Ireland Vote Yes on the Lisbon Treaty

[TrickyTrev]

If less people had come out and the result was very close I'd agree. But something drastic seems to have changed to not only bring out voters but to bring out agreeing voters.

It's not like the European Central Bank prevented the country from going bankrupt in the mean time.

[Webbo]

The Labour party promised us a referendum on the European Constitution that was thrown out by the Dutch and the French. The Lisbon Treaty is the amended version, and Labour say that they didn't therefore promise a vote on that one.

I know the official line. Doesn't mean I believe it.

I didn't say you have to be xenophobic to be disturbed by the anti-democratic tendencies of the EU. I said that it is impossible to find any serious debate on the issue in the English media because one side is so clearly xenophobic, others take the opposing view in order to just distance themselves. There is no grown up debate about Europe and it is incredibly annoying, there are genuine discussions to be had about the trade off between the dilution of democratic power and the clear economic benefits.

Nice idea but it'll never happen because people who oppose the 'anti-democratic tendencies of the EU' are always characterised as small minded, xenophobic, racist, little Englander Daily Mail readers. The fact that large chunks of the left also oppose it is often ignored.

You'd think that if the EU wasn't as over centralising, corrupt and incompetant as it's cheer leaders claim they would be able to argue positively in it's favour instead of just constantly blackening the names of it's opponents.

[Guest]

I know the official line. Doesn't mean I believe it.

[Benji]

It's not like the European Central Bank prevented the country from going bankrupt in the mean time.

I'm surprised it has taken two attempts for Ireland to agree to the Treaty. We had a seminar one week by a QC in EU and competition law and she listed some of the massive benefits countries like Ireland currently benefit from and these would be enhanced by complete ratification. Your comment went a little over my head, were you agreeing or subtally criticising?

Face it: Cathedral is for gays, illegals and benefit scroungers.

Vache Qui Rit is better than that!

It's true, my family all came in on a boat. When people tell me it's cold in England, I just think "be glad you didn't spend 72 hours on a 6 man life raft on the atroscious English channel with the rain belting down." Fortunately, we had a copy of the daily mail each to keep our hair dry.

[Guest lcfc80]

The Labour party promised us a referendum on the European Constitution that was thrown out by the Dutch and the French. The Lisbon Treaty is the amended version, and Labour say that they didn't therefore promise a vote on that one.

fook me, we've finally got it haven't we. You are a leftie Labour voter aint you. Yes, Labour promised a referendum on the European Constitution, which is the same thing as the Lisbon Treaty but slightly reworded and under a different title. You have finally lost all credability on this arguement as MEP's involved in this have admitted they are the same thing as have a cross party commitee of MP's. Told you already, couldn't give a shit about convincing a load mouth opionated div like you when you just play on words and bring nothing to the debate with substance.

If you disagree with it being the same thing then I take you know more than the Euro MP's that have admitted it is fundamentaly the same Treaty that were involved in creating it.

[Guest]

fook me, we've finally got it haven't we. You are a leftie Labour voter aint you. Yes, Labour promised a referendum on the European Constitution, which is the same thing as the Lisbon Treaty but slightly reworded and under a different title. You have finally lost all credability on this arguement as MEP's involved in this have admitted they are the same thing as have a cross party commitee of MP's. Told you already, couldn't give a shit about convincing a load mouth opionated div like you when you just play on words and bring nothing to the debate with substance.

If you disagree with it being the same thing then I take you know more than the Euro MP's that have admitted it is fundamentaly the same Treaty that were involved in creating it.

You need to take a long, hard look in the mirror before accusing others of being a "div".

You really are a pathetic little boy, aren't you. I gather you got a first in your EU law module as well? Thought not.......

Now run along; isn't time for "In the Night Garden" yet?

[Guest lcfc80]

You need to take a long, hard look in the mirror before accusing others of being a "div".

You really are a pathetic little boy, aren't you. I gather you got a first in your EU law module as well? Thought not.......

Now run along; isn't time for "In the Night Garden" yet?

so you still have nothing to bring to the debate then? put up or shut up

[Benji]

Negotiating opt outs and limits of central power makes far more sense in a broader union, the veto is too cruder power in such a large body. Only wish that I could have faith that one person in the media understood the treaty, I can't make head nor tail of the serious consequences of its ratification, the whole thing is played off as a contest between the xenophobes and the anti-xenophobes.

There's a fundamental problem with opt-outs though, and that is it contradicts the whole point of a European Union. It's every country's own decision whether or not they join the EU, but they join it with the risk of saying "we're fully committed". A Member State can't just say "OK we're joining but we'll agree to jurisdiction only where it benefits us otherwise we'll opt-out". A similar feeling was expressed with our legal system when UK and EU law first had different outcomes. The UK judges hated the thought of not being the top dogs using Acts of Parliament as patriarchal law, but they had to accept it was Parliament's decision to join the EU and so they have to accept EU law as supreme, accepting the consequences so to speak.

Obviously there are reasonable exceptions for the odd opt-out in crucial circumstances. But as soon as it becomes good practice the EU is pointless. Otherwise we might as well just continue being 27 Member States making our own decisions based on our traditions and cultures. With a single nation EU what's law for one should be law for all, and the fairest way to decide it is surely majority rule?

[Guest]

so you still have nothing to bring to the debate then? put up or shut up

You asked for it......

[Benji]

You asked for it......

Lisa essay on its way? Please do, it's been too long for me to remember most of it.

[Webbo]

There's a fundamental problem with opt-outs though, and that is it contradicts the whole point of a European Union. It's ever countries own decision whether or not they join the EU, but they join it with the risk of saying "we're fully committed". A MS can't just say we're joining but agreeing to jurisdiction only where it benefits us. A similar feeling was expressed with our legal system when UK and EU law first had different outcomes. The UK judges hated the thought of not being the top dogs, but had to accept that Parliaments decision to join the EU means we've accepted it as our parental law.

Obviously there are reasonable exceptions for the odd opt-out in crucial circumstances. But as soon as it becomes good practice the EU is pointless. Otherwise we might as well just continue being 27 Member States making our own decisions based on our traditions and cultures. With a single nation EU what's law for one should be law for all, and the fairest way to decide it is surely majority rule?

When we joined the EU or Common Market as it was called at the time it was said that we were just joining a trading bloc and there would be no loss of soverenty. The idea of a United States of Europe was never mentioned, publicly at least. Now it seems we are moving inexorably in that direction without us ever having a say in the matter.

If a United States of Europe is what people want then they should campaign for it honestly and not try and impose it by stealth.

[davieG]

There's a fundamental problem with opt-outs though, and that is it contradicts the whole point of a European Union. It's every country's own decision whether or not they join the EU, but they join it with the risk of saying "we're fully committed". A Member State can't just say "OK we're joining but we'll agree to jurisdiction only where it benefits us otherwise we'll opt-out". A similar feeling was expressed with our legal system when UK and EU law first had different outcomes. The UK judges hated the thought of not being the top dogs using Acts of Parliament as patriarchal law, but they had to accept it was Parliament's decision to join the EU and so they have to accept EU law as supreme, accepting the consequences so to speak.

Obviously there are reasonable exceptions for the odd opt-out in crucial circumstances. But as soon as it becomes good practice the EU is pointless. Otherwise we might as well just continue being 27 Member States making our own decisions based on our traditions and cultures. With a single nation EU what's law for one should be law for all, and the fairest way to decide it is surely majority rule?

It depends on your view as to what constitutes a European Union, certinly it's gone a lot lot further than was ever stated when we first joined and that has been politician led not people led who've really had no choice in the matter.

We may have been able to choose who we vote for but as none of the parties can be trusted (probably because they don't know themselves) with telling us the whole truth about what it means to be a part of this all encompassing union in thruth we've had no choice.

[Guest]

You asked for it......

Sending abusive PMs doesn't help your cause. Methinks the only person to "lose face" is you. If your argument had more conviction, you wouldn't need to resort to insults.

[Edmund]

[Guest]

Lisa essay on its way? Please do, it's been too long for me to remember most of it.

I'm not wasting any more of time on this troll; I have a defence to draft!!

How are you getting on?

[Benji]

When we joined the EU or Common Market as it was called at the time it was said that we were just joining a trading bloc and there would be no loss of soverenty. The idea of a United States of Europe was never mentioned, publicly at least. Now it seems we are moving inexorably in that direction without us ever having a say in the matter.

If a United States of Europe is what people want then they should campaign for it honestly and not try and impose it by stealth.

Not a criticism, but if you are genuinely interested in this element of it read the Factortame litigation (R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd). Surprisingly wikipedia has a decent account of it all. Read either the judges' final opinion or the response they gave following media criticism that followed. I was only very young at the time and so have no clue as to the public attention given to this case and our original accession to the EU. But the politicians were definitely aware of the implications, as was the judiciary. The public is a different matter.

Only about 6 countries could use the "social and economic" thesis argument, and that's the original 6. We joined too late to use that, and by we I mean the politicians "in the know".

As said before I don't agree with our position and think we should have the promised referendum.

It depends on your view as to what constitutes a European Union, certinly it's gone a lot lot further than was ever stated when we first joined and that has been politician led not people led who've really had no choice in the matter.

We may have been able to choose who we vote for but as none of the parties can be trusted (probably because they don't know themselves) with telling us the whole truth about what it means to be a part of this all encompassing union in thruth we've had no choice.

Again, completely agree. And it's getting to the point where people may well vote against Labour not because of health care or education policies but as an indirect ay to enforce the referendum (ignoring the economic malarky).

Rightly or wrongly there is a clear "we know better than you" attitude had by our leaders and in a democracy I personally think such a massive and unique issue should be decided by the people, as much as I'm not a fan of referendums.

I'm not wasting any more of time on this troll; I have a defence to draft!!

How are you getting on?

Good thanks, currently waiting on a TC decision with one of the big boys but if i don't get that I'll be off to Leeds where a lecturer consults, that ay I can shadow some of his competition work.

Start the LPC next year so using this year to work a bit and travel, just slob really

How about yourself, started the BVC this year? Enjoy it?

[Guest]

Good thanks, currently waiting on a TC decision with one of the big boys but if i don't get that I'll be off to Leeds where a lecturer consults, that ay I can shadow some of his competition work.

Start the LPC next year so using this year to work a bit and travel, just slob really

How about yourself, started the BVC this year? Enjoy it?

I've started, they dropped us right in at the deep end, which is the same for the LPC, apparently. Be warned!!

It's good, enjoy and understand Drafting, but I'm not enjoying Opinion Writing. Having spent 4yrs writing legal essays, it's hard to just put down the latest case, apply it, and not say why! Fortunately we all seem to be doing it, and in time, we should be able to state the law succinctly

Just starting on the Advocacy and Conferencing, which is really what I want to do.

I thought you'd already got a TC, or have I misunderstood?

[Zingari]

When we joined the EU or Common Market as it was called at the time it was said that we were just joining a trading bloc and there would be no loss of soverenty. The idea of a United States of Europe was never mentioned, publicly at least. Now it seems we are moving inexorably in that direction without us ever having a say in the matter.

If a United States of Europe is what people want then they should campaign for it honestly and not try and impose it by stealth.

that's just about it in a nutshell , whatever anyone says or does this will be the outcome , we will be led by the nose until the ultimate goal is achieved

[Benji]

I've started, they dropped us right in at the deep end, which is the same for the LPC, apparently. Be warned!!

It's good, enjoy and understand Drafting, but I'm not enjoying Opinion Writing. Having spent 4yrs writing legal essays, it's hard to just put down the latest case, apply it, and not say why! Fortunately we all seem to be doing it, and in time, we should be able to state the law succinctly

Just starting on the Advocacy and Conferencing, which is really what I want to do.

I thought you'd already got a TC, or have I misunderstood?

Yes sorry the going to Leeds is the TC. But i'm waiting on the interview response before choosing.

Stating law and succinctly are rarely used in the same sentence.

I think i'd have found the BVC really interesting, just not the career path I'll send you some work when I need counsel.

[Guest]

Yes sorry the going to Leeds is the TC. But i'm waiting on the interview response before choosing.

Stating law and succinctly are rarely used in the same sentence.

I think i'd have found the BVC really interesting, just not the career path I'll send you some work when I need counsel.

It will be much appreciated!

Don't blame you for holding out, might as well have as many options open as possible.

Some of the closing speeches that I have seen in the Crown Court over the summer have gone against everything we're being told on the BVC! It's the juries I feel sorry for

[davieG]

It will be much appreciated!

Don't blame you for holding out, might as well have as many options open as possible.

Some of the closing speeches that I have seen in the Crown Court over the summer have gone against everything we're being told on the BVC! It's the juries I feel sorry for

Can't you two get a class room somewhere

[Benji]

Can't you two get a class room somewhere

Much rather I try and trick people into thinking I actually understand this stuff. I doubt many of our politicians know what the Treaty will actually mean for us in the next 10 years.

[Guest]

Can't you two get a class room somewhere

Much rather I try and trick people into thinking I actually understand this stuff. I doubt many of our politicians know what the Treaty will actually mean for us in the next 10 years.

[maddog]

What the fook is lcfc80 talking about

And what do Lisbon have to do with this treaty i've heard so much about

Flicking through channels yesterday Andrew Marr was asking David Cameron about this 'Lisbon Treaty' and Cameron just bullshitted and didn't give a real answer.

Why don't we just exterminate every single politician and end this treaty, expenses, bullshit, spin doctor, bollocks.

[Guest]

And what do Lisbon have to do with this treaty i've heard so much about

It is the place the Treaty was discussed/drawn up.