WEU Nations That Have Ratified the Lisbon Treaty

[nonymouse]

Dear Farmer,

Good to hear your comments re. the Lisbon Treaty on Constance's radio show today.

Have compiled a list of which of the 10 WEU nations have already ratified the Lisbon Treaty and would appreciate it if you would check the list for accuracy:

Belgium -- not yet (was planned for mid-July)
France -- Yes (2/14/08)
Germany -- not yet (unknown)
Greece -- Yes (6/11/08)
Italy -- not yet (summer '08)
Luxembourg -- Yes (5/29/08)
Netherlands - not yet (7/8/08)
Portugal -- Yes (4/23/08)
Spain -- not yet (09/08)
U.K. -- not yet (tbd)

Thanks again for your help and input.

nony

(Edit to correct Germany's status.)

[nonymouse]

P.S. So far, it appears that the U.K. (according to Miliband) and Spain will both continue with the ratification process.

(LONDON) - Britain will continue its process of ratifying the European Union's Lisbon reform treaty, Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Friday, after Irish voters rejected it in a referendum.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1213378336.29/view

Deputy Prime Minister Maria Fernandez Teresa de la Vega said the ratification process would continue in Spain.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1213380158.08/view

Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the 10 WEU countries might provide additional "justification" to seize control, in the event of an emergency.

[farmer]

Hey, very good Nony!

Belgium -- not yet
(was planned to be finished for mid-July)
still missing three votes:
-Council of Region Brussels-capital
-Flamic Parliament
-King Albert II. (President)

France -- Yes (2/14/08)

Germany -- not yet (unknown)
both chambers said yes (24 of April 2008/23 of May 2008) but the President wil not sign, just after a decision of the highest court, due a complaint, this can happen to be just in 2009...


Greece -- Yes (6/11/08)

Italy -- not yet (maybe summer '08)

Luxembourg -- Yes (5/29/08)

Netherlands - not yet (7/8/08)
(5thof June 2nd chamber said yes, 1st chamber expected in fall 2008)

Portugal -- Yes (4/23/08)

Spain -- not yet (09/08)
(expected in June 2008)

U.K. -- not yet (tbd)
yes at House of Commons, march 11,2008
18th of June: Houses of Lords

farmer

[farmer]

see also in Detail: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertrag_vo ... ifizierung

[nonymouse]

Thank you, Farmer.

[Sue-M]

Now, I just read today regarding Ireland rejecting this, that France did reject it 3 years ago.

[farmer]

Sue, you are referring to the first trial when they tried to push trough
a treaty for a constitution, which was signed at October 29 in 2004:
The French and the Dutch people said No to it in 2005, and it was the end of the first ratification process.

In 2007 Mrs Angela Merkel tried to revitalise the treaty and they came up with the socalled Lisabon treaty, which was also called "constitution light" from July 2007, signed in December 2007,(but in reality with even more words and changing some words like f.e. "Foreign Minister" would become "High Representative for Foreign Affairs"),

And the clue: It did not arrive before the French and Dutch voters this time...the Parliament would pass it through without asking them
...the Irish were the only people out of the 27 countries which could decide on the people's level and that is why this NO-vote counts so much!
With it the Lisbon treaty, also "constitution light", is not accepted by the EU members in TOTAL, as for ratification ALL 27 countries have to say YES.

With this result the EU's pillar 2 (Solanas CFSP and sending EU peacekeepers and WEU) and also pillar 3: Justice and Internal Affairs (like EU-anti terror fight, Europol, EU-court in Luxembourg, Cross-border police) are unitl today STILL not accepted legally by the population and by the member states law! So they make laws which they call for the sake of missing legality "guidelines" and "rules" and do as if they would be legally binding, getting even payed for it and not little, and the most member countries play this game and accept this...
The yes to the treaty would make all this legally OK. (and with this rec 666 inmplemented into the EU AND its countries, Solanas voice at the UN and more of the power shift from the memberstates to Solana).

That's the importance of the NO! and that's why they write:
"The rejection of the treaty plunged the bloc into a crisis similar to one that hit the EU after French and Dutch voters torpedoed a planned EU constitution in 2005." http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1213373839.37/view

Thanks Sue for asking - hope it helps!

[Sue-M]

Farmer, thank you so much. That totally clears it up for me.

See, I am looking for the three horns that are uprooted. But, these three have to be a part of the 10 horns. And Ireland is not part of the 10.

If Ireland was part of the 10, then, I would have to say that this is the "uprooting". But, now I am not sure.

Anyway, I don't know why they even bother to ask "the People". They do what they want anyway. And that's probably what they will do with Ireland. They will wait a few months and then pass it through without anyone noticing.

[farmer]

just added this into the above post:

With this result the EU's pillar 2 (Solanas CFSP and sending EU peacekeepers and WEU) and also pillar 3: Justice and Internal Affairs (like EU-anti terror fight, Europol, EU-court in Luxembourg, Cross-border police) are unitl today STILL not accepted legally by the population and by the member states law! So they make laws which they call for the sake of missing legality "guidelines" and "rules" and do as if they would be legally binding, getting even payed for it and not little, and the most member countries play this game and accept this...
The yes to the treaty would make all this legally OK. (and with this rec 666 inmplemented into the EU AND its countries, Solanas voice at the UN and more of the power shift from the memberstates to Solana).

That's the importance of the NO!

[farmer]

exactly Sue,
they wanted to have it this way,
that they could have always refered to it, as the democratic will,
now they have to show their real face.

[Sue-M]

But, we still could see the uprooting within the 10, because, they have not all approved it.

We know that the French and the Dutch rejected it at first. They changed it and passed it through without asking the people. If they do this with another one of the 10, then, this could be it.

[Sue-M]

exactly Sue,
they wanted to have it this way,
that they could have always refered to it, as the democratic will,
now they have to show their real face.

Farmer, this is what cracks me up. They don't even follow their own rules and laws. And they walk around like they are so good for the world. They have all the answers. But, they can't even follow their own rules and laws.

[farmer]

double post

[farmer]

We know that the French and the Dutch rejected it at first. They changed it and passed it through without asking the people. If they do this with another one of the 10, then, this could be it.

yes..or without treaty...just a core group going on...
until the man of LAWLESSness is revealed to the public.

thanks for your input!

[milo3]

But, we still could see the uprooting within the 10, because, they have not all approved it.

We know that the French and the Dutch rejected it at first. They changed it and passed it through without asking the people. If they do this with another one of the 10, then, this could be it.

Don't forget that the British would have voted no if given the oppurtunity the first time and have not yet ratified the current lisbon treaty.

milo3

[Sue-M]

But, we still could see the uprooting within the 10, because, they have not all approved it.

We know that the French and the Dutch rejected it at first. They changed it and passed it through without asking the people. If they do this with another one of the 10, then, this could be it.

Don't forget that the British would have voted no if given the oppurtunity the first time and have not yet ratified the current lisbon treaty.

milo3

Milo, good point. That could be it then. The three. Am I thinking crazy here?