not. So their democracies were just as weak in that area as the UKs. I tend to think it is clever people taking advantage of systems to bring in what they want; you know the type of thing Hitler did. Use democracy and the Constitution to get your own way. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 19:02:27 GMT
So? The link was for you as requested as regards France and the Netherlands. See my above post. Still ignores what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 19:03:31 GMT
Your article makes exactly the same point about France and the Netherlands. They voted on two different things. Your article also emphasises amendments when discussing these countries: What happened next? After voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution, EU leaders returned to the drawing board and came up with the Lisbon Treaty. In many ways, it was similar to the constitution. However, instead of replacing the previous treaties, it was an amendment.'The point as ever being that there was no referenda on the amending treaty which did the same job, according to Giscard d'Estang ( and he should know). The peoples of two Western European countries were denied the referenda that you said their Constitutions demanded; apparently not. So their democracies were just as weak in that area as the UKs. I tend to think it is clever people taking advantage of systems to bring in what they want; you know the type of thing Hitler did. Use democracy and the Constitution to get your own way. Sandy, I'm growing impatient of explaining this to you. The EU had no means to force Major to hold a referendum in the 90s. Nor did it have the means to force France or any other country to hold a referendum. The EU does not have the authority to make those kind of inroads into national sovereignty. It made amendments which it expected to address the concerns of the French people. That's all it could do. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 19:28:30 GMT
The point as ever being that there was no referenda on the amending treaty which did the same job, according to Giscard d'Estang ( and he should know). The peoples of two Western European countries were denied the referenda that you said their Constitutions demanded; apparently not. So their democracies were just as weak in that area as the UKs. I tend to think it is clever people taking advantage of systems to bring in what they want; you know the type of thing Hitler did. Use democracy and the Constitution to get your own way. Sandy, I'm growing impatient of explaining this to you. The EU had no means to force Major to hold a referendum in the 90s. Nor did it have the means to force France or any other country to hold a referendum. The EU does not have the authority to make those kind of inroads into national sovereignty. It made amendments which it expected to address the concerns of the French people. That's all it could do. Of course you are but you are explaining that which I am not asking. I will spell it out. You said Western European Constitutions were stronger than the UK's. You said the peoples in these democracies were Constitutionally entitled to a say as regards the EU. I exampled the EU Constitutional treaty and the two referenda in France and the Netherlands which rejected said Treaty. The EU pulled the rabbit out of the hat by amending existing treaties to arrive at the same outcome (as confirmed by D'Estang) with no further referenda. It seems they were not as strong as you made out and could be manipulated by determined people just as easily. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 21:25:08 GMT
Sandy, I'm growing impatient of explaining this to you. The EU had no means to force Major to hold a referendum in the 90s. Nor did it have the means to force France or any other country to hold a referendum. The EU does not have the authority to make those kind of inroads into national sovereignty. It made amendments which it expected to address the concerns of the French people. That's all it could do. Of course you are but you are explaining that which I am not asking. I will spell it out. You said Western European Constitutions were stronger than the UK's. You said the peoples in these democracies were Constitutionally entitled to a say as regards the EU. I exampled the EU Constitutional treaty and the two referenda in France and the Netherlands which rejected said Treaty. The EU pulled the rabbit out of the hat by amending existing treaties to arrive at the same outcome (as confirmed by D'Estang) with no further referenda. It seems they were not as strong as you made out and could be manipulated by determined people just as easily. Okay, that's not a bad point. It would seem that the French constitution isn't as robust as I thought. But France is only one country in the EU. And the EU is not responsible for the fact that the French constitution isn't wider; nor is it responsible for the fact that the UK constitution is practically non-existent. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 17, 2023 21:34:04 GMT
I agree - the UK is like the EU and there is no way those in charge will allow real democracy. The EU doesn't have treaty authority to force a referendum in any member state. The UK parliament has the constitutional right to hold a referendum on any matter. The EU does not hold EU wide referendums because it cannot; the UK parliament does not hold regular referendums because it chooses not to. There's a big difference, Doc. Dont be an arse - there is no democracy in the EU. Instructions come down from on high and national politicians have to follow them. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 22:44:38 GMT
The EU doesn't have treaty authority to force a referendum in any member state. The UK parliament has the constitutional right to hold a referendum on any matter. The EU does not hold EU wide referendums because it cannot; the UK parliament does not hold regular referendums because it chooses not to. There's a big difference, Doc. Dont be an arse - there is no democracy in the EU. Instructions come down from on high and national politicians have to follow them. May I remind you that this isn't the Conspiracy Theory board, Doc? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 18, 2023 6:44:40 GMT
Dont be an arse - there is no democracy in the EU. Instructions come down from on high and national politicians have to follow them. May I remind you that this isn't the Conspiracy Theory board, Doc? Truth hurts? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 8:44:10 GMT
May I remind you that this isn't the Conspiracy Theory board, Doc? Truth hurts? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? |
|
