Tribble wrote:How is it pretending when people like Valéry Giscard d'Estaing flat out admitted what the Lisbon Treaty was intended to be from the start?
Because a politician does not like to admit when he was defeated. In any case, the legal situation is the same, it is not and never was the same as a constitution. It is a subsidiary law. You can insist the opposite until you are blue in the face but it does not make it any truer.
B) regardless of whether or not they were Constitutional documents the Maastricht Treaty and Lisbon Treaty were at least a big a game changer as the EEC (if not more so), particularly when it came to sovereignty issues
How so? Also, now you are moving the goalposts and including maastricht as well? Nice one.
D) Ireland is a clear case which demonstrates that ensuring democratic legitimacy via holding proper consultations with the public, getting the public's input and trying to accommodate the public's concerns can lead to much higher level of support for things like the Lisbon Treaty and the EU than ramming it through parliament.
I am sure the EU saving Ireland from bankruptcy has nothing to do whatsoever with that support being that high. No, must all be the referendum.
Thanas wrote:I am talking about the European coal and steal association and the structure of the federal republic, as well as the first beginning of the European community.
What do you think early 1950s Germany would have preferred?
Probably not to lose control of their steal and coal industry, not to erect another obstacle of reunification and not to give France access to the Ruhr valley. That being said, in hindsight it was a net positive, but the same can be said about the EU. So again, sometimes the benefit outweigh the lack of legitimacy in such cases.
Erm, the signing of the Lisbon Treaty was done by the UK in 2007 and it was enacted in 2009, with the Labour Party under PM Gordon Brown in charge with a majority government.
Yes, you are correct on that. Nevertheless the point still stands. The last British politician who could legitimately be called a European has been Blair and we all know where he ended up.
My point is that a lot of that hostility would likely have been avoided if the UK government had done something along the lines of Ireland rather than do a complete 180 and ram the Lisbon treaty through Parliament.
Do you really think that the Lisbon treaty is the main reason why guys voted for Brexit and not the completely baseless propaganda with lies about the EU? Like how the Brits had no say in it, how they were paying more than they were getting out, how laws were made without consent of the British government, how the entirety of Eastern Europe was coming to steal their jobs and how Britain would suddenly be able to pull 350 million more into the NHS if it just got rid of that bloated, inefficient EU? You really think the Lisbon party played a huge role into that? I think not. The fanatics and racists and Murdochite press would just invent other stuff. The Lisbon treaty being passed did not play a huge role in the debates I watched. What debates did you watch where it was a huge concern?
Besides, parliament was the absolute right place to hold that vote in. Referendums are not binding in the UK nor should they be without a 66% majority.