Truemors
Digg
del.icio.us
AddToAny
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Lisbon Treaty: EU meets to address Irish No vote
by Maireid Sullivan | June 16, 2008 at 04:03 am | 671 views | 25 comments
Don't be bullied! Irish voices sing out! Save us all from the war mongers!–
EXCERPT: "Mr Sarkozy's Czech counterpart, Vaclav Klaus, whose signature is needed for the treaty's approval, has broken ranks by calling the Irish No a victory for liberty and reason over elitist plans and European bureaucracy."
European Union foreign ministers are gathering in Luxembourg for talks on how to respond to the Irish rejection of the Lisbon reform treaty.
The treaty cannot be implemented unless approved by all 27 EU states.
But the majority of EU members agree that those who have yet to ratify the treaty should carry on and do so.
Search for answers
But Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen has said there is no obvious solution for the Lisbon treaty, which is meant to streamline the workings of the EU and give it a stronger voice in the world.
Amid concern and frustration, BBC European affairs correspondent Oana Lungescu reports, the EU is looking for answers:
Why did the referendum come up with such a clear no? What changes could be made to accommodate the disparate concerns of Irish voters? How soon is a second vote possible, if at all?
Separately, French President Nicholas Sarkozy is due to arrive in the Czech capital Prague on Monday for talks with the Czech, Polish, Hungarian and Slovak leaders.
Mr Sarkozy's Czech counterpart, Vaclav Klaus, whose signature is needed for the treaty's approval, has broken ranks by calling the Irish No a victory for liberty and reason over elitist plans and European bureaucracy.
Meanwhile, more federalist leaders like Luxembourg's Jean-Claude Juncker have revived calls for a multi-speed Europe.
They say that some countries could push forward with integration in what he called a Club of the Few.
The treaty is aimed at helping the EU to cope with its expansion into eastern Europe.
It provides for a streamlining of the European Commission, the removal of the national veto in more policy areas, a new president of the European Council and a strengthened foreign affairs post.
It is due to come into force on 1 January 2009.
News Tools
June 16, 2008 at 04:03 am by Maireid Sullivan, 671 views, 25 comments
Author
Crowd Power
Caoimhin1
Dunshaggin, Ireland
Maireid Sullivan
Melbourne, Australia
infomatique
Dublin, Ireland
blather
Ireland
Add a comment
Comments (25)
at 04:11 on June 16th, 2008
Whereas Sarkozy seems to think he can push it on through, anyway!
at 04:15 on June 16th, 2008
Interesting, eh.! We'll see! Naturally, the most aggressive "members' won't back down just because they have a legal issue to deal with. :)
- reply
Zlenderat 05:03 on June 16th, 2008
Maireid Sullivan, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 05:11 on June 16th, 2008
Thank you, Zlender. Good to 'meet' you.
I've never visited Slovenia, but our film TIME AFTER TIME was screened at a film festival there in 2005.
I hope one day to see your beautiful country.
at 06:05 on June 16th, 2008
At last! Someone has given the Euro-politicians a bloody nose (again!). But they don't seem to get it. They are so used to doing things in secret, not consulting with their constituents and living off our taxpaid moneys that they think they can just get away with things. I support the European project but not as things are. And the convoluted language of the 'treaty' would make anyone shout: No No No No No No No!
Gerry
at 03:50 on June 17th, 2008
You put your finger right on it, Gerrypopplestone!
Have you seen / hear what Patricia McKenna had to say about the treaty long before the vote?
I've posted the link and a short transcript in my reply, below, to NGABA.
- reply
nagbaat 06:25 on June 16th, 2008
Any legal document is convoluted, I dont know what's your problem. :P
Yes they should be explaning a lot better, but come on... if we work together we can be a lot, lot more effective. As for those who heavily objects, well.... if they dont want it, we should just let them leave.
at 06:38 on June 16th, 2008
Nagba, can I ask you to explain why you are so in favour of the Lisbon Treaty?
- reply
nagbaat 07:57 on June 16th, 2008
I'll be honest - I'm more in favor of the EU, and did not dig deep into this treaty. We have a saying "in unity there is strength". I want unity. What do i see here?
"It provides for a streamlining of the European Commission, the removal of the national veto in more policy areas, a new president of the European Council and a strengthened foreign affairs post."
Which part of this sounds bad? Removing some national vetos? At least the meddlers wont be able to use it. If someone doesnt like something, instead of a veto one should start negotiations.
at 16:30 on June 16th, 2008
Nagba, in general I do support what you say. I am very much in favour of a strong and more integrated Europe but vetos are necessary to protect smaller states.
Here is the sort of thing that people were being asked to agree to:
"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to
in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the
said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to
in this section, from having the force of law in the State."
If the treaty is almost impossible to understand would you agree to the above?
- reply
nagbaat 16:54 on June 16th, 2008
The veto can be abused, and some _will_ abuse, for whatever reason. I do not support it. The "smaller states" should be starting a discussion about the problems if they are having some.
As for the understandability of the treaty... I have a general idea what it is about. Yeah it's not good, but bear in mind, im not native english, i'm quite tired, and it's a legal document. My main reasoning is rather this latter one - it _is_ a legal document. Legal documetns tend to be obfuscated. We are not lawyers to understand it easily, that's why we need (in an ideal case they would give us w/o asking....) explanation. The main problem is that the natural language we are talking is not famous about being precise (we are always having assumptions in mind). So to make the legal document be as precise as it can be, they use their own jargon. And they should be. It's just they should be giving us explanations as well.
at 03:43 on June 17th, 2008
Good example, Infomatique :)
I think Patricia McKenna explained it best.
at 03:46 on June 17th, 2008
Hi Infomatique, I think I posted my response to your comment in the wrong place. :)
at 02:11 on June 17th, 2008
Hi again, Ngaba, I'm reposting the info. I posted in my reply to your other comment. I hope this is helpful. We all want to see genuine unity in EU - not a pretense designed to push people into a military industrial complex "hidden" agenda.
The Lisbon Treaty is not just a "legal document", therefore hard to
understand. Patricia McKenna (MEP Ireland / Green Party) tried to
explain that it was largely written by the military, with an agenda to
develop a war industry in EU. It was NOT about creating unity for the
"people" of the EU.
Here is my file on her informative statement.
Patricia McKenna advocated a "NO"
vote on the Lisbon Treaty, because it calls for Ireland's participation
in the development of a EU War
Industry. Listen to the Audio report here:
http://www.livevideo.com/media/tag/patricia-mckenna-mep-.aspx
And, here is a brief
excerpt from her concluding statements – "...denying
people the right to even get information on what this
treaty (Lisbon Treaty) is about. The former Italian PM Amato said the
EU leaders decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is
unreadable, it is not constitutional. ...nothing will be directly
produced by the PMs because they feel safer with the unreadable thing.
They can present it better in order to avoid dangerous referendums. If
people understood what was going on they would ask for a referendum.
(Former French President) Giscard d'Estaing, who was basically the
author of the whole thing said, "Public opinion will be led to adopt,
without knowing it, proposals that we dare not present to them
directly." and he stressed, "All the earlier proposals will be in the
new text but will be hidden and disguised in some way." and he also
noted, "What was already difficult to understand will become utterly
incomprehensible but the substance has been retained." So, that is the
contempt that the EU leaders show for the people of Europe, and I think
that this is something we have to get across to everybody. It's
absolutely unacceptable."
- reply
nagbaat 05:17 on June 17th, 2008
Hm. Written by military. War industry. Designed to be unreadable. These are pretty serious charges. For the time being i'm going to bear in mind both approaches.
at 05:23 on June 17th, 2008
Yes, this is truly alarming.
I've been involved for over 2 years in the campaign to save the Hill of Tara environs in Ireland. I have witnessed the stubbornness of those who are determined to follow and support vested interests, and those vested interests are NOT in the service of the citizenship.
- reply
nagbaat 06:26 on June 16th, 2008
Maireid Sullivan, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 06:26 on June 16th, 2008
Maireid Sullivan, I like this story. It's good stuff. I am very happy to see Klaus' reaction! :)
at 03:42 on June 17th, 2008
Thanks Cao, Ye'r a champion!
I don't know how many times I've posted Patricia McKenna's statement, but it is the best explanation I've come across yet.
at 03:57 on June 17th, 2008
Patricia McKenna's expeience as related on that audio clip is enlightening. The European Defence Forces are right now in the middle of a new conflict in Chad, the Irish soldiers were fired upon but there were no injuries. Rebels are moving west in Chad to try an overthrow of President Deby again. This may expose Europe's (and Sarkozy's) real agenda with a new European Army!
at 04:07 on June 17th, 2008
Woah! Ireland has been pulled in to international military conflict!???...and it is supposed to be a neutral state.
This is, indeed, a confirmation of Patricia McKenna's statements.
And why is she the only one making these connections???!!!
at 09:32 on June 16th, 2008
Maireid Sullivan, good stuff, full of fire.
That being said, I find myself more in favor of the EU if something at all has to be created. Then again, I'll also admit that everything that I know about it is.....very very little.
at 03:58 on June 17th, 2008
PEP, I've never come across anyone with the energy to follow so many matter as you do! :)
Let me just say, in a nutshell, that you will easily understand the Lisbon Treaty's "hidden" agenda if you think "expansion of "Military Industrial Complex".
If yo uwant to learn more, read the quote from Patricia McKenna on the link in my response above, to NGBA.
at 20:38 on June 16th, 2008
Maireid Sullivan, I like this story. It's good stuff. Thanks for helping us learn from you as I am not the best with world wide politics
at 04:02 on June 17th, 2008
Hello politisite,
Thank you for you kind comment.
You are not alone! It is all so complicated.
I think we are all earnestly trying to disentangle the web of "hidden" agendas that thwart efforts to advance peace and justice for all in the world. AND, I 'know' we can do this! :)