The online racing simulator
Lisborn Treaty - One for the Europeans
(82 posts, started )
Quote from duke_toaster :Re. illegal immigration to the US

Surely it would be better to have a amnesty

There was an amnesty, for illegal immigrants, in the 1980's. The result has been a huge increase in illegal immigration, and it is reasonably expected that, if there were another amnesty, the result would be the same; people would immigrate, illegally, and then wait for the next amnesty.

Quote from duke_toaster :I'm not advocating a "let's scrap the borders and let anyone in" policy, but letting in those with skills or desire to contribute (in addition to refugees that need to be taken in due to our duties under international law).

It is my understanding that the USA admits a very large number of legal immigrants - perhaps even more than any other nation in the world - and especially including refugees. However, it is reasonable for the particulars of allowable immigration (including numbers, skills and such), to be considered and legislated by Congress, in accordance with a regard for their likely effect upon the nation, and the subject continues to be very much a topic of discussion, among legislators and among citizens, generally.

One further problem with illegal immigration, is that it tends to make difficult, legal immigration, since the pressures - caused by illegal immigrants - on resources (including immigration personnel), result in lesser availability of them, for dealing with legal immigration. Among other things, this tends to inspire resentment among those who would immigrate legally (or have already done so), since they must often wait many years, for the process of admitting them, to be completed, and they tend to wonder why they should suffer through all that, when others simply disregard immigration laws and enter the country, illegally, and then some people advocate that this is perfectly acceptable. It's somewhat analogous to politely waiting one's turn, in a cafeteria line, or something, and then some guy comes along, barges into the line, gets his food, they run out of food, and then people say, "What are you complaining about; shouldn't that guy be allowed to eat?"
Perfect, I could not agree more. you're much more eloquent than I am.
Quote :It is my understanding that the USA admits a very large number of legal immigrants - perhaps even more than any other nation in the world

I might be wrong but I believed that to be Britain with 200,000, followed by Germany on 20,000 per year. Or perhaps that was for within Europe?

I dont have a problem with immigration. If I follow my fathers-fathers blood line back to 1588 they landed in Ireland having tried to invade England - and consequently where welcomed into Ireland with open arms! And later welcomed to England.

If they'll take an invader like me, why would I complain about taking non-combattants from a hostile state or religion now?

Or have we forgotten that in our culture somebody is innocent until proven guilty.
Eh its hard to measure but the US still wins with over 12,000,000 already here and 3,000 per (day? month? I forgot which but I know its 3000 and its not per year)

Edit* you said legal immigrants which I don't know the numbers for but I suspect higher than 200,000 per year from all countries combined.
Armed with Google...

447000 legals from within the EU, 45000 legals from elsewhere and 200000 estimated illegals per year to the UK, to the US its an estimated 300000 illegals a year (not sure of legals)

At around 250m the US population is 5 times the size of the UK, so if indeed it is a 'problem' then I think the US is in better shape.

EDIT: Still cant find latest actual figures for legal US immigration, but it appears to be a smidge over 1m per year. Roughly 2x that of the UK.

We're all African anyway...
Well the general concensus around here is a "No".

There have been a few advertisements to make the Irish more aware of the referendum, so the government are sending out booklets to every household in the counrtry.
EU plans international embassies

The secret plan represents the first time that full EU embassies have been discussed seriously.

The "Embassies of the Union" would be controlled by a new EU diplomatic service created by the Lisbon Treaty.

The Daily Telegraph has seen a high-level Brussels document discussing plans for a "European External Action Service" (EEAS) which was proposed under the new EU Treaty, currently being ratified in Westminster.

Plans for the new foreign service have raised highly sensitive political issues by giving trappings of statehood to the EU and by fusing, for the first time, national diplomats with existing "eurocrats".

A vicious battle over who should control the diplomatic corps has broken out between national governments and the European Commission.

Countries such as Britain are alarmed that the EEAS, which is expected to take on some consular activities, would be a stepping stone to a single "supranational" euro-diplomatic service.

Meanwhile, Brussels officials fear that, if controlled by national governments, the new EEAS would draw power from "Community" bodies, such as the Commission, to inter-governmental institutions such as the Council of the EU, which represents member states.

"Any inter-governmentalism of policy areas under Community competence has to be avoided," states the confidential document.

"The EEAS will have to be in a specific way administratively connected to the European Commission."

The EEAS will number between 2,500 to 3,000 officials at its inception in January next year. It is then expected to grow to 7,000, or even up to 20,000, according to different estimates.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new ... ernational-embassies.html
This should be headed " A huge vote of thanks to the Irish "

This is what they may have saved you from ...........

Although I fully understand that this legislation is vital to future life on the planet, isn't it great knowing where your tax dollars ( Euro's ) are spent.

The European Commission says it wants to loosen the rules that prevent knobbly fruit and vegetables being sold alongside more shapely examples.
But the Commission says its efforts to simplify EU legislation have been resisted by some countries.
The complicated marketing rules have spawned long-running debates about straight bananas and cucumbers.
The Commission says misshapen fruit should be sold "with some sort of label for use in cooking".
"In an era of high prices and growing demand, this makes more sense than just throwing them away," said a statement from the office of Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel.
Resistance
A year ago, the Commission pledged to simplify the marketing system for fruit and vegetables by removing unnecessary standards - part of the drive to cut red tape.
The Commission proposed keeping the existing standards for just 10 categories of fruit and vegetables, scrapping the standards for 26 others.


What consumers think of the possible rule change
"The Commissioner is determined that this should go ahead and is surprised by such strong resistance to such a practical example of simplification," said the statement sent to the BBC News website on Monday.
Among the 26 foods designated to be removed from the Commission's standards list are: aubergines, beans, carrots, courgettes, cucumbers, leeks, melons, onions, plums and spinach.
The standards would remain for: apples, citrus fruit, kiwi fruit, lettuces and endives, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, sweet peppers, table grapes and tomatoes.
Commission regulations for fruit and vegetables are extremely detailed, specifying their desired appearance, weight, size and other features.
For example, Regulation No 1292/81, laying down quality standards for leeks, aubergines and courgettes, states that for Class One leeks "the white part of the leek must represent at least one-third of the total length or half the sheathed part".
For aubergines, "the difference between the smallest and largest aubergines in the same package must not exceed 20mm for elongated aubergines [and] 25mm for globus aubergines".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7457218.stm
Just a query on this subject, but it is going to take a big sledgehammer to get it through my head...maybe it's because I am so thick;
A few weeks ago (before the Irish Referendum) I was under the impression that ALL EU countries had to agree to the Constitution (OOOPS: Sorry, "Treaty") or it would be dead in the water, shelved, binned, useless, f**king snuffed it, an Ex-Treaty.
But....listening to the crap issuing from His Gordyness's gob recently, he is still pushing for it..
How the f**k can he (and the rest of the pro-treaty nations) do that? Seems like a case of changing the rules just because your team lost!


Just a footnote...If I want to buy a POUND of wonky-shaped tomatoes or a PINT of warm beer, I don't want some prat in Brussels telling me I can't!
I might be wrong, but its more a matter of letting the irish decide if they want to sign the treaty or not, as the rest of Europe does sign it. Just like the UK did with the Euro.
Quote from Bladerunner :Just a query on this subject, but it is going to take a big sledgehammer to get it through my head...maybe it's because I am so thick;
A few weeks ago (before the Irish Referendum) I was under the impression that ALL EU countries had to agree to the Constitution (OOOPS: Sorry, "Treaty") or it would be dead in the water, shelved, binned, useless, f**king snuffed it, an Ex-Treaty.
But....listening to the crap issuing from His Gordyness's gob recently, he is still pushing for it..
How the f**k can he (and the rest of the pro-treaty nations) do that? Seems like a case of changing the rules just because your team lost!


Just a footnote...If I want to buy a POUND of wonky-shaped tomatoes or a PINT of warm beer, I don't want some prat in Brussels telling me I can't!

The Irish were the only ones allowed to vote for it. I think that because other countries had voted 'no' before they weren't allowed to vote this time round - ROLF.

Whatever, the Irish got to say whether or not Lisborn went ahead. But don't worry, it now seems that really no one had a vote as they want it to go ahead anyway.
#63 - SamH
The situation is that the governments of the countries want to impose the constitution/"treaty" on the people, for the extra powers over the people that it will give them. However, the European peoples don't want to have it imposed on them.

Most governments have managed to avoid a referendum on the topic (because the people will say "no"), but the Irish government either made a mistake thinking that the people would say "yes", or were somehow forced to go to the people with a referendum (I'm not familiar with how the referendum came to be, in Ireland). Naturally, the people said "no".

This effectively renders the current proposed constitution, or "treaty" as it was renamed (to sweeten it, and make people think it was different from the original constitution, which it was in part but wasn't in essence) dead in the water. However, because the politicians/governments won't take no for an answer, you can expect the constitution to reappear under yet a different name, and with slightly modified content. Next time they will do their best (as they have done every time before now) to get it ratified without asking the people it affects. Basically, they'll keep sticking it on us until all governments can successfully ratify it without asking their people.

It's a perfect example of the disparity between the government and the people. "No" is supposed to mean exactly that, and the people HAVE spoken, and the politicians have ignored.. and continue to ignore, and will ignore until the voice that says "no" is finally smothered and silenced.
Just about sums up what I was feeling Sam...they are determined to ram it down our throats one way or another...

/me goes to look at BNP and UKIP sites to read manifestos ready for next elections

(And Uncle Gordon wonders why everybody hates him :shrug

PS... 119.9p a litre for unleaded at my local Sainsburys this morning...robbing b*st*rds
Quote from SamH :Most governments have managed to avoid a referendum on the topic (because the people will say "no"), but the Irish government either made a mistake thinking that the people would say "yes", or were somehow forced to go to the people with a referendum (I'm not familiar with how the referendum came to be, in Ireland). Naturally, the people said "no".

Reportedly, the Lisbon treaty would have involved changes in the Irish Constitution, and Irish law requires that any constitutional changes must be approved by referendum. So, that's how the Irish got to vote on it.
whats the problem exactly? the bend radius of a banana is an important matter
Wow - I just love this notion of 'Democracy'
Apparently, thanks to the Irish having an opinion that wasn't the 'right' one it's now been decided that 'Big Brother' will make all your decisions for all of you in Europe as you can't be trusted as people to make the right choices.

You need to get with the program people - just be happy little slaves !

Anyone read 1984 ?

EU Constitution author says referendums can be ignored

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last updated: 7:24 PM BST 26/06/2008

Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.



The former President of France drafted the old Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago before being resurrected as the Lisbon EU Treaty, itself shunned by the Irish two weeks ago.
Mr Giscard d'Estaing told the Irish Times that Ireland's referendum rejection would not kill the Treaty, despite a legal requirement of unanimity from all the EU's 27 member states.
"We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing," he said.
"It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it's Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else."
"Ireland is one per cent of the EU".
Mr Giscard d'Estaing also admitted that, unlike his original Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon EU Treaty had been carefully crafted to confuse the public.
"What was done in the [Lisbon] Treaty, and deliberately, was to mix everything up. If you look for the passages on institutions, they're in different places, on different pages," he said.
"Someone who wanted to understand how the thing worked could with the Constitutional Treaty, but not with this one."
France and Germany are putting pressure on Ireland to hold a second referendum which would allow the Lisbon Treaty to come into force before European elections on June 4 2009.
Mr Giscard d'Estaing believes "there is no alternative" to a second Irish vote, a view shared by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President.
Mr Sarkozy, who takes over the EU's rotating presidency next week, will use a Brussels summit on October 15 to force Ireland to find a way out of Europe's Treaty difficulties.
"Everyone agrees it has to be sorted out by the time of European elections," he said at the weekend.
Václav Klaus, the Czech President has continued to insist that the Lisbon Treaty "cannot come into force" after the Irish vote.
"The EU cannot ignore its own rules. The Lisbon Treaty has been roundly and democratically rejected by Ireland, and it therefore cannot come into force," he told El Pais newspaper.
"Any attempt to ignore this fact and make recourse to pressure and political manipulation to move the treaty forward would have disastrous consequences."
Mark François, Conservative spokesman on Europe, also insisted that it was time that European politicians started to respect the Irish No vote.
"The Irish people gave an emphatic No to the Treaty of Lisbon on a record turnout and it would be good for politicians of all countries to respect this democratic decision," he said.
"The point is particularly clear to us here in Britain as the Irish were fortunate to be given a referendum which we were denied by our Government."
An opinion poll for the newspaper Libération has shown 44 per cent of the French want Ireland to vote again and 26 per cent want the ratification process to continue without Ireland.
But a quarter of those polled want to abandon the Treaty and 52 per cent think the Irish No vote is going to dominate Mr Sarkozy's EU presidency.


Story from Telegraph News:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new ... ndums-can-be-ignored.html
Democracy at its best. One by one new rules are slowly put in place that take all of our power away from us, it is illegal to protest near parliament for peat sake. They might as well just forgo the process of voting and change to fascism.
Quote from Racer X NZ :Wow - I just love this notion of 'Democracy'
Apparently, thanks to the Irish having an opinion that wasn't the 'right' one it's now been decided that 'Big Brother' will make all your decisions for all of you in Europe as you can't be trusted as people to make the right choices.

You need to get with the program people - just be happy little slaves !

Anyone read 1984 ?

EU Constitution author says referendums can be ignored

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last updated: 7:24 PM BST 26/06/2008

Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.



The former President of France drafted the old Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago before being resurrected as the Lisbon EU Treaty, itself shunned by the Irish two weeks ago.
Mr Giscard d'Estaing told the Irish Times that Ireland's referendum rejection would not kill the Treaty, despite a legal requirement of unanimity from all the EU's 27 member states.


Wait a minute... how can unanimity be considered democracy?
I can understand the point of the other member nations wanting a majority vote instead of unanimity vote..... I mean forget the fact that the Lisbon treaty is sketchy - it sounds that way to me... But how can the EU function if when some sort of something is created and most of the member nations are for it, yet they can't have it because one nation decides they don't like some detail in it?
Where was the Ireland rep.s when this treaty was being written up? Couldn't they have had changes put in it while it was being written up?

Don't get me wrong. I can see the importance of unanimity with regards to certain things, but I can also see where it can become a big problem as well if it's a constant part of the overall process.
If they ( the Euro Parliament) REALLY believed in Democracy, then they should throw it open to a referendum in EVERY member state, and THEN we could/would accept a majority decision.
Unfortunately for us, they do not possess the balls to let it be decided democratically, because they know that they would lose!
As I stated earlier in this thread, they are determined to shove it down our throats whether we like it or not.
And then, they have the audacity to wonder why Nationalism is on the rise throughout Europe, don't these idiots realise where this COULD lead???
Quote from Racer Y :Wait a minute... how can unanimity be considered democracy?
I can understand the point of the other member nations wanting a majority vote instead of unanimity vote..... I mean forget the fact that the Lisbon treaty is sketchy - it sounds that way to me... But how can the EU function if when some sort of something is created and most of the member nations are for it, yet they can't have it because one nation decides they don't like some detail in it?
Where was the Ireland rep.s when this treaty was being written up? Couldn't they have had changes put in it while it was being written up?

Don't get me wrong. I can see the importance of unanimity with regards to certain things, but I can also see where it can become a big problem as well if it's a constant part of the overall process.

In this case "unanimity" is an interesting word. When you consider how many referendums have been held and people have said no then you would expect "unanimity" to mean that Lisbon doesn't go ahead.

However it now seems to mean that it does go ahead and we'll stop asking people to approve the idea, we'll just tell them what's now happening.

I suspect in this case "unanimity" is a political way of saying that those in charge agree and no one else matters.
It physically hurts me to see how or rights are being stripped away. There seems to be nothing we can do to stop it. Very depressing stuff. Stupid things like the Lisbon treaty are tests to see how much people in power can get away with. "Democracy" and "political correctness" will be the death of our (fairly) reasonable society. Sounds like you guys need another french revolution and some rolling heads to get your personal rights back.
says the american who lives under the patriot act
From this part of the world there's not much difference between the US with the Patriot Act and Britain with it's police state and cctv everywhere.

In my view the main achievement of Lisbon is to convert the rest of Europe into the British police state system.

Am I being extreme ? Possibly but judging from what's going on over ratification I suspect not. Unfortunately only time will tell and if in 5 years Europe is doing a 1984 impression it will too late to change or for people to get their power back.

I guess it's really up to Europeans to choose what future they want for their children, the same as it is for Americans to choose their political future. I just feel sad that the peoples choice seems to be going towards torture, military courts, executive rule and a loss of the rights that have taken so many years to get. It seems that both the US Constitution and Democracy appear to be no longer needed.
you have very twisted views of a union which mainly serves the purpose of making up rules how bananas and several other fruits and vegetables ought to be shaped

Lisborn Treaty - One for the Europeans
(82 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG