Explain?
All very good points, but then again I can't stand Switzerland (as a political entity)so you're pushing an open door with me on that oneEven though I am a fan of the aims of the EU, I will be voting NO on this treaty. My reasons include the following:
1. There is a huge democratic deficit in the EU. This treaty does not address this and in fact solidifies some undemocratic principals. I know the current EU has a democratic deficit, but this should be solved before we move the EU project forward. This does not seem to be a big deal in many EU countries, mainly because many are not that long out of dictatorship and some even have unelected heads of state.
2. It is pushing ahead with new stuff when many of the existing EU countries (and those beyond) are not up to speed with the current stuff. All countries should have the EU currency. All should have free movement. All should be in Shengen. Those countries such as Norway & Switzerland who have benefits of freedom of movement & trade, yet none of the responsibilities and liabilities of EU membership should be told to either join the club or be on the outside - not a halfway house. We cannot have a pick and chose the bits you like type of EU membership. Everyone should accept the good and the bad on the basis that the overall package is good.
3. Interpretation points made on this forum are good. I've read the treaty and the english used is very bad and easily misinterpreted.
4. Language. Following on from 3. above. The EU needs to accept that it should only operate in 1 language - English. Otherwise we have the babels tower of misinterpretation etc. The big barrier to this is France. They must accept that the world does not revolve around them and nobody is interested in speaking French in the EU. The rest of the EU needs to tell them where to go with regard to bilingualism.
Even though I am a fan of the aims of the EU, I will be voting NO on this treaty. My reasons include the following:
1. There is a huge democratic deficit in the EU. This treaty does not address this and in fact solidifies some undemocratic principals. I know the current EU has a democratic deficit, but this should be solved before we move the EU project forward. This does not seem to be a big deal in many EU countries, mainly because many are not that long out of dictatorship and some even have unelected heads of state.
.
We have a representative democracy for a reason. I don’t have the time, inclination or skills to make myself aware of legislation going through the Dail so I pay politicians to represent me in the chamber and vote on my behalf. If I don’t think they are voting in a way that is in line with my views I vote for someone else in the next election. There is no way that 95% of the people who vote on the Lisbon treaty will have a comprehensive grasp of the issues involved. Therefore they will vote from a position of ignorance. I think that this is not a good thing.
I believe it was the British government who decided to keep us out - Ireland merely wished to keep the existing arrangements with Britain and Northern Ireland where no passports were required and that was believed to be more important joining Shengen.P.S. I agree we should be in Shengen - but it was our own government who decided to keep us out.
And that's where we fail. Following the UK for the sake of not upsetting the northerners.Ireland merely wished to keep the existing arrangements with Britain and Northern Ireland where no passports were required and that was believed to be more important joining Shengen.
Even though I am a fan of the aims of the EU, I will be voting NO on this treaty. My reasons include the following:
1. There is a huge democratic deficit in the EU. This treaty does not address this and in fact solidifies some undemocratic principals. I know the current EU has a democratic deficit, but this should be solved before we move the EU project forward.
If we had that we’d have a de-facto federal EU. Broadly speaking I’m in favour of this but I strongly suspect that I am in the minority on this.If I were reforming the EU and making it more democratically accountable, I think that I'd totally abolish the Commission and put in place a 2 chamber parliament. The lower chamber would be directly elected by proportional representation with each EU citizens vote carrying equal weight. I would have no more than a 2 or 3 hundred MEP rather than the cumbersome number we have now. The upper house, would help protect the individual identities of the member states, could be like the US Senate - have 2 Senators per EU country. You'd have a proper double lock system whereby for a law to pass you'd need a majority of the MEPs and a majority of the Senators.
Who produced this interpretation? The Irish Government or the EU commission?
If we had that we’d have a de-facto federal EU. Broadly speaking I’m in favour of this but I strongly suspect that I am in the minority on this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?