Poll: Are you for or against the Lisbon Traety?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Lisbon Traety

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423

    Lisbon Traety

    Well the Irish did what we have been denied and voted on the treaty.
    They've sent Brussels into a state of apoplexy and the mud slinging should hit the headlines Thursday or Friday...
    So where would you have told Brussels to stick their treaty and why?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6901353.stm

    edit: I can't alter the poll but apprently some people can't understand the question or options:
    Essentialy it breaks down into 2 sections, the top 2 options are for posters from EU countries, and the botom 2 for people from non- EU countries (America and Russia being the usual suspects here) the question itself tries to mirror the Irish referendum; Do you wish to ratify the Lisbon treaty, Yes or No?
    Last edited by Ripskar; 07-06-2008 at 08:39 AM.
    Why pray when you can Google?

  2. #2
    peteratwar Guest
    Agreed our Government (UK) have gone back on their word re a referendum (what a surprise). This wasn't really a treaty it was a back door attempt to get the constitution in by other means after it had been rejected.

    The whole sleaze ridden insitution is in bad need of a major overhaul and the whole question of what sort of constitution would best suit needs careful examination and consideration.

    They can take it forward once they demonstrate some form og good faith.

    Ho for democracy (nasty word in Brussels)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423
    The treaty itself is anti-democratic in favour of the Franco-German block, but what were we expecting? (I think the Brussels euthemism for democracy is "Populism")
    Double majority voting on most issues with reduced vetoes (50%of votes+65%population) = smaller members being railroaded.
    Common foreign policy is an utter joke in the worst sence, given how France and Germany have managed to upset certain other nations.
    Why pray when you can Google?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Portsmouth - UK
    Posts
    346
    It does now look like the Poles and Czech governments may be calling a halt to ratification. There's half a chance that the Germans may also pull out. Huzzah for that say I. As a UK resident, I must say that it doesn;t suprise me that an unelected PM doesn't like the idea of a national ballot. He would probably have lost, and then he'd have lost any hope of claiming a popular mandate....
    I cannot believe the same God who endowed us with logic and sense intended us to forgo thier use - Galileo Galilei

    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject - Winston Stanley Churchill

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,073
    Well, a bit difficult to explain my opinion, but I'll give it a try.

    I'm a great supporter of a unified humanity, and a unified Europe is a major step in this direction. I want a single state Europe, one government, one policy, one army, ......

    Looking from this point of view, the Lisbon treaty is a step in the right direction. Now, I don't really KNOW why some reject it so, but what I think is the reason is the wrong reason.

    Smash the (national) state! (yeah, I was kind of disappointed in who I had to side with in Deus Ex )

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423
    Thank you for that statement of intent monsieur Bonaparte.
    On the practical side such ideology requires oppression. You may or may not be aware that we, (Britain) attempted to administer to a significant proportion of the World (British Empire) which resulted in numerous rebellions of varying success based on local issues, and the inability of a monolithic state to adapt to such.
    One World Government is a doomed enterprise, One unified government for our single island seems increasingly problematic as Big Bear Scot, (Scottish Nationalist Party) can no doubt inform you.
    Why pray when you can Google?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,073
    Just don't bring the whole Anglo-Brito-Scotto-Iro tangle into this mess, I still think sir Humphrey got it right and they only got into the union to sabotage it Ah, Yes, minister, possibly the second greatest contribution the UK&co made to human humor, right after Terry Pratchett...

    Well, all state requires oppression. There's a lot of it in the EU. Ask the Irish, the Scots, the Basques, the the the.... Or, there is very little of it. Depends on perspective. The state always oppresses, even when it just oppresses you by fining you for driving too fast.

    Me, I see two possibilities: one big state that oppresses to a certain measure or two dozen smaller states that also oppress, each in its own way. I prefer one big state. At least then, you don't get the other big states playing the smaller states one against the other to protect their own interests.

    With the EU, we see that the original idea was: prevent European wars. It managed to do that rather spectacularly. However, as it was formed on such a free and voluntary basis, it is as a result very inefficient. The inefficiencies arise from partial interests protected by members, like the French farmers.

    And I think that if these inefficiencies were removed, that'd be a good thing.

    Since oppression was opened: I want someone to oppress the nationalists who want to break everything up so they can finally get to fight each other. I want to oppress idiot masses who would rather listen to the prettiest bastard that stands in front of the microphone yelling which minorities we must oppress next. I want to oppress the traditionalists who force young girls to wear head scarves, and I want to oppress those who want to stop the girls from wearing the scarves if they themselves want to. My, what an oppressor I must be.

    Amazingly, I think there's a lot less oppression to be had from a single great state. You see, the great EU has not so many things in common. Those that are require relatively little oppression. It's the other ones, the ones that essentially put one part of the EU against the other, that I see as dangerously oppressive. And it's the people who believe in these that are opposed to the Lisbon treaty. Paradoxic indeed.

    P.S. Please, not Napoleon. I don't like the fellow much, except for his Code civile

    P.P.S.
    Could you fix the poll? It's amazingly similar to the current EU establishment in clarity

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Iuris View Post
    Just don't bring the whole Anglo-Brito-Scotto-Iro tangle into this mess, I still think sir Humphrey got it right and they only got into the union to sabotage it Ah, Yes, minister, possibly the second greatest contribution the UK&co made to human humor, right after Terry Pratchett...
    For a moment there I thought you were going to credit Terry & June as the greatest UK contribution to humour...
    Whether it's the UK, the EU or the UN the problem is the same, you disagree with a significant (in their own eyes at least) group and you have to either bulldoze them into submission or become their puppets and bulldoze someone else. Either way resistance and resentment is going to gather and on the global scale as you propose the cost of oppression is crippling for the state, see the way the British Empire collapsed after WW2.


    With the EU, we see that the original idea was: prevent European wars. It managed to do that rather spectacularly. However, as it was formed on such a free and voluntary basis, it is as a result very inefficient. The inefficiencies arise from partial interests protected by members, like the French farmers.

    And I think that if these inefficiencies were removed, that'd be a good thing.
    I stongly disagree with this statement, the "prevention of war" is just a facade. Since Bonaparte there has been no significant cause for armed conflict in western europe The world wars originated in the squabbles of eastern europe, specifically the Balkans for and the Baltic for WW2. After WW2 these squables were supressed by the opresssion of eastern europe by the Soviet Union. Following the collapse of the USSR those squabble have again broken out and we are again getting sucked into the quagmire. The only difference this time is that we seem to be allied to the Germans and opposing the Russians. This dynamic is polarized further by the actions of the US which seems intent on antagonizing Mosocow.


    P.P.S.
    Could you fix the poll? It's amazingly similar to the current EU establishment in clarity
    Essentialy it breaks down into 2 sections, the top 2 options are for posters from EU countries, and the botom 2 for people from non- EU countries (America and Russia being the usual suspects here) the question itself tries to mirror the Irish referendum; Do you wish to ratify the Lisbon treaty, Yes or No?
    Why pray when you can Google?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,073
    Terry & June
    Never heard of...

    The world wars originated in the squabbles of eastern europe, specifically the Balkans for and the Baltic for WW2. After WW2 these squables were supressed by the opresssion of eastern europe by the Soviet Union. Following the collapse of the USSR those squabble have again broken out and we are again getting sucked into the quagmire.
    Sorry, no. Just no. Intra European conflicts, coupled with the uneven distribution of colonies for WWI and revanchism and natio-racist extremism for WWII. The Balkans issue was all about who gets the spoils of the rotten and dieing Turkish empire, and everyone involved was backed by some bigger power. After WWI, the crisis in Germany and Italy allowed populist demagogues with insane ideas of necessary conquest to ensure the future of their race / reestablishment of the roman empire came to the fore.

    If you don't believe that the idea of the EU started as arms control, take a look at the name of the first organization. Steel and coal. Which industry needed those most at the time?

    Do you wish to ratify the Lisbon treaty, Yes or No?
    That's the problem, the poll doesn't ask that question. It's like "Do you like A or B? Yes/no?"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Iuris View Post
    Sorry, no. Just no. Intra European conflicts, coupled with the uneven distribution of colonies for WWI and revanchism and natio-racist extremism for WWII. The Balkans issue was all about who gets the spoils of the rotten and dieing Turkish empire, and everyone involved was backed by some bigger power. After WWI, the crisis in Germany and Italy allowed populist demagogues with insane ideas of necessary conquest to ensure the future of their race / reestablishment of the roman empire came to the fore.

    If you don't believe that the idea of the EU started as arms control, take a look at the name of the first organization. Steel and coal. Which industry needed those most at the time?
    You are dead wrong about the causes of WW1, which was sparked by the expansionism of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into Eastern Europe, just as the EU is attempting to do now.
    WW2 was sparked by German Expansionism into Eastern Europe. This objective predates the rise of Hitler as can be seen if you look at the actions of the Weimar Republic to rearm and defy the Versailles Treaty before Hitler ever came onto the scene. Ideas of supremacy of one "race" over another remain rife throughout the Continent as has been repeatedly demonstrated by the Spanish, Italians and numerous Eastern European countries.
    The restablishment of the "Roman Empire" is the stated theme of the EU as declared unashamedly in the Treaty of Rome. However a more accurate description would be the Carolingian Empire under Charlemagne.

    By that point the primary military resource was as now oil, not coal, not steel which remained in excess of requirements throughout WW2 for both sides.

    Coal production for Germany was:
    332800000 metric tons 1939
    364800000 metric tons 1940
    402800000 metric tons 1941
    407800000 metric tons 1942
    429000000 metric tons 1943
    432800000 metric tons 1944
    50300000 metric tons 1945
    In excess throughout.
    Why pray when you can Google?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,073
    I'll stick by what I have been taught and what I have studied myself, thank you very much.

    What is the difference between your:
    expansionism of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into Eastern Europe
    and my:
    The Balkans issue was all about who gets the spoils of the rotten and dieing Turkish empire, and everyone involved was backed by some bigger power.
    ? We're talking about the same thing here, not squabbles withing the eastern Europe. Remember, WWI started out as a European war that dragged the rest of the world into the conflict (mostly in the form of colonies and the USA, mind...).

    As for the EU core, I'll stick to the idea that prevention of war was the core idea behind the formation of the European Coal and Steel community. The wiki seems to have the idea right:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...teel_Community

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    1,070
    I am still to a certain extent a Europhile, but I don't like the direction that the EU is going.

    It seems to be following Neo-Liberal economic polices, which they then force on other nation states by using EU competition laws. Check out my thread on the subject

    http://www.4forums.com/political/showthread.php?t=4591

    This is one of my main problems with the EU and all other monolithic centralised Governments. They tend to come up with a 'one size fits all policy' without regard to local conditions. Government should be as close to people as possible, with greater local accountability.
    This leads me to my 2nd point, the EU seems(collectively) to love the idea of unelected appointees called Commissioners, for unelected officials they seem to have too much power. I agree with Tony Benn in this matter when he said

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Benn
    What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?
    How do I personally get rid of Commissioners? There is no way since they are appointed by National Governments.

    With the Lisbon Treaty the commission would gain more powers(for example on foreign policy) with a heavy heart I think if given the chance I would vote against the Lisbon Treaty.
    Is there for honest Poverty
    That hings his head, and a' that;
    The coward-slave, we pass him by,
    We dare be poor for a 'that!
    For a ' that and a' that,
    Our toils obscure, and a 'that,
    The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
    The Man's the gowd for a 'that.

    A Man's A Man for A' That - Rabbie Burns

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Iuris View Post
    What is the difference between your:
    and my:

    ? We're talking about the same thing here, not squabbles withing the eastern Europe. Remember, WWI started out as a European war that dragged the rest of the world into the conflict (mostly in the form of colonies and the USA, mind...).
    Serbia as far as I am able to ascertain is, and was part of Eastern Europe, as was the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
    Why pray when you can Google?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,073
    Yes, they are. Serbia at least, Austria would look rather confused if you declared it as part of the east. However, it was the interests of the western powers that they were trying to enforce that made the west fight. Try to look at the battle lines - they are hardly all in the east. If there hadn't been the turmoil in the Balkans, there'd still be a war.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423
    Everything east of the Rhine has been in a state of chaos since Bonaparte took a fancy for Moscow. Go back and look at the area after the Treaty/Congress of Vienna (depending on source) which divded Eastern Europe into a mass of tiny states. Over the 19th century these were gradually annexed by each other till all that was left was Prussia, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Italy with a handful of independents around the Balkans.
    As stated it was Austria-Hungary that sparked the confrontation that became the First World War, initially with Russia, Austria-Hungry's allies were Prussia (Germany) and the Ottomans. The Ottoman Empire did not have a direct role in the outbreak of First World War.
    Why pray when you can Google?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •