The Irish do the right thing with the EU treaty

[Stylerod]

Europe was thrown into political chaos Friday by Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, a painstakingly negotiated blueprint for consolidating the European Union's power and streamlining its increasingly unwieldy bureaucracy.

The defeat of the treaty, by a vote of 53.4 percent to 46.6 percent, was the result of a highly organized campaign that played to Irish voters' deepest fears about the EU. For all its benefits, many people feel, the Union is remote, undemocratic and ever more inclined to strip its smaller members of the right to make their own laws and decide their own futures.

I'm amazed it has gotten the support it has. Here is another part of the article.

The Lisbon Treaty, dense and complex, was the response to those French and Dutch defeats. If enacted, it would give Europe its first full-time president and create a new foreign policy chief who, among other things, would control EU development aid.

The treaty would also reduce the number of members on the European Commission, the EU's executive body, rotating the seats so that each member country would sit on the commission 10 out of every 15 years. It would change the voting procedures so that fewer decisions would require majority votes.

So every country would not have representation every year and they want fewer decisions to require a majority vote???? Are you kidding me???

Good for the Irish. Well done.

Irish voters reject EU treaty - International Herald Tribune

[David Octavius]

So when the EU attempts to consolidate power and shift more decision making to fewer hands its bad and undemocratic but when its done in this country its necessary and patriotic? Simply amazing

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

So when the EU attempts to consolidate power and shift more decision making to fewer hands its bad and undemocratic but when its done in this country its necessary and patriotic? Simply amazing

When they shift power so that a country will have no voice in a decision, that's terrible. Sad you don't think so.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

When they shift power so that a country will have no voice in a decision, that's terrible. Sad you don't think so.

What's sad is that is what you thought I meant in my post

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

When they shift power so that a country will have no voice in a decision, that's terrible. Sad you don't think so.

I think you missed his point.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I think you missed his point.

I think his point was that I would like less government and not more. But I sure as hell don't think we should have NO representation in a Government just to make it smaller. What a dumb ass thing to think. And quite a stretch, even for someone trolling through a thread.

[IminWonderland]

When I went to Ireland, there were alot of posters and townhall meetings against this.

I thought that was pretty cool.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I think his point was that I would like less government and not more. But I sure as hell don't think we should have NO representation in a Government just to make it smaller. What a dumb ass thing to think. And quite a stretch, even for someone trolling through a thread.

Wrong yet again...my point is that people like you (at least what I've gathered from your posts I've read) have defended the (unconstitutional) increased power of the executive branch to the point where decisions that were supposed to made in conjunction with other branches have now been placed in fewer hands and the power that the executive has is so much more concentrated as to almost dominate policy (especially foreign) - which is abosoulty against the principles of our republic (our representation) and the democracy that grew up around it. Not to mention against the principles of smaller government that you claim to support.

You lament the power of the EU for just such things yet are blind to it here in the US, that is ironic and sad and as I stated earlier, simply amazing.

PS - Exposing the hypocracy of that line of thinking you took in the opening thread isn't "trolling", its calling a spade a spade.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Wrong yet again...my point is that people like you (at least what I've gathered from your posts I've read) have defended the (unconstitutional) increased power of the executive branch to the point where decisions that were supposed to made in conjunction with other branches have now been placed in fewer hands and the power that the executive has is so much more concentrated as to almost dominate policy (especially foreign) - which is abosoulty against the principles of our republic (our representation) and the democracy that grew up around it. Not to mention against the principles of smaller government that you claim to support.

You lament the power of the EU for just such things yet are blind to it here in the US, that is ironic and sad and as I stated earlier, simply amazing.

PS - Exposing the hypocracy of that line of thinking you took in the opening thread isn't "trolling", its calling a spade a spade.

I think you're trying to hard!

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I think you're trying to hard!

I think he's right.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I think you're trying to hard!

Actually pointing out hypocrisies in the neo-con ideology is pretty easy

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I think he's right.

You agree with Sty?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

You agree with Sty?

I think he was agreeing with you

[motivez]

My understanding of this treaty was that it was more about streamlining the massive bureaucracy that the EU has become than it was about silencing the voices of member states

Certainly a noble goal, but they went about it completely wrong I think.

[Kytro]

I actually have little problem with the concept of centralised control. I have a big issue with almost all implementations

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

My understanding of this treaty was that it was more about streamlining the massive bureaucracy that the EU has become than it was about silencing the voices of member states

Certainly a noble goal, but they went about it completely wrong I think.

And I guess we will never know what DO thinks because he would rather attack me than give his opinion of the situation.

[Viv]

I am with the Irish on this. The rest of the member states pushed this through without reference to the people to deliberately avoid cumbersome explanation to the populace. It is intended to streamline EU process, which is necessary. But any change impacting on the decision-making process should be referred to the people.

The treaty has not been shelved, it is still on the cards. The Czech Republic and the UK are having legal issues ratifying the treaty, which is required before it can be passed in any case.

I know that a UK citizen has taken this to court to challenge the government on pushing it through without holding a referendum.

So one of these conflicting news reports say the treaty has been ratified already, but the other says the courts have told Brown not to conclude ratification until the court case completes:

BELGRADE, June 19 (Xinhua) -- The European Union (EU) on Thursday welcomed Britain's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, amid a crisis brought on by Ireland's rejection of the charter last week.

"The Slovenian presidency welcomes the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the House of Lords of the UK Parliament," a statement from the presidency reaching here said.

"Another endorsement of the treaty proves that it is still a living document," the statement said. "Every ratification counts as an important step towards the ultimate goal, i.e. the enforcement of the Lisbon Treaty."

Ratification by Britain comes a week after Irish voters rejected the treaty in last Thursday's referendum, dealing a heavy blow to EU's hope of putting it into effect on Jan.1, 2009.

However, the presidency believes that the ratification process elsewhere in EU should continue, while a thorough political deliberation, together with Ireland, is necessary to find a way out of this crisis...
With the approval of Britain, the treaty has now been ratified by 19 EU nations.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/...ent_8402117.htm

but:

Britain will not ratify the EU Treaty until the High Court has ruled on a bid to force a British referendum, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.

A judgement on the High Court bid by tycoon Stuart Wheeler is due next week.

But a judge in the case earlier expressed "surprise" ministers were going ahead with ratification and asked that they "stay their hand".

Mr Brown said the request "fits in with our timetable" and "of course" it would not be ratified before the ruling.

The bill that would ratify the Lisbon Treaty passed its last Parliamentary hurdle in the House of Lords on Wednesday and gained Royal Assent on Thursday.

But the process is not technically completed until the "instruments of ratification" are deposited in Rome.

Referendum case

Government officials say the judge's letter and Mr Brown's comments do not change the original timetable to complete ratification and say it was always the aim to complete ratification in July, after the court judgement.

Friday's direction from High Court judge Lord Justice Richards appears to have been prompted by a letter from Treasury lawyers.

After the EU (Amendment) Act gained Royal Assent, they wrote to the High Court saying: "The government is now proceeding to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon."

In a direction published on Friday, Lord Justice Richards said: "The court is very surprised that the government apparently proposes to ratify, while the claimant's challenge to the decision not to hold a referendum on ratification is before the court.
"The court expects judgement to be handed down next week. The defendants are invited to stay their hand voluntarily until judgement."

He warned that if they do not, Mr Wheeler will be invited to seek an injunction to stop ratification going ahead.

The prime minister, who is at an EU summit in Brussels, was quick to respond to the letter saying the steps between Royal Assent and actual ratification could take weeks...

THE RATIFICATION PROCESS
Parliament approves bill to ratify treaty
The Queen gives Royal assent
The"instruments of ratification" are drawn up by the Foreign Office
These documents - three pages of goatskin parchment - are sent to the Queen
The Queen signs the front page and a warrant authorising them
The documents return to the Foreign Office and are signed by the foreign secretary
They are sent to the Crown Office in the House of Lords who affix the great seal
The documents return to the Foreign Office, are tied in a blue ribbon and bound in blue leather
They are sent to the British Embassy in Rome and then to the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Only then is ratification complete
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7465665.stm

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Viv

I am with the Irish on this. The rest of the member states pushed this through without reference to the people to deliberately avoid cumbersome explanation to the populace. It is intended to streamline EU process, which is necessary. But any change impacting on the decision-making process should be referred to the people.

The treaty has not been shelved, it is still on the cards. The Czech Republic and the UK are having legal issues ratifying the treaty, which is required before it can be passed in any case.

I know that a UK citizen has taken this to court to challenge the government on pushing it through without holding a referendum.

So one of these conflicting news reports say the treaty has been ratified already, but the other says the courts have told Brown not to conclude ratification until the court case completes:




but:

Good post. I'm all for smaller government, but not when it means no representation in that government. There are people here with mothballs for brains that don't seem to get that.

[motivez]

Kind of off point, but I had no idea the queen still played a role in stuff like that. I thought it was mostly a figurehead and the political stuff, treaties, etc.. was all left to Parliament