Lisbon Treaty II. Ireland votes Yes?!!?

[derk yall 0]

At 15:00 (central european time) czech prezident Václav Klaus have signed the lisabon Treaty.

He said that it's the end of the sovereignty of the Czech republic. Also he heavily blamed the czech institutional court for lying that the LT mean no harm to czech citizens and that it was politically motivated.

Well what i can say? If the EU will brings problems in there, if they continue to destroy our economy, then it would not end nicely.

[Baff1 0]

I'm sorry Baff , but Germany is the biggest net contributor .

Gross mate, not net. Germany is the biggest net contributor but not the biggest gross

What the EU gain from the UK is of course important for her , but the EU doesn't " Need" British money to survive , your money essentially helps less developped countries of the EU to get to standard and is important for the EU budget but not necessary . Most Europeans (i talk about the people , not governments ) would prefer the British to stay in the EU because we are all Europeans historically

Also , what you call a threat isn't a threat , it's a fact that in the current conjuncture of the the world economy , a UK alone would be less profitable than a UK within the Eurozone with its advantages , the big corporations and interests in the UK that are pushing for staying in the EU do it for this reason (economical interest ) , the financial crisis would have been much worse for you if you were outside the Eurozone , it's some British analysts who said that , i don't invent it .

No mate, the prime driver of the UK economy is the banking sector and it does not want to be part of th EU.

Being in the EU made no difference to our economic crash. It was our dealing with the U.S. that sunk us and our domestic economic policy.

(Not being in the Euro allowed us to more rapidly deflat our economy than anyone else which helped a bit).

P.S. our money helps France. Hardly the least developed of countries in need of a hand out.

Being in the EU didn't help us in anyway during the crash.

EU banks did not bail us out. EU exports did not increase.

European banks sought to capitalise on the losses of our banking system and take that business for their own. EU led regulation, majoritively voted on by all those nations who's banking industries stand to gain from our failure is nothing our economy will benefit from or the city of London is seeking.

Quite the opposite.

the EU has been trying to regulate our banking system to better favour/gain a bigger slice for their own national banks for many, many years and this crash has just played right into their hands. I't a dangerous time for us, and we have a bad leader.

If you vote out of the EU , Europe will not make war or punish you , it's not true to say this , it's simply that being out of an organization is logically losing the priviledges of being in it ... As for the comparison with Norway , it's not founded in logic .. Norway is a country with huge natural reserves (gas) and very small population .. Norway is the most expensive country in the world to live in .. they can afford it because they are not numerous and their country is rich , they have very few poor people .. it's a Totally different situation in the UK , a large country (infrastructures to finance etc) with large population (public spending) and large ambitions (army to finance etc) and a large debt by inhabitant ...

We look at Norway and we think to ourselves, see, they are getting everything they want from the EU. The EU is happy to trade with them and has no say in their internal policies.

We want what Norway has. It's getting a great deal out of the EU and we think we are worth the same.

Are you suggesting that EU will pay off our citizens debt?

Also you should bare in mind that our payments to the EU are far larger than our military budget.

As you say, we have ambitions and we need to fund them.

There is an economic downturn here and we could do with not spending money on whatever good causes it was you were suggesting. In fact we are quite able to decide where to best spend our money without your help thank you very much. We are as you say all very similar with similar morals etc. We can do it on our mate. No need to get you to do it for us. That is pointlessly costly and inefficent.

As you say, if we vote out, Europe will not punish us.

There are people it might seek to punish, but making enemies of us is a bad deal for them, just as with Norway. They benefit too much from good relations with us.

Ultimately however it should not be lost on you (but still clearly is) that again and again throughout history the road to war has been paved this way.

You talk about peace, but the path you follow more often than not leads to war. War in Europe can happen again. One day it will.

No one wants it to, but that doesn't change anything.

ok here i can only disagree respectfully , when you say something is corrupt , in this case , the whole EU , this is wildly exagerated , yes there is some money mis-spent , some high wages of MP ( but as we saw there was the scandal in UK MP expenses , so it's not a disease of the EU only ) and technocrats , there things that need to be addressed in the EU of course , there are some excesses and it is always possible to spend the money in a more effective and fair way but when something seems wrong , the best way is to fix it , you can criticize it all day , it won't fix by itself . You cannot build such a transnational organization with everything spot on in the first attempt .. it's logical there are always things to improve , conflict of interests etc.. , not just in the EU , but also in your , mine or any country . It doesn't mean the project is doomed to failure IMO . The people that change European laws (not UK laws ) are also elected by British citizens , yes it happens some are Germans or non-British if you will . But European laws that are deemed unpractical or unnacceptable by your parliament can be removed , it's not like it is a Diktat of Brussel and that you lose your sovereignity .

EU corruption is in a different league entirely from UK political corruption.

If our politicians had not been persistently ignoring our wishes for so long, no one would even care about the current scandal. It's very small potatoes.

But they aren't serving us well so we are beating them with all ammo available.

Nonetheless we don't like corruption and our EU polticians are the most corrupt ones we have. Typically they are the ones that can no longer work here. That have become unelectable or kicked out for corruption (twice!).

They go straight on the EU for a payrise and a bigger expense account. Jobs for the boys.

And this is the corruption of which I speak.

The EU corrupts our political classes so that they do not place our best intrests and wishes over their own careers.

Take Tony Blair. He promised us a referendum, but then they promised him the EU presidency. And he sold us all out the very next day.

I think there will be violence if he gets that job. Serious violence.

Here i totally agree with you . Giving the British people the right to have a word on this is important . Even if there is the risk that the answer of the voters will essentially be a sanction of the governement's policy , rather than an educated (or the best ) answer about all the implications (political , economical , strategical , historical , social etc...) for the country to stay or not to stay in the EU .

We saw this when the Dutch and French got to vote , they sanctionned their government .. yet when they are regularly polled by newspapers , majority of Dutch and French are pro-European and see it as a potentially positive project for the long term future .

For the moment and for the majority of the members , EU will be exactly that ... an union of independant nation states .. Federalist are those who want even more integration , i think Germany's current governement looks positively at the federalist project , but there is a very long way to go to achieve this , not many countries of the EU want this yet ...

But i understand your concern , when you see that there will be a president of the EU , EU foreign policy MP etc... but this does not mean it will be a federal state any time soon , it does mean that the EU in its current form is ungovernable and needed some tools to count more as a political entity . A Political entity that is still an union of sovereign states who can object or reject anything the EU votes potentially .

Incorrect. Under the Lisbon Treaty 50 British vetoes are being surrendered.

50.

in fact we have been steadily surrending national vetoes for the last ten years.

To imagine that Britain will be allowed to just opt out is frankly laughable. The whole point of the treaty is to end all the opt outs. So the project can move smoothly.

Unfortunately thats move smoothly in a direction unfavourable to us and unwanted by us.

With regards to the French and the Dutch. I'm sorry but "no" means "no". Pretending they said no but didn't mean it is highly condescending.

What's the point in having a referendum if you aren't willing to respect the results?

They didn't vote to leave the EU, they voted no to the constitution. They are still perfectly able to wish to be part of the EU without wanting to be part of "the EU project" as indeed can I and most British people. But... unfortunately the federalists won't allow that. They have their own vision for the EU and they don't give a stuff about democracy.

EU since the 80s , then Masstricht , then Nice , then Lisbon has always thrived for more integration and always aimed to be a political entity , one must be really naive to sign Maastricht and still think EU is only about trade ... i mean yea , in the 70's when you were the "sick man of Europe" , you were happy to get the benefits of being in the EEC , but now that you "think" you are in a better situation , you don't want to pay for anyone anymore ... Well fair enough .. we understand UK never embraced Europe basically .. but it's difficult to say EU isn't popular in continental Europe , it is ..

Masstricht was signed against the will of the British people (quel surprise!). It wasn't niavety of the British people, it was political corruption. Same for Nice. They were both massively unpopular here, and indeed throughout Europe too.

There is no threat of poverty , there is a reality that the EU is the most powerful economical power in the world with the USA and the first place for trade and business . If you are part of it , it's obvious that you are more powerful economically and politically than if you are not , difficult to argue with this . But i want to stress that i perfectly understand your desire to stay totally uninvolved in the EU and being out of it , i'm not arguing against this , but merely pointing that it's not a very convincing argument that the BNP and UKIP use when they say "oh , i slept at night in the 1970's , but then i woke up this morning in 2009 and suddenly found EU is not only about business , we've been robbed etc.. " , i mean come on ... this is taking people for fools , British MP since 25 years know perfectly well what was the aim and vocation of the EU . If you want the EU to be only about business , then we can still create different levels of membership ... this would enable those who want to go further (like we did for the Euro currency which is a great success .. ) to do it .

Frankly the last thing I am looking for in this world is another economic power the size of the U.S.'s.

It is precisely this kind of meglomania that leads to wars. If you are looking to rival, challenge or outdo the current world order in anyway, you are the enemy of all that has kept the peace here for so long.

That you and others keep referring to this underlines my incredable distrust of the EU project. You see, I would rather be the 51st state of America than I would the 27th state of EU. As a big a cultural ties as we have with the rest of Europe we have a lot deeper ones with them.

The EU will never rival the U.S. because it cannot maintain the political unity to do so. Should it ever manage to, the world would become a very dangerous place indeed. World orders rarely change so dramatically without a fight, nor should they ever be allowed to.

For 25 years the British people have not been allowed a vote.

When we lasted voted, the EU dind't exist. The EEC didn't exist.

We joined the EC. We voted for it. We joined an free trade agreement with Europes largest economies.

Not the EU project.

And yes we are acutely aware of how people have been trying to, and succeeding, in making the EC into a political project instead of a free trade area.

It's not what we signed up for. Why those people couldn't just form a political union on their own is quite beyond me.

Ok here , I really felt like aggressivity and hard nationalist tone tainted by a sort of fear that EU wants to crush you at all costs or something , there's no threat really , there is a risk of isolation and economical decline on the long term , its not the EU threatening anything , it's up to you to evaluate properly the benefits and disadvantages of being part of the UE and then choose your destiny , there won't be "retaliations" against UK if you vote out of the EU , it's the sovereign choice of a free country , besides EU has no interests whatsoever to alienate Britain . No one will use sanctions against you or force you to stay ...

And everytime you use the threat of "long term isolation and economic decline", you will be met by that same aggressive tone.

Because that's what it is, a threat.

And you are right, it's an empty threat. Unlike ours, which aren't. Because we are in a position to retaliate. We can and will. I think it's important that the dog knows which end of the lead it is on.

Yes , EU would prefer UK part of EU because of : Influence , Trade place , Joint first army of Europe in budget and numbers (with France ) , Nuclear power , Historical bound with other Europeans (values , laws etc.. , differences are minor ..)

BUT , UK outside the EU is not a existential problem for the EU , it will make EU institutions evolve at a faster pace , negative on the short term would be that EU would gain less income , so would not be able to be as generous as it is now with the other less developped members . EU would have less credibility militarily , politically and economically on the short-medium term without Britain , that's for sure , but it would still work , and on the long term , 50 years or more , things will be very different , economical matters evolve EXTREMELY fast nowadays and the EU would still remain a very powerful economical and political entity with or without the UK .

I would prefer the EU to have less credability militarily and economically. If there is one thing I am not looking for it's the dawn of a new superpower to start rocking the world again.

And I also agree, The EU doesn't need Britain to be a member. We're no critical loss to "the project". In fact it would be a lot smoother without us. Or at least it would be a lot smoother for certain elements of it without us. Other smaller elements need allies like us to stand up with them against "a project" they don't want either.

I understand this , the same applies for countries like Germany or France who also have glorious history , comparable economical ties with various countries and prosperity potential for the future (less public debt , big industry , auto sufficient for food , better infrastructures like transports , health etc.. .

But you see that's the whole idea of the European project , make of Europe which was an area of war and hostile competition into an area of peace and mutual prosperity . Sure it requires a bit of solidarity , patience and optimism , if you think only about short term profit and feel threatened , it's understandable that the EU is less appealing . But the world is changing very quickly and the big interests pushing for Europe in the UK have all well understood this . Personally , UK in or out in the Europe is of no real importance from the point of view of a continental EU citizen (although as an anglophile i would prefer them in because of the cultural and symbolic aspect ) , what is really important for me is that we know the answer very quickly for we can move on and improve that EU , make it more democratic , make it fairer and closer to the concerns of the citizens , make it stronger ... and i know that it will not happen in my lifetime , because such projects take a long time to build , EU is very young , Rome wasn't build in a day although the comparison is bad since it's not an empire but a functionnal and prosperous union that we want to build . cheers ;)

You see to me, the larger a state gets the fundamentally less democratic it becomes. So any further development of the EU reduces democracy not increases it.

The longer they spend building it, the worse it gets.

In fact it has been getting significantly worse worse and worse for years now.

At 27 members states, it is now just bloody aweful.

Now I understand that many people in Europe seek this federation. That's cool with me, but I don't want to be a part of it. Good luck to those that do.

Unfortunately, I don't have any choice. My people don't have any choice. None of my friends or family have any choice. None of my companies have any choice.

And the chances are we won't ever get that choice again without going to war over it.

P.S. prior to the EU, Europe wasn't "area of war and hostile competition" what total hogwash, prior to the EU, Europe was in the longest period of sustained peace in it's history. It had never been more peaceful and prosperous.

I'm really sorry but trying to attribute peace and prosperity in Europe to "the EU" is totally offensive to all those millions who gave their lives to achieve it. (Shameful in fact).

Honestly mate, peace and prosperity in Europe? The EU isn't why. It is critical that you do not forget what happened in Europe. Please do not rewrite history into some silly fantasy.

The biggest danger of all is that we forget what happened. Is that we become complacent. (But it is mankinds nature to become so).

On my jacket I wear a poppy.

---------- Post added at 02:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 AM ----------

i would love to live in Canada :)

I love Canadians, but I think New Zealand would be warmer.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Baff1

[trickster1982 10]

Good post baff, & I totally agree with you!

[Prydain 1]

Another case of tl;dr; however, I am sad enough to have read all of that.

The claim that the UK can carry on without the EU is as naive as saying the UK can command the attention of superpowers, if anyone thinks that the UK can compete with the USA, China, India, Brazil and the EU on its own is invited to piss-off and go and either become chancellor, because if you are that certain you must have an innovative view of economics, or you can go get an education.

I would never surrender succeeding generations of British people to fate, I would act now and install long term ties with the EU instead of, inevitably, re-aligning 15 to 30 years down the line with a weaker voice than the long-standing members of the EU. Thats what most political parties have striven to do and rightfully so.

The truth is, no matter how much you talk about Norway, Switzerland or the myth that Lisbon takes state's sovereignty outright: You have to remember that the UK has opted out of many areas were other nations would loose face over and gain more than we give.

[HotShot 0]

Baff, you should look towards the Council of Europe, whose origins are in a plan of Chuchill's in 1943, and which has been around since 1949 and includes a far greater number of member states than the EU, incorporating every nation within europe other than Belarus, so that includes Turkey, Russia and Azerbajian, etc. This makes it far larger and far older than the EU. Of course, the CE does not have so many state functions as the EU, however it does have important common laws and institutions, such as Human rights and enforcing democracy, which all the members abide by. I feel this puts a hole in your dooms day arguments of the EU becoming more prone to conflict as it grows and the longer they spend building it.

The member states have not been without conflict. Russia for example has had the Georgian (also a member) conflict and the Chechens, however these are not due to becoming part of a larger body. Instead, once such conflicts have broken out, this large organisation can use its broad membership, and loss of face of the threat of being kicked out of this collective, as leaverage against countries in these conflicts. It can lead to political prisoners, for example, being freed as the CE did in Russia and Azerbajian, and ensure rival parties talk and reconcile as was done in the former Yugoslavia. This has been achieved with a relatively narrow mandate, with greater powers more is possible. It has many uses precisely because it covers a large and broad range of states (and all the variations between them), and has common institutions and values. The more I read of the Treaty Lisbon the more I feel it aids the EU in similiar work.

Edited November 5, 2009 by HotShot

[Baff1 0]

Baff, you should look towards the Council of Europe, whose origins are in a plan of Chuchill's in 1943, and which has been around since 1949 and includes a far greater number of member states than the EU, incorporating every nation within europe other than Belarus, so that includes Turkey, Russia and Azerbajian, etc. .

You are missing one more country Churchill left out in his plan for the Council of Europe. His own. Great Britain.

"We are with Europe but not of Europe". He said.

While I agree that EU membership may be used as leverage to prevent it's members from going to war, it is important to remember that in the cases of Yugoslavia and Georgia the actual guarentors of peace in Europe since the birth of the EU were America and Russia.

Not "the EU".

If you are looking for peace in Europe, the 27 member states of the EU don't have an excellent track record of providing it, or being willing to. They talk like they are, but when push comes to shove they won't do what it really takes, which is fighting, killing and dying.

It is also important to remember that British national intrests often involve us going to war and often to the chagrin of other EU members. I do not want other nations to have greater leverage over us in wartime or the ability to hamper our efforts to take military action quickly and decisively where we deem necessary. Quite the opposite.

It's bad enough when our European suppliers (and allies) refuse to sell us bullets and bombs when we get invaded, quite without giving them a mechanism to economically sanction us the easier.

P.S. Gerogia isn't an EU member.

@Prydain, the Lisbon Treaty provides the mechanism to remove all national opt outs except those on defence.

Any opt outs countries currently have may now be removed from them by EU vote.

It's done mate. Your opt outs are paper tigers. They have been signed away.

As for competing with China and America, India and Brazil, we already do and always have done. So do many far smaller nations than ours perfectly successfully.

We do not have to be the biggest boys on the block be successful and wealthy.

There is no need to be the richest nation in the world to still be a happy one. I do not need to have the largest most successful industry in the world to still have a good one.

Your examples of Norway and Switzerland are two obvious historical examples of countries that have remained economically amongst the wealthiest citizens on the planet without ever having to join a larger federation.

The idea that it is impossible to do well without "being part of something bigger" is frankly laughable.

A pack of lions have a very effective method of getting food, but the tiger doesn't go hungry either. Lions and tigers mate. Wolves and foxes. There are as many different effective methods of economic success as there are economies.

I have both an education and an innovative view of economics. My country has greatly prospered from it's innovative economics in fact, (as have I).

"Innovative economics" is our largest and best producing industry. (We are also world leaders in education).

So if it's the EU or "Innovative Economics", then we best avoid the EU like the plague, because 40% of our GDP comes from innovative economics.

Instead of surrendering future generations of British citizens, why not allow them to choose for themselves based on the circumstances they find themselves in that future?

I'm up for democracy. They should be allowed to vote for themselves.

It's not my responsability to make those choices for them today, it is my responsability to safeguard their freedom to choose for themselves. As my parents did for me.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Baff1