Sinn Fein in the EP

[mmclo]

Interestingly further on in the EP debates and voting we see SF's McDonald and De Brun abstained on amendment no.34, tabled by their own group.

1a. Firmly believes that, since the choice involved will have a profound impact on the future, a European treaty should be ratified in all the Member States by means of a referendum, following a pluralist debate on the substance of the treaty and the issues at stake;

Do they join the list of traitors and quislings?

[spartacus]

Interestingly further on in the EP debates and voting we see SF's McDonald and De Brun abstained on amendment no.34, tabled by their own group.

1a. Firmly believes that, since the choice involved will have a profound impact on the future, a European treaty should be ratified in all the Member States by means of a referendum, following a pluralist debate on the substance of the treaty and the issues at stake;

Do they join the list of traitors and quislings?

Hmm.. looks to me as though they didn't want to vote to impose a referendum, leaving it to different member states to make their own constitutional arrangemenst for ratification.
Would you understand it differently?

[woodie]

Was it the reference to a debate 'on the substance of the treaty and the issues at stake' that confused them?

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

Was it the reference to a debate 'on the substance of the treaty and the issues at stake' that confused them?

no your confusing SF with that party that gives uncritical support to everything that comes out of europe. what's it called again? FF FG LAB PD's, oh wait no. it's all of them.

[woodie]

Interestingly further on in the EP debates and voting we see SF's McDonald and De Brun abstained on amendment no.34, tabled by their own group.

1a. Firmly believes that, since the choice involved will have a profound impact on the future, a European treaty should be ratified in all the Member States by means of a referendum, following a pluralist debate on the substance of the treaty and the issues at stake;

Do they join the list of traitors and quislings?

Hmm.. looks to me as though they didn't want to vote to impose a referendum, leaving it to different member states to make their own constitutional arrangemenst for ratification.
Would you understand it differently?

I agree but that's not the SF position, which has been to insist all Member States hold referendums, irrespective of whether their constitutions provide for them or not.

Now seems they don't know whether we should have one in Ireland.

Big change.

[mmclo]

Hmm.. looks to me as though they didn't want to vote to impose a referendum, leaving it to different member states to make their own constitutional arrangemenst for ratification.
Would you understand it differently?

A position I totally agree with...as it stands only one has decided to have a referendum

But check the No arguments and you'll find something different. Others not having a referendum was trumpeted as a great affront to democracy and a persuasive reason to vote no in and of itself...seems SF don't beleive this

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

Interestingly further on in the EP debates and voting we see SF's McDonald and De Brun abstained on amendment no.34, tabled by their own group.

1a. Firmly believes that, since the choice involved will have a profound impact on the future, a European treaty should be ratified in all the Member States by means of a referendum, following a pluralist debate on the substance of the treaty and the issues at stake;

Do they join the list of traitors and quislings?

Hmm.. looks to me as though they didn't want to vote to impose a referendum, leaving it to different member states to make their own constitutional arrangemenst for ratification.
Would you understand it differently?

I agree but that's not the SF position, which has been to insist all Member States hold referendums, irrespective of whether their constitutions provide for them or not.

Now seems they don't know whether we should have one in Ireland.

Big change.

all this talk of getting older is getting me down my friend like a cat in a bag waiting to drown, this time i coming down again. No the drugs don't work they just make you worse!

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

Hmm.. looks to me as though they didn't want to vote to impose a referendum, leaving it to different member states to make their own constitutional arrangemenst for ratification.
Would you understand it differently?

A position I totally agree with...as it stands only one has decided to have a referendum

But check the No arguments and you'll find something different. Others not having a referendum was trumpeted as a great affront to democracy and a persuasive reason to vote no in and of itself...seems SF don't beleive this

the eu shouldn't interfere with how decisions are made by states, openly or behind closed doors. while at the same time it's odd that the people of france and holland aren't getting a chance to vote on a treaty that came into being as a consequence of their rejection of the constitution. that's a matter for thoose people to assert there authority on there respective states. i hope they do. but it's not up for me to decide through the EU, it's them alone.

[ibis]

the eu shouldn't interfere with how decisions are made by states, openly or behind closed doors.

A principle whose logical conclusion is De Rossa's vote.

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

by respecting the out come of the referndum in ireland the eu would be interfering with how this state makes a decision. hmmm...... ha good one, i hope you get well paid for public relations because your a master of the basic's.