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 think a level of understanding that is adequate enough to reasonably form a view on whether the treaty is a good thing or a bad thing is certainly attainable by the majority of the voting population. I do think "I don't want Brussels to have more power" is a perfectly valid reason to vote against it, even if you don't fully understand EU free trade economics. One does not need to be an expert on the entire treaty in order to form a credible opinion on it.

Things I do know about the treaty (and I would know a lot more about if I had a vote on it but since I don't what the point of educating myself):
More power to Brussels
Fewer Vetos for the UK
EU law supremacy
Gordon doesn't want us to vote on it (just like he doesn't want us to vote for against him.

That is enough information to know I am against it.

Now, can someone tell me what the treaty will do for the UK? Why would I want this. I certainly don't need a EU army. The UK one will do just fine.

LA: "ceding sovereignty" as a phrase has a great ring to it, and is very emotive, and by the reckoning should certainly demand a referendum. On the other hand, nation states regularly cede sovereignty all the time (through trade agreements, through international treaties, through multi-lateral organisations) without requiring referendums, often in ways which have a lot more impact than adaptations of the EU treaty (for example, ILO or NATO agreements).

"Ceding sovereignty" incidentally is also not a binary decision but composed of multiple tiny decisions each of which impact on each other. If, for example, you're attempting to reduce EU-wide sulphur emissions, it has a co-commitant impact on fiscal and corporate governance policy, requiring (as an example) harmonisation of tax regimes around polluting companies.

Alternatively, let me ask this. To those of you opposed to the Lisbon treaty, why specifically are you against it vs. the existing treaty and what would you suggest instead?

(I would say, by the way, that I'm ambivalent about its merits but do not believe that referendums are the way forward)

cestlavie - we either live in a democracy or we don't. I for one don't think that any MPs or MSPs are any more intelligent than the general population.

Mugabe will not take "no" for an answer and is bullying his country into voting the "right" way. Apparently the EU think that they can keep making memeber states vote until they get the answer they want. We now seem the have a political elite who think we are idiots.

Okay Athene, firstly EU law supremacy was established (and accepted by the UK) in 1982 in the Factortame case. We have had EU law supremacy for over 25 years. The treaty changes nothing in that regard.

Secondly, there is nothing in the treaty about an EU army. There is a simply an intention that there will be common defence policy for the EU if all states unanimously agree. Incidentally, this is exactly the same intention which has been in the various treaties for the last 20+ years and outside the treaties for the last 60+ years ever since the advent (and failure) of the WEU. Practically speaking even if this was agreed at some point in the future (so unlikely it's untrue) and it decided to intervene militarily, an EU army separate to NATO is an impossibility in any event as without US practical (e.g. airlift) support and oversight (e.g. sat communications) we'd struggle to even get an EU bridage to Malta, let alone to a combat site. A

Okay Athene, firstly EU law supremacy was established (and accepted by the UK) in 1982 in the Factortame case. We have had EU law supremacy for over 25 years. The treaty changes nothing in that regard.

Secondly, there is nothing in the treaty about an EU army. There is a simply an intention that there will be common defence policy for the EU if all states unanimously agree. Incidentally, this is exactly the same intention which has been in the various treaties for the last 20+ years and outside the treaties for the last 60+ years ever since the advent (and failure) of the WEU. Practically speaking even if this was agreed at some point in the future (so unlikely it's untrue) and it decided to intervene militarily, an EU army separate to NATO is an impossibility in any event as without US practical (e.g. airlift) support and oversight (e.g. sat communications) we'd struggle to even get an EU brigade to Malta, let alone to a combat site. A

Waffletrees: Really? How many parliamentary decisions do we the public vote on? Hmmm, that would be none. In every other regard, we vote in a govermnent (democratically) and then allow them to take decisions on our behalf.

Cestlavie - if the political elite started to listen we might not have the woeful turnout for elections. It is not apathy but it has got to the stage where there is no point in voting.

Blair promised a referendum and Brown has told us to fuck off. I would need a gun pointed at my head to vote Labour again.

How can Brown possibly use the excuse that the electorate want 42 days detention and then ignore that the electorate would like a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? He is a grade A hypocrite.

Don't forget to sign the lovely petition in all of this exciting debate.

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

Cestlavie - your argument that there should be no referendum because we are all too stupid to understand the ramifications of a 'no' vote is unutterably depressing. It is also anti-democracy. The public needs more simple-stupid information on the Lisbon Treaty so that we can start to make informed decisions on how it might affect us. If it is impossible to simplify then it should be scrapped as unworkable.

Agree with cestlavie's post on this

Callisto: it's not depressing, it's just a fact. Are the serious fraud laws depressing? Are NICE clinical guidelines depressing? There are a zillion things in public life which affect us which unless you spend all your time involved in them are too complex to understand. Should we scrap all of these as well?

Of course it's not undemocratic unless your understanding of democracy is that we vote on every single decision which Parliament takes on our behalf. There have been many many more far more important decisions (e.g. NATO membership, ECHR commitment) which have had a much bigger impact on our lives than this which have happened without any sort of referendum. And incidentally, if we did decide we wanted 'the people' to vote today on Parliamentary decisions, there's a lot more pressing issues that I'd want to have a say in (e.g. defence spending, NHS trusts). Can I have a referendum on these?

Oh come on, no-one is demanding a referendum on every single decision. But a major treaty like this, which does involve issues of sovereignty is important. If the political elite think we are too ill-informed to have a view, why don't they try to explain what it's all about, instead of hoping none of us will notice what's going on? The US constitution can be read and understood by any high school student - there's no need for obfuscation.

And FWIW I happen to understand the NICE guidelines process very well, thank you. And some of how the EU works, thanks to my previous job. There are lots of voters who are well informed about all sort of complex issues - maybe we aren't all experts on every aspect of the EU but then neither are most of our politicians.

It would actually do the EU a lot of good if our politicians - domestic and European - started to draw attention to these issues. Parliament could start to hold proper debates on proposed EU directives instead of passing them through committees with minimal discussion, for a start.

If you want to practice as a doctor, you have to pass medical exams. Ditto for the law profession. There are countless other examples.
If being a politician is so complex and complicated that only 'They' can do it and 'the Common (wo)man' is too stupid to understand these major decisions that affect millions of lives, then why is there no qualification required?

The Irish Government was on a tea break while the no campaigners were out in force.

The no campaigners warned us not to be "bullied" into voting no. But there was a lot more scaremongering about the consequences of a yes vote.

Losing the commissioner for example, that was going to happen anyway because of the NICE treaty. What the fcuk were the Irish government doing, that they did not counter any of the no campaigners arguments?!?!

And Brian Cowen, Taoiseach, I'm not a fan of his but his arguments on Prime Time were all based in fact. Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Fein talked of maybes and what she "strongly suspected" etc

Libertas the No campaigners, if it turns out they lied to us and Ireland just ends up excluded from the EU, then who are they accountable to? At least Fianna Fail are in theory held accountable.. (didn't work for bertie mind you!).

I thought that when news of the no vote reached the rest of Europe Ireland would be portrayed as greedy, ungrateful, grasping and awkward. I was surprised yesterday reading the letters in The UK Times defending the No vote and the support of the Irish people. So I'll be very interested to see what happens next.

Hopefull, with a few tweaks here and there, Ireland can still be included in the EU in the same way as before.

Firstly, it's not a major treaty in terms of what we 'cede' in sovereignty. We, and every other nation, has given up far more sovereignty in many other treaties (let alone bilateral agreements) than this one even comes close to doing. Hell, France just re-joined NATO without even a murmur from their public despite the fact that that fundamentally changes their entire defence strategy.

Secondly, I have some understanding of how the EU works, probably more than the average person but would absolutely say I'm not sufficiently well informed to take a decision on if and how this treaty should be implemented. Not least because unless you understand the existing regime, trying to understand the how the new treaty modifies this is pointless.

Thirdly, I imagine the EU would love something as simple and clear as the US constitution, which, incidentally is very simple and clear, because it directly binds all states and citizens in virtually very aspect of their lives. If they suggested it an EU constitution on the other hand, most people would swallow their tongues in apoplexy.

Can I just say that I'm not necessarily in favour of the treaty or indeed reform of the EU - the reason I don't like the referendum is because (a) a referendum should be about something that is either subjective and/ or easily understood, e.g. the death penalty (b) it wouldn't be about the treaty it would be about whether the EU is 'good or bad' and (c) any actual serious debate would be hijacked by the both ends of the political spectrum for their own ends.

Fembear: It's not the politicians who decide, it's the civil servants.

Cestlavie - IMO NICE decisions can be very depressing, but you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I find your attitude that the electorate is idiotic and not to be trusted with a vote on something far beyond it depressing, not the actual thing to be voted on.

My understanding of democracy is that I vote for a person who represents me and my values/welfare/opinions. I give this person the remit and authority to vote on my behalf on parliamentary issues etc. I think you are being rather disingenous when you try to compare a referendum on the Lisobon Treaty and voting on NATO issues as the two are far too different.

Callisto: I'm not saying that the electorate is 'idiotic' but that we're not able to be sufficiently well-informed to make that decision and, short of all us spending several months reading up on it (and being able to understand it), nor will we be. That isn't depressing. It's just a fact.

I agree with your understanding of democracy. We elect a government to take decisions on our behalf. This includes decisions on issues which affect our sovereignty, be they trade agreements, defence partnerships or international treaties. My reference to NATO was that I don't recall us having a referendum on becoming part of that alliance even though that affected our 'sovereignty' far more.

Cestlavei - "it's not the politicians who decide, it's the civil servants".

Even you agree that the EU is not democratic. Oh, and you seem to imply that the electorate is so thick that it is all best left in the hands of faceless beurocrats.

Cestlavie - refer to your post on Tue 17-Jun-08 16:14:04 and it seems pretty clear that you view the electorate as idiotic, in fact stupid is the word you use. Do you mean to come across in such a patronising way? This govt and the EU deliberately make things far more confusing than they could or should be so that the collective electorate are kept in the dark. I am well aware that various very bright EU watchers have studied the Lisbon Treaty and still don't really know what it is on about, and yet you seem to think this means that we should just blindly accept it. As Edam pointed out, the American Constitution is a model of simplicity and democracy that works and can be understood by school children so I fail to see why we have to put up with such ridiculous, befuddled claptrap from a horribly top-heavy, corrupt and undemocratic organisation.

The trouble is I think that we're all in the EU, and the current processes are not sufficient for it in its enlarged state so reform is needed.

The Irish clearly have said no, and that's a problem, but reform is still needed, so rather than say "oh okay, we'll just give up", the leaders are by and large saying "yes, we know this is a problem, we're talking about it and trying to work out what to do, but in the meantime, lets not derail the whole process while we don't know what to do", which sort of makes sense surely? A bit like parenting when one child throws a tantrum and doesn't want to do something, you try to work out a way of dealing with that, but you also don't stop what everyone else is doing at the same time.

Hmm, I think that anything so ridiculously complex should be dumped in the nearest shredder. No one has actually explained why we NEED it, just that we should have it.

Callisto: okay, fair enough, the use of the word "stupid" was being used for effect rather than being fair. As I subsequently said, however, the more salient point is we're not able to be sufficiently well-informed to make that decision and nor will we be without several months/ years reading up on it (and being able to understand it). Do you honestly not think that is fair or do you genuinely believe that if, as you say, "very bright EU watchers" can't follow it, then the general public can?

This is not blindly accepting it (not sure how you read that into it). It is saying that we, the electorate, are not equipped to make that decision and so Parliament should make it on our behalf in the same way they do for every decision. Neither (as I've said several times) does it also mean that I think the EU is a great idea and that it doesn't need substantial reform.

As I also said, the US Constitution is a model of simplicity because it covers principally all aspects of governance and directly binds individuals and states. Do you honestly want the same from the EU? A single EU charter which binds the UK and British citizens directly to EU-wide principles? No, of course you don't, and neither does virtually anyone else. The reason the EU has grown up piecemeal is because every time they try any major new iniatives people throw their hands up in horror and demand it's whittled down to the lowest common denominator.

Can I also say (again) I am not in favour of the EU, and neither I am against it, however, a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is certainly not the way forward.

But the very fact of the Treaty's ridiculous complexity is one of the things that I have against it. The example I used of the US Constitution is merely to show that it doesn't have to be this way.
Of course I don't think that the general public would grasp much of it, but this is why we should get rid of it. I see no reason why the EU's MEP's or civil servants or whoever can't come up with something that we can all understand and therefore vote on in an informed way.

Also to say that you are not in favour of the EU and that it needs a complete overhaul and yet think a referendum would be worthless is surely a contradiction? The only way that the people of Europe have of telling the EU they have had enough is to vote 'no' to the treaty.

"Hmm, I think that anything so ridiculously complex should be dumped in the nearest shredder."
"a system of government that is so complex as to be incomprehensible to the average voter is a bad system, surely?"

Hear, hear.
It is a sound principle of financial planning that if you don't understand a scheme then you shouldn't buy into it. Look at the likes of Bearings Bank or Northern Rock where there were supposed to lots of clever experts doing complicated things who, when the sh*t hit the fan, were found to be woefully ignorant of what was really going on. The EU is the same; as someone said above, the auditors have for years refused to sign off the accounts. It is a farce.