TLJ wrote:

"I suspect that you're reading the consolidated version. Remember that the Govt's argument against a referendum was that Lisbon is an amending Treaty - ie, it modifies existing ones - whereas the Constitution effectively replaced the existing Treaties with a single document."

I expect you're correct TLJ. Thanks for the clarification,.

That explains this:

'Article 1 [1] Establishment of the Union

Article I-1 The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Treaties”). Those two Treaties shall have the same legal value. The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community.'

Does the Irish result mean that Maastricht has been abjured, abrogated, and abolished? It seems to me that if a yes vote were seen to consolidate and legitimize previous treaties then a "No" vote should invalidate, and nullify the said treaties. I should imagine then that the above statement re: the "Union" replacing the "Community" is no longer valid?

TLJ wrote:
The EU needs reformed......
So, my question to those who are anti-Lisbon, given the above, what changes would you advocate instead of Lisbon ?

Replace Jose Manuel Barroso as President of the Commission with Nigel Farage.

I'm reading the debate between you two with interest as I'm not up on the heavy-duty stuff concerning the EU.

I would say tho that the EU is seriously discredited and that mistrust of the implications of the Treaty is behind the no vote. I can understand that completely. I am pro-Europe also.

Think about it. Of all the countries here (of the UK and Ireland I mean) probably only England is obsessed with its own importance as "England". The rest are pretty much pro-Europe so to adopt an anti-Europe approach is not a natural route for any of the others to go. I would say therefore that it was offensive to dismiss the Irish result as based on ignorance. It could have been based on fear of losing their own right to make certain decisions for their country under this Treaty with the loss of the veto. I think that aspect is what frightens me too, and many Scots, for let's say we do get independence. Will it be destroyed because of a Treaty which will deny us the right to make important decisions for our own country in the future?

Europe is a wonderful idea, but the idea of a Europe which dictates to every individual country in it isn't. And right now, Europe is a mess due to people movement which the EU has largely ignored for more than ten years. The EU, financially, is up to its eyes in sleaze due to the level of financial mismanagement and allegations of fraud all over the place. Why would we want to give those running it any more powers?

The other thing is that the EU doesn't appear particularly keen to educate us on how it works. Getting access to information on the net is murder and when you find it it is worded in a way which doesn't immediately make sense. I just don't think anything has to be that complicated.

Ultimately I think the EU has a major image problem TLJ. For my own reasons (its decision to block vital aid to Palestine after the election of Hamas) I lost confidence in it a long time back. Other reasons, the fraud allegations, the financial mismanagement added to my concerns but mainly its determination to remove the authority of individual countries on issues that are ours to make policy on convinced me that its about power now and the idea of giving that up, without even getting a vote on it convinced me they need to start over and get back to communicating with us.

I think if Brown ignores this he will finally achieve an ambition he's been banging on about for the last year: he will unite the UK. The bad news for him is that the unity will be down to all countries in the UK union calling for a vote on Lisbon.

Clare's right about the deliberate obfuscation the EU puts in the way of those wishing to find out more about how it works. One of my concerns is the lack of accountability from the hundreds of bent MEPs who screw their expenses and find it easy to do so because they don't have to produce a receipt for anything to the €Bs that have disappeared into black holes in Spain, Greece, Italy and Ireland to name but four recipients of EU largesse.
The most ludicrous thing of all of course is the shuffling between Brussels and Strasbourg. That costs €Ms every year and is just done to keep the Frogs happy. Oh, and lets's not forget that everything is translated into all these languages at huge cost. The EU should decide on one or possibly two languages to do business in. One should obviously be English because that's what the rest of the world uses and let the Frogs and the Krauts fight it out for the other.

scunnert wrote:

Does the Irish result mean that Maastricht has been abjured, abrogated, and abolished? It seems to me that if a yes vote were seen to consolidate and legitimize previous treaties then a "No" vote should invalidate, and nullify the said treaties. I should imagine then that the above statement re: the "Union" replacing the "Community" is no longer valid?

No - because the "yes" vote is about the change from the status quo. Throw Lisbon out, and we're back to what we have just now.

And, as everyone appears to agree, what we have now needs to be changed.

Clare wrote:


Ultimately I think the EU has a major image problem TLJ. For my own reasons (its decision to block vital aid to Palestine after the election of Hamas) I lost confidence in it a long time back. Other reasons, the fraud allegations, the financial mismanagement added to my concerns but mainly its determination to remove the authority of individual countries on issues that are ours to make policy on convinced me that its about power now and the idea of giving that up, without even getting a vote on it convinced me they need to start over and get back to communicating with us.

Indeed, it has a poor image. But that's not surprising when the written media throw the scare stories about (most of which are actually myths) and forget the very many postives about the Union - the most important one being the level of co-operation which has been brought about between countries which were at war with each other some 60 to 70 years ago. Western Europe is at its most peaceful ever, and much of that is down to the EU and its predecessor institutions.

Whilst there is undoubtedly financial mismanagement in the EU (organisations much, much smaller than it suffer from financial mismanagement), did you knwo that much of the reason that accounts are not signed off is not because of mismanagement within the EU itself but within the Member States ? And, whilst Europhobes might like to blame the other Member States for that, the UK is by no means squeaky clean either.

Before the population at large are asked to cast votes on a Treaty taking the EU forward for the remainder of the first half of the 21st Century, it would be helpful if they properly understood the role of each of the Institutions. I don't think it's arrogant of me to say they don't. Nor should referenda be used to show distaste towards the Govt of the day (hence Gordie's back-tracking) - votes should be cast in answer to the question, not as some opinion poll.

As for the Irish "no" vote, the scare stories have won the day. Lisbon actually gave powers back to national Parliaments, it gave powers to the European citizens, it strengthened the European Parliament's own powers against the grey suited Heads of State in the Council. But, tabloid talk of a Presidency (which actually exists already but what currently lasts six months was to be extended to last three years) bought the fear of the voters.

TLJ wrote:

"Before the population at large are asked to cast votes on a Treaty taking the EU forward for the remainder of the first half of the 21st Century, it would be helpful if they properly understood the role of each of the Institutions. I don't think it's arrogant of me to say they don't. Nor should referenda be used to show distaste towards the Govt of the day (hence Gordie's back-tracking) - votes should be cast in answer to the question, not as some opinion poll."

I think if people don't understand the roles of EU institutions then the EU has failed the people of the 27 member states. Is it possible that this situation is intended? The EU seems to operate in a byzantine fog of obfuscation of its own making purposely designed to keep EU citizens in a state of ignorance.

Surely I'm wrong in thinking that you support the actions of the Broon government in denying the citizens of the UK a vote on this treaty as your last quoted sentence seems to suggest?

I like what Niall Ban has to say on the subject. From todays Herald:

"Posted by: Niall Aslen, Cairnbulg Aberdeenshire on 3:58pm today

Thanks to our Irish friends who are true Democrats the plans of the arch Euro federalists are now set back for a few months until they can bully little Ireland back into line to hold another referendum as they did in 2002 when the Irish rejected the treaty of Nice. Ireland was threatened with economic sanctions if it did not comply with their demands and accordingly another referendum was held but this time with a massive EU financed pro EU agenda through the bought media ands politicians like Bertie Ahern who was up to his armpits in EU corruption and sleaze for which he has since had to resign.

There is no true Democracy in the EU or as most Europeans call it "The EUSSR" or "Der Fourth Reich!" What we have is a sham in the European Parliament with recent legislation banning all anti EU or Eurosceptic parties from taking part in the process. The SNP need to wake up fast because their slogan "Independence in Europe" is meaningless because as one small region in the superstate called "Europa" we will not even have any influence. Our assets will become the property of the Superstate and all our affairs will be dictated by Brussels at the behest of Globalising big business.

The EU is the successor state to the Iron and steel confederation set up by the American State department in 1948 as a bulwark against Communism. This became the EEC and then tyhe EU and if the Federalists have their way will become Europa. A huge sprawling superpower taking in all of Europe, Asia minor and North Africa. All at the behest of international Global companies who want a wide open market place with no regard for the social consequences.

Yes the Irish have won a battle but the victory is a long way off. All Scottish nationalists should take the view that an Independent Scotland does not join the EUSSR, instead stays outside and makes her own advantageous trade agreements with the EU as Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland have done.

'S Mise
Niall Ban."

scunnert wrote:
TLJ wrote:

I think if people don't understand the roles of EU institutions then the EU has failed the people of the 27 member states. Is it possible that this situation is intended? The EU seems to operate in a byzantine fog of obfuscation of its own making purposely designed to keep EU citizens in a state of ignorance.

Surely I'm wrong in thinking that you support the actions of the Broon government in denying the citizens of the UK a vote on this treaty as your last quoted sentence seems to suggest?

I like what Niall Ban has to say on the subject.

Perhaps it's not the EU who has failed the people by not having them educated in the ways of the institutions but (in our case) the UK media ?

I don't necessarily support the actions of the UK Govt but I don't think that a referendum on Lisbon is appropriate for a number of reasons, not least that it would be used to express people's views against the Govt rather than on the Treaty itself. It's shouldn't be.

As for Niall Ban's view - well, you'll find the right wing referring to it as the EUSSR and you'll find the left wing referring to it as a friend of capitalism. I guess that means it's probably somewhere in the middle.....

TLJ wrote:

" I don't think that a referendum on Lisbon is appropriate ..."

Wow! Careful TLJ, your elitism is showing. The great unwashed can't be trusted to vote properly so important decisions must be taken by the political elite. Well - so much for democracy. And that is the EU - anti-democratic and elitist. And that is why I, for one, would vote it out of existence. That doesn't mean I'm against a europe of the people - that's the EU's job.

scunnert wrote:
TLJ wrote:

" I don't think that a referendum on Lisbon is appropriate ..."

Wow! Careful TLJ, your elitism is showing. The great unwashed can't be trusted to vote properly so important decisions must be taken by the political elite. Well - so much for democracy. And that is the EU - anti-democratic and elitist. And that is why I, for one, would vote it out of existence. That doesn't mean I'm against a europe of the people - that's the EU's job.

It's not being elitist, it's fact. A referendum on Lisbon would be effectively turned into a vote on something completely different by the Tories and by the media - and that's no basis on which to make a decision.

TLJ wrote:

"It's not being elitist, it's fact. A referendum on Lisbon would be effectively turned into a vote on something completely different by the Tories and by the media - and that's no basis on which to make a decision.'

I agree. Nevertheless a decision will be taken - by the political elite. I have no doubt that the requirement that all 27 member states ratify this treaty will be ignored and Lisbon will be implemented.

Having failed to make their case, and convince the population of the merits of further integration, the people will be ignored, and the elite will make the decisions.

EU = Elitist Ubermensch

scunnert wrote:
TLJ wrote:

"It's not being elitist, it's fact. A referendum on Lisbon would be effectively turned into a vote on something completely different by the Tories and by the media - and that's no basis on which to make a decision.'

I agree. Nevertheless a decision will be taken - by the political elite.

That's exactly the power that we invest in them ! They are supposed to make decisions on our behalf.

TLJ et al:

Whether this constitution or treaty (whichever it may really be) is a good or a bad piece of legislation is, in this particular case, irrelevant!

Those who say the treaty has been rejected by only 1% of the EU are looking at this question through the wrong end of the telescope. I suggest that in truth this treaty is being FORCED through by a small group of people comprising Politicians and unelected Bureaucrats. This is the action of a dictatorship!!

This treaty has far reaching effects on every individual in the nations of the European Community and it will be irreversible. There is already legislation in the making to ban any Political Party that opposes the EU; thereby denying legitimate political and democratic dissent. Is this not to emulate the old Soviet Union? Are we heading for the single Party State?

If these Politicians are so sure this treaty is essential and beneficial to the Community then it is in their interest and indeed their duty to explain – in detail and in simple language – the benefits and the deficits of the treaty. Having done so; they must then seek the approval of the people. If they are so sure it is in the people’s interest as opposed to being in the interest of the inner sanctum of a small coterie of politicians and unelected bureaucrats, what are they afraid of?

Politicians hold their authority in trust for the people not to abuse the people. This treaty needs to be approved by a majority of European citizens if it is ever to be considered a decided matter. Failure to obtain the consent of the people will result in the near future of an implosion of the EU with, I fear, significant bloodshed.

This union will be like that of the Union of Parliaments in the UK. This was forced on the Scotland, without the agreement of the people and even after 300 years it is still resented and that resentment is growing and so it will be if this is forced through without the approval of the people.

Whilst I have struggled to read and study the complex and boring document, I have, deliberately, not indicated if I favour or not this treaty. That is an entirely different argument which has no part in this argument about the denial of the democratic process.

The problem I have with the whole EU caper is that I seem to have less and less say in what I'm allowed to do.
I remeber in the sixties when we wanted to join the Common Market (as it was called then) and France said Non! but it never stopped us from trading with all these other countries.
As I remeber, it was to allow easier trade between countrties but I don't see that has happened. For instance, we're all supposed to have freedom of access to all member states facilities, ie we're supposed to be able to work anywhere withinn the EU ...Try it!...

We're supposed to have the same duty free allowance? .... try it....
and that's just the first two that spring to mind.

I've been against the EU ever since they decided to have a European Parliament.
When did they ask for my opinion on that or ask me to vote on whether I wanted a new layer of Government?
It was imposed on me.

I agree that we're being dictated to. It seems that no matter what we vote for, it'll be shuffled around until it suits whoever's trying to push it.I read the other day that Mugabe's troops are forcing people to re-vote cos they voted " the wrong way".
Different tactics to Brussels but with the same outcome....????


In 1939 we went to war with Germany cos they wanted a United Europe under their control.

Hmmm. What do we have now?
A United Europe controlled by the Bundesbank........

TLJ wrote:
scunnert wrote:
TLJ wrote:
scunnert wrote:


Many people are under the impression that the E.U. already exists - it doesn't.

The Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty)

I: COMMON PROVISIONS

Article A

By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called ‘the Union’.

Now I am confused! Why then does the opening article in the Lisbon Treaty state:
'Article 1 [1] Establishment of the Union
By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called ‘the Union’ on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common. '?

I suspect that you're reading the consolidated version. Remember that the Govt's argument against a referendum was that Lisbon is an amending Treaty - ie,
it modifies existing ones - whereas the Constitution effectively replaced the existing Treaties with a single document.Thanks TLJ for your comments and to the others who have contributed a variety of interesting reading.
My problem in considering voting for the Treaty, is that how would this affect us in Scotland as a future independent country in the EU?