The Irish say NO to gobbledygook

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Europe: The Irish had the nerve to vote "no" on the 287 pages of gobbledygook called the Lisbon Treaty. But fanatical Eurocrats, eager to take what's left of sovereignty from Europe's nations, won't let democracy stop them.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...298251269583261

[Maggie Hansen]

Europe: The Irish had the nerve to vote "no" on the 287 pages of gobbledygook called the Lisbon Treaty. But fanatical Eurocrats, eager to take what's left of sovereignty from Europe's nations, won't let democracy stop them.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...298251269583261

Yes, that is very interesting, It is all over the London Times this morning.

Why did the Irish get the oportunity for a vote? Have others had the opportunity?

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Europe: The Irish had the nerve to vote "no" on the 287 pages of gobbledygook called the Lisbon Treaty. But fanatical Eurocrats, eager to take what's left of sovereignty from Europe's nations, won't let democracy stop them.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...298251269583261

Yes, that is very interesting, It is all over the London Times this morning.

Why did the Irish get the oportunity for a vote? Have others had the opportunity?

I think that any change to The Constitution of Ireland demands a vote. The Lisbon treaty would be deemed to change that constitution. Most of the other countries will merely ratify the treaty. The Irish had made many amendments to make it suitable such as parts affecting neutrality, farming trade, abortion laws etc.

Perhaps all the local political corruption etc. of recent times has made people reticent to believe their elected officials. Shocking

Just read Ray's article. Good stuff.

Edited June 14, 2008 by Gary Loughran

[Maggie Hansen]

Thanks Gary,

I didn't realise that Irish women still needed to go to Britain for their abortions.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'd like to think that. However, in truth, I suspect the Irish said "NO" because their economy is in recession and the ECB isn't helping.

Article 1 of the CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND:

The Irish nation hereby affirms its INALIENABLE, INDEFEASIBLE, and SOVEREIGN right to choose its own form of government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions.

Recessions come and go, but NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, paid for in centuries of sacrifice and martydom, is not for sale.

The Lisbon NO vote reaffirmed that, for those who did not know.

The people of France and Holland feel the same about THEIR sovereignty, as witnessed by plebiscites a few years ago when they rejected essentially the same treaty under a different name.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

the evidence we have of the rationale of those who voted "No" suggests individual, idiosyncratic bugbears and total distrust of the political establishment, rather than national sovereignty, was their major motivation.

When I was growing up in Ireland my parents often told me that PAPER NEVER REFUSED INK. A critical reading of any newspaper, anywhere, any day, will demonstrate the truth of that venerable proverb.

Article 1 of the CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND was not written in INK; it was written in BLOOD.

Isn't it funny that you seem to have a different argument every time you give your explanation of this vote?

Edited June 14, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

On the other hand, you, Mr J Raymond Carroll, seem entirely certain why the Irish people voted as they did.

This was a referendum to AMEND the CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND.

Although you seem to be hold yourself out as an authority on the Constitution and why the people vote for its amendment or reaffirmation, I'll make a small wager that you've never even read it.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I don't hold myself out as an authority on the question of the Constitution of Ireland and, indeed, you would win that wager.

OK, now you owe me a pint.

Perhaps, in some ultimate fashion, all these reasons can be distilled down to National Sovereignty. Perhaps not.

It is all explained in the the latest album from THE POGUES

http://store.milesofmusic.com/56674.html

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Happy to buy you that pint - especially if it's Guinness....

Thanks, but you'll have to get in line. I hear the Europeans, especially the Dutch, are so delighted with the NO vote that Irish visitors do not have to pay for drinks.

[Dave Greer]

Well I'm glad you two finally kissed and made up.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Irish people for doing what I was denied the opportunity to do by our incumbent Government (I'm doing Brown an injustice: it was Blair who recanted his promise of a referendum). Thank you.

Where does this leave the EU Treaty? How can the British Government, indeed any government, possibly still push ahead with ratification, given that it requires the full consent of ALL member states? When will the people we elect to govern realise that they are in power to represent the will of the people who put them there, not to write themselves into history?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

When will the people we elect to govern realise that they are in power to represent the will of the people who put them there, not to write themselves into history?

Many centuries ago, Irish monks saved Europe from itself by preserving the moral and intellectual foundations of civilization. Unfortunately, the continental powers are unlikely to let the Irish save Europe from itself a second time.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...298251269583261

As Cardinal Newman faithfully records, the first Irish reformation of Europe was accomplished with British help. We now need Conservative Monarchists to stand behind Gerry Adams and force a referendum in the U.K. so the world can see what the Isles of the North really think about this New European Juggernaut.

The Isles of the North, by John Henry Newman

High up in the North, above the continent of Europe, lay two sister islands, ample in size, happy in soil and climate, and beautiful in the face of the country. Alas! that the passions of man should alienate from one another, those whom nature and religion had bound together!

So far away were they from foreign foes, that one of them the barbarians had never reached, and though a solitary wave of their invasion has passed over the other, it was not destined to be followed by a second for some centuries. In those days the larger of the two was called Britannia, the lesser Hibernia.

The latter was then the seat of a flourishing Church, abounding in the fruits of sanctity, learning, and zeal; the former, at least its southern half, had formed part of the Empire, had partaken both of its civilization and its Christianity, but had lately been occupied, with the extermination {124} of its population, by the right wing of the great barbaric host which was overrunning Europe.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/historic.../chapter10.html

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Here it is, the Lisbon Treaty.

I liked the beginning, which is brimful of good intentions.

Of course good intentions are said to pave THE ROAD TO HELL.

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en...t06655.en08.pdf

[Guest David Guyatt]

Well I'm glad you two finally kissed and made up.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Irish people for doing what I was denied the opportunity to do by our incumbent Government (I'm doing Brown an injustice: it was Blair who recanted his promise of a referendum). Thank you.

Where does this leave the EU Treaty? How can the British Government, indeed any government, possibly still push ahead with ratification, given that it requires the full consent of ALL member states? When will the people we elect to govern realise that they are in power to represent the will of the people who put them there, not to write themselves into history?

The cynic might look at the words "full consent of ALL member states" and wonder exactly what that means? Does it mean the informed consent of the people of those members states... or does it mean the consent of Parliament of those member states... or does it mean the consent of the ruling government of those member states? Dunno.

As far as Blighty is concerned I imagine that the consent of the prime minister is all that is needed, since we live in an "elective dictatorship" as defined by Lord Hailsham, Master of the Rolls.

I would like to think that the Irish NO vote finally puts the matter to rest, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it won't - that some witch spinning will take place. This suspicion, which I hope is wrong, is predicated on the view that those who have put all those decades and such effort in to birthing the United States of Europe will not be stopped by "local difficulties".

[J. Raymond Carroll]

those who have put all those decades and such effort in to birthing the United States of Europe will not be stopped by "local difficulties".

The Lisbon treaty promises a deep commitment to the Rule Of Law.

The law says the treaty cannot be enacted without the consent of ALL members.

One member decides not to consent

The Premier of France then says the treaty will go ahead anyway

So the Rule of Law is an illusion.

[Guest David Guyatt]

those who have put all those decades and such effort in to birthing the United States of Europe will not be stopped by "local difficulties".

The Lisbon treaty promises a deep commitment to the Rule Of Law.

The law says the treaty cannot be enacted without the consent of ALL members.

One member decides not to consent

The Premier of France then says the treaty will go ahead anyway

So the Rule of Law is an illusion.

That sadly, is the only conclusion that can be logically concluded.

The "Rule of Law" is effortlessly transposed to the "Law of Rule" by those who will have their way no matter what.

Democracy has also become an illusion.

I wish it were not so and, like you, have enough years tucked into my belt to remember when it wasn't entirely this way.