I hope this doesn't get locked for trolling...certainly not my intention.

I have been arguing and canvassing for a yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty as I believe it will reduce the democratic deficit. I don't perceive that there is a huge lacuna, but what is there is a strong perception and that in itself merits attention. From what I have seen in other parties, they are all pretty much arguing along the same lines that it stops vetos, brings the commission president under more accountability and allows for better functioning of the institutions.

The no campaign appears primarily to be based on maintaining sovereignty, not aligning ourselves militarily and a general dislike of money being spent on military campaigns by governments no matter what the circumstances.

I personally don't see it as a military alliance, but it seems like the only weapon in the No group's armour. I would see it as a ratification on its own merits, but it would be naive to say a good campaign would not be necessary. If the time was spent countering No cgroups claims it would fail.

So my question is this. If Lisbon is ratified (as it looks like it will be), will the No campaign including Libertas tell us that we voted for a military alliance and if so, will they accept the democratic outcome?

As for the accepting the democratic outcome, do they (or indeed I) have any choice in the matter? Well... apart from my own vote that is.

If it's accepted then that really is that. If it's rejected (which is perhaps for another thread) will the Government and the EU accept that democratic outcome?

Regarding the militarisation issue. IMO I don't think it's the main argument in either Libertas' or Sinn Fein's charge against Lisbon. Post ratification will they tell us that we voted for a military alliance? Well they are pretty much doing that as it is so I don't see why anything would change.

Obviously as somebody who will be voting no, post ratification (and I do believe it will be ratified, sadly) what that would mean for me is that I would be very sad. I would like to console myself that it was an informed vote by the people but I very rarely get to do that in any referendum and it's not the fault of FF, the EU, Libertas or anybody else but the voters and I am one of them. All we can do is keep talking and discussing and reading and telling and informing until the polls close.

If militarisation isn't the main issue for SF and Libertas, then what is?

Whatever they can dream up with to try to wreck the treaty.

__________________
(Guys, when I type in capitals it isn't shouting. I have technical problems which makes using italics difficult. Please don't take offence if you see capitals used!)

You tell me!

Honestly. I'm not as clued in as I would have been as some things got in the way and I never got back up to speed after. My own opinion is that they're not focusing entirely on militarisation anyway. Though of the little I do know I've seen precious little of SF's activity save the initial burst a few months back.

I think the impression that both Libertas and SF will throw almost anything that might sway a vote at the Treaty is actually what leads to the question.

__________________
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

**************************************** NDS.. sorry to be so upfront

Lisbon allows the institutional framework to create

a de facto European Parliament which supercedes national Parliaments

a de facto European Goverment (the Commission)

a de facto European Justice system (ECJ)

a de facto European Foreign Minister

a de facto European Army

Bascially undermining the tenets of national sovereignty going right back to Westphalian principles

Turning the Dáil into a glorified County Council

But you won't see that on any leaflets now.. will you

__________________
1,197 people agree with me.. how many agree with you ?

But we already have a European Parliament (it's getting extra power to co-decide with the Council of Ministers, not to over-ride national parliaments), a Commission (not getting extra power), a European Court of Justice (not the same thing as a European justice system), a High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (to be re-named High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy), and a number of battlegroups (not under a unified command as an army has to be).

And we gave up absolute sovereignty of the Westphalian type when we joined in 1973.

It is disappointing to see you, ROC, posting the rubbish below. I have immense respect for you but what you wrote would not be written by anyone who understands how the EU works.

Not true. National parliaments' roles are INCREASED, not decreased, under the Treaty.

Not true. The commission is a cross between the civil service and policy formulation. It is not, in any sense, a government. A government takes executive decisions. The commission refers proposals to others for decision.

We have had that since 1972.

Untrue. There are at present three people doing overlapping jobs, one being the External Relations Commissioner, and the other the President of the Foreign Affairs Council. It is an infamous mess. All that is happening is merging all the roles, rather than the ridiculous mess right now.

Still untrue, no matter how many times SF claims it in European referenda.

Complete nonsense.

It is disappointing you make such claims. I hope you don't actually believe it and are just repeating the SF claims.

BTW SInn Fein first claimed a European Army was being created in the 1972 referendum. They claimed it again with the Single European Act, then with Masstricht, then with Amsterdam, then with Nice I and Nice II. I've read all the Sinn Fein leaflets from the period. There have been academic studies done about Sinn Fein's constant repeating of the same claims. And when the next referendum comes around, SF will claim, again, that the new treaty will create a new European army.

__________________
(Guys, when I type in capitals it isn't shouting. I have technical problems which makes using italics difficult. Please don't take offence if you see capitals used!)

Not true. The commission is a cross between the civil service and policy formulation. It is not, in any sense, a government. A government takes executive decisions. The commission refers proposals to others for decision.

We have had that since 1972.

Untrue. There are at present three people doing overlapping jobs, one being the External Relations Commissioner, and the other the President of the Foreign Affairs Council. It is an infamous mess. All that is happening is merging all the roles, rather than the ridiculous mess right now.

Still untrue, no matter how many times SF claims it in European referenda.

Complete nonsense.

It is disappointing you make such claims. I hope you don't actually believe it and are just repeating the SF claims.

BTW SInn Fein first claimed a European Army was being created in the 1972 referendum. They claimed it again with the Single European Act, then with Masstricht, then with Amsterdam, then with Nice I and Nice II. I've read all the Sinn Fein leaflets from the period. There have been academic studies done about Sinn Fein's constant repeating of the same claims. And when the next referendum comes around, SF will claim, again, that the new treaty will create a new European army.[/quote:2x1c3si6]


what next referendum ?

I thought this was the final tidying up Treaty ?

__________________
1,197 people agree with me.. how many agree with you ?