Eu To Run Uk Economy From Brussels

[bogbrush]

sigh :facepalm:

the people voted on including the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, the Amendment means we sign-up to Lisbon and replace the older Nice and other treaties

by voting YES the amendment was added

now if the likes of Sinn Fein gains power or a supreme court ruling occurs

then a referendum to remove the 28th amendment can be called

so last years "YES" vote to the 28th amendment can be reversed

in another referendum

(mind you by reversing them amendment we legally leave the EU)

Yeah, but I'm sure it would be good to put the question back to the people every few years, y'know, so it's all democratic and the like.

I mean, if voting for allegedly reformed terrorists is the only route to looking again at that choice it doesn't really look all that free does it?

I know, :facepalm: to the demands for choice. Bloody idiots aren't they?

[Woot]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/161609/EU-chief-vows-to-run-our-economy-from-Brussels

EU CHIEF VOWS TO RUN OUR ECONOMY FROM BRUSSELS

By Martyn Brown

Mr Barroso unveiled plans to restore growth and said: “The economic crisis is worse than anyone imagined and increased economic inter-dependence demands a more determined response and makes the case for stronger economic governance in the EU.

“Now we have the Lisbon Treaty, which provides for (economic) policy...warnings. The Commission intends to use these powers to the full.”

He obviously didn't come to HPC then, did he.

[sun n sea]

The main difference....

First vote... Irish economy doing OK

Second vote.... Irish economy in the $hitter and in desperate need of EU funds.

[Ruffneck]

read my above post

if an anti Lisbon party comes into power, and/or theres popular suport and clamour from the people, and/or a court rulling is made

then yes another referendum on whether to reverse Lisbon (28th ammendment) can be held

thats how democracy is structured here in Ireland

and yes we can amend/change the constitution to put in a time limit as you propose

or for that matter remove the clause forcing referendums to be held

both of above would require the opinion and will of the people via a referendum as set-out in the constitution

you might be cynical about the whole thing, but at least we have a constitution and a republican of democracy, thats more than the UK has

/

there will not be another vote on lisbon in ireland

get over it

the EU goons kicked up a big enough fuss over the first no response as it is

[yelims]

Just the one, then? Hardly seems fair

yes just the one because it would mean dropping/removing that part of the constitution

once something is removed, thats it

then next referendum after that would have to be about adding it and we come along a full circle

the question on Lisbon 1 was very simple:

do you want to add XYZ to the constitution?

NO result, constitution was not amended

the question on Lisbon 2 was:

do you want to add XYZ to the constitution AND legal guarantees and changes to accommodate the concerns of the people?

YES result, constitution is amended

now as I said its quite possible to have a third referendum on the subject but it will have to be worded like this

do you want to remove XYZ from the constitution?

a YES would mean we remove the Lisbon changes (28th amendment), and defectively drop out of the EU

an NO would mean Lisbon stays (28th)

sigh its hard to explain how referendums and changes to constitution work to people who come from a country with no constitution and still have a monarch and hereditary "lords" in power

[yelims]

there will not be another vote on lisbon in ireland

get over it

the EU goons kicked up a big enough fuss over the first no response as it is

you dont know what you talking about so STFU and go back into your corner

im after explaining that theres nothing preventing another referendum on the subject being called

stop being thick and go back to reading your trashbloids

some of us are trying to have a decent and interesting conversations on constitutions, EU and direct democracy

ive no time to entertain conspiracy theories or your cynicism

Edited March 6, 2010 by yelims

[bogbrush]

sigh its hard to explain how referendums and changes to constitution work to people who come from a country with no constitution and still have a monarch and hereditary "lords" in power

It's pretty hard explaining the choice to someone from a country that only has a functioning economy by the grace of its neighbours.

[yelims]

It's pretty hard explaining the choice to someone from a country that only has a functioning economy by the grace of its neighbours.

yes and your economy is chugging along great too

we opted in to become a member of the EUROzone, hence the printing presses moved from Dublin to ECB

and in hindsight that was the best decision this country ever made, i dread to imagine the printing spree our incapable politicians would have attempted, as is happening in UK now with the currency being made worthless by the day

as a business owner im happy that the economy is tied to the more sensible Germans and French and that my savings and work is not being devalued for political gain of a few

the euro like a modern day "gold standard" is forcing the politicians to be responsible with the economy and balance the books, as I said earlier in thread that's exactly what UK will have to do one way or the other soon

.

Edited March 6, 2010 by yelims

[southmartin]

then leave the EU

Lisbon sets out exactly how a state can leave, something that wasnt there before

the clause was added by UK and Irish negotiators btw

no one is holding a gun to UKs head and telling them to stay in EU, leave, go, vamoose

well, apart from the leaders of our political parties of course!

oh, and the Queen, who's tarnished her reign by giving Royal Ascent to it

But as far as the rest of the population goes, Yes - we want out

[yellerkat]

well, apart from the leaders of our political parties of course!

oh, and the Queen, who's tarnished her reign by giving Royal Ascent to it

But as far as the rest of the population goes, Yes - we want out

As in the massive 2.32% UKIP share of the popular vote in 2005?

I think you may have some work to do.

[bogbrush]

yes and your economy is chugging along great too

we opted in to become a member of the EUROzone, hence the printing presses moved from Dublin to ECB

and in hindsight that was the best decision this country ever made, i dread to imagine the printing spree our incapable politicians would have attempted, as is happening in UK now with the currency being made worthless by the day

as a business owner im happy that the economy is tied to the more sensible Germans and French and that my savings and work is not being devalued for political gain of a few

.

This isn't a debate about economic policy, it's about political choice. I'm merely saying that the choice for the Irish was similar to the one where the homeless get to vote on whether the Salvation Army carry on providing free soup. It's a distortion of democracy to suggest that it is ok to get a vote until you say yes, then will be given no further choice (as is the reality of the situation, as you well know).

As a business owner myself I despise the Socialists both in the UK and Brussels and limit my exposure to sterling whenever I can, but that's another argument entirely.

[yelims]

well, apart from the leaders of our political parties of course!

oh, and the Queen, who's tarnished her reign by giving Royal Ascent to it

But as far as the rest of the population goes, Yes - we want out

I understand and since you dont have a constitution that requires a referendum on such an important issue

the only hope is to vote the likes of UKIP in (some choice eh )

i mean if yee have a referendum on leaving the EU, then all great and good

what im trying to say is the underlying political system is highly undemocratic, yes you have a form of representational democracy but its a bit of a sham aint it?

Edited March 6, 2010 by yelims

[bogbrush]

As in the massive 2.32% UKIP share of the popular vote in 2005?

I think you may have some work to do.

I think you probably realise yourself what a stupid response that was.

[huw]

sigh its hard to explain how referendums and changes to constitution work to people who come from a country with no constitution and still have a monarch and hereditary "lords" in power

I'm not trying to find out how they work, I'm trying to look at how they can be made watertight. You are clearly not the right person to ask

[Pindar]

its shit like this that drives me up the wall

the sheer stupidity and ignorance of such a sentence makes you wonder

you keep reading your tabloid trash my friend, it would do you good

So in 1922 when the Irish Republic was established, I wonder if the inhabitants ever thought they would escape being a protectorate of the British only to end up being a protectorate of another with fewer voting rights and subordinate to the will of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels?

[southmartin]

As in the massive 2.32% UKIP share of the popular vote in 2005?

I think you may have some work to do.

2.32% was it in 2005 - that must make them the fastest growing party, seeing as they came 2nd in the Euro elections last year...

Now, If i remember rightly, the pary that won in 2005 had a manifesto commitment to put it to a referendum didn't it? Oh, and so did the party that came second too

Shall we add up the percentages of all those parties and see if that works out at more than 50% of the country wanting to have their say on it? I wonder what the answer would be...

[yelims]

I'm not trying to find out how they work, I'm trying to look at how they can be made watertight. You are clearly not the right person to ask

no no i understand now sorry please do go on your posts are good

in case of Ireland a referendum would have to be called in order to change the existing constitution

the amendment would be something like this:

do you want to amend the constitution of the Republic to include a time delay of XYZ between referenda?

YES || NO

--------------------

see very simple

now your making the mistake of thinking that both Lisbon referenda here were on the exact same issue, they werent

first one was on Lisbon

second one was on Lisbon AND Guarantees and Changes to address concerns brought up after first vote

there was a difference,

the UK tabloids of course never printed or mentioned the intricacies of what was going on here

so i could understand why you would be of the opinion you are

[yelims]

So in 1922 when the Irish Republic was established, I wonder if the inhabitants ever thought they would escape being a protectorate of the British

protectorate? thats what you call colonising and killing/driving away millions of its citizens :angry:

FFS

only to end up being a protectorate of another

Ireland is not a "protectorate" of EU but a full member, and yes we can leave if we want

with fewer voting rights

what voting rights exactly did we loose? if anything the Lisbon treaty sets in stone cornerstones of Irish state such as neutrality and our constitution, and puts in the principle of triple-lock when it comes to going to war

if the UK had the principle of triple-lock regarding military "excursions" you will not be involved in them quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan

subordinate to the will of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels?

which unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats ?

last I checked we directly vote in the MEPs into the European parliament

and the commission and the council consist of representatives of each country which were also elected

if anything the Lisbon 1 would have ensured that the number of commissioners would have been cut, but no we cant have that now

seriously @Pindar stop with you crap attempts, your only showing your ignorance and lack of knowledge of how the Irish state and the EU operate

as i said earlier in thread i dont have time to entertain conspiracy theories, i would like to believe that the people on this forum are more intelligent than that

oh and to answer your question, yes the founding fathers of this state would be delighted to see how far we have come

in 40 years of being a EU member we came along way when compared to the hundreds of years of being a British "subject" and colony

for that matter I hope any people of Scotland and Wales demand their independence from from Queen, yee be better on your own

/

Edited March 6, 2010 by yelims

[huw]

no no i understand now sorry please do go on your posts are good

in case of Ireland a referendum would have to be called in order to change the existing constitution

the amendment would be something like this:

do you want to amend the constitution of the Republic to include a time delay of XYZ between referenda?

YES || NO

--------------------

see very simple

now your making the mistake of thinking that both Lisbon referenda here were on the exact same issue, they werent

first one was on Lisbon

second one was on Lisbon AND Guarantees and Changes to address concerns brought up after first vote

there was a difference,

the UK tabloids of course never printed or mentioned the intricacies of what was going on here

so i could understand why you would be of the opinion you are

No, I understood that there was a change between the first and second referenda, to take account of voters' "concerns".

In my view those proposing a change should do their jobs, canvass what will be acceptable, and come up a best-and-final offer on day one. If voters have concerns it's easy to discover them, you just need to ask.

I suspect that the technocrats know that a "No" decision (on issues like Lisbon) will be shocking and a bit scary even to some of those who voted "No". Therefore a second referendum -- with sweeteners -- is more likely to deliver the desired outcome, than a first referendum with the sweeteners already incorporated.

This is constitutional/sovereign change we're talking about, not modular course-work.

Therefore I believe that a robust, referendum-based constitution needs to ensure that a single referendum (within a reasonable time period) is held on each substantive issue, and that the outcome should be binding.

[yelims]

I don't want out.

that's problem aint it? no easy way of having a referendum on the subject

And I agree with most of what Yelims says about the Queen, the Lords, the Orwellian nightmare we're building ourselves (largely in repsonse to IRA terrorism it has to be said).

well its always terrorism thats being used as an excuse to take away liberties, first its IRA now its Al Qaeda

And I'm not sure that Yelims is particularly good at winning friends and influencing people.

im not trying to influence anyone, im trying to have a political discussion on an interesting subject and trying to highlight that what you read in tabloids is usually very wrong

both countries are screwed for various reasons

One last thing, it has always made me laugh the lengths to which the Irish went to fight for 'independence' and come out of the £ sterling area creating their own currency...only for us a few years later to be merging back together probably witht the same currency. But hey ho, what goes round comes round. Just shows you what a waste of time blind Nationalism is.

yep having the punt pegged to the pound was a bad choice in hindsight

but joining the euro was a good choice looking back at last decade, without it Ireland would look like Iceland now but 10x worse

having own currency didnt prevent Iceland or for that matter UK from falling into the bubble, if anything having the ability to print on the whim of an incompetent politician is rather dangerous

[yelims]

In my view those proposing a change should do their jobs, canvass what will be acceptable, and come up a best-and-final offer on day one. If voters have concerns it's easy to discover them, you just need to ask.

there was a huge problem with first referendum

there was no canvassing or campaigning, the politicians took the referendum as an opportunity to further themselves in the local elections

very little effort was made to explain the issues, and that was a big failure by the independent referendum commission whose job is it to offer impartial information, they were asleep and didnt do their job

sadly alot of people voted out of ignorance, or on issues that had nothing to do with Lisbon

I suspect that the technocrats know that a "No" decision (on issues like Lisbon) will be shocking and a bit scary even to some of those who voted "No". Therefore a second referendum -- with sweeteners -- is more likely to deliver the desired outcome, than a first referendum with the sweeteners already incorporated.

as i said this aint the first time we had a double referendum, some people specifically voted NO in order to have the politicians go to EU and gain "sweeteners", its not that they were opposed to the treaty is that they wanted to see the politicians get a better deal for the country and stop ******ing around

This is constitutional/sovereign change we're talking about, not modular course-work.

a change that will have to come UK at one stage or the other, how can a claim to be made that the UK is a modern democracy when its anything but while the Queen is at the helm, and parts of the "union" want independence

Therefore I believe that a robust, referendum-based constitution needs to ensure that a single referendum (within a reasonable time period) is held on each substantive issue, and that the outcome should be binding.

yes if you were setting up a new constitution tomorrow that would be a reasonable clause in it

the Irish constitution could be changed to include a "delay" but that would require a referendum (or two )

anyways thanks for keeping this thread on course and not dragging conspiracies or wet dreams of EU domination into this

[huw]

I would have been much better off in Ireland as a net saver watching society fall apart around me ready, preparing myself to strike like a vulture. Might do it anyway.

Largely because your deposits would have been underwritten by Germany (via Irish bonds deposited by Irish banks as collateral at the ECB).

Would the same mechanisms have been sufficient to also support the UK's much larger economy and banking system?

Personally I doubt it -- the two countries are not comparable in this case.

[yelims]

The key difference right now to me is who is paying.

In the UK they've decided it is the savers.

In Ireland it is the indebted.

I would have been much better off in Ireland as a net saver watching society fall apart around me ready, preparing myself to strike like a vulture. Might do it anyway.

yes the indebted are paying for it (with no easy way out due to strict personal bankruptcy laws)

but the savers are also being screwed

for example i didnt fall for the property bubble but the government is bailing out banks and setting up NAMA by borrowing money at high interest in the name of all the taxpayers, money which i as a taxpayer would have to payback via taxes (39,000 euro and counting)

so there isnt an easy way out

but at least the Euro membership is forcing the government to address the problems of welfare (quadrupling in decade) and public spending (doubling in decade) growing out of control and balance the budget or at least put it on right track

Edited March 6, 2010 by yelims

[abharrisson]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/161609/EU-chief-vows-to-run-our-economy-from-Brussels

EU CHIEF VOWS TO RUN OUR ECONOMY FROM BRUSSELS

By Martyn Brown

EUROPE’S chief bureaucrat last night provoked fury after threatening to use the “full force” of the Lisbon Treaty to impose economic control over every EU nation.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso claimed that financial stability was so critical that sweeping new powers were needed for Eurocrats in Brussels to meddle in the economies of all EU members.

But his threat sparked an angry backlash from critics of an ever- growing Brussels bureaucracy.

It raised fears that the EU – under unelected new President Herman van Rompuy – is planning a power grab.

Timothy Kirkhope, the leader of Tory Euro MPs, said: “The idea of compulsory economic policies is deeply disturbing. It reflects a very old fashioned ‘command and control’ approach which does not solve problems of the 21st century.” Mats Persson, director of think-tank Open Europe, said: “Economic growth cannot be forced from the centre.

“The unelected Commission is seeking to gain power over one of the corefeatures of democratic politics, deciding how a country’s economy is run. This has no public support and runs the risk of being hijacked by narrow political interests.”

Mr Barroso unveiled plans to restore growth and said: “The economic crisis is worse than anyone imagined and increased economic inter-dependence demands a more determined response and makes the case for stronger economic governance in the EU.

“Now we have the Lisbon Treaty, which provides for (economic) policy...warnings. The Commission intends to use these powers to the full.”

My how I wish we had just stuck on the sidelines within an EEA grouping... bit like the old common market.

[huw]

how can a claim to be made that the UK is a modern democracy when its anything but while the Queen is at the helm, and parts of the "union" want independence

There's a debate to be had about whether our constitutional monarchy should change, but I don't think the underlying problems with our democracy/society/economy come from the way we choose our head of state -- there are plenty of reforms higher up the priority list.

FWIW I've got no objections to having a hereditary head-of-state, particularly when you compare with some of the clowns that get elected (here and elsewhere). The thing that bothers me most about it is that I don't think it's fair on the poor sucker born to that role...