| Author | Message | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:00 pm Post subject: |
| | Diceros wrote: | I believe in Law + Order if you dont, then that's your bill of fair.....
Then dont call the cops when you wallet is stolen on the subway at gun/knife point by a bunch of junkees, or your bank account is emptied by some fraudster.
Let's also face the fact, that no system is perfect , but for all its faults, our + your country's present system is a vast improvement on anarchy. Would you prefer to live under conditions of NO GOVERNMENT - like the failed state of Somalia. ? If so then that's also yr choice, and you know where to go. |
How can you compare the worst in society which is generally always present in some degree as an excuse for a corruptible unaccountable government? Our two systems are representative in nature, responsible only to the people that elected them to public trust and service.
Nor is corporate/financial fascism or lousy government a correct response or rationale to combat anarchy. Not in my world. The former seems permanent and the latter is easily correctable. Yet it seems to be that latter nearly always results from the evil and actions of the former.
So where is the real danger and who is really responsible?
You call a spade a spade and you put in people who have a semblance of integrity. That's how it works. Not fear, not the sake of security as there is very little difference between a junkie with a knife who wants your wallet as there is in a government that has super political powers that steals. One is only entrepreneurial, the other systematic, seemingly permanent and sanctioned but both attempt to accomplish the same.
Both are unacceptable. Always have been. Always will be. | |  | | Diceros | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:54 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Both are unacceptable. Always have been. Always will be. |
In which case , what the hell are you whingeing abt it for ?
| Quote: | | I have yet to hear one solid argument that demonstrates how Poland or Germany should have any say into the matters of what goes on in England. |
You seem to overlook the fact that Britons are also take part in the decisions on regulations which equally applies to Poles/Germans/Spaniards/Italians/Greeks and all other EU member states.
DO you object to Californian Congressmen having a say in matters which goes on in Florida. ?
JD - Calm down , If you're not a EU citizen then the Lisbon Treaty and whatever the final outcome, it wont affect you.
Those of us who are opposed to the Lisbon Treaty and wish to withdraw - renege on any previous government commitments having the right to have their voices heard through the democratically elected representatives. | | | | Diceros | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:07 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Government works best when it does the least with the fewest |
I attended a meeting last week with our local MP , where most of us, (abt 50 ) protested , that the government failed to exercise TIGHTER CONTROL on banks + financial institutions.
And here you are now suggesting that we have a government who should twiddle their thumbs. ? ??? Do LEAST. ???
Just goes to show the impossible task in trying to please everyone. 
CHEERS. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:57 pm Post subject: |
| Who granted the banks and financial houses that excessive control and power?
The people? Hardly.
Try to open up a community cooperative open book financial concern dedicated to the participating members' well being in interests and see how far you get before the government steps in and says you are a danger or crooked, (not meeting stringent government "standards) , they worked so far huh? or a threat to the well being of the nation, etc. | | | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:00 am Post subject: |
| FT Blog
Food For Thought: Gordon Brown as the EU’s First Full-Time President?
June 15, 2009 2:49pm
José Manuel Barroso is all but certain to be reappointed as European Commission president. But who will get the other plum European Union jobs that will soon be up for grabs?
The most startling suggestion I have heard in recent days - and it came from a high-ranking EU diplomat - is that the EU’s first ever full-time president could be none other than Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the UK. The thinking here is that, because the job will require its holder to represent the EU on the world stage, it would suit Brown well. He has oodles of experience and excellent connections at the highest level, starting with President Barack Obama.
Of course, Brown may have other career plans, such as winning the next British general election and stabilising the British economy. But if for some unimaginable reason these plans didn’t work out, might there be life after political death for him in Brussels?
It has always been accepted that the EU’s first president - who will serve a two-and-a-half-year term, renewable once - must be a sitting or former prime minister. But beyond that, the EU’s Lisbon treaty fails to say a great deal about what qualities he or she ought to have. The president will prepare and chair the EU’s regular summits of national leaders, a role which indicates that he or she will have to be a conciliator and a honest broker, not a temperamental or divisive figure.
He or she will also need to have a good working relationship with Barroso. But the president must not be an obscure, low-profile politico, because then leaders such as Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia will make mincemeat of him or her. And the Lisbon treaty says nothing about whether the president must come from a eurozone country, rather than a non-euro area state such as the UK.
Tony Blair’s name has been mentioned numerous times in connection with the EU presidency job. But there has always been the nagging feeling in Brussels that his candidacy would be blocked by a country nursing a grudge against him (such as Belgium). At the same time, quite a few policymakers recognise that the scale of the security and economic challenges facing the EU is such that the first president needs to be a person of true international stature.
Angela Merkel or Nicolas Sarkozy, the German chancellor and French president, would fit the bill, but neither is remotely interested. It would be nice to think of an Italian in the job, but something tells me that the EU isn’t about to entrust its fate to Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. That leaves the UK - and the clergyman’s son from Glasgow.
Source.... | | | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
Since Ireland, like the UK, is one of the biggest facilitators of the U.S's global war machine I wonder which joker suggested asking for protection of its 'neutrality'? -kt.
"The Lisbon Treaty does not affect or prejudice Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality."
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Lisbon assurances: the text in full
This is the full text of the assurances which the Government hopes other EU heads of government will endorse later this week in preparation for a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in the autumn
Section A
Right to Life, Family and Education
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon attributing legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or in the provisions of that Treaty in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice affects in any way the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life in Article 40.3.1. 40.3.2 and 40.3.3, the protection of the family in Article 41 and the protection of the rights in respect of education in Articles 42 and 44.2.4 and 44.2.5 provided by the Constitution of Ireland.
Section B
Taxation
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.
Section C
Security and Defence
The Union’s action on the international scene is guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.
The Union’s common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy and provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. It does not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of Ireland.
The Lisbon Treaty does not affect or prejudice Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality.
It will be for Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality, to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory. Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements, whether or not to adopt a common defence.
Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.
It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured co-operation or the European Defence Agency.
The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation,
It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.
It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirement, whether or not to participate in any military operation.
Section D
Final Provisions
Annex 2
Solemn Declaration on Workers’ Rights and Social Policy
The European Council confirms the high importance which the Union attaches to:
Social progress and the protection of workers’ rights;
Public services, as an indispensable instrument of social and regional cohesion;
The responsibility of Member States for the delivery of education and health services;
The essential role and wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest.
In doing so, it underlines the importance of respecting the overall framework and provisions of the EU Treaties.
It recalls that the Treaties as modified by the Treaty of Lisbon:
Aim at establishing an internal market and working for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment;
Will give expression to the Union’s values and, through Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, recognise the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Aim to combat social exclusion and discrimination, and to promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child;
Oblige the Union, when defining and implementing its policies and activities, to take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health;
Include, as a shared value of the Union, the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users;
Do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic service of general interest;
Provide that the Council, when acting in the area of common commercial policy, must act unanimously when negotiating and concluding international agreements in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where those agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them; and
Provide that the Union recognises and promotes the role of the social partners at the level of the European Union, and facilitates dialogue between them, taking account of the diversity of national systems and respecting the autonomy of social partners.
It reiterates that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the European common security and defence policy requires (a) the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council of the General Assembly of the United Nations, (b) the agreement of the Irish Government, and (c) the approval of Dáil Éireann, in accordance with Irish law.
Ireland notes that nothing obliges it to participate in permanent structured co-operation as provided for in the Treaty on European Union. Any decision enabling Ireland to participate will require the approval of Dáil Éireann in accordance with Irish law.
Ireland notes also that nothing obliges it to participate in the European Defence Agency, or in specific projects or programmes initiated under its auspices. Any decision to participate in such projects or programmes will be subject to national decision-making and the approval of Dáil Éireann in accordance with Irish law. Ireland declares that it will participate only in those projects and programmes that contribute to enhancing the capabilities required for participation in UN-mandated missions for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.
The situation set out in this Declaration would be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. In the event of Ireland’s ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, this Declaration will be associated with Ireland’s instrument of ratification.
Source... | | | | Diceros | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:12 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | quote]The European Union is essential to the success of Britain and a Britain fully engaged in Europe is essential to the success of the European Union."
- Prime Minister Gordon Brown
Nice soundbite, and that is as far as it goes. No explanation or rationalisation. We have become conditioned to think in sound bites without involving the thought processes. That is the real danger to our democracy |
========================
funglefoot, hi !
Are you sure , it was ALL Gordon said.? I've no idea when + where he said it, but I find it most unusual if he failed to elaborate on that statement.
Besides , Britain has been banging for entry since late 1950s when it became clear that several European countries (the inner six - ) would overtake overtake Britain + other EFTA members (the outer seven-EFTA ) , economically + enjoy a substantially higher standard of living.
I dont suppose you know of the problems + opposition to Britains entry and of Charles de Gaul's famous rejection - Non! Europe (France/Germany + Benelux countries ) did'nt want Britain as a member to their , then exclusive club.
Here :
"European Free Trade Association (EFTA)
In 1959 Britain signed the Stockholm Convention with other non-EEC European states (Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland) and created the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). However, EFTA was no competitor for the EEC and was ineffective in establishing a useful free trade area.
[b]The Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, was alarmed at the rapid economic advances made by France and Germany and sought to join the EEC. Britain's commonwealth ties, domestic agricultural policy, and close links to the US were obstacles in joining and the French President, Charles de Gaulle, vetoed Britain's application in 1963. The Wilson government again failed to take Britain into the EEC in 1967 but Georges Pompidou, who succeeded de Gaulle, finally relented and Britain joined in January 1973 under the premiership of Edward Heath.
The 1974 Wilson government was unhappy with the terms of EEC membership and held a referendum in June 1975. A substantial majority voted in favour of continued membership although Britain consistently resisted supranational industrial, scientific and social policies[/b
Source
:http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/eec-britains-late-entry.htm
cheers.
[/quote] | | | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:44 pm Post subject: |
| FT
Business backs Tories' EU opt-out
By Jean Eaglesham in London and Stanley Pignal in,Brussels
Published: June 16 2009 03:00
British businesses have welcomed the Conservative party's commitment to seek to return power over employment law from Brussels to the UK if they win power at the next election. But they are concerned about the potential effect of this on Britain's influence in Europe.
Ken Clarke, shadow business secretary, this weekend said a Tory government would not seek to reopen the Lisbon treaty if it had already been ratified. His remarks created a backlash from Eurosceptics on the right of the party, who still hope to persuade David Cameron to promise voters a referendum on the treaty even if it has been ratified.
Employers' organisations backed the Conservative stance in principle. "European employment laws are a major problem for firms and new directives continue to be introduced with little concern for their negative impact on job creation," Alistair Tebbit, head of European Union policy at the Institute of Directors, told the Financial Times. "We would be delighted if any British government was able to find a way to end the flow of employment legislation permanently. If this means scrapping the EU's employment powers, so be it."
The CBI employers' body, which supported the 1991 opt-out from the social chapter, said it would back any future reduction in the scope of European social legislation affecting the UK. But John Cridland, CBI deputy director-general, said there was a balance to be struck between this desirable aim and the government being "able to maintain Britain's place at the table on European policy".
The EEF manufacturers' organisation warned that the risk of Britain being sidelined in Europe appeared to outweigh the potential benefits of seeking a new opt-out. David Yeandle, head of employment policy at the EEF, told the FT. "I'm not sure this [Tory approach] is terribly useful and it could be counterproductive."
The Trades Union Congress warned that a Conservative move to seek a fresh opt-out would be "a backwards move that would leave millions of UK employees worse off".
Mr Clarke reiterated the Tories' aim of holding "sensible" negotiations about gaining an opt-out from the EU social chapter, which governs employment and social legislation.
European Commission officials warned that pulling Britain out of any single aspect of EU law would be difficult politically. One diplomat said the Cabinet Office had prepared a briefing in the run-up to the 2005 general election, advising the Tories on how a revision of Britain's relationship would proceed should they come to power. It concluded that a full negotiation of the European treaties would be inevitable.
Brussels officials cited technical problems with the Tory approach, since the old "social chapter" had been integrated into different areas of European law.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Source.... | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:31 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: |
"The Lisbon Treaty does not affect or prejudice Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality." |
Ireland supported the campaign known as Operation Allied Force, part of the Kosovo War, and the invasion of Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks known as Operation Enduring Freedom.
The Irish government did not take a position on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. United States Air Force planes were allowed to refuel at Shannon Airport during the conflict. As a member of the UN Security Council, Ireland voted yes to Resolution 1441 which threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply with weapons inspectors.* | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:50 am Post subject: |
| | More plagiarism by the board's trilingual snake. Another copy and paste piece, lifted of one source and presented as his original thoughts LINK You'll find it under the header 'Recent conflicts.' | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
