goneforlunch
Member
Double posted in error.
Documentation for New EU "Treaty" Released
- Thread starter gosub
- Start date
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I disagree. I put the blame on the lack of knowledge/ignorance about the EU squarely at the door of the media. The right-wing media are firmly opposed to the EU (for whatever reasons) and have led a campaign of opposition and misinformation. Most people get their information from the media, not from government sources. The government has plenty of info about the EU but this is not used by the main source of public information - the media. There is also a general lack of interest about the EU, a pattern of which is followed by the media. You cannot honestly tell me the EU does nothing that benefits British citizens, yet when the EU does introduce new beneficial legislation, the media rarely report it (or they twist it into a negative)goneforlunch said:
Nice try
Explain what you mean by giving democracy away to the EU. I don't understand how democracy can be "given away" to a democratically accountable organisation? The EU is democratic but if you are concerned about a lack of democracy and accountability in the EU then you should support the Treaty, not oppose it. Or did you mean to say 'give away sovereignty' to the EU? Either way, in this day and age, certain problems can only be overcome by "surrendering" or "pooling" sovereignty - a fact you cannot deny.
Oh and EU law takes preference over UK law where there is an overlap/contradiction, so this archaic "binding your successor" nonsense is an irrelevant argument (or do you still think you could get away with shooting a Scotsman from the York walls with a bow and arrow??)
How is this Treaty (or even the Constitution) a) a major constitutional change compared to the other amending treaties or b) a major constitutional change at all?
I couldn't care less what David Cameron thinks about anything.
And I noticed you failed to comment on what I considered the most important part of my post about referendums - whether any progressive policies could ever be introduced should policy be implemented by means of a public referendum. Just answer me this: Would women have the vote today had the government decided to put the decision to a referendum by the (male) electorate? And would you have supported a referendum on whether women should have the vote?
CyberRose said:
Primarily, I think, because the proprietors fear its effect on their profits and political dominance.
It's already hardened the line against tobacco and alcohol advertising.
They fear it may take away the advertising of junk-food at kids.
The EU Competition department is a sight more effective than its UK equivalent at stamping on their monopolistic tendencies.
The EU Culture department won't let them launch TV channels filled entirely with cheap US re-runs.
A more concerted EU without UK opt-outs would pose the risk - quel horreur - that Rupert Murdoch in particular might pay some income and corporation tax.
And so on...
And there's another factor. The second time I visited Brussels, the local National Union of Journalists branch took me for a pint. They went to an utterly dreadful gloomy depressive faux-Irish bar - because they could order in English. That's the world the UK hacks there inhabit - they're not in Brussels or joined-up Europe at all, they're in an expat hell.
goneforlunch
Member
The EU isn't going to have much effect on profits of big businesses or political domination because a) small businesses are being squeezed out by EU inspired red tape, and b) because it is a big business orientated organisation, it's the bosses union, remember? Just how much do you suppose multinationals are making from EU approved schemes like biometrics and road pricing, etc.laptop said:
To what end? More children than ever are taking up smoking and binge drinking.
But it hasn't stopped the proliferation of junk-food in supermarkets, and nor will it.
Well given its dominance over UK law it should do, but where's the evidence that it does?
So we'll have more space for cheap European re-runs and other EU approved programming. That's just great.
With the level of corruption in the EU, dream on, and when the opt-outs end it will also be the end stage for democratic rule.
So even being in the heart of the EU, they remain unconvinced? And isn't that a pattern repeated all over in with the Portuguese community, the black community, the Muslim community, et al? People want to be with other people with a similar outlook.
And the same can't be said for the UK representatives the hacks are meant to be reporting the activities of. Did you know that the children of eurocrats posted in other EU member states get free private education for their children? That Britain supports a network of elite schools at a cost to the taxpayer of £14 million a year? "Joined up Europe" is eurocrat heaven.
goneforlunch
Member
CyberRose
Both the left and right wing are guilty of misinformation and pedalling EU propaganda. The FT gave Nick Clegg a platform to tell us his opinion as to why it is "Vital for Britain to commit to the "Europe". Take for instance, his "Why should I bother to vote, people ask, if all the important decisions are taken in boardrooms in Tokyo, Beijing, New York or Frankfurt?" He does not explain why people should vote when all the "important decisions" are taken in whatever city the national government ministers happen to be meeting under the qualified majority voting system, or in Brussels by unelected commissioners who have formally pledged loyalty to the EU.
We have just had a "reform" treaty, but Nick Clegg in his enthusiasm for the EU didn't explain how if at all it has reformed the EU for the better. And his desire to scrutinise the EU for powers and policies that can be executed at lower levels is all very nice, but it won't make any difference, any more than the parliamentary committee already doing the job can. Policies will still be executed from the centre with the power to implement them increasingly at regional levels.
I have a copy of the "Europe Diary" for 2007/08 given to schoolchildren. It is full of misinformation and propaganda. Take for instance its explanation of what the European Court of Justice does, "The European Union is funded by taxpayers money. Taxpayers have the right to know whether their money is being spent properly. The Court of Auditors, also based in Luxembourg, reviews the Commission's accounts and publishes and annual report on the way the money has been spent." Not a word is said about the massive amount of fraud that goes unchecked year after year.
And as for official sources of information about the new treaty, like the FCO, information provided assumes the "red lines" will hold, when we know they are just as worthless as John Major's equally lauded "subsidiarity" was. And the FCO has always presented the most favourable analysis of EU matters.
The EU is NOT a democratically accountable organisation. One only has to look at the way the Constitution has been wheeled out once again under a different name, after its referendum rejections, let alone the rest. This has been discussed on this thread and has been pointed out to you before. As before, if you have a counter-argument, please say. And I'd most definitely deny your suggestion.
Of course EU law takes preference over UK law, and this has been perfectly obvious since the Factortame case in 1988. British politicians CANNOT overturn EU law. What is that if not parliament binding its successors? And therefore, what's the point of voting for British politicians? And don't forget MEPs have very little power.
Before I answer your question as to the major constitutional changes in the new treaty, please tell me why, if you think it's not a major constitutional change, you so convinced the treaty is a good thing? Even europhiles say that the EU was too big to work under the old arrangement.
I'm not surprised you don't care what Cameron thinks, as he's hardly standing in the way of European integration. But you should because his party looks like being the only realistic alternative to Labour. He might be our next PM.
I never suggested every decision should be taken by referendum, but I certainly don't think parliament can be trusted on the issue of the ratification of this treaty. But yes I do think that women would have had the vote today, as they have in all the world's democracies, and there was no demand for a referendum on women's voting rights from men. And it was after all a male dominated parliament that allowed women the right to vote (albeit under pressure from women who gained more confidence after playing a vital role in the war effort). And naturally, being a woman, I would have supported a referendum on whether women should vote if the government hadn't given way.
As for the DP, I certainly wouldn't support it under the present regime, but unless the police and the government can come up with an effective deterrent/punishment system for offenders, I would support a referendum on it. Politicians are protected from the worst criminal elements, the people are not.
Both the left and right wing are guilty of misinformation and pedalling EU propaganda. The FT gave Nick Clegg a platform to tell us his opinion as to why it is "Vital for Britain to commit to the "Europe". Take for instance, his "Why should I bother to vote, people ask, if all the important decisions are taken in boardrooms in Tokyo, Beijing, New York or Frankfurt?" He does not explain why people should vote when all the "important decisions" are taken in whatever city the national government ministers happen to be meeting under the qualified majority voting system, or in Brussels by unelected commissioners who have formally pledged loyalty to the EU.
We have just had a "reform" treaty, but Nick Clegg in his enthusiasm for the EU didn't explain how if at all it has reformed the EU for the better. And his desire to scrutinise the EU for powers and policies that can be executed at lower levels is all very nice, but it won't make any difference, any more than the parliamentary committee already doing the job can. Policies will still be executed from the centre with the power to implement them increasingly at regional levels.
I have a copy of the "Europe Diary" for 2007/08 given to schoolchildren. It is full of misinformation and propaganda. Take for instance its explanation of what the European Court of Justice does, "The European Union is funded by taxpayers money. Taxpayers have the right to know whether their money is being spent properly. The Court of Auditors, also based in Luxembourg, reviews the Commission's accounts and publishes and annual report on the way the money has been spent." Not a word is said about the massive amount of fraud that goes unchecked year after year.
And as for official sources of information about the new treaty, like the FCO, information provided assumes the "red lines" will hold, when we know they are just as worthless as John Major's equally lauded "subsidiarity" was. And the FCO has always presented the most favourable analysis of EU matters.
The EU is NOT a democratically accountable organisation. One only has to look at the way the Constitution has been wheeled out once again under a different name, after its referendum rejections, let alone the rest. This has been discussed on this thread and has been pointed out to you before. As before, if you have a counter-argument, please say. And I'd most definitely deny your suggestion.
Of course EU law takes preference over UK law, and this has been perfectly obvious since the Factortame case in 1988. British politicians CANNOT overturn EU law. What is that if not parliament binding its successors? And therefore, what's the point of voting for British politicians? And don't forget MEPs have very little power.
Before I answer your question as to the major constitutional changes in the new treaty, please tell me why, if you think it's not a major constitutional change, you so convinced the treaty is a good thing? Even europhiles say that the EU was too big to work under the old arrangement.
I'm not surprised you don't care what Cameron thinks, as he's hardly standing in the way of European integration. But you should because his party looks like being the only realistic alternative to Labour. He might be our next PM.
I never suggested every decision should be taken by referendum, but I certainly don't think parliament can be trusted on the issue of the ratification of this treaty. But yes I do think that women would have had the vote today, as they have in all the world's democracies, and there was no demand for a referendum on women's voting rights from men. And it was after all a male dominated parliament that allowed women the right to vote (albeit under pressure from women who gained more confidence after playing a vital role in the war effort). And naturally, being a woman, I would have supported a referendum on whether women should vote if the government hadn't given way.
As for the DP, I certainly wouldn't support it under the present regime, but unless the police and the government can come up with an effective deterrent/punishment system for offenders, I would support a referendum on it. Politicians are protected from the worst criminal elements, the people are not.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Likewise, you have not said why the Reform Treaty has reformed the EU for the worse (rememebr, the debate is over the Treaty, not over whether we should be in the EU or not). But I would agree somewhat that the pro-EU's have not exactly gone on the offensive ovver the Treaty. But this, imho, is purely because they always have to be on the defensive because of the right-wing media. So instead of report after report over how the Treaty will be beneficial, we merely have report after report of the pro-EU's countering the right-wing media's lies and scare stories. I fully agree they should go on the offensive, ignore outright any calls for a referendum and instead concentrate on the positives.goneforlunch said:
I'm pretty sure the "Europe Diary" is purely to give a summary of what responsibilities the EU institutions have. As no insitution has the responsibility for committing fraud I don't see why it would be included. By the way, if here you're referring to the accounts that have never been signed off, perhaps you should look into why that is, especially in comparison to the way the UK's accounts are audited and then tell me which organisation is more thurough...the UK or EU (hint hint - it's the EU)
I hope the red lines don't hold! The main negative for me is the exclusion of the Charter of Rights. It's not enough for me to oppose the Treaty because I hope that this issue will come back for debate sometime in the future on its own without all the other issues getting in the way.
Yawn. Yes it is democratically accountable. The Commission is appointed by national (elected) governments. The Council is made up of elected national governments and the Parliament is directly elected by the European people. No European laws can be passed without the approval of both the Council and the Parliament (two elected bodies). The Parliament can dissolve the Commission should it chose to do so (which it has in the past). How exactly is it not democratically accountable?? And how is the UK government any more democratic?
But the UK law that says a Parliament cannot bind its successors is obviously now been negated due to EU law taking preference. IE it no longer applies
You answered your own question there. The EU is currently too large to operate efficiently. You should support meassures that insure our money is not wasted on an ineffective organisation. It alters the voting in some areas to take away vetoes (but not in any sensitive areas) but in doing so, it actually increases the UK's share of the vote, giving the UK more of a say in the EU (surely not something you oppose?!). It extends the term of the Presidency from 6 months to 18 months to ensure policies and plans can be properly implemented and not forgotten when the next Presidency takes its seat. But it doesn't give the EU any new competencies and all this scaremongering over "Presidents" and "Foreign Ministers" are nonsense because these positions/powers are already accredited to the EU so it's nothing new.
Cameron and the Tories are a complete joke when it comes to the EU and its likely to split the party. They can't decide whether they're pro or anti. Cameron even wants to withdraw from the EPP and set up a new Parliamnetary group further to the right. He was gonna ally with the Kaczynski's from Poland and the Thatcherites from the Czech Republic, but they all decided there is no need for a referendum o the Treaty so Cameron looks stupid, broke a leadership election pledge and the idea is now on the back burner. So forgive when I say I don't care what Cameron thinks about the EU.
Ah so basically when it suits your ends you'll support a referendum. You'd oppose a referendum if the public were pro-EU tho wouldn't you? Face facts, this Treaty, and the Constitution, never warrented a referendum as the changes they would make to the EU were simply not significant enough. The only reason you (and others calling for a referendum like UKIP) want a referendum is to oppose membership of the EU altogether, not because you oppsoe the Treaty (which insidently answers a lot of the sceptics criticisms over the EU and aims to put them right)
Not the question I asked - would women have been given the vote had all the men voted on whether to allow it or not?
Heh, you probably support the death penalty only because that would have us thrown out of the EU!
goneforlunch
Member
Just one report on how the treaty would be beneficial is all that's needed to start with. Where is it? The biggest media outlet of all, the BBC, is pro-EU, and has been for years, and even it can't make a case. Giving more power to unaccountable EU institutions is reforming the EU for the worse. But in thinking that Brown's pledge to hold a referendum should be ignored outright, you show only contempt for democracy, and in your admiration for the EU, you invite debate about the negatives in response. And to suggest that the ineffectiveness of the pro-EU cause is down to the "right wing media" is just risible.CyberRose said:
The Europe diary (which you can probably get a free copy of from the EU bookshop) is a fully fledged guide to modern living, all designed imho to convey the impression that the EU is the biggest and best caring organisation, and also includes a sanitised version of the EU's history. Catch 'em while they're young. (An acknowledgement of the fraud committed should be included to avoid a charge of propaganda. The EU's accounts are audited, the problem occurs when nothing is done to prevent the fraud it finds and it carries on and on and on.)
I never imagined you would approve of the red lines! And the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is a load of touchy feely crap, protecting rights that were never under threat prior to our joining the EEC, and rights that are given can be taken away. The EU and what is does is relevant to any argument about a treaty which means we are signing away our rights to independence away.
No it isn't democratically accountable. It has elected elements that give it a veneer of accountability, but in reality the Council meets in secret with most its decisions being presented as nationally thought up policies, if they are presented honestly at all, so we don't know they are acting in our interests, so veneer is all it is. The EP to which MEPs are elected is the weakest of all the EU's institutions, and the last time it chose to reject the Commission, it wasn't over human or workers' rights, or global warming, or corpratism, it was over a single commissioners views of homosexuals. Nothing changed as a result.
And when did any government ever get itself elected on a mandate of allowing EU law to take preference over UK law? Not that that point would concern you very much.
I didn't answer my question, but I do support measures that would stop money being wasted on an ineffective organisation. I think we should leave the EU as you know. The vetoes are protected by the useless "red lines". And how on Earth does the UK get more of a say under the terms of the treaty???
The Tories are a joke when it comes to the EU. We agree on something! But they are anti with a facade to kid their grassroots supporters. Cameron said he wanted to leave the EPP (the most federalist grouping in the EP) within "weeks not months" well over a year ago, but he hasn't. Words are cheap. Once again, how on Earth do you know which group he would ally with if he ever actually made the move? Cameron gets nowt but contempt from me too, but obviously for different reasons.
But for all the Tories infighting over the EU, when it comes to the crunch they support it for better or worse, and always have done ever since Tory leader, MacMillan tried to take us in and was kept out by de Gaulle.
a) Yes, on a major constitutional issue such as this one, and b) No, I wouldn't, if there had been a demand for a referendum from a pro-EU public, I would have supported it, because I believe in democracy. But if the public supported the treaty a referendum wouldn't be needed because all three mainstream parties support it anyway.
I am facing facts. If it never warranted a referendum, why did all three major parties promise one? I oppose both the treaty and membership, and the treaty does nothing to answer my criticisms.
That's another theoretical question, and asking it suggests that you think a majority of men want to keep women down which is just ridiculous. But yes, as you asked, I do think women would have been given the vote.
That's a ridiculous comment too, and I'm as fed up with this as you are, so that's it from me for a while.
goneforlunch
Member
laptop said:
But the bosses and multinationals get the upper hand in a big way. And I can't see the relevance of the US system to this discussion as we've never been governed under their system. You have the fixation with the US, not me.
Sorry I forgot to ask, how do you know they do fear them?
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Like I said, I agree the pro-EU media are on the defensive. Most analysis seems to concentrate on answering concerns rather than providing actual information on the Treaty. But I stick by what I've said - why do you think those supporting the Treaty have to resort to answering concerns rather than report on how the Treaty is beneficial? It's because of what I said about the right-wing media and other Eurosceptic groups deliberate attempt at stifling debate over the Treaty with their scaremongering and lies. This means those supporting the Treaty have to answer these silly claims leaving no time for the real debate. Look at the evidence (and you yourself), the right-wing media have concentrated solely on how similar the Treaty is to the Constitution, and whether therefore there should be a referendum. They've also spread blatant lies about foreign policy etc.goneforlunch said:
You also claimed the EU is unaccountable, which as I pointed out above is simply not true. The EU is as democratic and accountable as most governments within it, and it is the most democratic and accountable international organisation in the world.
This is irrelevant to the debate.
If the Charter was as insignificant as you claim, why was it such a big issue? Because the right-wing media and their rich chums made it an issue. Of course the right-wing don't want stricter worker's rights, it's not in their interests. But it IS in the interests of UK citizens. So what did they do? They published story after story claiming the Charter was "job destroying" and the public lapped it up as another example of "foreigners telling us what to do".
And simply saying "we are giving away our independence" or saying "we are losing sovereignty" is not an argument, positive or negative, it is merely an observation. You assume that giving away sovereignty in certain policy areas is a negative thing, but that assumption is wrong. Certain policy areas, such as the environment (best example), problems can only be solved by an agreed set of enforceable laws to ensure that those problems can be solved. So saying losing sovereignty is bad as a matter of principle is simply the wrong position to take.
Here you're demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge about the Treaty that you oppose so much, in fact, given what you have said above, I fully expect you to tell me in your next post that you support the Treaty
First of all, you're wrong about the Parliament being weak. Currently, the only two policy areas the Parliament has no say in is Foreign Affairs and Agriculture (CAP/Fisheries). Obviously you'll think Foreign Affairs should be in the hands of national governments only - the Treaty contains a signed declaration ensuring just that. But agriculture will now be subject to the double approval of the Council and Parliament, meaning the Parliament has power of approval in ALL policy areas (bar the sensitive field of Foreign Affairs).
Secondly, the Treaty will require the Council to meet in public, so they will no longer be able to hold secret meetings (I don't know if this extends to Foreign Affairs).
Given what I said earlier about how the EU was already democratic, and given that the Treaty increases democracy and accountability, what now are you going to find to oppose the Treaty? Or have you changed your mind?
Who has ever voted for Labour, Liberals or Conservatives purely over the issue of Europe?! Nobody!
Again, if you don't know anything about the Treaty and the reforms it makes, I don't see how you're in any position to oppose (or support) or try and tell me its not in the interests of British people.
FYI: Yes, vetoes will be taken away in certain areas. But vetoes are a double edged sword - the UK can prevent all EU countries pursuing a policy it does not agree with, but then tiny Malta can block policies the UK wants to pursue. The new reformed Qualified Majority Voting links votes in the Council to the size of a member state's population. For the UK, this means our share of the votes actually increases by 45% and our power to block rises from 32% to 35% (Link. So we still have the ability to block legislation (albeit with allies), but it is not guaranteed. This is the vital area the Treaty reforms as without this new voting system, with 27 countries, the EU would grind to a halt, and as much as you might find that amusing, that would be disastrous for all member states (not to mention a waste of money which you no doubt spend hours of your life moaning about!!)
I think the Tories already said who they were gonna ally with following withdrawal from the EPP, luckily one (half) of the members have just been given the boot in Poland!
Yes, anti-EU parties tend not to do so well at election time, what does that tell you about the mood of the British people?
See above: You seeming know very little about the Reform Treaty and its contents, so how you can tell me it's a "major constitutional" change, God only knows.
Ha! It answers a hell of a lot of your criticisms and concerns! (And Labour promised a referendum because of pressure when the French promised one, and the other two parties are just opportunists who know they would never have to go through with that promise)
You think all the men would have voted in favour of giving women the vote in the early 20th C? Yea right!
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Well considering I've pointed out that if you are genuinely concerned about the EU then you should support the Treaty, and given the fact we both know you couldn't care less about the Treaty and simply oppose UK membership of the EU, I expect it will be a while before you're able to think of something to say back about this Treaty that allows you to maintain your opposition to it!That's a ridiculous comment too, and I'm as fed up with this as you are, so that's it from me for a while.
goneforlunch
Member
CyberRose said:Well considering I've pointed out that if you are genuinely concerned about the EU then you should support the Treaty, and given the fact we both know you couldn't care less about the Treaty and simply oppose UK membership of the EU, I expect it will be a while before you're able to think of something to say back about this Treaty that allows you to maintain your opposition to it!
Don't worry, I'll be back, the debate is quite interesting. My genuine concerns about the EU lead me to believe that it will never be reformed to be democratic. How could an organisation covering half a billion people ever work effectively as a democracy?
I do care about the treaty a very great deal. The euro for instance, I could say quite a lot about that in the context of the treaty, but I must work for the rest of the week.
Oh, the diary is called Europa not Europe. My mistake earlier.
goneforlunch said:
By reading their fucking papers, silly.
And by having enough of a grasp of actual politics to understand the timing - like a rush of anti-EU stories in the Times when the EU Parliament Culture Committee is at work - when the Times appears little more than the PR department of Murdoch's TV interests.
gosub
~#
CyberRose said:
This really is absurd, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of current elected representatives stood on a platform of having a referendum on the issue, (actually don't ignore that it, manifesto commitments are quite important to trust in politics) are current relationship with EUrope stems from two referenda approximately 35 years ago. There have been a number of referenda on different issues since then but I'll stick with them. Are you really saying that this farce is justifiable on the mandate of what people now over 50 thought then, particularly (and here I will agree with you) when they were lied to in the referendum - BY THE YES CAMPAIGN.
So it not to say that i do not have concerns about the information the electorate use to make up their minds in the promised referendum, the tentacles of EU funding spread far and wide, and depending on the outcome of the ongoing EdExel investigation could be said to be pernicious, the topic who can spend what to say what should most certainly be an area of sub debate to the referenda amendment when it comes. (I presume you are fishing as to how other the parliamentary debate will pan out beyond the choreography of the quite thorough European Scrutiny Committee (I guess that's what you are doing, because you are paying fuck all attention to what has been said on this and other threads, including the fact that this debate on Urban is naval gazing without the promised referendum). With specific regard to News International, BARB lists Sky News at 0.5% viewer share, and whilst I accept Murdoch's print media seems remarkable adroit at providing content his readership wants (can't find public domain circ figure comparisons) it pails in significance next to the take up of broadband and the information the public pays the BBC to provide. Not that I wish this thread to turn into a debate on information dissemination, you may be a provincial party hack but you seem more comfortable with some sort of Pravda arrangement than the current information age that we currently live in.
Anyway back to your fishing expedition, I am currently involved in varying a Public Transport AOC to include an aircraft not UK type certificated, which if you knew anything of my industry is quite an undertaking, and if the the manufacturers are to be believed will have to be done in almost record breaking short order, the background reading and documentation to be amended makes this treaty look like a short cracking read
so I have not yet fully read nor do I consider I will have time this year. However looking at its areas of competence in addition to areas previously sketched in this thread, going on the zeitgeist I think you can expect something on the lines of:Given analysts assessments of natural resources, were coal prices to increase to levels making reopening South Wales coalfields viable, what impact would this treaty have on those efforts, and of any any parallel attempts to further dissolve the Union in order to keep revenues in Wales.
Though as someone of Welsh extraction who chooses not live in Wales i.e. British, I would like to add to the devolution debate a question of what effect of the breakup of the Union have on claims to the estimated 600million barrels of oil arround the Falklands.
With regards to what other referendums I would favour, no I would not support a referendum of the death penalty because JS Mills is still right it would be impossible to make amends were someone executed in error. I do believe that any proposed changes to the current constitutional arrangements should be decided by a referendum not least to overcome the existing one of no parliament may bind its successor. A notion that parliaments built on record low turnout should be more not less respectful of.
Semantic contortions made it possible for previous governments to claim "pooling sovereignty" and not binding their successors, because UK parliament maintained the right to unilaterally recant on them. This treaty removes that right.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Erm...right...well!
Nope sorry, you lost me, no idea what on Earth you're going on about.
By the way, if you want a referendum for every consitutional change, wouldn't that mean you support an referendum for EVERY Act of Parliament that has ever been made? Don't all Acts of Parliament alter our unwritten constitution?
Anyway, the referendum debate is dead and dusted because we aren't having one. So unfortunately for you, and fortunately for me, we're actually going to have to talk about the content of the Reform Treaty (or Constitution if you like)
So, if you are opposed to the Treaty, you must be opposed to its contents...
So you support the Council of Ministers meeting in secret?
You support spending double the funding on external relations by having two departments instead of one?
You oppose increasing Britain's share of the votes in the Council?
You oppose making the EU more democratic?
Nope sorry, you lost me, no idea what on Earth you're going on about.
By the way, if you want a referendum for every consitutional change, wouldn't that mean you support an referendum for EVERY Act of Parliament that has ever been made? Don't all Acts of Parliament alter our unwritten constitution?
Anyway, the referendum debate is dead and dusted because we aren't having one. So unfortunately for you, and fortunately for me, we're actually going to have to talk about the content of the Reform Treaty (or Constitution if you like
)So, if you are opposed to the Treaty, you must be opposed to its contents...
So you support the Council of Ministers meeting in secret?
You support spending double the funding on external relations by having two departments instead of one?
You oppose increasing Britain's share of the votes in the Council?
You oppose making the EU more democratic?
gosub
~#
No because they can be amended, consitutional change would effect the way they are amended and therefore binding on future parlaiments on the way they amned them.
I support the view of Gisela Stuart and the ruling party in Denmark that opening the debate to the public, best serves informing the electorates as to what is going on and making things more inclusive, and I concure with the European Scrtuny Committee that the way they have gone about this has not been consitent with the ideals you allude to . I also notice you have stopped banging on about Fundament RIghts would that have anything to do with the fact that in your "democratic" system an unelcted EUrocrat can wave them by decree.
The whole way they have gone about this is genuinely astonishing, I think it would better off starting again in a more bottom up manner, and the collusion of the governments to deprive their electorates of a say is one quite likely to cost the UK economically : the French voted against the consitution and 75% of their electore wants a referendum on this new document which differs in having removed references to a flag and anthem, and other ambigous changes referred to by former French President Valerie Giscard d'Estaing as being in Britain's interest, a recipe for disaster.
I support the view of Gisela Stuart and the ruling party in Denmark that opening the debate to the public, best serves informing the electorates as to what is going on and making things more inclusive, and I concure with the European Scrtuny Committee that the way they have gone about this has not been consitent with the ideals you allude to . I also notice you have stopped banging on about Fundament RIghts would that have anything to do with the fact that in your "democratic" system an unelcted EUrocrat can wave them by decree.
The whole way they have gone about this is genuinely astonishing, I think it would better off starting again in a more bottom up manner, and the collusion of the governments to deprive their electorates of a say is one quite likely to cost the UK economically : the French voted against the consitution and 75% of their electore wants a referendum on this new document which differs in having removed references to a flag and anthem, and other ambigous changes referred to by former French President Valerie Giscard d'Estaing as being in Britain's interest, a recipe for disaster.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Oh and in your haste, you forgot to answer my questions, so here they are again for you to answer (yes or no for all of them please):
Do you think the Council of Ministers should meet in secret?
Do you agree with cutting in half the amount of funds spent on the external relations of the EU (whilst at the same time, not expanding any powers to the EU in Foreign Affairs)?
Do you think it would be beneficial to the UK for its share of votes in the Council to be increased?
Would you like the EU to be more democratic?
Do you think the Council of Ministers should meet in secret?
Do you agree with cutting in half the amount of funds spent on the external relations of the EU (whilst at the same time, not expanding any powers to the EU in Foreign Affairs)?
Do you think it would be beneficial to the UK for its share of votes in the Council to be increased?
Would you like the EU to be more democratic?
gosub
~#
(1) How you are position to say that i don't know
(2) They did
(3) Fair enough, but out of cilter with actual events.
ETA: (Oh ffs you have been on this thread from the start if you bothered to read and digest it before posting "in your haste" type questions you would grasp my position)
(2) They did
(3) Fair enough, but out of cilter with actual events.
ETA: (Oh ffs you have been on this thread from the start if you bothered to read and digest it before posting "in your haste" type questions you would grasp my position)
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
All you've done so far, after 6 pages, is ramble on about how similar the Treaty and Constitution is and how we should therefore have a referendum. I want you to comment specifically about the contents of the Treaty because goneforlunch opposes the Treaty without having a clue about the contents of it and I suspect you'll be the same - not actually knowing how the Treaty will reform the EU, but just parroting what the Sun or what UKIP claim the content of the Treaty is. So, to ignite a debate over the contents of the Treaty, which is after all what we should be debating, then answer those 4 questions and we'll take it from there...
goneforlunch
Member
I know a lot about its contents.cyberRose said:
gosub
~#
I don't really care about how you want to play this, my priorities at the moment relate to getting this aircraft a public transport G reg. Beyond that I have been happy to post links on Urban so as to help inform people. I am not sacrificing my time to have a debate that is utterly futile until the point that Parliament decides it should seek wider consultation on the issue.
Until that point I would rather point people towards http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ in order that their concerns about the content and the manner this has been done can addressed. Though as I have done I have been quite happy to share at least some of my concerns here
Incidentally if you check my earlier postings on this thread and that leader in the Times I linked to with specific reference to date, it hasn't been parroting
Until that point I would rather point people towards http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ in order that their concerns about the content and the manner this has been done can addressed. Though as I have done I have been quite happy to share at least some of my concerns here
Incidentally if you check my earlier postings on this thread and that leader in the Times I linked to with specific reference to date, it hasn't been parroting
goneforlunch
Member
CyberRose said:
Have you read the Treaty? Even the original Constitution had a distinct section on monetary policy, in which it was stated that "the currency of the union shall be the euro".
This protocol says:
Added to that is The Centre for European Reform's view ...
It seems that Gordon Brown is one of the leaders who thinks never again, so opposed is he to a referendum on the new treaty.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
The Constitution would have wiped out all the existing treaties and replaced them with a single text, therefore, EVERYTHING remotely connected to the EU would have been mentioned, including the Euro. But no, I have not read the Treaty (nor have you) which is why I asked if it mentioned the Euro as I was under the impression that was done and dusted. This treaty is, like all the others, an amending treaty, so the only text contained would be amendments and additions to the previous treaties. Either way, it's a completely irrelevant point.goneforlunch said:
Like I said, irrelevant
Ok so you've taken an completely irrelevant part of everything I had written previously and added it to an equally irrelevant quote about referendums (again).
You had a number of concerns about the EU, the Treaty answers those concerns, care to comment?
gosub
~#
Interview with Valéry Giscard d'Estaing Today program 10/11/07
audio link will work for a week interview starts 18:18
VGD: Let us be very precise about it. You know, the text in Lisbon was written in a different way than the text called Constitution for Europe. When we wrote it, the Constitution, we wrote it directly, article one, article two, article three and so on. What they did in Lisbon is a different work. They took our text, they started from our text and they tries to introduce the different articles or notions into the existing treaties.
So of course the approach is materially and intellectually different, but the substance, they started taking as a basis our test. It's just another presentation and combination of presentation but the text is word to word the same one. If you attach importance to the fact that they are the existing treaties, that is true. But if you take the substance, the nine or ten proposals that were in our text, they are in exactly in the same wording in the new presentation.
ES: If that is the case, if the substance is the same as the constitution…
VGD: Yes.
ES: …the logic of that is surely there should be certainly a referendum in France, which rejected the original constitution, and certainly a referendum in Britain where one was promised if the constitution went ahead
VGD: Well, the question of the way to ratify a treaty is an open question. In France, normally to ratify a treaty, it's through parliament. And its up to the president of the republic to decide if he wants or judges that it's better to go through a referendum. So the normal process for France is parliamentary process. Since the Lisbon treaty is legally a new one, even if the substance is absolutely similar, we can took, the government can took the process, the parliamentary process, without having legal problems.
ES: Well that may be the technical position but it's politically dishonest, isn't it?
VGD: Well, it's not so clear either. I try to be sincere with you. When the French people voted "no" at the referendum, they did not vote on articles, they did not even vote on our proposals. They voted against the political power in place, the people in charge, at that moment. So you cannot tell, say, strictly speaking that they approved or disapproved certain part of the text. They did not in fact, because they did not voted on the text.
ES: Alright, let's deal with the argument in this country, where perhaps it's a little bit clearer because the British people were promised by the government in their last election manifesto that if the constitution went through there would be a referendum. And the point of that was it felt that the constitution contained a real change in Britain's relationship with Europe. Now you've just told us that in substance that what was the constitution has gone through so the logic must be that there should be a referendum.
VGD: Well, there shouldn't be by my evaluation a debate on wording. The new Lisbon treaty do not present itself as a constitution. [It] is an improvement of the existing treaties. For the thought of mythical case of having a constitution or not is not the problem of today. Because you voted already several treaties like the treaty of Nice, the treaty of Amsterdam. They were changing the old treaties and that is what the Lisbon treaty will do. So the question if it's sort of obligation to go to referendum doesn't seem to be obvious. You have a choice and of course it's a political choice. And this political choice belongs to the British authorities and people.
ES: Well, I suspect, you'll forgive me if I say this, but I suspect a lot of people listening to what you've just said will regard it is typical of the kind of dishonesty they see in the way that Europe's political leaders operate because you conceded that in political terms, in terms of substance, what we have before us is what you originally designed. But you've taken refuge in the technicalities of it to escape the possibility that the British people, or the French people come to that, should be able to pass judgement on it.
VGD: You cannot argue with me about it because that is not my proposal. My proposal was the former text. The Lisbon text is the product of government. It's not the product of the European convention. We produced the former Constitutional treaty. And then the government conference. The governments decided that they preferred to take the substance out of this treaty and to send it back to the existing treaties. It is their choice and so they have to answer themselves to the question you press. It's not to me to answer that. - orignally transcribed by EU Referendum blog
audio link will work for a week interview starts 18:18
VGD: Let us be very precise about it. You know, the text in Lisbon was written in a different way than the text called Constitution for Europe. When we wrote it, the Constitution, we wrote it directly, article one, article two, article three and so on. What they did in Lisbon is a different work. They took our text, they started from our text and they tries to introduce the different articles or notions into the existing treaties.
So of course the approach is materially and intellectually different, but the substance, they started taking as a basis our test. It's just another presentation and combination of presentation but the text is word to word the same one. If you attach importance to the fact that they are the existing treaties, that is true. But if you take the substance, the nine or ten proposals that were in our text, they are in exactly in the same wording in the new presentation.
ES: If that is the case, if the substance is the same as the constitution…
VGD: Yes.
ES: …the logic of that is surely there should be certainly a referendum in France, which rejected the original constitution, and certainly a referendum in Britain where one was promised if the constitution went ahead
VGD: Well, the question of the way to ratify a treaty is an open question. In France, normally to ratify a treaty, it's through parliament. And its up to the president of the republic to decide if he wants or judges that it's better to go through a referendum. So the normal process for France is parliamentary process. Since the Lisbon treaty is legally a new one, even if the substance is absolutely similar, we can took, the government can took the process, the parliamentary process, without having legal problems.
ES: Well that may be the technical position but it's politically dishonest, isn't it?
VGD: Well, it's not so clear either. I try to be sincere with you. When the French people voted "no" at the referendum, they did not vote on articles, they did not even vote on our proposals. They voted against the political power in place, the people in charge, at that moment. So you cannot tell, say, strictly speaking that they approved or disapproved certain part of the text. They did not in fact, because they did not voted on the text.
ES: Alright, let's deal with the argument in this country, where perhaps it's a little bit clearer because the British people were promised by the government in their last election manifesto that if the constitution went through there would be a referendum. And the point of that was it felt that the constitution contained a real change in Britain's relationship with Europe. Now you've just told us that in substance that what was the constitution has gone through so the logic must be that there should be a referendum.
VGD: Well, there shouldn't be by my evaluation a debate on wording. The new Lisbon treaty do not present itself as a constitution. [It] is an improvement of the existing treaties. For the thought of mythical case of having a constitution or not is not the problem of today. Because you voted already several treaties like the treaty of Nice, the treaty of Amsterdam. They were changing the old treaties and that is what the Lisbon treaty will do. So the question if it's sort of obligation to go to referendum doesn't seem to be obvious. You have a choice and of course it's a political choice. And this political choice belongs to the British authorities and people.
ES: Well, I suspect, you'll forgive me if I say this, but I suspect a lot of people listening to what you've just said will regard it is typical of the kind of dishonesty they see in the way that Europe's political leaders operate because you conceded that in political terms, in terms of substance, what we have before us is what you originally designed. But you've taken refuge in the technicalities of it to escape the possibility that the British people, or the French people come to that, should be able to pass judgement on it.
VGD: You cannot argue with me about it because that is not my proposal. My proposal was the former text. The Lisbon text is the product of government. It's not the product of the European convention. We produced the former Constitutional treaty. And then the government conference. The governments decided that they preferred to take the substance out of this treaty and to send it back to the existing treaties. It is their choice and so they have to answer themselves to the question you press. It's not to me to answer that. - orignally transcribed by EU Referendum blog
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Good, because I supported the Constitution, so if the Treaty retains the most useful reforms in the Constitution then well played to all involved...
Now, care to discuss the contents of the Treaty, or are you going to continue babbling on about referendums like the good little opportunist you are?
Now, care to discuss the contents of the Treaty, or are you going to continue babbling on about referendums like the good little opportunist you are?
Similar threads
