What actions?

And we both know opinion polls can be twisted depending on the viewpoint carrying them out so your poll holds about as much weight as one conducted by Libertas.

Fair enough, that is something to consider re the Dutch position. What about the French? Apparently you know of multiple opinion polls in France with a No majority.

That should have said their actions and inactions. Their actions on electing pro-reform people to represent them in the EU and their inaction regarding Lisbon as a whole.

Polls can be twisted alright, but unless you can prove the one I linked to was that's a fairly meaningless point.

Traditionally, to ratify an EU treaty, it has to be ratified by all member states. The elite came back with essentially the same provisions that had veeb rejected by the French and Dutch. Imho, all member states should hold separate referenda with unanimity required before ratification. When national parliaments defy the democratically-expressed wishes of their people in a referendum, it turns the term "representative-democracy" into an oxymoron. The recent Dutch elections show that the EU, by requisitioning the sovereignty of nations and defying their respective rights to self-determination, is endangering democracy itself by driving voters to the extremes - both Far Left and Far Right. The revolution will eat its children.

And as for the French, the EU Constitution had not yet been reheated as the Lisbon treaty when Sarkozy was elected. He cannot claim a mandate for ratification.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That has already been addressed - their election of Sarkozy has little to do with the Lisbon Treaty. Did he say during the election he would deny them a referendum? If not, then your point is defunct.

And I believe, in the case of opinion polls, their methods are not published, so I cannot do so. The burden of proof is actually on you to demonstrate the validity of a second rate source.

I'm not sure that referenda are the way to go on complex legal documents. People generally won't understand them. That was why they introduced the Constitution, i.e. to simplify the Treaties so that the people of the EU could understand what was going on. That was the way to go, and referenda would be my preferred option for all member states as well. However it's not my call, nor yours, nor the EUs. So I'll be kind enough to keep my nose out of it as I expect them to do for us.

Sarkozy was pro-reform and anti-referendum in his campaign. He had every mandate for ratification, as did their Assembly. The only way you can say they did not is if a) they didn't advocate it in their campaigns (which they did) or b) the people elected them but came out in force to oppose EU reform (there wasn't even the slightest hint of that).

Given that he did say he would not put the reform to referendum (as many including FT have already pointed out) does that mean my point still stands? Remember, however, that my point of evidence was regarding the election of pro-reform elements to Government coupled with the lack of objection from the French people (who we all know are not afraid to voice their objections with the Government), i.e. together they made up one point.