Prague's plan 'B'
Don't believe politicians who say there is no plan "B" if Ireland votes No to the Lisbon Treaty. There is, and it is being kept under wraps in Prague. 
The Czechs take over the rolling European Union presidency on 1 January 2009 - the very date that the Lisbon Treaty is due to come into effect. Depending on the result of the Irish referendum on 12 June, they could survey two very different scenarios.
That's why the Czech government has prepared two different papers on what the EU should do in the first half of next year - one based on life after Lisbon, the other, plan "B".
Some of this is technical: if Lisbon lives, there will be a president of the council, be it Juncker or Blair or Rasmussen, so a smaller role for the Czech prime minister. If Lisbon dies, there will be a bigger role for him. Some ministerial councils that would change under Lisbon, would survive.
But the Czechs are also setting out a plan "B" for the political future. Whether it is to persuade the Irish to vote again, to rip up Lisbon, redesign it or forget it I don't yet know.
But perhaps, after the demise of the constitution, we are currently living through plan "B". Perhaps the Czech plan should be codenamed "C", with the possibility of an alphabet soup of alternatives lined up behind it.
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Shouldn't the Irish come up with a plan "B" in case they decide to kill the Lisbon treaty?
The EU made them rich. IMHO they can keep the money, but I prefer not to hear from them anymore if they just don't get it (I looked at the BBC page with the opinions of some Irish voters and I couldn't find a meaningful argument from the "no" side. It seems that people want to vote "no" because they don't understand the treaty. Wouldn't it be more honest to abstain in this case?)
Complain about this comment
To vote blank is a much more powerful political statement for those who want to protest government policies while still putting faith in Europe.
Voting No for the likes of Sinn Fein (populist) or Coir (religious activists, anti-abortion), is no good for democratic or social progress.
Complain about this comment
#1 Gruenebaum1,
Oh my, are you joking, by that argument any country that is not a net contributer should simply roll over and accept the wishes of the few net contributers, and guess what, the UK is the second largest of those. Please also don't talk about the false distortions of the per capita method that gives such a false impression that a small country like Luxembourg that has a large financial sector appear to be a major contributor. Likewise should another tiny principality of maybe a few thousand inhabitants become an International financial centre, their inflated GDP percentage per capita will mean very little. If the Irish vote 'no' then that is simply their choice, just as the French and Dutch voted 'no' to the constitution, it's called democracy to be able to vote yes or no or abstain.
Complain about this comment
I hope the Czech Plan B includes organization of street parties throughout the other 26 countries so we can celebrate one more stake in the heart of an EU Constitution that should have died years ago. The Czechs should make prodigious quantities of Pils available because I don?t think there is going to be enough water in the Liffey to make the volumes of Guinness necessary to satisfy all those who be will toasting the Irish people should they vote this thing down again.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John, don't taste the Liffey if you still value your life ... at least that would explain the darkness.
The Guiness factory stopped using that water for ages. It mostly comes from South Dublin mountain sources :)
As for Buzet23, even after rebate the UK is the 4th largest contributor and the 7th on per capita basis. On both cases, despite widespread assumptions, France was actually contributing more in the EU 2006 budget (mostly because of the enlargement)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
Complain about this comment
One slight oversight, Mark. The next Presidency happens to be that of France. I suggest that you consult the draft agenda for the meeting of the European Council on 18/19 June.
Complain about this comment
It's surrealistic that almost 500 million EU citizens have to be pending on what a small country of 4,5 millions will vote. Oh, yes, that's democracy!
In case of winning the No, the fair solution would be whatever opt-outs for Ireland, with no repercussion in the rest of EU countries that have already passed the Lisbon treaty through parlamentary approval.
Nevertheless, I still think Irish will make a clever decision. Otherwise, they should stay in the opting-out world with UK.
Complain about this comment
If Ireland votes no (personally I am not sure it will) I sincerely hope European leaders will use the breathing space it gives to look again at what the E.U. should be about.
A wide ranging consulation process should take place with the population of the E.U. to discover what they actually want. Do they want further integration, do they want the status quo, do they want the E.U. to roll back it's control of some areas. Even do individual countries want to withdraw from the E.U.
Only by holding such wide ranging discussions and consultations can the E.U. hope to know which way to go from here that has wide spread support.
Complain about this comment
Have any other countries voted yes to this so far?
Complain about this comment
I don't expect the Irish to vote 'No' on the Lisbon Treaty because the European Union contributed a lot to the current Irish welfare. In the case they vote 'No': remember the Irish 'No' on the Nice Treaty?
Complain about this comment
We've already had 'Plan D' - allegedly for 'Democracy, Dialogue and Debate'.
The 'result' was the Lisbon Treaty which is a repackaged 'Plan A'.
Complain about this comment
betuli @7 says: "It's surrealistic that almost 500 million EU citizens have to be pending on what a small country of 4,5 millions will vote. Oh, yes, that's democracy!"
The simple answer therefore, surely, is to give everyone a vote. But that would mean real democracy. Our EU masters don't like that....
Complain about this comment
To #12 ScepticMax, The EU doesn't decide who can vote on what. national governments do.
Therefore, in the UK, you are truly the subjects of your master's whims - who said that the UK was a model democracy again ? :)
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11, the per capita basis is an unrealistic distortion of the picture, on a pure cash basis as a percentage of GNI, as published by the EU, the UK is above France, even after the rebate.
Take a look at annex 4 of this EU document as this shows the detail, the WIKI one seems to be quite different but don't forget the wikipedia is from contributers and is not always accurate eg the EU say UK net payment 4086.4, France 3139.7 but you have to do the calculation as the table only shows total revenue and total expenditure.
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/publications/fin_reports/fin_report_06_en.pdf
Complain about this comment
Scepticmax,
An Irish friend who's got 2 university degrees and holds a high position in his company told me he has no clue over Lisbon treaty.
Do you think the response in this referendum will be the consequence of a well informed decision?
How can we expect citizens can give a verdict on a dense legal body? Would you submit the general UK budget to a referendum?
The most common answer: I don't understand so I say No.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23, I am aware that wikipedia is edited by volunteered contributions, but please, look again at the website I referenced and checked the data source for the Stata by State analysis
.... isn't it familiar to you ? :)
Complain about this comment
Re post 15, I agree it is a very difficult document to understand and some M.P.'s have openly admitted they do not understand it.
I would consider myself of average intelligence and if I cannot understand a legal document I will not sign it. Part of the consultation process I sugested at post 8 would be for the politicians to draw up something that any one of reasonable intelligence could understand. The fact people can not understand the document condemns it in my view.
Complain about this comment
I think submitting thick legal documents to populace for approval is an example of democracy gone freak. People's political abilities can handle voting this guy against that guy or, at most, rejecting/approving a certain precise law by referendum, but you can't expect your average John to have a clear opinion about a large set of laws and regulation. Even MP's are having trouble understanding and explaining all of the Lisbon treaty!
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (17):
I would be very worried if a treaty that a country is going to sign would be easy to read and easy to understand as easy usually means vague. Just look at US and their constitution which is very easy to understand, but which allows large scale of interpretation. Laws and treaties are written with a legal language because they must be precise, accurate and not give too large freedom to interpret them. I pay my taxes for goverment to have lawyers and lawyer-linguistics to negotiate and construct treaties and laws. My only other job is to hear what is going on and why, and if needed to protest or use my vote in elections.
Besides I can't understand that somebody doesn't know or understand what the changes are that Lisbon Treaty has. Just a simple look to Wikipedia page about the treaty holds a clear list of central changes. I would say that either people are too lazy to spend enough time to think and discuss about the thing, or politicians and leaders of the country are to lazy or incompetent to lead the country. My money is on laziness as if an MP doesn't understand the treaty it has to be about laziness as MPs have opportunity to read reports or ask from countries lawyers and lawyers-linguistics about the treaty if they don't understand some thing about it.
Complain about this comment
I believe that the Irish will vote "yes". But in case they don't, I'd expect that a number of member countries will move on on their own. I doubt that the countries who want this to be more than just a capitalistic union will have the energy to continue to push water uphill by trying yet another round of Nice-Lisbon-type treaties.
Complain about this comment
Re post 19, I assume then you think the Irish people understand what it is about and any decision they make is an imformed one. Unless they are lazy and incompetent to
Complain about this comment
Betuli @15, Your friend is probably just avoiding a debate with you... ;-)
The key principles involved in the Lisbon Treaty are not rocket science and do not need university degrees - or even a high school diploma - to decipher. The core information is available to any who seeks it.
It is in the interests of EUroiphiles to claim that it too complex for common folk such as us to understand and vote upon.
Starbuck11 @13 - You are correct: the UK is a disgrace in this respect, but actually very few of the EU's 500 million 'citizens' have been given a vote. It is not just the UK's government that doesn't want to hear the voice of it's own people.
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (21):
Irish will make an informed decision, if and only if, their politicians, academics, business and cultural people have strongly voiced what they think about the treaty and hard facts on where they base their opinion and reasoning.
In example the in this page ad for Yes vote, with a tag line "Europe. Let's be at the heart of it." is a perfect example on how campaign should not be ran. The Lisbon Treaty doesn't move Ireland to heart of Europe at least I haven't seen a section like that. What the campaign should do is trust the facts, why not list the changes or why not tell facts ie. "more power to European Parliament, more democracy to EU". Basing the campaign on a feeling is a sure way to loose as that's the expertise of No side. The Yes side should but hard facts on the table as the facts are on the Yes side, not on the side of extremist.
Complain about this comment
I also think we should be as sceptical about 'wickipedia' information as we should be about any pronunciation about the EU Budget particularly if it has originated from the EU itself! The financial situation there is a total farce and as crooked as a nine bob note! And by the by - hasn't Gordon re-negotiated the 'rebate' to our disadvantage? Why did I believe we were joining a Free Trade area - perhaps I thought it could, with real goodwill, truly work and eventually expand. Fools paradise obviously - too much greed, fraud and downright dishonesty for any of it to be for the greater good. Has anyone out there read a book Titled 'The Octopus' by Brian Freemantle published 1995 ( ISBN 85797 609 6)? If not, you should for I doubt very much that, despite all the exposures of fraud by various members over the years, anything has changed.
Complain about this comment
I agree with you Mark.
Plan B as you call it, has been on the stocks since Lisbon. The whilly old campaigners in Brussels are not going to be wrong footed a second time.
"We would very much every country to say yes but if any do not the rest of us will go ahead." How - we will only see if Ireland votes NO. The Irish are no hot heads. They have done very well out of E.U. membership and know very well what side their bread is buttered without any gratuitous advice from outside.
Every country that has approved the Treaty for ratification has done so under the domocratic Constitutional Laws of that country. The Constitutions of every European country clear sets out when of Referendum can or must be held. English translations are available on the Internet.
As far as I can see, it is only the British Prime Minister who is free to what he or she feels fit it this connection. So I am sorry my British Eurosceptic friends, unless you can get a written Constitution to your liking you are stuck as they say.
Complain about this comment
Will we be given a bouncing Czech?
The Irish are not being given the option of voting on withdrawal. Neither would the UK be if we were allowed a referendum. It is a little surprising that Gordon Glum does not have a referendum with a question so bland and neutral that either a yes or no vote would be inconclusive, as this would answer his predecessor's promise to hold a referendum.
Complain about this comment
Hi Starbuck11,
On analysing the two charts there is a familiarity but not what I expected to find.
The total expenditure columns are the same for the EU document and the wiki document.
The total revenue column is different from the reality, take any row from the EU document and add up the individual columns for revenue. You will get a total that is different from the published total since the TOR column has been missed from the true total. Now subtract the TOR column from the published total revenue column and the answer is the total contribution in the wiki document.
As you will see this seems to be an error in both documents so I'm interested to see if anyone has any ideas, or have I made a mistake somewhere. It's necessary to enter the columns by hand into excel as the kind publishers put space separators instead of commas for thousands, strange that or was it to stop us cut and pasting.
Ps. adding all the columns in millions of Euros Germany is 11,186.7 net, UK 6,636.9 net and France 4,422.4 net. The wiki figures also say : This takes into account the special considerations given to the United Kingdom to reduce its contribution through a rebate (approximately 4.8 billion euros in 2006).
Complain about this comment
Sorry forgot to put the references in for any readers who wish to check the EU budgets EU doc is annex 4 [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]Wiki doc is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
Complain about this comment
I used to be pro EU. Dig deeper to find out why...
"I believe that the Irish will vote "yes". But in case they don't, I'd expect that a number of member countries will move on on their own."
I very much doubt it.
If they haven't made it obvious enough; they actually want all nations concerned to sign up all at once; and BEFORE it is fully understood.
This is because they do not want any nation in Europe to know the full implications of this framework-to-constitution, until they are fully committed and UNABLE to withdraw.
If they vote 'yes' and there is no mass desertion or protest, things will quieten down for a while...
maybe even a year...
or three years...
After the preliminary period and the gradual extension of these initial treaties over time, the old cronies like Blair, Berlusconi, Mandelson, Schroeder and many other crooks and villains will emerge out of the woodwork as our new unelected EU dictatorship.
It will make permanent the rubber stamp approval role allotted for our National governments; and concentrate power in Europe into the fewest hands since the height of the Roman Empire.
If they vote 'no' they will be back to the drawing board, at least for a while...
...but if you should sign up, only to later regret having said 'yes'; perhaps finding there is nowhere left to escape and that your protests are being ignored: then God help you.
They already hold the power to detain you indefinitely.
To deny you a trial by jury and legal representation.
To appoint unelected officials with immense power, with accountability to no-one.
...to say 'yes' will make this forever binding
Complain about this comment
To #29, I doubt very much that someone, who start by "I used to be pro-EU" and then go on fantasising about the EU being a dictatorship and a haven for mafia-like politicians, has any knowledge of what the EU is really like.
For a start, nobody but national governments run the show. if the Lisbon treaty is ratified by all 27 EU member countries, the European Parliament will have a bit more autonomy and be more accountable by the citizens. If not ratified, then business as usual and national government are still the puppetmasters.
Second, unelected head of offices are no sign of lack of democracy. It can be pragmatism (US White House officials are mostly unelected officials, so are several cabinet ministers in EU countries). What matters are legitimacy and competence, coupled with accountability : EU parliament becoming a real counterbalance to the Commission, itself being run by the Council of Minister (national ministers).
Lastly, no offense meant, but any talk about the EU being a dictatorship or Soviet Union (because of socialism) is a nutcase. I can understand feelings running high, but that's the kind of line that just disgrace your argument into nothingness.
Any educated intelligent person can see that the EU stand for participative democracy and human rights, with both a clear preference for pacifism and protection of minorities (cultural, religious or racial).
We can argue about what can be done to improve the practical implementations of those ideals, but denying them is the turf of extremists and activists ... and frankly, they are the ones who are truly a danger to libertarian democracy ...
Complain about this comment
Perhaps I've missed something but what does Prague have to do with Paris assuming EU presidency as of next January?
[Which bodes well for CAP reform]
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat, France is assuming EU presidency from July 1st, and the Czech Republic from January 1st, next year.
If the ratification process goes smoothly, the Treaty would start being implemented from January 1st under the Czech.
As such, it's important for both the upcoming French and Czech presidency to have plans for most potentialities ...
Complain about this comment
I see no point in advance critisizing the Irish over a hypothetical possible 'No' vote, first because one should be comparing equal things and no other country did get a vote.
Second, even with the Lisbon treaty or the failed constitution, it is far from clear what
the EU aspires to be and whether anyone has a clue how to get there. Does the EU aspire to
be one country, like the US? Then it is unthinkable to have a president or foreign minister who will support another country over an EU state. Or who will critisize collectively
a member state. For instance when California voted proposition 209, the Federal government could not say anything about it.
Furthermore, it is also imperative to have a population that will FEEL it is one nation.
Comments like 'I think Morroco is right in its dispute with Spain' in previous posts or 'what the hell are the british doing in the Falklands' and so on would not fly in
a country: It is not the spanish or the british, it is 'us'. I cannot envisage the british government say "so what if my position hurts scottish whiskeey makers?".
Furthermore, if the EU wants to be one country, then if the central government
is going to dictate policy, it will also have to
take responsibility for things like defence.
It is unthinkable for instance to
exclude EU land from defence(as the UK has done) or to accept EU land occupied by a third country.
If again the EU does not aspire to be one country(and it looks like citizens do not (yet?) feel as one country), then it makes no sense to have a central government. Why would anyone want to pay an official
who does not represent them and sometimes even takes positions hostile to a member state?
Speaking with one voice is good, provided
what that voice says is agreed by everyone. Otherwise it makes no sense.
Clear terms make for no misunderstandings.
Sweeping things unders the rug only
creates problems for the future.
Complain about this comment
Can any one here tell me what is the precise legal situation if Ireland do say no.
In particular can the rest of the countries, as some have indicasted here, carry on with it. Or does the whole thing have to start again and a new treaty put forward. Or can it be delayed and put back to the Irish electorate at a later date, as was done before - many thanks
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (34):
If Ireland says No then it's no for the whole Lisbon Treaty. However Irish politicians have an option to put the treaty to another referendum if they see it necessary. The EU also has an option to offer opt-outs for the Irish to persuade them to vote Yes if Irish politicians think that another referendum with opt-outs would turn the vote.
The rest of the countries can't carry on with the Lisbon Treaty, but they for sure will carry on with the ideas that the Lisbon Treaty had. If the Lisbon Treaty is rejected by Irish, EU countries will very likely start new negotiations to form a new treaty or organization that works as opt-in, this would allow the rest of the EU to continue and doubtful EU countries to stay at current position.
Complain about this comment
To #34, go re-read Mark post "A constitutional catastrophe" for possible consequences to a No vote.
Because of the Irish Constitution, there is presently no way the treaty could be ratified by parliament.
For practical reasons, there is also no way that the Lisbon treaty could be implemented for the countries having ratified it only, while excluding Ireland who is both a full EU and Eurozone member.
The likely result, would be the present terms, as spelled out in the Maastricht and Nice Treaty, still being carried out while a new vote to be put forward in a year time or so.
Those terms were meant to be temporary while the EU was transitioning from 12 to 27 members, and as member-states were bracing themselves for more democratic accountability and political integration.
Refusing to adopt the Lisbon Treaty creates a dead-end, as it doesn't facilate countries that would like to opt-out, nor does it allow more ontegration.
As for decision-making, it pratically allows only but the most sensitive (and important) issues to be managed. National governments being able to block cooperation through veto, irrespective of their demographics or contributions (political, economics, military ...) to the EU.
For example, EU-Russia partnerhip was being "taken hostages" for years by the Polish and Baltic states politics.
EU-Africa partnership would still be frozen if it was for the UK government insistence to ban Mugabe from attending the summit.
A common EU defense policy would be blocked by the UK on grounds of NATO or the Irish because of neutrality (as if a foreign invader/bully would care for it ...)
For all those many reasons, it is important the Lisbon Treaty be ratified if you want more meaningful cooperation in Europe.
Yet, Irish citizens should not be held accountable to the fact that all other EU countries prefered a parliament ratification process.
Unanimity of member-states is the issue contradicting democracy. But it is also the compromise reached to respect the sovereignty of member-states within an embryo of federalist european integration.
Therefore claming for sovereignty in nation states is not so much about democracy, than it is about the convictions that isolationism is the best way to defend one's country national interests.
You want to blame someone for a NO, then blame sovereignists.
Complain about this comment
I can understand why any population offered the chance to vote on the Lisbon Treaty would be confused.
It is (according to most leaders of EU nations) essentially the Constitution re-written with "new" or modified rules being cross referenced to previous treaties. While the Constitution was written as a clean narrative, the Treaty is far from transparent.
Had EU leaders really wanted to increase public accessibility to the details, they could have rewritten the clear narrative to show the changed elements, allowing all voters to see what had been modified.
Giscard d'Estaing made clear that the Treaty's complex cross-referencing was deliberately chosen to make the proposals obsure.
In some key areas - for example, the definition of what the new President will be empowered to do - there is no clear definition. This means that, only once ratification has been declared will EU citizens know what has been approved on their behalf. That doesn't seem to be improving the openness of government that was supposed to be a target, after the Constitution was shot down.
In the unwritten UK "constitution" there is no provision for referenda. These have been previously used as a political response to a recognition that something important will impact on the people. This Treaty does not go quite as far as the Constitution, but will certainly have an impact.
I haver waited 50 years for the "Common Market" to be made to work equally across member states.
If you can't make that work, why should there be a constant accretion of political powers?
It is not absolutely clear to me, but it seems that cross-border policing could allow foreign forces to operate within a given country. Do I want that? No.
It is not yet clearly defined how EU's diplomatic promulgation will be activated (since this, also, will only be defined once the voters have no chance to object).
The Treaty calls for all members to support the EU's future changes - effectively meaning that additional expansion of control can not be challenged by member populations.
I can fully understand why people are cautious about losing any control over their member country's future.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re post 35, thanks Jukka for your measured, precise and concise response. This is what I had thought the situation to be both from my own knowledge and what Mark had written.
I had become a little confused by one or two posts that seemed to suggest there is a plan that the rest of the E.U. could just carry on if Ireland said no.
At the very least a no vote will cause a delay to allow Ireland to rethink it's position. Alternatively the whole treaty could fall and Governments would have to start again, which would put back any repacement by atleast 2 -3 years in view how long it took the last ammended treaty to be produced.
Complain about this comment
Wouldn't it be nice if we got a vote?
Complain about this comment
Re post 38 am not convinced that describing Ireland of the 1980's as 'poor rural and retarded' will convince the Irish to vote yes
Complain about this comment
R 41 and moderators:
Too touchy. I didn't want to bother anyone. I just wrote, maybe by row (or inadequate) terms, that the "Irish miracle" has taken place since Ireland joined the EU in 1973.
I did it in a sarcastic way tring to emulate the scaremonging tactics of the No defenders.
Complain about this comment
Just a little point to those UK haters once the erroneous EU statistics (see my previous posts) are corrected to include the TOR column for the EU budget, this is the significance of net contributors (millions of Euros), all other receive.
DE 11186.7, UK 6636.9, NL 5585.5, FR 4422.4, IT 4157.8, SE 1524.2, DK 1014.3, AT 574.4, FI 409.9, BE 51.9
It is also interesting to note that should the UK rebate be removed, the list in order of highest net contribution changes slightly to UK DE NL IT FR SE DK AT FI, this might make the anti UK lobby think a bit as I don't think they will want to lose the potentially largest net contributor.
Complain about this comment
To all Irish voters,
If people do not understand the treaty, they should not abstain, they should vote NO. Abstaining risks the result of a YES vote. It is foolish in the extreme to sign up to something that you do not understand.
Do not believe those who support the yes, or the no camps when they try to explain the treaty and it's consequences for both have reasons to lie. If YOU do not understand it, then it is too complex and should be abolished and replaced by something much more simple. In any democratic system, the constitution of that organisation should be easy to understand, so that the mass of the population can know what they are supporting or opposing.
Complain about this comment
"Even MP's are having trouble understanding and explaining all of the Lisbon treaty!"
Why is that surprising? In my experience, MP's are largely foolish and gullible idiots who slavishly follow a party line that is dictated to them, so that they hope to rise up the hierarchy to a better place at the trough.
The height of their incompetence is only matched by the depths of their greed and personal ambition.
Of course there are a few exceptions, but by and large all MP's are very stupid. I mean they voted for the Iraq war on the back of the flimsiest evidence of WMD threat, despite the mountains of evidence that countered those false WMD claims at the time. The only profession who appear to be more thick than MPs are the journalists that give MPs any shred of credibility.
That is not to say that this treaty is easy to understand, it is not and that is by design. There are multiple examples of sections of the treaty that are deliberately obtuse and self contradictory, depending on which EU language it is translated into. Examples of deliberately ambiguous language used to allow politicians in different countries argue in favour of the treaty by using contradictory arguments to people supporting the treaty in other countries.
Why would the EU want you to support a treaty that you cannot understand?
If you do not understand this treaty, or if you have any doubts whatever about this treaty, reject it and demand a better one.
Complain about this comment
"I just wrote, maybe by row (or inadequate) terms, that the "Irish miracle" has taken place since Ireland joined the EU in 1973."
Well duh! any country can have an economic miracle if the EU subsidises it to the tune of billions of pounds. For the only country giving their people a say on the EU treaty to be a country massively subsidised by the EU?
Please Ireland, For the good of the people of every formerly independent and self determining nations in Europe, please vote NO.
Complain about this comment
Hi purpleDogzzz,
It's not just the treaty that's difficult to understand, look at my earlier posts about the EU Budget stats that have been published.
I've now discovered where what I thought was an error actually is, it seems the column TOR is actually two categories: agricultural duties and sugar levies on the one hand and customs duties on the other hand less the Amounts (25 %) retained as TOR collection costs. Therefore the published TOR column is a sub total of the next four columns. This still leaves my significance list as per #43, but maybe explains why the wikipedia entry is incorrect for revenue as it ignores the TOR figures for some reason, probably confusion.
Complain about this comment
The argument over Lisbon is frankly ridiculous, particularly some of the things which are written on these pages.
Irelands economic miracle is not solely down to Europe, or anything like it. An agressive tax policy, a cheap english speaking labour force, and a high standard of education are the actual reasons. The economy here is built on Irish companies and American multinationals which thrive on exports. They would have ended up here regardless of whether we got monies from Europe. The money we have gotten from Europe (and we are on the way to being a net contributor) was and is most welcome, and I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but it only ever came to a miniscule fraction of our gdp and as such it is wrong to attribute our success to just that in such a sweeping way.
It is incredibly difficult to find out what the treaty is about in Ireland. The campaigning on both sides has been divisive and with very little actual substance. Because of this we have a disillusioned public, which might lead to a low turnout, which in turn might lead to a No vote. If the turnout is even average it will be passed I would say. I for one hope it is.
Complain about this comment
Betuli, re your post 42, I think you did step over the line. I am all for robust debate on this matter but it does neither side of the debate any favours to characterise nationalities in such terms. Also the large majority of the Irish population of the 1980's were still there in the 1990's. Just for the record I did not report your post to the moderators as I believe such comments will always backfire.
The reason for the Irish success has a lot more to do with Gaoth's post 48 than a miracle of the E.U.
Complain about this comment
betuli @7 says: "It's surrealistic that almost 500 million EU citizens have to be pending on what a small country of 4,5 millions will vote."
Fair comment
So let ALL citizens of the EU vote
A simple majority of those voting qould be required to pass the Lisbon Treaty
Why not? Oh yes, that WOULD be democracy, and therefore not what our EU 'masters' want...
Complain about this comment
Maith Thú @ Gaoth 48
Ireland should have no qualms about voting NO. Regardless of the tactics being employed by both sides of the argument, the referendum is producing some very necessary discourse about the treay and the EU which should be played out at a similar level in other countires.
This type of conversation can only inform the ingnorance of such erroneous posts as 1, 38 etc, which are based on hysterical media stereotyping and indemic bigotry.
Most EU money to Ireland was provided for infrastructural investments to uprage the standards in the country to Western European standards follwong poor investment after independence. It is important to note that Greece and Portugal were also given such amounts to conduct similar projects but have not had similar results in attracting economic success.
As the boom can be put down to domestic policies and heavy investment from the US, it cannot be even contemplated that Ireland's membership of the EU was the primary force in this 'miracle'. It is exactly these domestic decisions that need to be protected, which is the main drive behind the NO campaign.
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11: "Lastly, no offense meant, but any talk about the EU being a dictatorship or Soviet Union (because of socialism) is a nutcase..."
Very true. If only more people realised that EU plans are about as far from Socialism as you can get. Its the deluge of fascists and fraudsters that scare me... The dawn of the new-right. This is not a conspiracy theory. The right wing think tanks have been talking about it since the end of the second world war.
We all need to wake up.
"Any educated intelligent person can see that the EU stand for participative democracy and human rights..."
Achieved by suspending Habeas corpus, denial of trial by jury, aiding and abetting war crimes and illegal invasions; and all while media managed to look like they respect international law and encourage pacifism.
As for the European Court of Human Rights:
They have in some cases been accused of stripping normal citizenship away from a stratum of population, any form of which is already against European Convention article 14 and is the starting point, from the precedent of Nazi Germany, exactly what the human rights concept is purposed to prevent. Wake up to the reality.
I do not fear a Soviet style dictatorship, because Communism is dead; but I do fear the ultra-right fascist dictatorship under the hood...
That is why I have changed my opinion. I now know more about the EU and its roots. They dress it up (as many fascist organisations do) in the garb of "participative democracy and human rights, with both a clear preference for pacifism and protection of minorities..."
The real truth is out there.
If these treaties go through; the common man of Europe, and I see myself as a European, will feel very very small indeed.
Dig deeper, people of Europe. History may be about to repeat itself.
Make an INFORMED decision.
Complain about this comment
To #50 and others who think likewise
There isn't any EU conspiraices to deny a citizen's vote on the Treaty. It's up to each and every national government to decide how to ratify it. If your country isn't holding a referendum blame your MP
To #48, The Celtic Tiger would not have started in 80' and happened in 90' if the Irish government had not tried to reform its intitutions, market regulations and education. And this did not happened because of US companies waiting to find a cheap way to enter the EU market, but because of the pressure coming from EU partners AND EU funds to facilitate the transition.
Do you honestly believe that without the funds to develop the power and transport infrastructures, the modernization of the legal and banking systems, and the preparations for the Euro, Ireland would have been an attractive magnet for corporations ?
how the governement would have funded a low corporate tax while modernising the country , if this wasn't thank to external funding ?
Ask yourself why it didn't happen in the 50', 60' or the 70' ? ofc it's not just because of EU funds or pressure to harmonize a common market, but this paved the way for international corporations to use Ireland as a gateway to Europe. The rest is due to Irish (and migrants) hard labors ... but it didn't happen just "out of the blue".
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
To need4reality , clearly you are among those I mentionned as nutcase imho.
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11: "To need4reality , clearly you are among those I mentionned as nutcase imho."
So you keep asserting.
Only in this non-democratic EU would 'nutcase' be a label for encouraging people to find out what they are actually voting for; instead of blindly voting yes on principle.
Starbuck11: "...unelected head of offices are no sign of lack of democracy. It can be pragmatism (US White House officials are mostly unelected officials, so are several cabinet ministers in EU countries)."
Unelected officials = cronies = corruption.
The EU means corruption; but on a much larger scale than we are used to. The Americans have had to come to terms with theirs. The same mistakes are being made.
The European Central Bank will hold the National assemblies hostage with their low interest lones and stifle whatever sovreignty they have left. They will use their fiscal power to control our regional government structures, while perpetuating the lie that is their independence.
The Nation states will seem unchanged at first. The New Right are biding their time.
Complain about this comment
The ECB has only access to monetary policy, fiscality is the real of national government.
Actually, to raise growth and employment, this division of role, also force countries to rely on structural and organic reforms of their economies, now that they can't use devaluation to raise short-term economic prospects.
This is a very important improvement. Especially in countries who are used to rely on populist management of their country's budget.
Complain about this comment
Jordanbasset 49,
I used a word which is a "false friend" in my language which hasn't any pejorative connoation.
What I wrongly meant was that Ireland became from being a "less developped" country in the 80' to a Celtic tiger nowadays thanks, in my opinion, to the EU.
I repeat it wasn't my purpose to bother anybody nor any nationality and my words were row, if not inadequate.
Complain about this comment
@need4reality: to vote "yes" means that any country then can leave the union when they decide to do so. I don't understand the people who are against the EU, but don't have the guts to decide to get out of the way and let the other countries move on.
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11: "The ECB has only access to monetary policy, fiscality is the real of national government."
Very true.
Or perhaps more correctly, this new rise of monetarism will supercede our National fiscal policy and thereby make it obsolete.
We then have no local power at all over our economies.
anyone who is confused as to what Monetarism is all about should read this.
http://www.cix.co.uk/~archaeology/civilisation/intro/monetarism.htm
Complain about this comment
Re post 57, Betuli, hi, I of course accept what you say and this was a misunderstanding. Just for your information the reasons the moderators may have taken exception to the term you used was it's English definition -
"idiot", "imbecile", and "moron" derived from early IQ tests, which acquired pejorative connotations in popular discourse over time. The term "mental retardation" has itself now acquired some pejorative and shameful connotations over the last few decades due to the use of "retarded" as an insult among younger people.
I am sure from what you say you did not mean this in reference to the Irish people of the 1980's - best wishes Jordan Basset
Complain about this comment
need4reality, I fail to see your point : how does a monetarist mandate given to the ECB is going to supersede national government ability to use fiscal policy ?
basically, the ECB is trying to manage money supply to eurozone economies through money printing and interbank lending rates, so as to make liquidity (and thereof credit) more available or not.
Fiscal policy, taking the scope of budgetary policy, refers to government policy that attempts to influence the direction of the economy through changes in government taxes, or through some spending (fiscal allowances).
They are both different tools to manage economies and complementary.
I don't understand your assertion here as well :
"The European Central Bank will hold the National assemblies hostage with their low interest lones and stifle whatever sovreignty they have left. They will use their fiscal power to control our regional government structures, while perpetuating the lie that is their independence."
1) The ECB has no fiscal powers whatsoever.
2) The ECB does loan money to Eurozone central banks, but not in the traditional sense of retail or commercial banks. And certainly not to national parliaments.
3) How does money supply "stiffle" national sovereignty ? could you please elaborate
4) Independence is meant from national politics, not as independence from everything (it is meant to prevent money printing recklessness)
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11: "How does money supply "stifle" national sovereignty ?"
It gives the Minuscule Minority, complete control over the Euro zone economy. As it gave the Federal Reserve Bank in the US complete control over theirs.
It is then used to manipulate (through threats and actual restriction of credit) governmental and regional policy. Basically, you have to be able to trust in the integrity of those in control.
If you control the money, you control the Government.
If you control the food, you control the People.
If you control, you have sovereignty over those you control.
?They are both different tools to manage economies and complementary. ?
Different tools, yes. Complimentary, no.
If you cut the supply of credit, or call the credit in you can selectively ?stifle? those parts of the economy you do not agree with and seize assets more readily. This perpetuates the concentration of power into fewer hands. Further increasing the sovereignty of the Minuscule Minority.
?(it is meant to prevent money printing recklessness )?
The hyper inflation seen in Germany (leading to the rise of tyranny ) was caused by the depression in the USA, brought about by the Federal Reserve Bank, in sheer ignorance, contracting the money supply by a third, and therefore brought about the depression that spread to the whole world.
Monetarism is designed as a tool to control Governments and populations.
Complain about this comment
no offense need4reality , but you are a conspiracy freak.
The ECB doesn't "control" money, they are trying to regulate its supply. And they are administrators with a 7 year mandate, put forward by national governments and whose candidatures are then evaluated by Ecofin (Eurozone finance minister council)
So no, they definitely don't "control" national governments.
In the same way that you don't "control" a MP because you voted for him/her, being in a situation of power doesn't mean your MP forgot his/her mandate to represent his/her constituent's interests, nor that he/she is necessarily going to be limited by them.
Real control is an illusion in this world. Neither people, nor institutions or governments are truly "in control" of their environment. They are trying their best (or their worst, depending on your take about it) to try to regulate it for a positive outcome. But no, they definitely don't "control".
Especially so in libertarian democracies ...
I can see that you extrapolated this from your link about monetarism (similarwording) : "The hyper inflation seen in Germany (leading to the rise of tyranny ) was caused by the depression in the USA, brought about by the Federal Reserve Bank, in sheer ignorance, contracting the money supply by a third, and therefore brought about the depression that spread to the whole world."
Have fun,
Complain about this comment
To need4reality (62):
What are you talking about? I just don't know where to start...
1) Countries get credit from financial markets by issuing bonds. Bonds are basically certificates that say 'I owe you and promise to pay the money back with interest'. So no, ECB can't restrict financial markets to give loans to countries.
2) ECB and Fed differ in quite many places. ECB is an independent from politicians, but it has a very strict rules on what it can do and what are its objectives. In comparison Fed is controlled more by both politicians and banks leading it many times to adapt its monetary policies to support governments economic policies.
3) Governments of Eurozone countries monitor constantly what ECB does and why, that's their job. If Eurozone countries would see that ECB is doing something it shouldn't be doing they would raise an issue out of it.
4) Hyper inflation in Germany was caused by war reparations that essentially both starved the German economy and drove German goverment into an impossible financial situation. Note: hyperinflation started in Germany 1921, and the great depression started in 1928 - 1929. Clearly you need some fact checking.
5) There are many theories on why there was great depression. One theory is that stock markets collapsed as they anticipated the US goverment to engage in protectionist policies that would cut free trade. US goverment did implement protectionist policies when the stocks collapsed and that has been seen as a one reason on why a normal recession continued to full blown depression.
Actually I have to ask you why are you so against monetarism? Are you against fiat currency? Should we go back to gold standard?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
plan B mark the day the irish voted no with burning unwanted EU flags
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11: "The ECB doesn't control money..."
Not at this present moment; but they will in impunity if they can make this scam legal. And that is the real charade. We are in deeper than we think already; and thankfully they are still media managing the situation enough to recognise the need to make it seem legitimate.
"I can see that you extrapolated this from your link about monetarism (similarwording)"
I'm glad you took the time to read it.
And the wording, as you say, is similar. Perhaps you would care to site some of your own sources (if you have any) that convince you of the EU is not yet another illusion.
I used to be very pro EU, the idea of a progressive socially aware union of nation states. This is unfortunately not what they have in store for Europe.
"no offense need4reality , but you are a conspiracy freak."
None taken. Think as you like. I gave up trying to convince people long ago: I merely encourage people to look deeper.
It is often in the seemingy small and innocuous that is hid the gravest peril.
I know the vote will likely come out 'yes' anyway; and this, a faint voice in the tumult of history. Neither do I say this as to leave with an 'I told you so', as by then it will be too late.
National sovreignty is the illusion, their power is growing and will soon seem all too real...
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila: "Note: hyperinflation started in Germany 1921, and the great depression started in 1928 - 1929. Clearly you need some fact checking."
My apologies, that really would have been a conspiracy theory...
The hyper inflation seen in Germany was caused by the WWI reperations; and along with the later decision by the Federal Reserve Bank to contract the dollar supply by a third (also mass calling in of private loans), brought about the great depression that spread to the whole world, in part leading to a rise of the tyranny that was Nazi Germany.
Obviously Monetarism cannot control absolutely, it must be backed up by military might and a will to dominate. It is one of the tools used to acheive control.
It is a much more efficient tool for this purpose than the Gold Standard, or silver standard etc etc.
Complain about this comment
Just one little point need4reality and Starbuck11, put simplistically, the advent of the Euro and ECB meant that all central banks lost the ability to control the base rate of interest, which was one of the two primary tools any government can use to control the economy, the second being taxation. Every day each central bank has to send a report of the previous days activity to the ECB by 8am (if I recall correctly) so the ECB does most certainly know what's happening and does have contact with the governors of each CB, and likewise so each CB knows what the ECB is doing.
How do I know this, I helped write the reporting for one of the central banks when the Euro was implemented.
Finally, I fail to see how the current direction of the EU can be called a new fascist attempt to take over Europe. Whilst businesses, mostly foreign owned, are more and more emulating the US high margin, hire and fire mentality, everything else is certainly more socially orientated towards the left of the spectrum.
Ps. I have never seen any difference between Fascist and Communist, both are equally as fanatic and abhorrent.
Complain about this comment
even if the treaty comes to power the people who never got a say will not forget the lies and deceet of the EU and EU citizens hanger will grow and very slowly bring to a end the EU anti EU marches , protests, riots in paris .One word can sum up the amibitions of the EU and that word is GREED
Complain about this comment
The illusion of Nation states having fiscal control while under the EU abd ECB.
1) They print the money and therefore have control of inflation.
2)Buzet23: "advent of the Euro and ECB meant that all central banks lost the ability to control the base rate of interest... How do I know this, I helped write the reporting for one of the central banks when the Euro was implemented."
They control base Interest rates.
3)It only has powers over indirect tax (inc. VAT) and members still have a veto on tax issues.
But they are pushing for a Code of Conduct by treaty to encourage 'tax harmonisation'
What sovereignty does that leave the Nation states in their fiscal policy?
Seemingly very little; and they are pushing for more powers.
Complain about this comment
Hi need4reality,
It's not exactly a secret that the ECB controls the interest rates, I think you should be more concerned about who is the head of it and what his history is, and why a reasonable Dutch alternative was in place for many years before handing over to Jean-Claude Trichet several years after it was originally planned by the Franco-Germanic alliance. Reputedly, it was Frankfurt gets the ECB and France the governorship and they both shafted the other alternative site London. Then problems in France occurred with Trichet and his advent was delayed, now which is worse Trichet or Sarko with his EU rapid response plan no doubt equipped with France munitions. After all the French will have the detailed design plans of many of the bunkers in the worlds hot spots.
Complain about this comment
"It's not exactly a secret..."
None of what has been typed here is secret. Its just people are not looking in the right places; and of course no one is volunteering the information...
Not THE Jean-Claude Trichet, one of the largest banking scandals in French history...
Well, if you like mass fraud, why not get the best?
The real question, many people want answering but are frightened to ask, is where are all these defrauded Euros going, who is laundering them, and what exactly is it that they are paying for?
I dare say private accounts and bribery; but these are truly astronomical sums... enough to feed and cloth a good part of the worlds poor.
I cannot answer the question.
But someone must know. Perhaps Jean-Claude Trichet...
Truth hides whenever we lose our focus
Slips out the back, quickly replaced by the bogus,
Fleeing soundbites disguised as facts
That reappear in the small print on every contract
Truth hides on the other side of a two-way mirror
In countless documents sent straight to the shredder
That might finally give us the whole of the picture
But until the day we decide to dig a little deeper
We know that truth will hide
Complain about this comment
re "In countless documents sent straight to the shredder"
That sounds just like what Boris Johnson said about the London Mayor's office after he won against my most favourite politician Ken Livingstone, only joking, the shredders must have been glowing for days afterwards as I knew ken very well once, unfortunately for my locality, which was where he crawled out of.
Re "The real question, many people want answering but are frightened to ask, is where are all these defrauded Euros going, who is laundering them, and what exactly is it that they are paying for?" maybe that's why there are so many anti money laundering regulations in place now, for us that is, as the more they can tax us the more they can salt away for themselves.
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 and Need4reality, you both truly need some reality check.
I'll pass on the rabid germano and francophobia that one can see in your posts, but please try to be factual, whatever your opinions are.
1) The UK is not a member of the Eurozone. You may even consider it one of its opponent.
Now, why would you set up a foundations of a monetary union in a country so opposed to your projects ? EMU was driven by the 6 founding countries of the EEC (Benelux, Italy, France, and Germany), it's then absolutely normal that they claim the political benefits of it (location of the ECB, head of the governship).
2) Trichet has been auditioned by the French financial police as part of the Credit Lyonnais management practices, while he was an administration board member. He was not a manager, nor has he been charged with anything.
While Win Duisenberg, the first head of the ECB, has been critized for muddled messages despite his high experience, Jean-Claude Trichet has received international plaudits on both the ECB openness in disclosing the CB's governors discussions and in managing the EU economy thus far (especially his proactive moves to the credit crunch since summer 07).
The Economist and Financial Times are not particularly euro-friendly, yet they have clearly expressed the difference in quality between the ECB and the laclustre Fed (until early 08), or the lack of room of the Bank of England (it's not just Northern Rock).
3) About the Falklands, even the Reagan administration was opposed to a UK intervention against the Argentinians !! Are you now going to call the US, traitors and cowards, like you have merely suggested about French and Germans or practice the classic UK double-standards ?
French ordnance is of the highest quality, don't you remember Exocet air-sea missiles ?
Complain about this comment
Starbuck yes I remember the exocet missiles, unfortunately the 20 people who died on HMS Shefield are no longer in a position to remember.
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (76):
History. History. That was Starbuck11 was commenting about when he referred to Exocet missiles. France gave secretively secret information to UK and enabled MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles that were sought by the Argentinians. France also gave UK Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft to practice Harriet pilots against Argentinians flying with them. How much more should they have done?
Complain about this comment
JordanBasset, my comments were not meant to rail against the memories of the fallen, but rather to point out that the kind of nationalistic snippets you can regular see on forums are just childish, when they are not clearly untrue.
Once weapons are sold, it is very hypocritical for any military powers to start blaming the selling country. Especially one who is also an active arms dealer ...
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila, I guess you were making a reference to this when talking about French support :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1387576/How-France-helped-us-win-Falklands-war,-by-John-Nott.html
And still you keep hearing pro-US jibes and stupid anti-french or anti-german slogans when it comes to military/international affairs in the UK ...
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11: "I'll pass on the rabid germano and francophobia that one can see in your posts..."
I've mentioned the EU, ECB and ECHR. I have not mentioned the great nation states of Germany and France; both of whom I have the utmost respect for.
I fear only a Minuscule Minority of multi-nationals.
The people of Europe should be celebrated in all their variety. Not governed by an unelected team of fraudsters.
"anti-french or anti-german slogans..."
Where, on here?
I'm not a Nationalist, I just prefer not to be complicit in the face of mass fraud and the centralisation of power on a vast scale.
It is the Minuscule Minority that are doing this: *not* die Deutsche or les Français.
And there are many Britons involved too, so to dismiss me as jingoist, is to ignore my warning and stifle the debate.
Its anti-EU slogans I'm hearing from all over Europe at the moment...
Beware the Minuscule Minority.
Reach out and embrace our EEC neighbours.
We do not need the EU we need only to co-operate as we have for many years.
Complain about this comment
"And still you keep hearing pro-US jibes and stupid anti-french or anti-german slogans when it comes to military/international affairs in the UK ." [#79]
And still we keep hearing anti-US jibes and silly pro- French and pro-German and pro-Russian slogans when it comes to politico-military affairs.
But we don't mind.
Talk is cheap, and words are the only weapons of EUnuchs.
Complain about this comment
Hi Need4Reality,
My apologies if you felt offended by that remark, it was targeting Buzet23 who is more courteous usually.
You were yourself indulging in slandering (Jean-Claude Trichet)
Complain about this comment
Re post's 76 and 77.
I have not made and do not make any criticism of France for selling the exocets to Argentina. Yes that country was under a fascist junta and it was taking people off the streets and murdering them in their thousands, but many countries, including the U.K. have sold weapons to countries who they should not have.
I made the statement in response to Starbuck's reference to French ordinance being the highest quality and 'don't you remember exocet air-sea missiles'. It was I am sure a throw away comment in reference to another silly comment by some one else.
Comments that refer to the different capabilities of different armed forces can revert to silly comments on both sides of the argument, I try (not always sucessfully) to not get into that side of things.
Starbuck clearly thinks passionately about his vision for the E.U. and that is good. I do enjoy reading Starbuck's comments and arguments, I profoundly disgree with many of them, but he normally puts them in a logical manner.
I do feel, however, he did let himself down with this silly throwaway comment.
Complain about this comment
oh Powermeerkat, good thing you're there. I was wondering if sloganism and child's play were equivalent to sound argumentation.
Thanks to you, I know it's not.
Keep coming, we are missing jesters :)
Complain about this comment
"We", Mr. Starbuck , is surely pluralis majestatis?
Look it up in a decent Latin dictionary, just like 'mania grandiosa' you had such a problem with.
That just from a jester to a clown.
Complain about this comment
No need for a dictionary, I do remember my latin lessons.
And yes, I indulged in grandiloquence - that felt so good :)
Have you ever tried "Folie des Grandeurs" ?
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11: "...sloganism and child's play were equivalent to sound argumentation."
Again, no offence taken. And I'm sure in this great vision for Europe the small voice seems very childish... and no doubt will get smaller and smaller.
If you are a fan of Trichet's that is your own concern.
It just seems an odd choice, when the Euro zone is trying to look like it is sorting out the mass fraud problem, to appoint (not elect) a man who has been indited for fraud...
For the sake of fairness I point out he was acquitted...
To find out where and how he was acquitted: dig a little deeper.
"...difference in quality between the ECB and the laclustre Fed (until early 08)"
The only thing is, it is being tabled as an alternative to the Fed, when in fact it is an subsidiary of the World Bank, as is the Fed. Its part of the same over-riding world Monetarist policy.
That is why the unelected executive are shifting one to the other.
They are one and the same.
John R. Heilbrunn: "One striking development of anti-corruption commissions has been the adoption by numerous governments despite a mounting body of evidence they fail to reduce corruption."
-Anti-Corruption Commissions Panacea or Real Medicine to Fight Corruption?
John R. Heilbrunn
It is fairly plain to see that when they say they will regulate to prevent corruption, they actually mean: we are adding a new type of corruption.
Beware the Minuscule Minority.
Complain about this comment
Have you ever tried "Folie des Grandeurs" ?
[#86]
How could I, being just a small meerkat?
However I recall a powerful leader of even more powerful empire promising in 1962:
"We shall soon match and surpass the United States!".
Well, if Nikita S. Khrushchev was alive today he couldn't have gotten a job at Folie Bergeres, even as a Comical Ali.
So please forgive me that I can't take seriously predictions of an imminent demise of US, and even more imminent ascent of such great democracies like China, India and Russia to a league of superpowers.
[India doesn't know how to get rid of its caste system, China doesn't know how to build schools, and Russia - acc. to reports from ISS - how to build working toilets]
I'm sure you know what another jester, Mark Twain , said in reaction to press reports of his death? :-)
Complain about this comment
my guess "When in doubt, tell the truth" ? :)
Btw, you'll be hardpressed to find my comments stating that "China, India and Russia were a league of superpowers."
They are regional great powers indeed, but that is.
Complain about this comment
@betuli (7): then why did the politicians who promised referendums (in Netherlands, Britain and Portugal, where those parties got the majority) cancel them the day after Barroso and Merkel pressurize them to do so?
How is it democratic that the majority in every member state wants a referendum (as per a Financial Times poll) yet the politicians deny us that?
How is it democratic that the EU politburo/commission and council (both who are unelected and unaccountable) can override elected national parliaments at will? How is it democratic that there is virtually no parliamentary control on the politburo/council combo?
Also, there is little correlation between the economic upturn in Ireland and the existance of the EU. In fact, if the EU was abolished today, we probably wouldn't notice it at all. No one wanted political union, no one asked for it, no one gave a mandate for it. Economic cooperation is more than enough. I do not want 'Europe' to be some kind of superstate. And despite the lies and cries of the pro-EU crowd, the EU is in all but name the supreme government of Europe. A government on which no democratic control is possible.
Yes national governments signed up to it, of course they did. Via the Council (and its legislative partner, the Politburo/Commission) they can BYPASS national parliaments. No more need to pass laws through a parliament, via Brussels you can confront your national parliament with a fait-accompli which they cannot alter or reject. And that is the primary reason why the EU is fundamentally undemocratic: no parliamentary control.
Answer the questions, EU-philes!
Complain about this comment
mcdv1975,
There are two flagrant contradictions among Eurosceptics:
1. Democracy: the EU constitution and its sequel Lisbon Treaty are mainly meant to instil democratic mechanisms within the EU institutions. So I agree with you over the democratic deficit of decisions making, that's why I support the new treaty.
1st contradiction: you complain about lack of democracy in the EU power, but you oppose the step to sort this out (?)
2. Opting (totally) out: when a member dislikes the club, the usual answer should be to quit, and not trying to destroy it from inside.
2nd contradiction: focus your Europhobia on your government, not on Brussels.
Fight for your country to withdraw from the EU, leave the rest alone and good luck!
Complain about this comment
David Egan, Ireland: "The Irish political establishment has been telling us to vote "yes" to Lisbon, without even attempting to explain the issues. Our Taoiseach has admitted that he has not even read the Treaty. Yet he tells us to vote for it. There has been no democratic debate on the Treaty."
- from 'Ireland and Lisbon: Time for some democracy'
So we have no democratic debate or indeed any information on which to base a decision. But apparently it is going to bring democracy to the EU.
Wheres the democracy?
Tell the people exactly what this democracy will look like. Which offices will become elected? which will remain appointed?
They won't tell you because you won't like what you hear.
Endlessly repeating that it will bring democracy is quite similar to endlessly saying you will bring freedom... its just words.
Complain about this comment
Re #89
Nope. Mark Twain wrote:
"reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."
Just like claims of US's imminet demise and claims that China, India and Russia are democracies. And tomorrow's superpowers.
So hold your horses. Just in case you ever become as notorious as Khrushchev would you like somebody to ridiculeyour predictions 20- 30-40 years later?
Complain about this comment
The latest opinon poll puts the no vote at 35% and the yes vote at 30%. For the first time the no is the majority view - could they really vote no - one can only hope
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Poland and the US have reached an agreement in principle to install a controversial American missile defence system on Polish soil."
"Czech fears over missile defence radar".
Last BBC headlines on the issue.
It seems the "Old New Europe", also socalled Central Europe, is revising her former enthusiasm over US help in defence.
But don't desperate! You still have the Newest Europe, or Southeastern Europe (except Greece and Serbia), that are more than eager to hold Pentagon projects
The 2,5 Albanias (Tirana, Pristina and Skopie) cannot wait for you!
Complain about this comment
Re # 94
In case you wondered # 95 suggested that not all is lost becausue it doesn't matter
who/what people vote for but counts their votes.
So, sursum corda! Ireland may yet vote "yes".
[desperate times call for desperate measures]
Complain about this comment
Hi Starbuck11, not sure why #96 has not been printed as nothing contentious, but this was the gist.
re #82, I've been traveling so only just saw this post, You maybe right that Jean-Claude Trichet has received plaudits but don't forget that this is all part of the game of mutual congratulations. It is hard to find any person or politician etc in that sort of power position who hasn't been praised to the hilt at some time whether they were very good or abysmally bad. I think with regards to Trichet you need to look a bit deeper at what he says, some francophone friends of mine heard him talk about something in French about two months ago and he was way off beam. This is however not the first time and there were a lot of people throughout the EU who were nervous about him being president of the ECB, after all he was put forward and supported by Jacques Chirac who has also been investigated several times.
BTW, I had not heard that about the French lending us Mirages and giving data on the Exocet, interesting I think, as at the time there were two 'rumours' that I remember, one was that the French were very happy with the Argentine's having some success with the Exocet as it would help their sales campaigns afterwards, and secondly that whilst the US did help in many ways it was rumoured that there were cravats put by the US on the UK as to whether certain new high tech systems could be deployed. Whether either has any truth I don't know but I recall both these stories.
As for the Lisbon treaty and even the Euro, there is and was a lot of muddled information and spin put out to encourage us to support both. The Euro was always going to invite inflation more than 2% simply because of the conversion rates that were settled on, add to that what the UK experienced after the conversion from LSD to Decimal and it was no surprise the UK were nervous having already had their fingers burnt less than 20 years previously. Just in case you think I'm exagerating about the conversion rates I'll give you an example, Belgium was 40.3399 Francs to 1 Euro which meant the equivalent to a 20 centime coin was 50 cents (Euro), the difference between the two is about +2% for the Euro and since these coins were used just about everywhere coins were needed, we got the spun inflation rate of 2% just from that change.
Which is why I don't trust this treaty, it's been written to be deliberately vague and unreadable and any half decent legal beaver will be able to work out ways interpreting it as they want, almost certainly to our disadvantage
Complain about this comment
I just saw an article regarding the Irish vote that shows the lengths they'll go to to try and reverse the swing towards "No" :-
In a sign of the sensitivity of the vote, EU nations abandoned talks Friday on making it easier to divorce, to avoid upsetting mainly Catholic Ireland.
EU justice commissioner Jacques Barrot said: "It just wasn't the right moment."
*****
Um, Er, when is it ever the right moment to propose something as always somebody gets upset about it, strangely for once though they're listening and I just hope it's catching and they carry on in that mode..
Complain about this comment
@betuli (91), your claim that the Lisbon treaty is a "step to sort this out" (re: my charge that the EU is fundamentally undemocratic).
A "step to sort it out"? The treaty is nothing of the kind, what you are saying is merely rehashing of EU propaganda surrounding the treaty. The treaty cements in place this fundamentally undemocratic structure and establishes it firmly as the supreme government of Europe.
Democratic/parliamentary control on the commission/council? Still impossible, they can still overrule parliaments at will (and as I said, what better way to make a law if you are a government minister, no longer do you need parliamentary approval). And as countries lose several more vetos, they lose more sovereignty (and popular sovereignty is the basis of democracy).
Separation of powers? Not in the EU, where the commission and council together form both legislature and executive, a blatant violation of the separation of powers. Government ministers don't require parliamentary approval anymore for their proposals, they can just go to Brussels and make laws (as well as being part of the executive).
The Lisbon treaty should therefore be referred to as the 'enabling treaty', as it enables politicians to combine executive and legislative powers in the commission/council combo and yet not be under any kind of democratic parliamentary scrutiny. Shame on the press (also the BBC, and Mark Mardell) for not identifying this and warning us about it. Who'se side is the press on anyway?
Also, betuli, do you still not acknowledge the Financial Times poll that showed a majority in EVERY country in the EU wanted a referendum?
People are all for economic cooperation, but I dare say, political integration enjoys no such support.
@buzet23 (100): I still fear the Irish referendum may be rigged in favor of 'yes' if the results are close enough. I still don't think there is much of a chance of a no but there is the hope. Hope that our 27 parliamentary democracies are not de facto destroyed.
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (100):
Not everything is related to Ireland and Irish vote on Lisbon Treaty.
What was discussed in EU was solving how inter-country and international divorces should be handled. The legislation was put on move more or less by Luxembourg where 40% of spouses are from a different country. The legislation was abandoned because of both Sweden and Finland were very much against it and were determined not to give up.
Now, the thing is that we need legislation in this area, but the offered solution was not wanted. In example what if we have a couple where on is from Poland and one from France, they marry in Italy, move to live in UK, separate and one moves to Spain and one moves Bulgaria. Now if they want to make their separation pertinent where should the file for divorce and what countries divorce laws should they follow? Now of course this an extreme sample, but this is an real issue and it should be solved.
What was proposed was that when marrying the couple would agree on which countries divorce law they would use. This of course would lead to problems as it would mean that in example Finnish court would have to make the couples divorce by Spanish laws or if the couple had married agreed to use Sharia law on divorce. This was seen as unacceptable for both Swedish and Finnish.
So at least in this case there is no conspiracy to please Irish to vote yes. Real issue with real disagreement that lead to abandonment of the proposed legislation.
Complain about this comment
The Irish will probably vote 'Yes' on the Lisbon Treaty. The average of the latest opinion polls shows the 'No camp' has gained more support recent days but the 'Yes camp' is still larger. An Irish 'No' will slow down the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty considerablely but it won't be as disastrous as some Pro-Treaty campaigners argue. We all remember what happened after the Irish 'No' on the Nice Treaty don't we?
Complain about this comment
Sorry Jukka_Rohila,
What you've said in #102 is quite frankly typical poor quality repetition of the way divorce laws are justified to benefit the PC female who wants to choose which country she and secondly their children (to her benefit) will live in a joint paid house and how to get the non-PC male to pay up at distance and it be enforced.
The Irish objection is quite different and quite simple, the Catholic religion, of which many EU countries are also part of although not quite so strict is against divorce. To try and equate that with the cross border divorce situation is playing with our feet. If there needs to be a change in justice it is in the law's interpretation whereby everything is equal but mum is a lot more equal than dad, always, no matter what the situation and circumstance.
Your assertion "So at least in this case there is no conspiracy to please Irish to vote yes. Real issue with real disagreement that lead to abandonment of the proposed legislation." is quite frankly bizarre, if there was to be a new law then many, many fathers would love to have equal rights and for mum to pay her share, but then that's not what you're referring to, so yes the deferral is most certainly down to securing a 'YES' vote from the Irish.
Complain about this comment
#19 - You prefer the incomprehensible to the simply stated - and take that as a sign of political wisdom? Do you take the same approach to any business contract you might sign? "Give me small print - the more the better - better yet just write out pages in invented language like various Eurovision songs and I'll sign on the dotted line"?!!!!!
Whether or not one favors the EU Treaty, one might acknowledge a voter's right to reject Byzantine levels of legalistic complexity - when there has been ample time for EU representatives of various responsibilities to present a basic version. It is both logical and intelligent to refuse to give one's approval to something one has tried to understand but cannot do so due to being faced with gargatuan quantities of verbal spaghetti.
Too many politicians have constipation of the frontal cortex and diarrhea of the mouth. Neither is a virtue; both are maladies. Voting citizens are wise to wish to avoid catching either condition.
Complain about this comment
We are constantly told in Ireland that a 'No' will send a negative message to the rest of Europe, that we will be sidelined and shunned. This sort of emotional comment is usually used to appeal to the masses where the subject of the vote is quite technical and doesn't translate well into soundbites, is likely to prove unpopular or both.
A significant problem for both sides is that the for and against factions have not split down predictable party lines.
To vote no requires one to side with Sinn Fein (a distasteful prospect for many) and Libertas (a newly formed right wing private lobby group whose true backing/motivations are not widely known)
To vote Yes requires one to side with the political establishment who in many cases do not themselves understand the entire text and whose argument in favour has been vague to say the least.
Some voices from around Europe sound like a Mafia Don suggesting to a recalcitrant protection racket victim that he "might have an unfortunate accident" if he doesn't pay up.
For me, the problem is like this. It's akin to explaining football to a Martian. You could hand him the rule book but you couldn't say that having digested it that he truly understands the game.
The depth of understanding required to really take part in the EU goes beyond the words in the Treaty, the consequences of which will not become apparent for years. The EU has become a monster in many peoples minds. It is sold to us by Politicans we don't trust and mediated by only a tiny number of journalists who understand it.
Complain about this comment
To be fair it would seem the only option to vote NO and then take the time to try to understand the legislation before inviting it for dinner...
...if you vote 'yes' only to find out that you have a different kind of Europe to the one you were expecting, then you will have been truly hoodwinked.
Don't associate delaying the treaty with right wing groups, you are to make your own decision...
...and hopefully it can be a well informed decision.
Don't rush blindly into the Lisbon Treaty(!)
Complain about this comment
How many countries VOTED "YES" on this item....
Excluding countries that voted it thru national parliaments....legislatures.
Complain about this comment
Revised:
I am grateful that Prague had a Plan B, for this treaty....
--Dennis Junior--
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS