The Brits were in a bloc since 1973, which was designed to bring about closer union but I don't think people knew how close it really wanted to be.
Check out the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe wikipedia page: http://tinyurl.com/zovvkxn
"Post-rejection[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe&action=edit§ion=5)]
After the French and Dutch referendum results European leaders decided to hold a "period of reflection" on what to do next.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#cite_note-6) As part of this reflection period a "group of wise men" was set up to consider possible courses of action.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#cite_note-7) This group of high-level European politicians former prime ministers, ministers and members of the European Commission first met on 30 September 2006 in Rome.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#cite_note-8)
On 4 June 2007, this group, known as the Amato Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amato_Group), presented its report. They proposed to establish a new Inter-Governmental Conference with a view to writing a new treaty which would rewrite the Maastricht Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty), amend the Treaty of Rome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome) and give the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union) a legally binding status. The new treaty would be based on the first and fourth parts of the Constitution, the rest of the Constitution's changes being achieved through amendments to the Treaty of Rome.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#cite_note-9)
In the June 2007 European summit meeting, Member States agreed to abandon the constitution and to amend the existing treaties, which would remain in force. They also agreed a detailed mandate for a new intergovernmental conference to negotiate a new treaty containing such amendments to the existing treaties (primarily the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Maastricht). These negotiations were completed by the end of the year. The new treaty, which had previously been referred to as the Reform Treaty, became the Lisbon Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty) on its signing in Lisbon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon) on 13 December 2007."
The politicians of eighteen countries vote yes, then two referendums - of the people - vote no. What do they do? Cancel the next seven referendums, "hold a period of reflection", get the "group of wise men" to decide to abandon the constitution and to amend the existing treaties, write it up as the Lisbon Treaty and get the politicians to sign on, which was not a hard task because they all have bright futures in the EU.
For the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, all the politicians signed up, of course they did, they all have bright futures in the EU. I mean after all what are they going to do after politics, get a different career. Unless you are Jos Manuel Barroso, he just became Chairman at Goldman Sachs International. The first referendum they have, the Irish people vote no, so they renegotiated the Irish position. Then financial crash in 2008 happens, this put Ireland in a really bad position to negotiate as the EU were able to bailout the Irish economy, which helped the second referendum result. I would imagine quite a few nations were disappointed they did not negotiate their positions.
The UK politicians, well. "A case was brought against the UK government by Stuart Wheeler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Wheeler). Mr Wheeler claimed the government was legally bound by an election promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The government asserted that the promise was no longer valid as it was the Constitutional Treaty for which a referendum was promised, and that the Lisbon Treaty was fundamentally different in content and in nature (being an amending treaty rather than a constitution). The court could not find anything unlawful in the government's ratification of the treaty and the case was rejected. The case was appealed but was once more rejected. During the period of the trial the government refrained from fully ratifying the treaty.[128] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#cite_note-128)[129] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#cite_note-129)"
I think this is the kind of politic that people are pissed off with. sleep walking in to an Empire, a misguided benevolent Empire.
Cliff, can you tell me what you think the UK and EU will look like in ten years? Don't forget to factor the whole thing that happened in Turkey. For a country that has had multiple coups, one would have thought that they could do it a bit better than that. I guess that those two thousand seven hundred judges will get what's coming to them after their treasonous behaviour.
Check out the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe wikipedia page: http://tinyurl.com/zovvkxn
"Post-rejection[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe&action=edit§ion=5)]
After the French and Dutch referendum results European leaders decided to hold a "period of reflection" on what to do next.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#cite_note-6) As part of this reflection period a "group of wise men" was set up to consider possible courses of action.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#cite_note-7) This group of high-level European politicians former prime ministers, ministers and members of the European Commission first met on 30 September 2006 in Rome.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#cite_note-8)
On 4 June 2007, this group, known as the Amato Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amato_Group), presented its report. They proposed to establish a new Inter-Governmental Conference with a view to writing a new treaty which would rewrite the Maastricht Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty), amend the Treaty of Rome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome) and give the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union) a legally binding status. The new treaty would be based on the first and fourth parts of the Constitution, the rest of the Constitution's changes being achieved through amendments to the Treaty of Rome.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#cite_note-9)
In the June 2007 European summit meeting, Member States agreed to abandon the constitution and to amend the existing treaties, which would remain in force. They also agreed a detailed mandate for a new intergovernmental conference to negotiate a new treaty containing such amendments to the existing treaties (primarily the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Maastricht). These negotiations were completed by the end of the year. The new treaty, which had previously been referred to as the Reform Treaty, became the Lisbon Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty) on its signing in Lisbon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon) on 13 December 2007."
The politicians of eighteen countries vote yes, then two referendums - of the people - vote no. What do they do? Cancel the next seven referendums, "hold a period of reflection", get the "group of wise men" to decide to abandon the constitution and to amend the existing treaties, write it up as the Lisbon Treaty and get the politicians to sign on, which was not a hard task because they all have bright futures in the EU.
For the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, all the politicians signed up, of course they did, they all have bright futures in the EU. I mean after all what are they going to do after politics, get a different career. Unless you are Jos Manuel Barroso, he just became Chairman at Goldman Sachs International. The first referendum they have, the Irish people vote no, so they renegotiated the Irish position. Then financial crash in 2008 happens, this put Ireland in a really bad position to negotiate as the EU were able to bailout the Irish economy, which helped the second referendum result. I would imagine quite a few nations were disappointed they did not negotiate their positions.
The UK politicians, well. "A case was brought against the UK government by Stuart Wheeler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Wheeler). Mr Wheeler claimed the government was legally bound by an election promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The government asserted that the promise was no longer valid as it was the Constitutional Treaty for which a referendum was promised, and that the Lisbon Treaty was fundamentally different in content and in nature (being an amending treaty rather than a constitution). The court could not find anything unlawful in the government's ratification of the treaty and the case was rejected. The case was appealed but was once more rejected. During the period of the trial the government refrained from fully ratifying the treaty.[128] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#cite_note-128)[129] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#cite_note-129)"
I think this is the kind of politic that people are pissed off with. sleep walking in to an Empire, a misguided benevolent Empire.
Cliff, can you tell me what you think the UK and EU will look like in ten years? Don't forget to factor the whole thing that happened in Turkey. For a country that has had multiple coups, one would have thought that they could do it a bit better than that. I guess that those two thousand seven hundred judges will get what's coming to them after their treasonous behaviour.