(a) There was no good reason to vote against Lisbon (b) Now that it has been voted against, it cannot be ratified.
I'm in favour of an EU army. Since there's no European consensus on foreign policy, it could not attack, and would merely be defensive. In which case, there'd be no problem with Ireland taking part (we are already in UN peacekeeping missions.)
What relevance does America's stance on Lisbon have? Fuck America's stance. I'm not sure why that was even a part of your argument.
Your idea about EU-wide referendums is great, but I'd imagine there would be legal and constitutional blocks to a move such as this.
(a) Yes there was, just because we've been able to use the EU as an infrastructural cash cow for the last few decades, does not mean that it is ideologically perfect, or that we should just blindly follow the money. I would never vote for a treaty that is able to modify itself without re-ratification.
(b) This is true, but there is definately going to be pressure brought to bear on us to have another election, especially if all the other member states decide to ratify the treaty themselves.
America's stance proves that Lisbon is a step towards making Europe a single military bloc, something the yes campaign vigorously denied.
No one assembles an army and then declines to use it, an EU army would be deployed and used in Combat situations, and that can only lead to dead soldiers on both sides which is never a good thing.
I don't think the reason to Vote Yes was because of infrastructural cash, which every EU country gets in any case. Also most infrastructural spending in Ireland has occurred since the beginning of this decade, but our EU priority funding ran out in 2004, meaning that there was only a 4 year period in our 35-year history of EU membership where we were drawing down a lot of funds. In any case, you don't vote yes because of funding, you do so if you agree ideologically with the question you're being asked.
I am in favour of the EU being a single military bloc, as it would prevent another Balkans when we had to have the Americans coming over (like in WW2) to sort out our conflicts. This type of thing just encourages Americans to act like they're the world's police, an attitude that should not be encouraged.
The army could be assembled and "used" without military aggression having to be a part of it. The UN has soldiers at its disposal but they are defensive only, so there's a precedent.
Comments 3
(a) There was no good reason to vote against Lisbon
(b) Now that it has been voted against, it cannot be ratified.
I'm in favour of an EU army. Since there's no European consensus on foreign policy, it could not attack, and would merely be defensive. In which case, there'd be no problem with Ireland taking part (we are already in UN peacekeeping missions.)
What relevance does America's stance on Lisbon have? Fuck America's stance. I'm not sure why that was even a part of your argument.
Your idea about EU-wide referendums is great, but I'd imagine there would be legal and constitutional blocks to a move such as this.
Reply
(a) Yes there was, just because we've been able to use the EU as an infrastructural cash cow for the last few decades, does not mean that it is ideologically perfect, or that we should just blindly follow the money. I would never vote for a treaty that is able to modify itself without re-ratification.
(b) This is true, but there is definately going to be pressure brought to bear on us to have another election, especially if all the other member states decide to ratify the treaty themselves.
America's stance proves that Lisbon is a step towards making Europe a single military bloc, something the yes campaign vigorously denied.
No one assembles an army and then declines to use it, an EU army would be deployed and used in Combat situations, and that can only lead to dead soldiers on both sides which is never a good thing.
Reply
I am in favour of the EU being a single military bloc, as it would prevent another Balkans when we had to have the Americans coming over (like in WW2) to sort out our conflicts. This type of thing just encourages Americans to act like they're the world's police, an attitude that should not be encouraged.
The army could be assembled and "used" without military aggression having to be a part of it. The UN has soldiers at its disposal but they are defensive only, so there's a precedent.
Reply
Leave a comment