A spokesman of Sarkozy's party is saying that the Irish re-vote or they are tied judicially to the treaty - others in France are saying the Treaty is dead (Lara Marlowe, RTE).

Looks as though the French Presidency will be interesting.

cactus flower wrote:

A spokesman of Sarkozy's party is saying that the Irish re-vote or they are tied judicially to the treaty - others in France are saying the Treaty is dead (Lara Marlowe, RTE).

Looks as though the French Presidency will be interesting.

The French Presidency has been stopped before it began. The Lisbon Treaty is gone now, that means that they cannot proceed and must deal with the aftermath, the French Presidency will be a litter-picking exercise, nothing of substance can be achieved against the back-drop of a rejected Lisbon.

Sarkozy himself is a weak figure with a high unpopularity rating and a weak(and weakening) economy over which to preside. He also has a difficult working relationship with the Angela Merkel, the Queen of Europe.

This presidency will not be one to remember.

There are rooms full of backed up legislation and deals that were all waiting to go through on the back of Lisbon, including, the rejoining of NATO by France.

Brace yourselves for a bumpy ride

cactus flower wrote:

There are rooms full of backed up legislation and deals that were all waiting to go through on the back of Lisbon, including, the rejoining of NATO by France.

Yeah, but they're unworkable in the face of a Lisbon rejection by Ireland.

cactus flower wrote:

There are rooms full of backed up legislation and deals that were all waiting to go through on the back of Lisbon, including, the rejoining of NATO by France.

Brace yourselves for a bumpy ride

Why the fuck are yis all so freaked out about the Frogs! - whenever they are the "presidents of Europe" there is a massive fluster - tons of bluster during the the six months - and in the end Riccki lake would get more closure on anything they propose -ie Fuck all.

Edo's guide to the french presidency

Great food
great sex - from personal experience
great art and culture and they know when you are bored and they reintroduce the great sex again

Vive la France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

I'm not sure that you're both talking about the same kind of bumpy ride.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

There are rooms full of backed up legislation and deals that were all waiting to go through on the back of Lisbon, including, the rejoining of NATO by France.

Yeah, but they're unworkable in the face of a Lisbon rejection by Ireland.

That seems to be the legal position, Ard Taoiseach, but the bumpy ride has begun with Angela and Nicholas telling us to drift off into the Atlantic. I am bracing myself up for a fight. Sleeves are rolled up, I'm heading off to the Euroforums to tell them that we are not to be trifled with in this way.

cactus flower wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

There are rooms full of backed up legislation and deals that were all waiting to go through on the back of Lisbon, including, the rejoining of NATO by France.

Yeah, but they're unworkable in the face of a Lisbon rejection by Ireland.

That seems to be the legal position, Ard Taoiseach, but the bumpy ride has begun with Angela and Nicholas telling us to drift off into the Atlantic. I am bracing myself up for a fight. Sleeves are rolled up, I'm heading off to the Euroforums to tell them that we are not to be trifled with in this way.

If the EU tells us to f off, we should form a new alliance of nations. If this is how we are to be treated by our European "colleagues", then I am glad that the Lisbon Treaty has been rejected and has upset their plans. If they ignore our result and we fail to get them to respect our result, then we should withdraw and ally with Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Norway, Switzerland and other nations which are respectful of our wishes.

We fought for our freedom from the odious British Empire, we should not submit to a new Franco-German Empire, which is what the EU could turn into with France and Germany riding rough-shod over our referendum result.

We're getting our pikes out of the garage and de-rusting them, Ard Taoiseach.

Don't they need 27 votes to ratify the Treaty. Will Cowen go and vote in a Treaty that we voted against?

cactus flower wrote:

We're getting our pikes out of the garage and de-rusting them, Ard Taoiseach.

Good stuff, I feel we'll need to be on our guard while the storm blows across Europe.

Quote :

Don't they need 27 votes to ratify the Treaty. Will Cowen go and vote in a Treaty that we voted against?

They do and he shouldn't. Eamon Gilmore is right in saying the Lisbon Treaty si dead.

I've been reading the 98 comments on the Economist article and they're about 60% in favour, 20% neither here nor there and 20% against. Some of them want us thrown out of the EU over this. Honestly, this is what sickens me, are we supposed to say Yes to every thing which comes out of Brussels? Are we supposed to be pliant, un-critical adopters of every European exhalation? Why should we be thrown out simply for saying No? In a relationship, no is sometimes wiser than Yes.

If you follow the logic of some of those anti-democrats then the EU would fast be denuded of members.

Edo wrote:

Great food
great sex...
great art and culture...
the great sex again

A man with such values cannot be fundamentally evil.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

I've been reading the 98 comments on the Economist article and they're about 60% in favour, 20% neither here nor there and 20% against. Some of them want us thrown out of the EU over this. Honestly, this is what sickens me, are we supposed to say Yes to every thing which comes out of Brussels? Are we supposed to be pliant, un-critical adopters of every European exhalation? Why should we be thrown out simply for saying No? In a relationship, no is sometimes wiser than Yes.

If you follow the logic of some of those anti-democrats then the EU would fast be denuded of members.

Exactly Ard-Taoiseach, these posturings are totalitarianism - they show nothing but contempt for Democracy, Law and Consensus whatever is left of any of those. It was big fcuking mistake and now they don't fancy looking at turning it around so they'll just lamp us with it.

Em, who writes comments on Economist articles? Of what nationality - predominantly, and of what political persuasion?

Kate P wrote:

Em, who writes comments on Economist articles? Of what nationality - predominantly, and of what political persuasion?

I cannot tell you. None of their articles(except the first one in any special report/section and in tiny writing in their "World in..." annuals) carry by-lines. I can estimate that a significant minority are white English men who traditionally vote Conservative.

What weight can we put on those opinions - as writers or as comment writers?

Kate P wrote:

What weight can we put on those opinions - as writers or as comment writers?

Eh...well, those commenters are readers of the Economist like me. They are not necessarily representative of those who write for the magazine.

On the journalists themselves, they do tend to lay into leftist types. Hugo Chavez is a particular figure of scorn in the Economist while right-of-centre Alvaro Uribe of Colombia is lauded(I'd cautiously share these views, tbh)Furthermore, the magazine, through its ostensibly opinion pieces of Bagehot, Charlemagne and Lexington lets its world view out. The Charlemagne and Bagehot columns are largely typical of the old Conservative firmament of opinion regarding Europe while Lexington would, imo, represent old-style Republicanism. I'm talking Nixonian, Fordian Republicanism here.

Therefore, we can attach a significant weight to what the actual articles say, but safely ignore people like Paul Goerensson who are merely keyboard corporals.

I'm just wondering why you're so exercised about the 98 comments - I'm not an Economist reader, never having woken in the middle of the night with a hankering for Nixonian, Fordian Republicanism.

Kate P wrote:

I'm just wondering why you're so exercised about the 98 comments - I'm not an Economist reader, never having woken in the middle of the night with a hankering for Nixonian, Fordian Republicanism.

Well, I'm in a state of some emotional turmoil these days after Lisbon, so I may be expressing things in stronger terms than I otherwise would. The haughty tones of these Europeans just rubbed me up the wrong way and I was giving vent to these feelings.

Can someone explain to me why the French got a vote on the Constitution and not on Lisbon. Is it simply the downgrading from a Constitution to a Treaty that allowed this ?
My thought process keeps stumbling on this one.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Can someone explain to me why the French got a vote on the Constitution and not on Lisbon. Is it simply the downgrading from a Constitution to a Treaty that allowed this ?
My thought process keeps stumbling on this one.

One of the pieces of information that contributed to me voting No was the rumour that their Constitutional requirements for a second referendum were bypassed by a simple renaming of the Constitution to 'Treaty'.

Can anyone please dispel this rumour?

The more I think about this, the more concerned I'm getting Audi.

We nerds on the internet are only getting around to asking these questions now, imagine the confusion of people who have no interest in politics but want to do their duty by voting but have niggling doubts put in their heads justly or unjustly by figures in the media or whereever...

This thing was finally cobbled together in January and then people were supposed to make an informed decision on it in months while simulataneously working, rearing children, following other trials and Tribunalations of other characters etc.

Too much to expect in too little time which is simply stuffing it down people's throats in my mind. I don't like the sense of disregard for ordinary people that I get from it

(although the RefCom handbook was admirable when looked at)

Auditor #9 wrote:

We nerds on the internet are only getting around to asking these questions now, imagine the confusion of people who have no interest in politics but want to do their duty by voting but have niggling doubts put in their heads justly or unjustly by figures in the media or whereever...

I feel that Bertie Ahern, the master strategist and with a keen sense of electoral trends, knew this and that's why he resigned to let Brian Cowen take the flak for the inevitable rejection of the Treaty.

Perhaps if this Treaty was voted on on November 12th of this year, rather than June, would there have been a rejection? The Yes side could have got its act together by then.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Can someone explain to me why the French got a vote on the Constitution and not on Lisbon. Is it simply the downgrading from a Constitution to a Treaty that allowed this ?

It is relatively simple. The French voted No in 2005, and held a presidential election in 2007. Candidate M. Sarkozy promised a "simplified treaty" or "mini-treaty", with a more readable text, and removing all issues that did not create consensus.

As soon as he was elected, he came up not with a new treaty but with the constitution again. He also held meetings insisting that referendums should be organized nowhere, because the result would be a No in most countries.

From the formal point of view, the changing of a few phrases made the text a new treaty, liable to be ratified by parliament. If it had been possible, a referendum would not have taken place in Ireland either.

Auditor wrote:

One of the pieces of information that contributed to me voting No was the rumour that their Constitutional requirements for a second referendum were bypassed by a simple renaming of the Constitution to 'Treaty'.

You are right. This is way some Brussels officials are now proposing to bring back the constitution (again), by hiding it in the next accession treaty for Croatia.