The Lisbon Treaty has been rejected. Help Godon get over his denial.

[AtheneNoctua]

I received this on e-mail, and thought I'd share here for anyone interested in signing the petition.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Last Friday the people of Ireland voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty.

But politicians across Europe are refusing to accept the result. They arrogantly insist that the Treaty must go ahead anyway. Despite the no vote, the UK Government is planning to carry on regardless, and ratify the Treaty in the House of Lords on Wednesday.

This is part of an attempt to isolate and bully the people of Ireland.

Please take 30 seconds to send a message to Gordon Brown by signing the petition on the Downing Street website.

Tell Gordon to respect the verdict of the Irish people - and drop the Treaty.

petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/

Many thanks

-

How politicians are refusing to listen to the no vote

French Europe Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet says: "I don't think you can say the treaty of Lisbon is dead even if the ratification process will be delayed."

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier says: "We are sticking with our goal for it to come into force. The ratification process must continue."

Spanish Europe Minister Lopez Garrido says: "The treaty will be applied, albeit a few months late."

European Commission President Jose Barroso says: "The Treaty is not dead. The Treaty is alive, and we will try to work to find a solution."

British Foreign Minister David Miliband says: "18 countries have now passed the reform treaty...each country must see the ratification process to a conclusion... there needs to be a British view as well as an Irish view."

Don't let the politicians get away with it.

Sign the petition now and send it to your friends.

petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am gobsmacked that everyone knows that every country has to ratify it. But the politicians are charging forward because it suits them with no regard for the law that governs ratification. Unbelievable...

Not to mention we all know full wekk the UK would be voting no if we got to vote. And so would others, I'm sure.

TBH - I think that the EU is one massive gravy train. The politicians have got their snouts so deep in the trough that they can't look up to see that the voters are getting a little fucked off with them. GRRR!!

The corruption within the EU is almost unbelievable - like a third world dictatorship in many ways. I am so pissed off with the Govt attitude - Tony Blair promised a referendum the first time round, then said it wasn't worth it when the French and Dutch said no. Now GB is refusing to listen to the electorate - and he isn't even an elected PM.

I have signed the petition but am very dubious that anyone will listen.

I have a question. I have seen it written many times lately that all 27 countries must ratify the treaty for it to come into effect. What document requires all 27 to ratify?

i dont really know what this is about - can you explain i want to learn

thank you

athene, at a guess, the Treaty itself?

This 'ooh, yes, we know we said it had to be ratified by everyone, but the stupid voters have let us down so let's press ahead anyway' attitude of the EU really stinks. It's what they've done in the past (remember Denmark when they had to vote again because they'd given the wrong answer the first time?). Clearly they still have utter contempt for the people they profess to govern.

It may 'only' be the Irish people who have voted no but they are the only electorate which has been asked!

The auditors have refused to sign off the European Commission's accounts every year since I don't know when because the whole thing is rotten to the core, but nothing every changes. And anyone who is brave enough to speak out about specific instances of corruption is sacked or rubbished.

Gordon is beyond all help.

He can't even open up his own miniscule mind to his own people, much less others.

Oops, sorry Custy. Idea for the treaty is that the EU has grown and needs new rules to deal with 27 members rather than the original 7 (think it was seven, was definitely 9 at some point). Includes proposals for an EU foreign minister and new presidential role with more power than the current 'president' (I think!).

The new rules argument may well be fair enough, but there do appear to be some proposals that may have interesting effects in there. Yet the EU and our government hasn't bothered to communicate with the people it rules, or produce a readable version of the Treaty, as far as I'm aware.

what are the good and bad points?

in your opinions?

thanks lapin have read a little of the Q&A - not very user friendly

as far as i understand

new rules are drawn up to accomodate the working of the union to accomodate the countries that have joined

so whats the fuss about then

is this or is this not just paper pushing stuff?

Do as I say, not as I do etc.

thanks lapin, quick scan of Wiki reminded me that the EU court has been awarding itself extra powers that we - either as electors or via our government - never gave it. Such as the supremacy of EU law over our own domestic laws. Outrageous.

No one seems to know what the good and bad points are - until it can be explained why we need more legislation, more beauracracy and an EU President (TB fgs - vomit emoticon) costing ever more money I will continue to vote against.

Yes, that one struck me as the opposite of democracy Edam.

There's a lot of military crap, too: a European army, plans for a European space station all quite ominous.. basically, in military terms it will make Europe a superpower, like the States

There are some good human rights laws in there though (I suspect they were added almost as an after-thought to gloss over the other stuff.), and while Eire and UK are pretty good on human rights, some European countries are abysmal.

And what exactly is a group of coutries who can't agree on a foreign policy going to do with an army? The UK will instruct their troops to do one thing and Germany will say "Oh no. We've been there no wars for us, thanks. We're stillpaying for the last one" The French will go round campaigning against the UK, and... you get the idea.

I definitely don't like the idea of EU law supremecy.

And let's not foget the veto powers that will be forfeited.

I'm sure there's more. It is governments job to convince us we want it, not our job to convince government we still want a democracy. When is that election???

There's a bit of an overview here (obviously written in a manner consistent with the views of the promoters of the site, so bear that in mind)

www.iwantareferendum.co.uk/case2.aspx

Hello LA!

To be honest, having a referendum on something like on signing up to an EU treaty is utterly retarded. Very simply, the general public are not informed enough to take a decision on it (and I absolutely include myself in this).

If anyone would care to prove me wrong and discuss the role of the WEU vs. NATO, qualified majority voting, CSFP, how EU environmental policy works or even the distinction between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice (one of which is EU, one of which isn't) then please go ahead.

All referendums on this ever boil down to are "Do we feel those people in Brussels are interfering too much, yes/ no?" which is idiotic.

Perhaps I am unrealistically ambitious, but I think I could work it out if I was allowed to.

Telling the public that they have no say because you believe they are too stupid to make a wise decision is really not a good pre election campaign strategy.

Gordon will possibly get his treaty. And we will possibly get our new PM in return.

Hi AN (have been trying to reduce my mumsnet dependence but couldn't resist this thread).

cestlavie - I don't agree, when the issues involve themselves relate to the degree of sovereignty that we decide to cede or not cede - I think that's something on which everyone should have a view. We need to work out how to ensure that people have a better understanding of some of the key issues (incidentally, there are studies to suggest that in countries where voters are more "engaged", voters do have a better understanding of the issues involved: www.iwantareferendum.co.uk/publication/qvortrup.pdf.

I think "do we think there is a general lack of transparency and accountability that surrounds the role of those in Brussels, and if so, does it seem like a good idea to give them more power, on an essentially irretrievable basis, without increasing transparency / accountability" is a fair question.

Athene, they are too stupid to make a decision. It's just a fact. No doubt you're pretty smart and (from your posts) much more informed than the average voter but I'd be surprised if you could tell me, for example, how the new treaty is different to Maastricht and how it turn that is different from the original treaty of Rome.

I studied this at university and to be honest, even understanding EU free trade policy and its implications takes the best part of a year (and I was still pretty bloody dumb about it, but hey maybe that's just me!), let alone foreign policy, or security, or the environment, or defence, or immigration, or tax, or....