The Lisbon Treaty has been ratified.

[Papaumau]

I think we are splitting hairs here and getting bogged down with personalities and details when we should be thinking more about why there should be a Lisbon treaty ratified for Europe.

The Lisbon treaty is a very large and complex document and often rather than even attempting to understand it many people simply use the instincts that are attached to personal political hangups to stand for or against it on principle rather than making any informed decison on the subject.

Even while admitting what Wrinkles said that "The Irish were bribed and browbeaten" to some extent, I still think that after all was said and done they DEMOCRATICALLY decided that they knew what side their bread was buttered on and voted YES as a result this time round.

NOW...let's get away from personal conflicts and start to discuss the REAL ins and outs of this important subject.

To start with, let's all have a look at this document before we go off half-cocked.

Here is one definition of this rather complex tome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

[Ivanhoe]

Edna, The EU is the Social Charter, the EU Social Charter is why Maggie Thatcher way back when, did not want to know Europe because she saw the Social Charter as Socialism which Maggie detested.

We could all jump on the intellectual bandwagon on this but I wont.

Its enough as far as im concerned, that the EU, with its Social Charter, is moving forward, whilst leaving us behind because New Labour have not got the full Social Charter in Britain, due to Blair's opt outs in his 2005 constitution which was initially rejected by the Dutch and the French, but remain as British opt -outs.

[Edna]

Ivanhoe

Please point to me where in the Treaty it says this (for the second time of asking). If your claim is accurate, this task should be no trouble for you.



PS. Ive been researching for 20 years, that's how I know about Europe and the Social Charter. 

So you say. However, given that you apparently couldn't tell the CoE and the EU apart, I'm somewhat sceptical of your self-proclaimed authority on this issue (no offence intended), and saying it is so does not establish that it is so. To me, you are merely an anonymous person on the Internet, and you need to substantiate your claims instead of appealing to your own authority. Further, the Lisbon Treaty did not exist before 2007, so how can you have spent 20 years researching it?

[Ivanhoe]

Edna, im refering to Europe and the Social Charter.

[Edna]

Quote
The EU is the Social Charter, the EU Social Charter is why Maggie Thatcher way back when, did not want to know Europe because she saw the Social Charter as Socialism which Maggie detested.

This is yet more argumentation by assertion. For the third time of asking, point to the part of the text within the Lisbon Treaty that substantiates your claims. Or withdraw those claims. It's up to you.

There is, as far as I can tell, no "EU Social Charter".

There is a European Social Charter, but that is a treaty concluded under the auspices of the Council of Europe, which is a completely separate institution to the European Union. As such, I fail to see how this has anything to do with the Lisbon Treaty, and your mere assertion of it does not establish it.

There was a Social Chapter of the European Union, but we had an opt-out from it in 1992, and the Labour Party subsequently opted into it in 1997. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the Lisbon Treaty either.


Quote:
We could all jump on the intellectual bandwagon on this but I wont. 

Despite your earlier attempts to appeal to your own authority...?


Quote:
Its enough as far as im concerned, that the EU, with its Social Charter, is moving forward, whilst leaving us behind because New Labour have not got the full Social Charter in Britain, due to Blair's opt outs in his 2005 constitution which was initially rejected by the Dutch and the French, but remain as British opt -outs. 

Where is this opt-out? Please point to the Protocol in the Lisbon Treaty that exempts the UK from a non-EU treaty that it has already ratified...?

[Ivanhoe]

Edna, Im not going into all this, if you dont believe me that's fine.

All I know is that Britain should now be at the heart of Europe helping other EU leaders to decide what is best for Europe, and not just the UK, but we are not in Europe, we are on the outside looking in.

[Edna]

Edna, Im not going into all this, if you dont believe me that's fine.

All I know is that Britain should now be at the heart of Europe helping other EU leaders to decide what is best for Europe, and not just the UK, but we are not in Europe, we are on the outside looking in.

And still failing to establish your claims. Look, I'll try to make this simple.

1. Do you understand that the European Union and the Council of Europe are two separate entities with different memberships?
2. Do you understand that the European Social Charter was concluded under the auspices of the Council of Europe, not the European Union or its predecessor, the European Community?
3. Do you understand that the United Kingdom has ratified the 1961 version of the European Social Charter?
4. How do you explain the assertion that "the EU, with its Social Charter, is moving forward, whilst leaving us behind" given the fact that like the UK, Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland and Spain are also not signatories to the revised 1996 Charter (which also has nothing to do with the EU - nor does it have anything to do with Thatcher, by the way, as she was long gone by then), that eight other EU Member States have not ratified the 1991 amending protocol, and only twelve EU Member States have adopted the collective complaint procedure?
5. For the fourth time of asking, please show us where the European Social Charter is mentioned in any European Community or European Union treaty?

[Ivanhoe]

No need, ive said all I wish to say.

[Edna]

No need, ive said all I wish to say.

Yes....and you were wrong on all counts.

Not the first time you've started a discussion on here based upon your own myths.

Strange how I managed to gather so much fact on the subject, yet you were unable to provide anything.


But it'll wait till next time as I see a pattern emerging here.

[Ivanhoe]

No, im right.

[Edna]

No, im right.

Just saying you're right doesn't make you right. I gave you ample chances to prove yourself and you wriggled out of it.

As I said...it'll wait.

[Ivanhoe]

Yes it does.

[Edna]

Yes it does.

LOL. ;DWhat, you're right because you say you are?

You come here, make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, fail to back up anything you say and then just bunk off insisting that you're right? What a load of rubbish.

You appeal to your own equally unsubstantiated claim of having spent twenty years researching "Europe", and you can't even tell the difference between the Council of Europe and the European Union! (That's a schoolboy error right there. Twenty years of research, my arse!)

You didn't seem to know that we'd already signed and ratified the European Social Charter back in 1962! (And it also appears that you don't know the difference between the ESC and the Social Chapter, that was introduced - along with our opt-out - by Maastricht.)

And when asked to put up or shut up, you simply repeat your original assertions without substance!

Oh, and FYI, there are references to the European Social Charter in the TEU and TFEU - but they were introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty, not the Lisbon one.

And, those references are to the treaty drawn up in 1961 under the auspices of the Council of Europe, not any treaty (or part of a treaty) drawn up specifically amongst European Union Member States.

Now, anyone who did actually know their stuff would be able to back up their claims, and correct me on anything I've missed.

But you haven't. You've merely continually asserted that you're right and ignored comments that have asked for evidence or pointed out apparent errors and anomalies in your assertions.

So I'm left assuming that you actually know jack about what you're talking about, and are simply a crackpot.

So again, you fail. Either substantiate your claims or be rightly dismissed as the joke and the crackpot you certainly appear to be.

[Ivanhoe]

Okay, Dismiss me.

[radar41]

Well done Edna. You have demonstrated how Ivanhoe operates on discussion forums. I see Papa tried to divert the discussion because he could see his mate was digging himself into a hole. As for Ivanhoe being a crackpot, just look at the 2 links I provided earlier in the thread. He uses to 2 names on that forum mcgill and Nye Bevin.