Ireland vote 'YES' on Lisbon Treaty Referendum.

Mr_Matey

I didn't have a clue what it's all about until just googling it, but found the following summaries.
http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html

http://www.irelandforeurope.ie/files/Treaty-Summary.pdf

Why did Ireland oppose it in the first place? Is it because of point 8?

And what does the UK have against the idea? All the UK media I've read seem to be against it.

Sir_Humphrey

Pete111 wrote: »

I wasn't around at the time but having asked around amongst people who were and voted (some 'Yes', some 'No') I am rather left with the impression that the 1975 referendum was on joining a trading block...Not a vastly over interfering social, political and cultural experiment.

The Treaty of Rome in 1957 made it perfectly clear what the objective of the EEC was. If anything the ultimate United Europe ideal has been watered down over the years since 1975 under UK influence. If that message did not come out clearly during the referendum in 1975, do you think the next referendum would be any clearer? This is why referenda are normally a bad idea.

As far as I am concerned, a pro-European government was elected in 1997, 2001 and 2005 so they can be pro-European as they see fit. If UKIP are ever elected to form the government, they can be anti-EU as they see fit. That is representive democracy.

Cameron has boxed himself into a corner here. If he keeps on marginalising and reducing UK influence in Europe, then he will damage the UK national interest and the UK economy. If he governs properly, the hardcore Eurosceptic fringe will defect to UKIP.

None of this Euro-nonsense bodes well for Cameron perforning well as a PM. He looks an even bigger ditherer than Brown right now.

Watching Boris Johnson waffle and pretend he did not hear the questions this morning on the news was just embarrassing. It comes to something when Bill f**king Turnbull can take your policy apart.

Jonbvn

Well AEP in the Torygraph is almost frothing at the mouth over this issue. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in Manchester over the week.

Pete111

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The Treaty of Rome in 1957 made it perfectly clear what the objective of the EEC was. If anything the ultimate United Europe ideal has been watered down over the years since 1975 under UK influence. If that message did not come out clearly during the referendum in 1975, do you think the next referendum would be any clearer? This is why referenda are normally a bad idea.

As far as I am concerned, a pro-European government was elected in 1997, 2001 and 2005 so they can be pro-European as they see fit. If UKIP are ever elected to form the government, they can be anti-EU as they see fit. That is representive democracy.

Cameron has boxed himself into a corner here. If he keeps on marginalising and reducing UK influence in Europe, then he will damage the UK national interest and the UK economy. If he governs properly, the hardcore Eurosceptic fringe will defect to UKIP.

None of this Euro-nonsense bodes well for Cameron perforning well as a PM. He looks an even bigger ditherer than Brown right now.

Watching Boris Johnson waffle and pretend he did not hear the questions this morning on the news was just embarrassing. It comes to something when Bill f**king Turnbull can take your policy apart.

Yeah... thats what everyone read in 1975 before voting. The full draft of the 1957 treaty...

My folks both voted yes and are increasingy p*ssed off as the years roll by that they were sold a total lie re this - though they read the Daily Mail so mounting grumpiness might just be a general side effect of that unfortunate habit.

I do agree that the Tories are in a tough place however and will no doubt tie themselves in knots on this one. Also, I wasn't trying to imply we are big enough to stand on our own anymore (we aren't) I just tire of the lies (sorry 'spin'), lack of accountability (or accounts for that matter!) and the blatant manipulation of the sheeple.

Seriously. Why even ask the question if you already know the only answer you will accept!?

The_White_Horse

leveller2911 wrote: »

Spot on George, the way Cameroon answered everything except the questions he was asked was quite sickening.........Typical Tory boys ,smoke and mirrors....


Its just a thought but wasn't the reason we went to war in 1939 was the "Threat to democracy"????....So what is different now?..

I think the Irish as a nation are Gutless morons who didn't(not couldn't) stand up to the bully boy from over the water,they took the bribe.
Make no mistake the Germans and French are intent on ruling Europe, its typical of the French especially, given their lack of guts during the 1st gulf war , didn't want to fight but shouted loudest for the re-building contracts ,nothing but scum as a nation, which is a shame as most of the Frenchies Ive met have been nice n friendly...

Well folks it seems like its down to us to sort out the EU mess.
I wonder if when Tory boy fails to deliver on the promise of a referendum how many will bother to act and think of the future generations.It wouldn't be us we sell down the river its our children and grand children.................:rolleyes:

is this post a joke?

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The Treaty of Rome in 1957 made it perfectly clear what the objective of the EEC was. If anything the ultimate United Europe ideal has been watered down over the years since 1975 under UK influence. If that message did not come out clearly during the referendum in 1975, do you think the next referendum would be any clearer? This is why referenda are normally a bad idea.

As far as I am concerned, a pro-European government was elected in 1997, 2001 and 2005 so they can be pro-European as they see fit. If UKIP are ever elected to form the government, they can be anti-EU as they see fit. That is representive democracy.

Cameron has boxed himself into a corner here. If he keeps on marginalising and reducing UK influence in Europe, then he will damage the UK national interest and the UK economy. If he governs properly, the hardcore Eurosceptic fringe will defect to UKIP.

None of this Euro-nonsense bodes well for Cameron perforning well as a PM. He looks an even bigger ditherer than Brown right now.

Watching Boris Johnson waffle and pretend he did not hear the questions this morning on the news was just embarrassing. It comes to something when Bill f**king Turnbull can take your policy apart.

A big part of the problem is that the Tories have consistently lied about the EEC/EC/EU, claiming that it's a free trade area and that's about it and Labour have done a massive flip-flop on the issue from being against (presumably when they thought it was a free trade area) to being in favour (as a way of introducing a secular socialist bias into UK Government via binding international treaties on 'social contracts' etc).

The Tories are now caught in a trap of their own making and the tensions keep threatening to tear the party in two although having UKIP as an anti-EU party of the right probably acts as an outlet to those that feel very strongly and so keep tensions under control to some extent.

Labour are now fully in favour of Europe AFAIUI in pretty much every part of the party and so, as in most of Europe, the governing party is much more in favour of further 'integration' than the vast majority of the electorate.

Now we come round to the electorate. In the last General Election, 4 of the top 5 parties nationally had over 95% of the vote and were in favour of remaining in Europe in one way or another. UKIP was the largest party by share of national vote not to support remaining in the EU and gained something over 2% of the vote in the UK (link).

So what happens? I think it's fair to say that a majority of British people hate or dislike being a part of the EU. Further, they don't have a legitimate outlet for that belief. Sadly, it's things like this that end up with people voting BNP - the current parties have nothing to offer so vote for something that's definitely outside the system.

Sir_Humphrey

Pete111 wrote: »

Yeah... thats what everyone read in 1975 before voting. The full draft of the 1957 treaty...

My folks both voted yes and are increasingy p*ssed off as the years roll by that they were sold a total lie re this - though they read the Daily Mail so mounting grumpiness might just be a general side effect of that unfortunate habit.

If people really felt that strongly about the EU, then UKIP would be doing a lot better.

If your parents read the Daily Mail, then their understanding of the EU is probably false, as a lot of what is printed is flat untrue. The Daily Mail is one if the biggest lie-rags out there.

If people really hate the EU, then they should vote UKIP. There are lots of things that all the mainstream parties agree on that I dislike, so I can understand why some people might be annoyed. However in a democracy you have to take the rough with the smooth.

Personally, I think have massive steam-roller majorities on pathetic vote shares in the UK parliament is far more anti-democratic than anything in the EU.

Pete111

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The Daily Mail is one if the biggest lie-rags out there.


Now that's something you and I can totally agree on.... awful paper.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

A big part of the problem is that the Tories have consistently lied about the EEC/EC/EU, claiming that it's a free trade area and that's about it and Labour have done a massive flip-flop on the issue from being against (presumably when they thought it was a free trade area) to being in favour (as a way of introducing a secular socialist bias into UK Government via binding international treaties on 'social contracts' etc).

In a nutshell, the moderate wings of both Labour and the Tories tend and always tended to be pro-European, and the more left/right wings against. For the left wingers (like Tony Benn), the EU is a vast Capitalist conspiracy to undermine worker's interests. For the right wingers, it's the pesky Krauts, Dagoes and Frogs at it again. My rule of thumb is that if both extremes think an institution is an opposing conspiracy, then the balance of that institution is about right.

Generali wrote: »

So what happens? I think it's fair to say that a majority of British people hate or dislike being a part of the EU. Further, they don't have a legitimate outlet for that belief. Sadly, it's things like this that end up with people voting BNP - the current parties have nothing to offer so vote for something that's definitely outside the system.

Apart from a vocal minority, I don't honestly think that enough people care about the EU to swing their vote on the issue. Polling evidence backs this up. The Tories ran strongly Eurosceptic campaigns in 2001 and 2005 and were hammered. Face it Eurosceptics you've just lost this one, just as the unions lost against Thatcher.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Apart from a vocal minority, I don't honestly think that enough people care about the EU to swing their vote on the issue. Polling evidence backs this up. The Tories ran strongly Eurosceptic campaigns in 2001 and 2005 and were hammered. Face it Eurosceptics you've just lost this one, just as the unions lost against Thatcher.

I agree with you on this mostly. It's like fox hunting. If you ask people, are you pro or anti people hunting foxes with dogs then a pretty decent majority will say 'Yes, ban it'. If you ask people what the most important issues facing the UK at any given time are, a few thousand at most would mention fox hunting.

The only trouble is that whereas fox hunting is basically a one off - once it gets made illegal then that's pretty likely to be that - the EU isn't, largely because the agenda is a moving one: single market for goods, single market for labour, single currency, single legal code, single primary legislature. At each stage you get to pick up more people against the next move.