The Lisbon Treaty thread (2 Viewers)

[flashback]

EU Population: 497,198,740

Irish Voters: 1,614,866
Irish Voters as % Of Total Population: 0.32%

No Voters: 862,415
No Voters as % Of Total Population: 0.17%

Number of votes for G.W. Bush : 50,456,002 (47.87%)
Number of votes for Al Gore : 50,999,897 (48.38%)

Number of votes ignored in Florida : > 60,000
Of which were for Gore : > 46,000.
Number of votes Bush "won" Florida : 537.


Democracy : the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group.

 

[mel gibson]

that'd be deadly. Back to these

way better than poxy europes that aren't worth shite

great,only you'd have to check about three wallets to find one of the fuckers cause we'd be piss-poor again!

 

[flashback]

Those pound notes were only marginally smaller than A4 pieces of paper.
Everyone had wallets like Manila folders.

 

[shower another shower]

Rothschild and Rockefeller are gonna make the Irish pay in a big way.
First to internment when the shit comes down.
Well done, though!

 

[hugh]

No more. That's Old Europe. New Europe is all about Privatisation of the health services amongst other things. The "neo-liberal" agenda.

When exactly did Old Europe turn into New Europe?

 

[Space]

When exactly did Old Europe turn into New Europe?

1988?

 

[lympog]

When exactly did Old Europe turn into New Europe?

january 3rd - it was in all the papers

 

[ann post]

i'm so sick of these cat things. stupid.

 

[Goff]

When exactly did Old Europe turn into New Europe?

2001. You should read Shock Doctrine.

 

[hugh]

2001. You should read Shock Doctrine.

Oh right, are we back to this thing about America attacking itself again? The Jim Corr stuff?

 

[Umfufu]

Number of votes for G.W. Bush : 50,456,002 (47.87%)
Number of votes for Al Gore : 50,999,897 (48.38%)

Number of votes ignored in Florida : > 60,000
Of which were for Gore : > 46,000.
Number of votes Bush "won" Florida : 537.


Democracy : the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group.

 

[Goff]

Er, no, Hugh. We're talking about politics. Do you not even have Google? Where have you been the last seven years?

 

[hugh]

Er, no, Hugh. We're talking about politics. Do you not even have Google? Where have you been the last seven years?

Well, you see what I was trying to get at is this. Your response to Egg's point about how EU countries such as France and Germany have far better public health services than we do, and that surely closer European integration would act as a restraining influence on our own Government's propensity to sell anything they can down the river to the highest bidder, was that "that was Old Europe", and that we now live in "New Europe". Your point being, presumably, that "New Europe" is all about privatisation etc and that "Old Europe" wasn't.

I am curious to know did you support EC/EU integration treaties pre-2001? e.g. Maastricht, Amsterdam etc? Because, this seems to me to lead onto a broader question about left-wing politics in Ireland which has always seemed to have a problem with the EU (Old Europe, New Europe, pre or post 2001, whatever). Many of the groups on the Left opposing the Lisbon treaty have opposed all of the previous ones as well, which doesn't sit very well with this Old Europe/New Europe distinction, does it?

I'm throwing the question out there to people in general by the way .... I don't know the answer and I'm way too lazy to look it up on Google.

 

[Goff]

They have better public health services right now and for years we have been using them as an example of which way we should go for our own. But what's happening now is their health services are being urged to go for the "Boston Model", as they call it. And they're falling into line. New Europe, in the manner I'm thinking of, are the states that declared their support for the war on Eye-Raq back in 2003. And the ones who are playing catch-up. The European states who were part of the Coalition of the "Willing".

I'd no problem with the EEC per se, but when Maastricht came along, they basically declared that they wanted to be a super-state; a country in its own right. That, I'm not in favour of. The EU should never have political aspirations.

 

[broken arm]

The EU should never have political aspirations.

what the huh?

 

[hugh]

They have better public health services right now and for years we have been using them as an example of which way we should go for our own.

True, and it's a real pity we've never put that into practice ...

But what's happening now is their health services are being urged to go for the "Boston Model", as they call it. And they're falling into line.

Maybe, they're just running out of money ...

New Europe, in the manner I'm thinking of, are the states that declared their support for the war on Eye-Raq back in 2003. And the ones who are playing catch-up. The European states who were part of the Coalition of the "Willing".

Sure, that's what I would understand by New Europe as well ....as Rumsfeld coined it. But those states are some of the ones who have significant anti-Lisbon feeling as well though (as symbolized by the Czech prime minister) which is slightly paradoxical. As in, if the Lisbon treaty really was the neo-liberal/free market/destruction of public services that it's detractors claim it is, then surely those economically on the right within Europe would be hugely in favour of it, rather than opposed to it (e.g. the UK Conservatives, Libertas etc)? Not to mention those economically on the right outside Europe (e.g., eh, Libertas ha ha)

Maybe it's just not Right enough for the Right and not Left enough for the Left.

I'd no problem with the EEC per se, but when Maastricht came along, they basically declared that they wanted to be a super-state; a country in its own right. That, I'm not in favour of. The EU should never have political aspirations.

A valid reason for being opposed to it ...