Poll
Question:
Treaty of Lisbon
Option 1: No
votes: 38
Option 2: Yes
votes: 25
Option 3: Undecided
votes: 2
Lisbon Treaty 2 - and a possible 3?
http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/pdf/Reform-Treaty-03-Dec-07-CIG-14-07-cg00014.en07.pdf
I'm seeing signs around saying Lisbon will affect the minimum wage. Is this more scare tactics from the no side?
There's no depths to which folk won't travel. We should all remember this when we get our polling cards.
It's time to give Lisbon lies the red card
The cynicism of the establishment's media campaign has been truly remarkable, writes Gene Kerrigan
Sunday August 30 2009
Michael O'Leary might be an obnoxious prat, but you have to give him credit for his hard neck. When Michael is trying to put one over he just looks you right in the eye and delivers his baloney with a wink and a smile. Perhaps experience has taught him that few are immune to his brand of leprechaun charm.
"Hey, begob, sure 'tis only me, Mickey O -- pulling another fast one on ye, so I am!"
If we're going to be smothered in bullshit in the weeks to come (and we are, dear reader, we bloody are), at least O'Leary's variety provides a degree of entertainment -- and we'll get to Mick's bullshit in a moment.
There's a blizzard of the stuff headed our way, the intent being to leave us overwhelmed, jaded and ready to obediently swallow not one but two bitter pills prescribed by Mr Cowen's government.
Nama is the bigger of the bitter pills -- it's approximately the size of a grand piano -- a massive transfer of wealth from the citizens to the bank bondholders and shareholders who backed the wrong horse.
The second bitter pill is the re-run of the Lisbon Treaty. (It seems that when we voted last year we didn't understand that the 'No' box was on the voting paper purely for decorative purposes.)
We'll give Nama a rest here this week -- and the substance of the Lisbon Treaty debate is another day's work.
What's remarkable is the cynical nature of the establishment campaigns to get us to swallow both. Basically, the strategy is to tell us that Serious People have decided what's best for us and the world will fall down around our ears unless we do as we're told.
It would be more impressive if the establishment hadn't so recently made such a pig's mickey of the country. Not just politicians, but the senior civil service, bankers, speculators, big bonus business chiefs, regulators, economists and those who style themselves the leaders of "civic society". They were all equally dismissive, and abusive, of anyone who questioned the Celtic Tiger nonsense.
Today, for some reason, we must accept that they are Serious People, qualified to tell us what's best for us.
The Government assumed they'd get Nama through very easily because it involves complex financial concepts. Luckily, some academic economists took seriously their duty to examine and explain the process to civilians.
The politicians have so far stood back from the Lisbon campaign. Instead, the "leaders of civic society" have taken the burden.
There's been an allegedly spontaneous eruption of pro-Lisbon outfits. Ireland for Europe, Generation Yes, We Belong, Women for Europe and Lawyers for Europe. These are liberally sprinkled with distant-from-Cowen type politicians (Pat Cox and the like), would-be politicians and the handmaidens of the establishment.
They have a case to make for the treaty, but they don't make it. Instead, the Serious People tell us what they see as unquestionable truths. 1: This is a changed treaty. 2: This is about whether or not Ireland stays in the EU. And 3: The 'No' side are liars.
In fact, the treaty remains precisely the same, though it has been festooned with colourful pledges by politicians, the significance of which could be (but won't be) argued.
The tactic of claiming that this is about being pro or anti EU is tricky. Membership of the EU is clearly not an issue. The 'Yes' side swerves around this by inventing something called "the heart of Europe". Vote 'No' and we'll be ejected from "the heart of Europe".
More subtly, the issue is posed as whether we're "for" Europe. All but one of the "civic society" outfits has that deception in its title. They either want us to "belong" in Europe or vote "for Europe". The manipulative deceit is in the notion that to oppose the treaty is to be against Europe.
The perpetually uncivil Michael O'Leary is one of the civic leaders calling for a 'Yes' vote.
Last week, he decried the "headbangers" who oppose the treaty, and promised to spend half a million euro of Ryanair money on a 'Yes' campaign.
Why? Well, perhaps because Michael is a man who has clashed with EU bureaucrats (something similar could be said of Intel, also spending hundreds of thousands on a 'Yes' campaign). If, for instance, the issue of a Ryanair takeover of Aer Lingus was to -- ah, but Mick would never be so calculating.
Oddly enough, last October O'Leary told the Sunday Business Post that there should be no re-run of the referendum.
''It seems that only in the European Union, Ireland and Zimbabwe are you forced to vote twice," O'Leary said. ''The vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do," he said.
So, O'Leary is now spending half a million to overturn a vote he said should be respected -- knowing that the re-run is an undemocratic contrivance.
Why? Well, I believe what he told Matt Cooper last week: "Everything we do is in the interests of Ryanair."
Much of the media is onside. And the Broadcasting Commission has decided that both sides of the issue don't have to be given equal time. This was never before applied to a campaign -- and the Commission says it will not be a precedent for future votes. It's just for Lisbon 2. Imagine that.
While an objective analysis would say there was at least exaggeration on both sides last time, the 'Yes' campaign states it as a fact that it stands for truth and the 'No' campaign stands for lies.
The Generation Yes website has a section entitled "Fight The Lies". Brigid Laffan, chair of Ireland for Europe, wants a "yellow and red card system" to stop lies.
It's scatty (who would be the ref, what would be the sanction?) but it boosts the fiction of truth tellers versus liars, Serious People versus headbangers.
Good marketing doesn't argue why you should buy a product -- it creates the impression that cool people favour the product, while only the uncool reject it.
How does Ms Laffan's outfit report the Michael O'Leary half million euro campaign? It takes its wording from an Irish Times report.
"Meanwhile", the original newspaper report said, legitimately adding on three paragraphs reporting that some trade union leaders see Lisbon as "a major advance for workers".
On its website, Ireland for Europe replaced the "Meanwhile" with "In response", and changed the report to make it appear the trade union leaders were saying that O'Leary's "announcement represented a major advance for workers".
All in this together, you see, union and fanatically anti-union, except for the "headbangers". (I'm not sure if this qualifies for a yellow card or a red.)
There's lots of low-quality bullshit on offer. Former Fianna Fail minister Frank Fahey was wheeled out on Friday to defend Nama. He claimed to be frightened that the Irish banks will "fall into foreign ownership" without Nama.
"And", said an outraged Frank, "look at what the foreign banks have done to this country!"
I'm still trying to figure that one out. The economic collapse was caused by foreign banks, apparently.
By contrast, last week, Michael O'Leary cleverly refused to tell Matt Cooper how he voted in the first Lisbon referendum. "Next question,'' he said, as though reluctant to admit something.
"Are you going to be one of those people who switched sides to the 'Yes' side?" Cooper asked.
Despite Cooper's pressure, O'Leary repeatedly insisted on his right to keep his 2008 vote private, creating an impression that he had studied the issue and changed his mind from 'No' to 'Yes'.
In fact, O'Leary voted 'Yes' last time -- at least, that's what he told the Business Post last October, when he had no qualms at all about revealing how he voted.
Now, that's quality bullshit.
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 10:11:06 AM
I'm seeing signs around saying Lisbon will affect the minimum wage. Is this more scare tactics from the no side?
Not the National minimum but it will probably affect wage agreements. For example, if an agreement is reached that an electrician is to receive at least E15 per hour minimum for their expertise from their employer another company can ignore this and hire an employee for the national minimum wage and force down the wage agreement. This will be more common on the contenient between border countries in particular those that don't have a national minimum wage. I don't think the National minimum wage will be affected though.
Quote from: Declan on August 31, 2009, 10:36:29 AM
And the Broadcasting Commission has decided that both sides of the issue don't have to be given equal time. This was never before applied to a campaign -- and the Commission says it will not be a precedent for future votes. It's just for Lisbon 2. Imagine that.
Surely illegal?
QuoteSurely illegal?
I think the 50/50 requirement only applies to party political broadcasts
Quote from: Declan on August 31, 2009, 10:54:37 AM
QuoteSurely illegal?
I think the 50/50 requirement only applies to party political broadcasts
Cheers
It's here - ammended August 2009
http://www.bci.ie/documents/ref_guide_09_eng.pdf
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0831/1224253511501.html
My reading of this is that if what Cóir are saying is true about this ruling it's already true and Lisbon will not affect this.
Lads I will be out of the country on vote day. Any ideas how I do a postal vote?
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 11:27:08 AM
Lads I will be out of the country on vote day. Any ideas how I do a postal vote?
I enquired about this before - with my TD. It was prior to the last General Election and he said that Ireland doesn't do postal votes. The rationale is that there are too many people living abroad to organise this, apparently there are far more potential voters overseas than in Ireland itself.
Now, I'm not even registered at home anymore, so if you're already registered there might be some facility.
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 11:12:59 AM
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0831/1224253511501.html
My reading of this is that if what Cóir are saying is true about this ruling it's already true and Lisbon will not affect this.
If Lisbon addressed the concerns of those it claims to then it should include protection against this. Even a 'legal guarantee' would look like an effort was made.
Workers rights are not adequately addressed in Lisbon. Unless this is put in balck and white in a treaty it will contiue.
http://euobserver.com/9/28597
We need a treaty thats protects workers rights. This treaty should also be about correcting mistakes made in previous treaties.
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 11:27:08 AM
Lads I will be out of the country on vote day. Any ideas how I do a postal vote?
She here if you can get a postal vote.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/elections-and-referenda/voting/registering-to-vote
Quote from: Zapatista on August 31, 2009, 12:51:56 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 11:27:08 AM
Lads I will be out of the country on vote day. Any ideas how I do a postal vote?
She here if you can get a postal vote.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/elections-and-referenda/voting/registering-to-vote
Gave those lads a ring. No joy looks like I'm be disenfranchised.
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on August 31, 2009, 12:51:56 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 11:27:08 AM
Lads I will be out of the country on vote day. Any ideas how I do a postal vote?
She here if you can get a postal vote.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/elections-and-referenda/voting/registering-to-vote
Gave those lads a ring. No joy looks like I'm be disenfranchised.
Don't worry, if your going to an EU country you'll fit right in ;)
http://www.generationyes.ie/
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 04:00:53 PM
http://www.generationyes.ie/
This is hilarious. They are making the exact same mistake as last time. Declan Ganley was the bogey man the used to protray the entire No side last time out. Now this unelected group (and the Government) have picked up on another small unelected group and are targeting them in order to raise Coir's profile. Watch as the Yes side ignore the credible people on the No side and propel Coir to the high profile leaders of the No campaign. This is what boxing promoters do in order to keep their titles. Pick a weak opponent and create a spin around them so the average Joe actually thinks they are real contenders. Does anyone actually think this Coir group can persuade the modern Irish electorate? The answer is clearly No. To think our Government are treating this crowd as real players is insulting to the Irish people.
I wonder will there be as many questions regarding funding of Generationyes (and these other makeyuppy groups) as there was about Libertas?
http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/86637-generation-yes-question-locked-boards-ie.html
Quote from: Zapatista on September 02, 2009, 08:28:23 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 04:00:53 PM
http://www.generationyes.ie/
This is hilarious. They are making the exact same mistake as last time. Declan Ganley was the bogey man the used to protray the entire No side last time out. Now this unelected group (and the Government) have picked up on another small unelected group and are targeting them in order to raise Coir's profile. Watch as the Yes side ignore the credible people on the No side and propel Coir to the high profile leaders of the No campaign. This is what boxing promoters do in order to keep their titles. Pick a weak opponent and create a spin around them so the average Joe actually thinks they are real contenders. Does anyone actually think this Coir group can persuade the modern Irish electorate? The answer is clearly No. To think our Government are treating this crowd as real players is insulting to the Irish people.
I wonder will there be as many questions regarding funding of Generationyes (and these other makeyuppy groups) as there was about Libertas?
http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/86637-generation-yes-question-locked-boards-ie.html
I doubt it but then again generation yes doesn't appear to have near infinite money and Ganley was a bogey his views on Europe where/are off the wall.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 08:51:09 AM
I doubt it but then again generation yes doesn't appear to have near infinite money and Ganley was a bogey his views on Europe where/are off the wall.
I'm suprised you can dismiss it so easily. Ganleys views on the Lisbon treaty (his views on Europe are seperate) were far from off the wall. In fact they were closer to reality than Brian Cowen's.
Generation Yes are a section of a wider campaign who do seem to have infinite money. They haven't finished their spending yet either.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 02, 2009, 09:04:00 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 08:51:09 AM
I doubt it but then again generation yes doesn't appear to have near infinite money and Ganley was a bogey his views on Europe where/are off the wall.
I'm suprised you can dismiss it so easily. Ganleys views on the Lisbon treaty (his views on Europe are seperate) were far from off the wall. In fact they were closer to reality than Brian Cowen's.
Generation Yes are a section of a wider campaign who do seem to have infinite money. They haven't finished their spending yet either.
I found it hard to separate the man from the politics and the politics on Lisbon and his politics on Europe.
I've yet to hear and argument for the no side that instead some sort of lie or half truth.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 09:23:11 AM
I found it hard to separate the man from the politics and the politics on Lisbon and his politics on Europe.
I've yet to hear and argument for the no side that instead some sort of lie or half truth.
I don't believe you.
One fact is that Ireland will have to increase military spending another is that we would only have a Commissioner for 10 out of 15 years.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 02, 2009, 09:49:21 AM
Commissioner for 10 out of 15 years.
Yes due to nice . Lisbon changes this .
Quote from: Zapatista on September 02, 2009, 09:49:21 AM
One fact is that Ireland will have to increase military spending a
I've never seen this "fact" printed anywhere and so what it's true ?
The EU isn't going to be starting any wars and it would be nice not to have to ask the Yanks everytime the UN want us to intervene in the like of Chad etc
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 09:51:37 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 02, 2009, 09:49:21 AM
Commissioner for 10 out of 15 years.
Yes due to nice . Lisbon changes this .
No. This format is not due to Nice. Nice recommends a change but doesn't specify how. Lisbon does specify that we will not have a commissioner for 5 out of 15 years. Due to the recent guarantees however this will be delayed for the first 5 years of Lisbon.
My point was that they are facts from the No side. They are not lies or half truths.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 09:58:21 AM
I've never seen this "fact" printed anywhere and so what it's true ?
The EU isn't going to be starting any wars and it would be nice not to have to ask the Yanks everytime the UN want us to intervene in the like of Chad etc
If you think it's a good idea or bad idea is your own choice. EU member states are involved in wars across the globe already. There will be more wars.
The point being is that it's true. The No side have said this. The No side think it's a bad idea. They also think it is a strange requirement when there is no requirement to increase spending on Education or infrastructure etc.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 02, 2009, 10:00:55 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 09:51:37 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 02, 2009, 09:49:21 AM
Commissioner for 10 out of 15 years.
Yes due to nice . Lisbon changes this .
No. This format is not due to Nice. Nice recommends a change but doesn't specify how. Lisbon does specify that we will not have a commissioner for 5 out of 15 years. Due to the recent guarantees however this will be delayed for the first 5 years of Lisbon.
My point was that they are facts from the No side. They are not lies or half truths.
Ireland, and all other Member States, will keep a Commissionerhttp://www.lisbontreaty.ie/
Quote from: Zapatista on September 02, 2009, 10:04:20 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 09:58:21 AM
I've never seen this "fact" printed anywhere and so what it's true ?
The EU isn't going to be starting any wars and it would be nice not to have to ask the Yanks everytime the UN want us to intervene in the like of Chad etc
If you think it's a good idea or bad idea is your own choice. EU member states are involved in wars across the globe already. There will be more wars.
The point being is that it's true. The No side have said this. The No side think it's a bad idea. They also think it is a strange requirement when there is no requirement to increase spending on Education or infrastructure etc.
So your only issue with the treaty is a requirement to increase military spending?
The no side thinks everything is a bad idea which will destroy civilization as we know it
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:07:32 AM
Ireland, and all other Member States, will keep a Commissioner
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/
Yes, for the first 5 years. It will then change. Once ratified the treaty cannot be ignored and the treaty says it will change. You can't decide to implement part of a treaty.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:09:06 AM
So your only issue with the treaty is a requirement to increase military spending?
No. I have many issues with it.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:07:32 AM
The no side thinks everything is a bad idea which will destroy civilization as we know it
Please don't bring the debate down to that level. It's the lowest form of attack and is actually insulting.
I think I posted this before but here is the thinking of a friend of mine who voted no the last time and sees no significant difference this time around - No lies or dishonesty here but a perfectly rational reasoning process.
Before the referendum, No voters were called loolahs and lunatics and were accused of being out of their minds. Now, voluble Yes campaigners proclaim to the world that we voted No because we are "anti-Europe" or are gullible souls who bought the "lies" of the No campaign.
This simplistic and self-serving analysis may soothe their outrage but is far from the truth in the case of people like myself, who are "pro-Europe" and who decided to vote No without any help from Mary Lou MacDonald or Declan Ganley. In the fading hope that "respecting the will of the people" might mean our leaders make a genuine effort to understand why people voted No, I humbly offer an account of my own reason for ticking the No box.
1. One of the few undisputed facts in the Lisbon debate is that the content of the treaty is at least 90 per cent the same as that of the constitutional treaty rejected by the French and Dutch people. We were told, however, that there are significant differences in the legal form of the two treaties.
2. The question therefore arises as to why so much effort (and taxpayers' money) was invested in changing the form of the constitution treaty while leaving its content more or less intact.
3. This important question has received very little attention in the debate. However, it has been answered in the columns of your newspaper as follows: "As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum" [Garret FitzGerald, June 30th, 2007).
"The political subtext to the 'constitution versus treaty' debate in Britain, the Netherlands, France and Denmark was that passing a constitution would almost certainly require a referendum (which might be rejected), whereas a treaty could be ratified in parliaments" (Jamie Smyth, May 12th, 2008).
Neither of these writers could be accused of peddling anti-Europe "lies" and their answers are convincing to me.
The obvious conclusion is that the Lisbon Treaty was drafted with the specific intention of sidestepping ratification by referendum in as many member-states as possible.
4. While an arguable case can be made for ratification by parliamentary process rather than by referendum, the repackaging of the rejected constitutional treaty to avoid referendums looks very much like an underhand attempt to engineer the transfer of sovereignty from the people to those who make our laws, whoever and wherever they may be. At best this is insufferably arrogant; at worst it is dishonest.
I voted No against this arrogance and/or dishonesty and for no other reason. I suspect that many other people voted No for similar reasons without any prompting from Libertas, Sinn Féin or Cóir.
If the democratic legitimacy of the European project is of real concern to the great and good who are so cross at us for voting No, they should stop insulting our intelligence by shouting about "lies" and look instead at the Lisbon Treaty itself for the reasons why so many people voted against it. - Yours, etc,
Quote from: Zapatista on September 02, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:07:32 AM
Ireland, and all other Member States, will keep a Commissioner
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/
Yes, for the first 5 years. It will then change. Once ratified the treaty cannot be ignored and the treaty says it will change. You can't decide to implement part of a treaty.
The mandate of the current European Commission will end in November of this year. Under the Nice Treaty the next Commission must be made up of a number of Commissioners less than the number of Member States.
The Lisbon Treaty provides that the next Commission will have one Commissioner per Member State. It envisaged that from 2014 the membership of the Commission would be equal to two-thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council decided unanimously to adjust this number. As this was identified as a key issue of concern in Ireland, the Taoiseach raised the matter at the December European Council. It was ultimately agreed, that should the Lisbon Treaty enter into force, there will continue to be one Commissioner per Member State.
The effect of this agreement is that, if Lisbon is ratified, we will retain an Irish Commissioner indefinitely but, if it is rejected, the Nice Treaty provisions will apply and the number of Commissioners will have to be reduced.
What are your other issues?
Cóir have put up some catchy posters here in Dublin in the past week. Stiil think that the referendum will be passed by an extremely jittery electorate.
Now, if the "no" vote proponents put forward the view that a no vote would topple Cowen ,it might be interesting.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 11:35:04 AM
The mandate of the current European Commission will end in November of this year. Under the Nice Treaty the next Commission must be made up of a number of Commissioners less than the number of Member States.
The Lisbon Treaty provides that the next Commission will have one Commissioner per Member State. It envisaged that from 2014 the membership of the Commission would be equal to two-thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council decided unanimously to adjust this number. As this was identified as a key issue of concern in Ireland, the Taoiseach raised the matter at the December European Council. It was ultimately agreed, that should the Lisbon Treaty enter into force, there will continue to be one Commissioner per Member State.
The effect of this agreement is that, if Lisbon is ratified, we will retain an Irish Commissioner indefinitely but, if it is rejected, the Nice Treaty provisions will apply and the number of Commissioners will have to be reduced.
What are your other issues?
They have agreed an extension of one per member state. Our current commissioner wants the reduction (as do Germany, France, Britain etc) so a unanimous decision will not last beyond one term. The retention of a commissioner is not included as a ' Legal Guarantee' to be attached to a future treaty as it is only an extension.
See here (although the do try to word it as if it is a legal guarantee)
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/guarantees/
This says the Council have agreed the right to nominate a commissioner. It does not say we have the right to a Commissioner.
This is a new treaty and if it addressed the concerns of the loss of a commissioner it would correct the mistake made at Nice.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 02, 2009, 02:07:54 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 11:35:04 AM
The mandate of the current European Commission will end in November of this year. Under the Nice Treaty the next Commission must be made up of a number of Commissioners less than the number of Member States.
The Lisbon Treaty provides that the next Commission will have one Commissioner per Member State. It envisaged that from 2014 the membership of the Commission would be equal to two-thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council decided unanimously to adjust this number. As this was identified as a key issue of concern in Ireland, the Taoiseach raised the matter at the December European Council. It was ultimately agreed, that should the Lisbon Treaty enter into force, there will continue to be one Commissioner per Member State.
The effect of this agreement is that, if Lisbon is ratified, we will retain an Irish Commissioner indefinitely but, if it is rejected, the Nice Treaty provisions will apply and the number of Commissioners will have to be reduced.
What are your other issues?
They have agreed an extension of one per member state. Our current commissioner wants the reduction (as do Germany, France, Britain etc) so a unanimous decision will not last beyond one term. The retention of a commissioner is not included as a ' Legal Guarantee' to be attached to a future treaty as it is only an extension.
See here (although the do try to word it as if it is a legal guarantee)
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/guarantees/
This says the Council have agreed the right to nominate a commissioner. It does not say we have the right to a Commissioner.
This is a new treaty and if it addressed the concerns of the loss of a commissioner it would correct the mistake made at Nice.
Did you vote yes to Nice?
(http://www.theemergency.ie/site/wp-content/uploads/coir_poster.jpg)
Quote from: Canalman on September 02, 2009, 12:15:42 PM
Cóir have put up some catchy posters here in Dublin in the past week. Stiil think that the referendum will be passed by an extremely jittery electorate.
Now, if the "no" vote proponents put forward the view that a no vote would topple Cowen ,it might be interesting.
I think people are afraid that a no vote will cost jobs through shutting down export channels
Quote from: thebandit on September 02, 2009, 04:22:45 PM
Quote from: Canalman on September 02, 2009, 12:15:42 PM
Cóir have put up some catchy posters here in Dublin in the past week. Stiil think that the referendum will be passed by an extremely jittery electorate.
Now, if the "no" vote proponents put forward the view that a no vote would topple Cowen ,it might be interesting.
I think people are afraid that a no vote will cost jobs through shutting down export channels
I just hope all the clowns that have never voted before and all of a sudden took an interest in lisbon and voted no because they couldnt understand it (but never tried to read it) just stay at home and let the people with an IQ vote this in...as for Sinn Fein have they ever said yes to anything or do they just disagree with everything as a point of principle?
I hate all the crap about the Commissioners, as if that if Ireland might lose one if 5 or more years that it will somehow impact on us!! What total and utter nonsense.
Does anyone really think that by not having a commissioner for 5 years out of 15 (or whatever it was planned to be) would negatively impact Ireland or any other country?? All the No campaaign has really achieved is clarification for those of low IQ (as Tankie might say) that Lisbon won't impact abortion or conscription and they have secured more "jobs for the boys". And conrgatulations on that waste of money as European taxpayers will have to stump up for a far more than needed number of Commissioners, who get huge wedge, and who's main focus will be to show that they are not biased towards their own country (because that's about the only way they could get sacked).
I'm also annoyed that both the Yes and No campaigns (or at least the posters that have gone up this week) are copying the previous No campaign. "Forget the facts, we'll just try and scare the people into voting the way we want them to."
Quote from: thebandit on September 02, 2009, 04:22:45 PM
I think people are afraid that a no vote will cost jobs through shutting down export channels
This is not relevent.
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 01:11:38 AM
I just hope all the clowns that have never voted before and all of a sudden took an interest in lisbon and voted no because they couldnt understand it (but never tried to read it) just stay at home and let the people with an IQ vote this in...as for Sinn Fein have they ever said yes to anything or do they just disagree with everything as a point of principle?
The turnout for Lisbon was lower than normal making your point, pointless.
SF supported the GFA. I honestly do not believe for one minute that anyone would
just disagree with everything as a point of principle . How would that be a principle? Seriously, you complain about low IQs and then dumb down the debate. Have you ever voted No? Actually don't answer that as it's pointless and a discussion i can't be bothered with.
Could one of you intellectuals let us of low IQ know what the phrase "the heart of Europe" means, in constitutional terms? And how we're going to be banned from it if we fail to do the bidding of our intellectual superiors? And what I would actually be voting FOR (as opposed to the fearful fate of banishment from the heart of Europe that I'd be voting to avoid) were I to vote 'yes'?
Thanks.
Quote from: Hound on September 03, 2009, 07:48:55 AM
I hate all the crap about the Commissioners, as if that if Ireland might lose one if 5 or more years that it will somehow impact on us!! What total and utter nonsense.
Does anyone really think that by not having a commissioner for 5 years out of 15 (or whatever it was planned to be) would negatively impact Ireland or any other country?? All the No campaaign has really achieved is clarification for those of low IQ (as Tankie might say) that Lisbon won't impact abortion or conscription and they have secured more "jobs for the boys". And conrgatulations on that waste of money as European taxpayers will have to stump up for a far more than needed number of Commissioners, who get huge wedge, and who's main focus will be to show that they are not biased towards their own country (because that's about the only way they could get sacked).
I'm also annoyed that both the Yes and No campaigns (or at least the posters that have gone up this week) are copying the previous No campaign. "Forget the facts, we'll just try and scare the people into voting the way we want them to."
The arrogance and self entitlement here is obvious and reflects that of our Government, in that regard I suppose it can be forgiven.
A commissioner is important especially as we move closer to QMV were small countries have less voting power. It's like your constituency having no TDs for 5 years and relying on councillors to represent you. For some reason Charlie McCreevy was the pride of Ireland and doing an altogether great job ntill this treaty came along and now the job he held doesn't seem important at all.
BTW I attended a debate last night with Leo Varadker, Mary Lou McDonald, Vincent Brown and Lucinda Creighton. There was a good crowd at it and it was a good debate. From the comments and questions from the floor I'd say this could be a close one yet.
Quote from: Hardy on September 03, 2009, 08:34:25 AM
Could one of you intellectuals let us of low IQ know what the phrase "the heart of Europe" means, in constitutional terms? And how we're going to be banned from it if we fail to do the bidding of our intellectual superiors? And what I would actually be voting FOR (as opposed to the fearful fate of banishment from the heart of Europe that I'd be voting to avoid) were I to vote 'yes'?
Thanks.
The heart of Europe isn't a constitutional term and you know that. I've hear directly from Irish civil servants of the effect of the last no vote had to our position in the scheme of things .
Can the No lads tell us what a no will achieve SF told us last time it would get the entire thing thrown out and rewritten just for us little old Irish.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 03, 2009, 08:38:38 AM
The arrogance and self entitlement here is obvious and reflects that of our Government, in that regard I suppose it can be forgiven.
A commissioner is important especially as we move closer to QMV were small countries have less voting power. It's like your constituency having no TDs for 5 years and relying on councillors to represent you. For some reason Charlie McCreevy was the pride of Ireland and doing an altogether great job ntill this treaty came along and now the job he held doesn't seem important at all.
I believe you are clued up in most things politic, so I can only take it that you are being deliberately misleading.
Comparing a TD to a commissioner is absolute nonsense. Its MEPs who are supposed to be like TDs, i.e. who represent the interests of their constituents. Commissioners are unelected appointees and they represent the interest of the EU as whole and a specific part of their job spec is not only to be not biased towards their home country, but to be seen to be not biased. But you already know that, maybe you just forgot.
Quote from: Hound on September 03, 2009, 08:57:34 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 03, 2009, 08:38:38 AM
The arrogance and self entitlement here is obvious and reflects that of our Government, in that regard I suppose it can be forgiven.
A commissioner is important especially as we move closer to QMV were small countries have less voting power. It's like your constituency having no TDs for 5 years and relying on councillors to represent you. For some reason Charlie McCreevy was the pride of Ireland and doing an altogether great job ntill this treaty came along and now the job he held doesn't seem important at all.
I believe you are clued up in most things politic, so I can only take it that you are being deliberately misleading.
Comparing a TD to a commissioner is absolute nonsense. Its MEPs who are supposed to be like TDs, i.e. who represent the interests of their constituents. Commissioners are unelected appointees and they represent the interest of the EU as whole and a specific part of their job spec is not only to be not biased towards their home country, but to be seen to be not biased. But you already know that, maybe you just forgot.
We will have 1 state 1 vote in the first round of voting so I don't know how QVM is an issue.
Another blatant misrepresentation is Cóir's poster suggesting that our voting strength in the Council of Ministers will be reduced to 0.8% in comparison to Germany's 17%. This looks solely at the second of two stages in Qualified Majority Voting decision-making, that which requires a law to have the support of countries with 65% of the population of the EU. It deliberately ignores the first stage which is designed to counteract the kinds of concerns Cóir is raising.
* In the first stage, all states have one vote and 55% of countries are needed to approve a draft law (Article 16.4 TEU). Here, Ireland and Germany each have one vote and at least 15 countries need to support a proposal before it can even move on to the next stage.
* The second stage is based on population size – but no proposal can be forced through by a small number of large states if they don't have wider support, because of the requirement for agreement from 55% of countries.
* Ireland still retains a veto over sensitive areas, including taxation (Article 113 TFEU) and defence (Article 42.4 TEU).
Quote from: Hound on September 03, 2009, 08:57:34 AM
I believe you are clued up in most things politic, so I can only take it that you are being deliberately misleading.
Comparing a TD to a commissioner is absolute nonsense. Its MEPs who are supposed to be like TDs, i.e. who represent the interests of their constituents. Commissioners are unelected appointees and they represent the interest of the EU as whole and a specific part of their job spec is not only to be not biased towards their home country, but to be seen to be not biased. But you already know that, maybe you just forgot.
Perhaps it would be better to compare them to top civil servants, If the Cabinate was made up of Civil servant (rather than elected reps). In that case it would be like one sector (say our health sector) not having any top civil servants to have their say. If for example Mary Harney had no say regarding Health at the cabinate table as for now this sector isn't being represented. The job of the cabinate is to run the country on a whole but Harney is minister for health and will push her agenda at the cabinate. It is then up to the others to counter and push their own agenda all on which Cowen must make his decision. Impartiality is a myth and can best be reached if there are equal partners.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 03, 2009, 09:13:10 AM
Quote from: Hound on September 03, 2009, 08:57:34 AM
I believe you are clued up in most things politic, so I can only take it that you are being deliberately misleading.
Comparing a TD to a commissioner is absolute nonsense. Its MEPs who are supposed to be like TDs, i.e. who represent the interests of their constituents. Commissioners are unelected appointees and they represent the interest of the EU as whole and a specific part of their job spec is not only to be not biased towards their home country, but to be seen to be not biased. But you already know that, maybe you just forgot.
Perhaps it would be better to compare them to top civil servants, If the Cabinate was made up of Civil servant (rather than elected reps). In that case it would be like one sector (say our health sector) not having any top civil servants to have their say. If for example Mary Harney had no say regarding Health at the cabinate table as for now this sector isn't being represented. The job of the cabinate is to run the country on a whole but Harney is minister for health and will push her agenda at the cabinate. It is then up to the others to counter and push their own agenda all on which Cowen must make his decision. Impartiality is a myth and can best be reached if there are equal partners.
A myth! Typical of the no side it would easier to argue with POG and the moonlandings . What contracdicts your opinion you just ignore.
I'm going to start up a Yes lobby group . What do you think of these posters
A Yes vote for Lisbon is a Yes vote of a United Ireland?
If you vote no the Germans will invade?
All the cool kids are voting YES ?
::) ::)
I gave my answer to this question last year. Nothing meaningful has changed (except possibly more people realise how utterly incompetant our politicians, who stand to gain more decision making powers, are). Same answer coming. NO.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 03, 2009, 09:22:06 AM
I gave my answer to this question last year. Nothing meaningful has changed (except possibly more people realise how utterly incompetant our politicians, who stand to gain more decision making powers, are). Same answer coming. NO.
have to agree seanie. My fear for corporation tax while addressed in the 'guarantees' leaves out normal political manouvering from the equation.
The EU wont change Irelands taxation rules, but they say nothing about threatening to veto other portfolio areas infrastructure/agriculture/fishing/fuel/R&D to reduce funding /help etc for these - so we will be left with a choice - a no win situation for the Gov/polititians/country - so we will have to choose between cutting corporate taxation rates or losing prob more in combined other areas.
It will be made to look like its our own country's/politicians fault whatever choice is made.
My resoning for this is that the larger powers in EU have been making a lot of noise prior to last Lisbon vote, but went overly quiet on their complaints about the 'unfair' Irish corporate taxation which they were shouting loudly about for a long time.
To think that France/Germany et al have forgotten about this and are happy that a third rate nouveau riche country like Ireland are getting more than their fair share of services jobs etc is naive in the extreme.
So I firmly believe that once we have signed up we will be reeled in.
Unfortunately I feel this is inevitiable whatever we do. A no vote will just push this out a little further. Maybe long enough though to retain the return from downturn.
A lot of higher IQ's are well intentioned but naive.
Another thing that Zap beat me to mentioning, the MEP's like the TD's here are more or less the figureheads. Its the Gov departments /civil servants that call the shots in reality.
the TD's usually with no exp in their appointed portfolio take their lead from these departmental advisors and not much changes.
These civil servants are generally faceless and self serving. I dont trust that they have the countrys best interest at heart. Some may, but a lot - as we have seen from fas etc are only out for themselves.
So I'd take a hit in the amount of MEP's for retention of a full time commissioner - not the 2/3's of the time model offered. That shows the level of rating the EU has for Ireland and the smaller member countries. The EU can vote to increase commissioner size. So why dont they !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 10:05:42 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 03, 2009, 09:22:06 AM
I gave my answer to this question last year. Nothing meaningful has changed (except possibly more people realise how utterly incompetant our politicians, who stand to gain more decision making powers, are). Same answer coming. NO.
have to agree seanie. My fear for corporation tax while addressed in the 'guarantees' leaves out normal political manouvering from the equation.
The EU wont change Irelands taxation rules, but they say nothing about threatening to veto other portfolio areas infrastructure/agriculture/fishing/fuel/R&D to reduce funding /help etc for these - so we will be left with a choice - a no win situation for the Gov/polititians/country - so we will have to choose between cutting corporate taxation rates or losing prob more in combined other areas.
It will be made to look like its our own country's/politicians fault whatever choice is made.
My resoning for this is that the larger powers in EU have been making a lot of noise prior to last Lisbon vote, but went overly quiet on their complaints about the 'unfair' Irish corporate taxation which they were shouting loudly about for a long time.
To think that France/Germany et al have forgotten about this and are happy that a third rate nouveau riche country like Ireland are getting more than their fair share of services jobs etc is naive in the extreme.
So I firmly believe that once we have signed up we will be reeled in.
Unfortunately I feel this is inevitiable whatever we do. A no vote will just push this out a little further. Maybe long enough though to retain the return from downturn.
A lot of higher IQ's are well intentioned but naive.
Another thing that Zap beat me to mentioning, the MEP's like the TD's here are more or less the figureheads. Its the Gov departments /civil servants that call the shots in reality.
the TD's usually with no exp in their appointed portfolio take their lead from these departmental advisors and not much changes.
These civil servants are generally faceless and self serving. I dont trust that they have the countrys best interest at heart. Some may, but a lot - as we have seen from fas etc are only out for themselves.
So I'd take a hit in the amount of MEP's for retention of a full time commissioner - not the 2/3's of the time model offered. That shows the level of rating the EU has for Ireland and the smaller member countries. The EU can vote to increase commissioner size. So why dont they !
If your so concerned about the commissioner you'd vote yes and the commissioner are not meant to favour their home nation where as MEP's are .
And there is nothing to stop France and Germany doing what you say and still forcing us to change our Rate of corporation tax even if we vote no so why isolate our self of something you consider will happen soon or later
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 10:11:08 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 10:05:42 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 03, 2009, 09:22:06 AM
I gave my answer to this question last year. Nothing meaningful has changed (except possibly more people realise how utterly incompetant our politicians, who stand to gain more decision making powers, are). Same answer coming. NO.
have to agree seanie. My fear for corporation tax while addressed in the 'guarantees' leaves out normal political manouvering from the equation.
The EU wont change Irelands taxation rules, but they say nothing about threatening to veto other portfolio areas infrastructure/agriculture/fishing/fuel/R&D to reduce funding /help etc for these - so we will be left with a choice - a no win situation for the Gov/polititians/country - so we will have to choose between cutting corporate taxation rates or losing prob more in combined other areas.
It will be made to look like its our own country's/politicians fault whatever choice is made.
My resoning for this is that the larger powers in EU have been making a lot of noise prior to last Lisbon vote, but went overly quiet on their complaints about the 'unfair' Irish corporate taxation which they were shouting loudly about for a long time.
To think that France/Germany et al have forgotten about this and are happy that a third rate nouveau riche country like Ireland are getting more than their fair share of services jobs etc is naive in the extreme.
So I firmly believe that once we have signed up we will be reeled in.
Unfortunately I feel this is inevitiable whatever we do. A no vote will just push this out a little further. Maybe long enough though to retain the return from downturn.
A lot of higher IQ's are well intentioned but naive.
Another thing that Zap beat me to mentioning, the MEP's like the TD's here are more or less the figureheads. Its the Gov departments /civil servants that call the shots in reality.
the TD's usually with no exp in their appointed portfolio take their lead from these departmental advisors and not much changes.
These civil servants are generally faceless and self serving. I dont trust that they have the countrys best interest at heart. Some may, but a lot - as we have seen from fas etc are only out for themselves.
So I'd take a hit in the amount of MEP's for retention of a full time commissioner - not the 2/3's of the time model offered. That shows the level of rating the EU has for Ireland and the smaller member countries. The EU can vote to increase commissioner size. So why dont they !
If your so concerned about the commissioner you'd vote yes and the commissioner are not meant to favour their home nation where as MEP's are .
And there is nothing to stop France and Germany doing what you say and still forcing us to change our Rate of corporation tax even if we vote no so why isolate our self of something you consider will happen soon or later
my poor illiterate shadow
if you could read, you will see that I have already mentioned that in my post above.
as for your first part (not in bold) - is that a direct translation from swahili ?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 10:18:10 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 10:11:08 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 10:05:42 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 03, 2009, 09:22:06 AM
I gave my answer to this question last year. Nothing meaningful has changed (except possibly more people realise how utterly incompetant our politicians, who stand to gain more decision making powers, are). Same answer coming. NO.
have to agree seanie. My fear for corporation tax while addressed in the 'guarantees' leaves out normal political manouvering from the equation.
The EU wont change Irelands taxation rules, but they say nothing about threatening to veto other portfolio areas infrastructure/agriculture/fishing/fuel/R&D to reduce funding /help etc for these - so we will be left with a choice - a no win situation for the Gov/polititians/country - so we will have to choose between cutting corporate taxation rates or losing prob more in combined other areas.
It will be made to look like its our own country's/politicians fault whatever choice is made.
My resoning for this is that the larger powers in EU have been making a lot of noise prior to last Lisbon vote, but went overly quiet on their complaints about the 'unfair' Irish corporate taxation which they were shouting loudly about for a long time.
To think that France/Germany et al have forgotten about this and are happy that a third rate nouveau riche country like Ireland are getting more than their fair share of services jobs etc is naive in the extreme.
So I firmly believe that once we have signed up we will be reeled in.
Unfortunately I feel this is inevitiable whatever we do. A no vote will just push this out a little further. Maybe long enough though to retain the return from downturn.
A lot of higher IQ's are well intentioned but naive.
Another thing that Zap beat me to mentioning, the MEP's like the TD's here are more or less the figureheads. Its the Gov departments /civil servants that call the shots in reality.
the TD's usually with no exp in their appointed portfolio take their lead from these departmental advisors and not much changes.
These civil servants are generally faceless and self serving. I dont trust that they have the countrys best interest at heart. Some may, but a lot - as we have seen from fas etc are only out for themselves.
So I'd take a hit in the amount of MEP's for retention of a full time commissioner - not the 2/3's of the time model offered. That shows the level of rating the EU has for Ireland and the smaller member countries. The EU can vote to increase commissioner size. So why dont they !
If your so concerned about the commissioner you'd vote yes and the commissioner are not meant to favour their home nation where as MEP's are .
And there is nothing to stop France and Germany doing what you say and still forcing us to change our Rate of corporation tax even if we vote no so why isolate our self of something you consider will happen soon or later
my poor illiterate shadow
if you could read, you will see that I have already mentioned that in my post above.
as for your first part (not in bold) - is that a direct translation from swahili ?
I understood what you said .I just asked you a question about why you said it . I know you don't like having to explain yourself .
1) Since you consider the forced change of corporation tax enviable why vote no ? Because it might delay it some what?
2) Nice removes the commissioner if your so worried about keeping a commissioner a yes vote is the way to go or am I missing something?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 09:18:16 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 03, 2009, 09:13:10 AM
Quote from: Hound on September 03, 2009, 08:57:34 AM
I believe you are clued up in most things politic, so I can only take it that you are being deliberately misleading.
Comparing a TD to a commissioner is absolute nonsense. Its MEPs who are supposed to be like TDs, i.e. who represent the interests of their constituents. Commissioners are unelected appointees and they represent the interest of the EU as whole and a specific part of their job spec is not only to be not biased towards their home country, but to be seen to be not biased. But you already know that, maybe you just forgot.
Perhaps it would be better to compare them to top civil servants, If the Cabinate was made up of Civil servant (rather than elected reps). In that case it would be like one sector (say our health sector) not having any top civil servants to have their say. If for example Mary Harney had no say regarding Health at the cabinate table as for now this sector isn't being represented. The job of the cabinate is to run the country on a whole but Harney is minister for health and will push her agenda at the cabinate. It is then up to the others to counter and push their own agenda all on which Cowen must make his decision. Impartiality is a myth and can best be reached if there are equal partners.
A myth! Typical of the no side it would easier to argue with POG and the moonlandings . What contracdicts your opinion you just ignore.
I'm going to start up a Yes lobby group . What do you think of these posters
A Yes vote for Lisbon is a Yes vote of a United Ireland?
If you vote no the Germans will invade?
All the cool kids are voting YES ?
::) ::)
classic stuff
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 09:18:16 AM
A myth! Typical of the no side it would easier to argue with POG and the moonlandings . What contracdicts your opinion you just ignore.
I'm going to start up a Yes lobby group . What do you think of these posters
A Yes vote for Lisbon is a Yes vote of a United Ireland?
If you vote no the Germans will invade?
All the cool kids are voting YES ?
::) ::)
We have to speculate. We have to make assumptions and decide if we agree with them or not. For example, the Yes side claim we will be shunned by our partners. This is not what they are supposed to do, they are supposed to address our concerns. I don't believe we will be shunned. For some reason it seems ok to speculate about the reaction of the EU partners and our position in the EU if we vote No but not about the role of a commissioner. It's a double standard.
I think they are great slogans ;D
Quote from: Zapatista on September 03, 2009, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 09:18:16 AM
A myth! Typical of the no side it would easier to argue with POG and the moonlandings . What contracdicts your opinion you just ignore.
I'm going to start up a Yes lobby group . What do you think of these posters
A Yes vote for Lisbon is a Yes vote of a United Ireland?
If you vote no the Germans will invade?
All the cool kids are voting YES ?
::) ::)
We have to speculate. We have to make assumptions and decide if we agree with them or not. For example, the Yes side claim we will be shunned by our partners. This is not what they are supposed to do, they are supposed to address our concerns. I don't believe we will be shunned. For some reason it seems ok to speculate about the reaction of the EU partners and our position in the EU if we vote No but not about the role of a commissioner. It's a double standard.
I think they are great slogans ;D
I can tell you we are already being shunned due to the first no.
Can anyone actually say what the point is in voting NO and what it would achieve?
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 11:31:36 AM
Can anyone actually say what the point is in voting NO and what it would achieve?
<typicial_idiot> It's a protest vote. I'll show FF what I think of them ! Even if I've voted 1,2 and 3 for them in every general election for the last 50 years and will vote for them at the next general election </typicial_idiot>
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 11:33:42 AM
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 11:31:36 AM
Can anyone actually say what the point is in voting NO and what it would achieve?
<typicial_idiot> It's a protest vote. I'll show FF what I think of them ! Even if I've voted 1,2 and 3 for them in every general election for the last 50 years and will vote for them at the next general election </typicial_idiot>
But is there anything to be gained by voting No or is this just the super nationalist thing and Sinn Fein being anti Europe?
I have one reason for voting no, and one reason only, which I am willing to change my mind over if anyone can convince me otherwise. This was why I voted no the last time, and why I will do again unless anyone can explain to me why I'm mistaken.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html (http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html)
The above is the text for Article 48 of the Treaty. As with all parts of the treaty, it's difficult for a layman to understand, but I've been told by others who would be quite competent in this area, that this basically means that the Lisbon Treaty has the power to expand itself, so to speak.
Essentially, my concern is not what is in the Lisbon Treaty currently, but what they can choose to add in down the line, with only the say so of our national government. By installing the Lisbon Treaty into our constitution, are we essentially installing the Lisbon Treaty as it stands, or installing it in whatever shape or form it may take in time?
Put simply, I don't trust our government to uphold the will of the people on European matters - our politicians simply want a quiet life. I'm not sure why that is, whether they like the idea of the European parliament doing the dog's work behind legislating or they simply like being the nice guys at parties, but in every European referendum, we tend to vote something between 60% yes and 45% yes. In every European referendum so far, our elected TD's have been 90% yes more or less. They simply don't represent our wishes in this area - so I'm not willing to sign over competency from our constitution over to our government. I've been told that this is what I'm doing, can anyone tell me otherwise - or indeed confirm for everyone else out there?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 10:05:42 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 03, 2009, 09:22:06 AM
I gave my answer to this question last year. Nothing meaningful has changed (except possibly more people realise how utterly incompetant our politicians, who stand to gain more decision making powers, are). Same answer coming. NO.
have to agree seanie. My fear for corporation tax while addressed in the 'guarantees' leaves out normal political manouvering from the equation.
The EU wont change Irelands taxation rules, but they say nothing about threatening to veto other portfolio areas infrastructure/agriculture/fishing/fuel/R&D to reduce funding /help etc for these - so we will be left with a choice - a no win situation for the Gov/polititians/country - so we will have to choose between cutting corporate taxation rates or losing prob more in combined other areas.
It will be made to look like its our own country's/politicians fault whatever choice is made.
My resoning for this is that the larger powers in EU have been making a lot of noise prior to last Lisbon vote, but went overly quiet on their complaints about the 'unfair' Irish corporate taxation which they were shouting loudly about for a long time.
To think that France/Germany et al have forgotten about this and are happy that a third rate nouveau riche country like Ireland are getting more than their fair share of services jobs etc is naive in the extreme.
So I firmly believe that once we have signed up we will be reeled in.
Unfortunately I feel this is inevitiable whatever we do. A no vote will just push this out a little further. Maybe long enough though to retain the return from downturn.
A lot of higher IQ's are well intentioned but naive.
Lynchbhoy, this is a discussion on voting for the Lisbon treaty. What you say may very well have merit, but voting Yes or No in Lisbon is totally irrelevant to it either way. I've no idea whether it will or won't happen, but voting Yes or No will neither increase the likelihood or timing nor decrease it.
As for your point on commissioners, as gnevin said it seemed more a push for a yes than a no vote. Though personally I wouldnt be in favour of increasing appointed representatives at the cost of reducing those elected by the people as you suggest.
Quote from: Lone Shark on September 03, 2009, 12:36:17 PM
I have one reason for voting no, and one reason only, which I am willing to change my mind over if anyone can convince me otherwise. This was why I voted no the last time, and why I will do again unless anyone can explain to me why I'm mistaken.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html (http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html)
The above is the text for Article 48 of the Treaty. As with all parts of the treaty, it's difficult for a layman to understand, but I've been told by others who would be quite competent in this area, that this basically means that the Lisbon Treaty has the power to expand itself, so to speak.
Essentially, my concern is not what is in the Lisbon Treaty currently, but what they can choose to add in down the line, with only the say so of our national government. By installing the Lisbon Treaty into our constitution, are we essentially installing the Lisbon Treaty as it stands, or installing it in whatever shape or form it may take in time?
Put simply, I don't trust our government to uphold the will of the people on European matters - our politicians simply want a quiet life. I'm not sure why that is, whether they like the idea of the European parliament doing the dog's work behind legislating or they simply like being the nice guys at parties, but in every European referendum, we tend to vote something between 60% yes and 45% yes. In every European referendum so far, our elected TD's have been 90% yes more or less. They simply don't represent our wishes in this area - so I'm not willing to sign over competency from our constitution over to our government. I've been told that this is what I'm doing, can anyone tell me otherwise - or indeed confirm for everyone else out there?
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.We are voting on Lisbon as it stand.
Now again, I'm only following a legal eagle here who told me this, but I think we are also voting to change our constitution so that stuff which would have needed a referendum before, now will only need government approval. If you loike, part of this amendment changes what our constitutional requirement would be.
Now if you can confirm for me that this is definitely not the case, and better yet point me to a source which confirms this, I'd be happy to change my view. However I've emailed a lot of different people trying to get a written confirmation of this one way or another and it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.
Quote from: Hound on September 03, 2009, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 10:05:42 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 03, 2009, 09:22:06 AM
I gave my answer to this question last year. Nothing meaningful has changed (except possibly more people realise how utterly incompetant our politicians, who stand to gain more decision making powers, are). Same answer coming. NO.
have to agree seanie. My fear for corporation tax while addressed in the 'guarantees' leaves out normal political manouvering from the equation.
The EU wont change Irelands taxation rules, but they say nothing about threatening to veto other portfolio areas infrastructure/agriculture/fishing/fuel/R&D to reduce funding /help etc for these - so we will be left with a choice - a no win situation for the Gov/polititians/country - so we will have to choose between cutting corporate taxation rates or losing prob more in combined other areas.
It will be made to look like its our own country's/politicians fault whatever choice is made.
My resoning for this is that the larger powers in EU have been making a lot of noise prior to last Lisbon vote, but went overly quiet on their complaints about the 'unfair' Irish corporate taxation which they were shouting loudly about for a long time.
To think that France/Germany et al have forgotten about this and are happy that a third rate nouveau riche country like Ireland are getting more than their fair share of services jobs etc is naive in the extreme.
So I firmly believe that once we have signed up we will be reeled in.
Unfortunately I feel this is inevitiable whatever we do. A no vote will just push this out a little further. Maybe long enough though to retain the return from downturn.
A lot of higher IQ's are well intentioned but naive.
Lynchbhoy, this is a discussion on voting for the Lisbon treaty. What you say may very well have merit, but voting Yes or No in Lisbon is totally irrelevant to it either way. I've no idea whether it will or won't happen, but voting Yes or No will neither increase the likelihood or timing nor decrease it.
As for your point on commissioners, as gnevin said it seemed more a push for a yes than a no vote. Though personally I wouldnt be in favour of increasing appointed representatives at the cost of reducing those elected by the people as you suggest.
thats just it - surely we need to mull over the potential outcome and reality of things rather than the glib glossing over by those with little clue of how the world (economy and politics) works - the likes of pudsey etc dont look into or cant fathom.
I would have thought potential outcomes and what may happen to us, our tax, our decision making, our veto, our representation etc should all be part of whether you then vote yes or no.
I want to vote yes (as I did for maastrict and nice), but this lisbon documentation pertainig to us does not have anything other than high level stuff that copper fastens nothing and serves only to convince some of the gullible to vote yes.
I'd almost prefer if sf canvassed for a yes vote, that way many people would realise its not a nationalist/Irish/pseudo-patriotic thing that people are voting for.
Its based on economy and autonamy imo.
for the well versed on here that are talking about voting yes - like billys boots (I think is voting 'yes') - can I ask them to say whay they are happy enough to do so as they are in touch with the economy etc and I'd really like to get his/their greater opinion.
(I dont know you really hound so am not 'excluding' you and not meaning to offend here - just know Billy is a business man and being from longford , knows the value of a euro ;) ).
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 11:31:36 AM
Can anyone actually say what the point is in voting NO and what it would achieve?
I know little or nothing about the treaty but I'm interested, and I'm disappointed no one answered Hardy's question so I'll ask again, can you or Gnevin, or any of the others in favour spell out why a Yes vote is the way forward.
What's in it for Ireland basically?
Btw, when the "yes" camp insult those who vote no as having low IQs etc it's extremely hypocritical to turn round and criticise the No camp for scaremongering.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 03, 2009, 01:22:12 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 11:31:36 AM
Can anyone actually say what the point is in voting NO and what it would achieve?
I know little or nothing about the treaty but I'm interested, and I'm disappointed no one answered Hardy's question so I'll ask again, can you or Gnevin, or any of the others in favour spell out why a Yes vote is the way forward.
What's in it for Ireland basically?
Btw, when the "yes" camp insult those who vote no as having low IQs etc it's extremely hypocritical to turn round and criticise the No camp for scaremongering.
A stronger , more efficient ,more democratic and better integrated Europe.
Quote from: Lone Shark on September 03, 2009, 01:06:17 PM
Now again, I'm only following a legal eagle here who told me this, but I think we are also voting to change our constitution so that stuff which would have needed a referendum before, now will only need government approval. If you loike, part of this amendment changes what our constitutional requirement would be.
Now if you can confirm for me that this is definitely not the case, and better yet point me to a source which confirms this, I'd be happy to change my view. However I've emailed a lot of different people trying to get a written confirmation of this one way or another and it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.
I'll see if I can find out something .
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 03, 2009, 01:22:12 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 11:31:36 AM
Can anyone actually say what the point is in voting NO and what it would achieve?
I know little or nothing about the treaty but I'm interested, and I'm disappointed no one answered Hardy's question so I'll ask again, can you or Gnevin, or any of the others in favour spell out why a Yes vote is the way forward.
What's in it for Ireland basically?
Btw, when the "yes" camp insult those who vote no as having low IQs etc it's extremely hypocritical to turn round and criticise the No camp for scaremongering.
A stronger , more efficient ,more democratic and better integrated Europe.
How though? Those words mean f**k all to me.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 01:01:17 PM
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
We are voting on Lisbon as it stand.
The next line is -
5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.If this had have been included in Nice we would not be facing another referendum but the matter would be referred to the European Council as it was 2 years in June since Bertie Ahern signed the treaty.
I don't know what powers the Council will have in order to deal with non ratification by a member state but I assume it could be interpreted as the power to decide the way forward which may be ratification by Parliament.. I suppose the wording of the changes to the constitution we are voting on will play a part on this.
6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.
The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.Part three of the treaty can be amended (after receiving submissions) by unanimity of the Council in accordance with our constitution. If it is not then ratified then it is to be deferred to the Council. I'm not sure why as currently every state has a veto. Will the Council be able to ignore this veto?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 03, 2009, 01:22:12 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 11:31:36 AM
Can anyone actually say what the point is in voting NO and what it would achieve?
I know little or nothing about the treaty but I'm interested, and I'm disappointed no one answered Hardy's question so I'll ask again, can you or Gnevin, or any of the others in favour spell out why a Yes vote is the way forward.
What's in it for Ireland basically?
Btw, when the "yes" camp insult those who vote no as having low IQs etc it's extremely hypocritical to turn round and criticise the No camp for scaremongering.
A stronger , more efficient ,more democratic and better integrated Europe.
That's my memory of why I voted Yes initially. Efficiency being a key one. At the moment, when something needs to get done it needs a huge majority, often unanimous. So with the increase in member numbers that has to change or nothing would will ever get done. We are in the EU, its supposed to be democratic, so nobody will get what they want all the time. But there are still certain issues where the huge majority is still required (or countries have a veto) and others were countries can decide for themselves - for instance it is quite clear that Ireland can choose its own tax rates.
Ah shite, I didn't really want to get dragged into this again. I'll try to be brief.
The commission has effectively been framing our broad legislation for many years, in the form of directives. It has worked well, in my opinion, and its consultative process is good in accommodating/excluding 'local' issues at member state level. Enacting Commission Directives is a 'local' process anyway, and must work within the framework of (for Ireland) its constitution. Again, there is pre-emption of any difficulties in the consultation process. As I see it, Lisbon is happening to allow that process to be made more efficient in light of the massive expansion of the federation of states. I don't see 'issues' as it has been my experience that the Commission deals (in general) on a more equitable basis than national governments, and to me (personally), is more to be 'trusted' (if that's any recommendation, knowing our lot).
In general, the EU legislation enacted here, has to me, been more effective in its purpose than the 'local' legislation (over which the Commission hasn't and won't want to get involved in) in the last 20 years. For example, the Environmental Regulation legislation has effectively removed the bulk of pollution from the country, during the biggest growth period in the history of the state (without the negotiations of interested parties that would have 'spancilled' a local process). On the other hand, the Divorce/Abortion/Adoption legislation, handled locally, has been divisive, impractical and unsuccessful (relatively).
I think the EU legislative process is more open, more equitable, less prone to interference and more visionary than our national legislative process. I think Ireland has more to gain than to lose by agreeing to the proposed administrative changes. I think that the arguments about loss of control are irrelevant and redundant, but again, has been badly handled by those charged with selling the changes.
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 03, 2009, 01:41:23 PM
Ah shite, I didn't really want to get dragged into this again. I'll try to be brief.
The commission has effectively been framing our broad legislation for many years, in the form of directives. It has worked well, in my opinion, and its consultative process is good in accommodating/excluding 'local' issues at member state level. Enacting Commission Directives is a 'local' process anyway, and must work within the framework of (for Ireland) its constitution. Again, there is pre-emption of any difficulties in the consultation process. As I see it, Lisbon is happening to allow that process to be made more efficient in light of the massive expansion of the federation of states. I don't see 'issues' as it has been my experience that the Commission deals (in general) on a more equitable basis than national governments, and to me (personally), is more to be 'trusted' (if that's any recommendation, knowing our lot).
In general, the EU legislation enacted here, has to me, been more effective in its purpose than the 'local' legislation (over which the Commission hasn't and won't want to get involved in) in the last 20 years. For example, the Environmental Regulation legislation has effectively removed the bulk of pollution from the country, during the biggest growth period in the history of the state (without the negotiations of interested parties that would have 'spancilled' a local process). On the other hand, the Divorce/Abortion/Adoption legislation, handled locally, has been divisive, impractical and unsuccessful (relatively).
I think the EU legislative process is more open, more equitable, less prone to interference and more visionary than our national legislative process. I think Ireland has more to gain than to lose by agreeing to the proposed administrative changes. I think that the arguments about loss of control are irrelevant and redundant, but again, has been badly handled by those charged with selling the changes.
Good spake by that man
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 03, 2009, 01:41:23 PM
Ah shite, I didn't really want to get dragged into this again. I'll try to be brief.
The commission has effectively been framing our broad legislation for many years, in the form of directives. It has worked well, in my opinion, and its consultative process is good in accommodating/excluding 'local' issues at member state level. Enacting Commission Directives is a 'local' process anyway, and must work within the framework of (for Ireland) its constitution. Again, there is pre-emption of any difficulties in the consultation process. As I see it, Lisbon is happening to allow that process to be made more efficient in light of the massive expansion of the federation of states. I don't see 'issues' as it has been my experience that the Commission deals (in general) on a more equitable basis than national governments, and to me (personally), is more to be 'trusted' (if that's any recommendation, knowing our lot).
In general, the EU legislation enacted here, has to me, been more effective in its purpose than the 'local' legislation (over which the Commission hasn't and won't want to get involved in) in the last 20 years. For example, the Environmental Regulation legislation has effectively removed the bulk of pollution from the country, during the biggest growth period in the history of the state (without the negotiations of interested parties that would have 'spancilled' a local process). On the other hand, the Divorce/Abortion/Adoption legislation, handled locally, has been divisive, impractical and unsuccessful (relatively).
I think the EU legislative process is more open, more equitable, less prone to interference and more visionary than our national legislative process. I think Ireland has more to gain than to lose by agreeing to the proposed administrative changes. I think that the arguments about loss of control are irrelevant and redundant, but again, has been badly handled by those charged with selling the changes.
That's the first decent argument I've seen for a yes vote yet - it actually makes sense and isn't just a load of buzzwords. I'd still like my other concern to be addressed, but that kind of thinking is the sort of approach that I could get behind.
Interesting discussion so far, very informative, I was wondering if we are going to get a poll, just Yes or No (and people with a vote only please).
One negative is the inference that a No vote = a low IQ! ::)
Could I suggest that by placing your trust in the opinions of the Current Irish Government, that you could be placing your trust in the hands of the most corrupt Governemtn in the history of the state who have ruined the country with economic and social hari kari, during its terms of office. Why not send out the ultimate message to Europe - we can be Irish - we can have our opinion changed for us. Some nation of principle youse lot. G
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 03, 2009, 01:41:23 PM
Ah shite, I didn't really want to get dragged into this again. I'll try to be brief.
The commission has effectively been framing our broad legislation for many years, in the form of directives. It has worked well, in my opinion, and its consultative process is good in accommodating/excluding 'local' issues at member state level. Enacting Commission Directives is a 'local' process anyway, and must work within the framework of (for Ireland) its constitution. Again, there is pre-emption of any difficulties in the consultation process. As I see it, Lisbon is happening to allow that process to be made more efficient in light of the massive expansion of the federation of states. I don't see 'issues' as it has been my experience that the Commission deals (in general) on a more equitable basis than national governments, and to me (personally), is more to be 'trusted' (if that's any recommendation, knowing our lot).
In general, the EU legislation enacted here, has to me, been more effective in its purpose than the 'local' legislation (over which the Commission hasn't and won't want to get involved in) in the last 20 years. For example, the Environmental Regulation legislation has effectively removed the bulk of pollution from the country, during the biggest growth period in the history of the state (without the negotiations of interested parties that would have 'spancilled' a local process). On the other hand, the Divorce/Abortion/Adoption legislation, handled locally, has been divisive, impractical and unsuccessful (relatively).
I think the EU legislative process is more open, more equitable, less prone to interference and more visionary than our national legislative process. I think Ireland has more to gain than to lose by agreeing to the proposed administrative changes. I think that the arguments about loss of control are irrelevant and redundant, but again, has been badly handled by those charged with selling the changes.
After you received (deserved) compliments for the post I'm a little afraid to reply in case it's seen as reactionary. You do make good point which I can't challenge but would like to add that our local Government often choose not to implement the legislation and take the fine instead. I don't think anyone disagrees that changes need to be made but the manner of these changes is in question. In the administrative changes it includes a Permanent president of the Council and the creation of a foreign affairs minister. These are negative aspects to the proposals. Unfortunatley it's a package deal as it stands.
Gaoth Dobhair Abu, I don't know how to add a poll at this stage but if a Mod can do it then that's fine.
Quoteour local Government often choose not to implement the legislation and take the fine instead
Not implementing the legislation is, as I understand it, not an option. The fines were for, I believe, delays in implementing stages of legislation which were agreed (by consultation) by our Government (at the time).
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 03, 2009, 01:22:12 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 11:31:36 AM
Can anyone actually say what the point is in voting NO and what it would achieve?
I know little or nothing about the treaty but I'm interested, and I'm disappointed no one answered Hardy's question so I'll ask again, can you or Gnevin, or any of the others in favour spell out why a Yes vote is the way forward.
What's in it for Ireland basically?
Btw, when the "yes" camp insult those who vote no as having low IQs etc it's extremely hypocritical to turn round and criticise the No camp for scaremongering.
A stronger , more efficient ,more democratic and better integrated Europe.
that makes sense to me...the way i see it is that Europe is constantly getting more intergrated and if we dont like it we should take a vote on if we want to be in Europe or not as I really cannot see what Sinn Fein want out of Europe
Quote from: Zapatista on September 03, 2009, 01:39:45 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 01:01:17 PM
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
We are voting on Lisbon as it stand.
The next line is -
5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.
If this had have been included in Nice we would not be facing another referendum but the matter would be referred to the European Council as it was 2 years in June since Bertie Ahern signed the treaty.
I don't know what powers the Council will have in order to deal with non ratification by a member state but I assume it could be interpreted as the power to decide the way forward which may be ratification by Parliament.. I suppose the wording of the changes to the constitution we are voting on will play a part on this.
6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.
The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
Part three of the treaty can be amended (after receiving submissions) by unanimity of the Council in accordance with our constitution. If it is not then ratified then it is to be deferred to the Council. I'm not sure why as currently every state has a veto. Will the Council be able to ignore this veto?
Surely the last line in bold states that changes can't be made without constitutional agreement
Zap at the bottom of each page of the thread should be an Add poll icon, just click. I think it would be interesting to see if the boards views have changed much since last year.
If Lisbon causes any weakening of the Irish peoples right to govern themselves or any watering down of our Constitution then I'm anti it.
Quote from: Lone Shark on September 03, 2009, 12:36:17 PM
Put simply, I don't trust our government to uphold the will of the people on European matters - our politicians simply want a quiet life.
I'm not sure this is a Lisbon issue even if a written declaration that Lisbon couldn't be changed how be gotten the fact it the Irish government has far more powers outside Lisbon than they could every agree to change or modify in Lisbon.
Irish government can declare a state of emergency if it wants and pretty much do as they please.
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on September 03, 2009, 02:34:33 PM
Surely the last line in bold states that changes can't be made without constitutional agreement
Yes but it also states that if there are problems the 'matter' is to be deferred to the Eu Council. I don't know what has to be defferred, is it ratification? To be honest it confuses me a lot.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 03, 2009, 02:39:29 PM
Zap at the bottom of each page of the thread should be an Add poll icon, just click. I think it would be interesting to see if the boards views have changed much since last year.
If Lisbon causes any weakening of the Irish peoples right to govern themselves or any watering down of our Constitution then I'm anti it.
have we not been changing our constitution over the past 40 years as member of Europe? If Europe is to become more intergrated the constitution must be changed.
Also on the constitution are you sayin that our constitution is correct - maybe the people who wrote in in a different time got parts of it wrong...
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 02:48:07 PM
have we not been changing our constitution over the past 40 years as member of Europe? If Europe is to become more intergrated the constitution must be changed.
Also on the constitution are you sayin that our constitution is correct - maybe the people who wrote in in a different time got parts of it wrong...
The Lisbon treaty was wrote in a different time ;)
Poll added.
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 02:48:07 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 03, 2009, 02:39:29 PM
Zap at the bottom of each page of the thread should be an Add poll icon, just click. I think it would be interesting to see if the boards views have changed much since last year.
If Lisbon causes any weakening of the Irish peoples right to govern themselves or any watering down of our Constitution then I'm anti it.
have we not been changing our constitution over the past 40 years as member of Europe? If Europe is to become more intergrated the constitution must be changed.
Also on the constitution are you sayin that our constitution is correct - maybe the people who wrote in in a different time got parts of it wrong...
Ok, you've completely ignored the first part of my point and misrepresented the second point. Where did I say that the Constitution was correct or shouldn't be changed??
But if the Constitution needs to be changed it has to be at the will of the Irish people not a crowd of Europeans in Brussels or theat shower of shysters in Dublin.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 03, 2009, 03:01:22 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 02:48:07 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 03, 2009, 02:39:29 PM
Zap at the bottom of each page of the thread should be an Add poll icon, just click. I think it would be interesting to see if the boards views have changed much since last year.
If Lisbon causes any weakening of the Irish peoples right to govern themselves or any watering down of our Constitution then I'm anti it.
have we not been changing our constitution over the past 40 years as member of Europe? If Europe is to become more intergrated the constitution must be changed.
Also on the constitution are you sayin that our constitution is correct - maybe the people who wrote in in a different time got parts of it wrong...
Ok, you've completely ignored the first part of my point and misrepresented the second point. Where did I say that the Constitution was correct or shouldn't be changed??
But if the Constitution needs to be changed it has to be at the will of the Irish people not a crowd of Europeans in Brussels or theat shower of shysters in Dublin.
Skyster in Dublin which we elect and the same same goes for Europe but as I have said it is clear to see where Europe is going and we should either get on board or question if we want to be part of this new Europe or not.
Lads it's October 3rd a No has been returned by 85% (never going to happen but lets take the extreme). What now? What do you expect Europe to do and what do you expect Ireland to do.
Is the next step a Referendum on EU membership?
Coming soon to a poll station near you .............LISBON 3
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on September 03, 2009, 03:16:07 PM
Coming soon to a poll station near you .............LISBON 3
So you expect Europe to give us further guarantees?
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 03, 2009, 03:01:22 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 02:48:07 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 03, 2009, 02:39:29 PM
Zap at the bottom of each page of the thread should be an Add poll icon, just click. I think it would be interesting to see if the boards views have changed much since last year.
If Lisbon causes any weakening of the Irish peoples right to govern themselves or any watering down of our Constitution then I'm anti it.
have we not been changing our constitution over the past 40 years as member of Europe? If Europe is to become more intergrated the constitution must be changed.
Also on the constitution are you sayin that our constitution is correct - maybe the people who wrote in in a different time got parts of it wrong...
Ok, you've completely ignored the first part of my point and misrepresented the second point. Where did I say that the Constitution was correct or shouldn't be changed??
But if the Constitution needs to be changed it has to be at the will of the Irish people not a crowd of Europeans in Brussels or theat shower of shysters in Dublin.
Absolutely. If the Irish people knowingly and willingly voted to give up this right I'd accept it and we'd get what we deserve. We are being asked to give this up by stealth which shows our government/main politicians to be either liars or totally incompetent. The No Campaign are as bad (though they get a fools pardon as they won't gain anythnig from the shift in power) cos none of those idiots have copped that this is the ONLY issue.
So should we give away our right to change the constitution to the guys who brought us a tiger economy that ends up with NAMA? Yes or No?
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 02:33:49 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 03, 2009, 01:22:12 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 11:31:36 AM
Can anyone actually say what the point is in voting NO and what it would achieve?
I know little or nothing about the treaty but I'm interested, and I'm disappointed no one answered Hardy's question so I'll ask again, can you or Gnevin, or any of the others in favour spell out why a Yes vote is the way forward.
What's in it for Ireland basically?
Btw, when the "yes" camp insult those who vote no as having low IQs etc it's extremely hypocritical to turn round and criticise the No camp for scaremongering.
A stronger , more efficient ,more democratic and better integrated Europe.
that makes sense to me...the way i see it is that Europe is constantly getting more intergrated and if we dont like it we should take a vote on if we want to be in Europe or not as I really cannot see what Sinn Fein want out of Europe
That's not answering my question, Billy is the only one who's put forward an reason why people should vote yes, I can see the benefits but I can also see the potential problems wiht what Billy has said.
Is Billy's reason the only reason for voting yes? or is there more? I know nothing about the treaty but yourself and Gnevin seem to know it all yet neither of you are able to put forward a couple of meaningful points as to why it should be a yes vote.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 03, 2009, 04:33:52 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 02:33:49 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 03, 2009, 01:22:12 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 03, 2009, 11:31:36 AM
Can anyone actually say what the point is in voting NO and what it would achieve?
I know little or nothing about the treaty but I'm interested, and I'm disappointed no one answered Hardy's question so I'll ask again, can you or Gnevin, or any of the others in favour spell out why a Yes vote is the way forward.
What's in it for Ireland basically?
Btw, when the "yes" camp insult those who vote no as having low IQs etc it's extremely hypocritical to turn round and criticise the No camp for scaremongering.
A stronger , more efficient ,more democratic and better integrated Europe.
that makes sense to me...the way i see it is that Europe is constantly getting more intergrated and if we dont like it we should take a vote on if we want to be in Europe or not as I really cannot see what Sinn Fein want out of Europe
That's not answering my question, Billy is the only one who's put forward an reason why people should vote yes, I can see the benefits but I can also see the potential problems wiht what Billy has said.
Is Billy's reason the only reason for voting yes? or is there more? I know nothing about the treaty but yourself and Gnevin seem to know it all yet neither of you are able to put forward a couple of meaningful points as to why it should be a yes vote.
IMO this is a very boring treaty as it is aimed at making Europe run better by granting more power which in turn will make decision making for the Union as a whole alot quicker...so when you say what is in it for me? ...i dont have an answer better than the one Gnevin covered, i dont buy into the who Europe are out to get us crap and believe that these change will improve how the union works.
I will admit that there are thing that i would not be a big fan of but its a treaty which generally means that you need to compromise
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 03:11:15 PM
Lads it's October 3rd a No has been returned by 85% (never going to happen but lets take the extreme). What now? What do you expect Europe to do and what do you expect Ireland to do.
Is the next step a Referendum on EU membership?
Very hypotheticcal but the EU will have to like it and leave it. They should have the balls to ask other countries to vote on the same treaty on the same day as we are. In my opinion it would go some way to solving my main problems with it. Who knows what is going to happen further down the line with the 'EU project'. And I also think the Nice treaty was the worst thing to hit the country.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 03:11:15 PM
Lads it's October 3rd a No has been returned by 85% (never going to happen but lets take the extreme). What now? What do you expect Europe to do and what do you expect Ireland to do.
Is the next step a Referendum on EU membership?
This is a very important question and one that should have been given due attention after the European Constitution was rejected and even more so after Lisbon 1. The problem is that this question was never actually addressed.
I don't believe that there will be a Lisbon 3. If this one fails a side affect of that will be the collapse of the Irish Government and its seemless replacement. A FG/LB Government wouldn't try it again as it could then lead to their collapse.
I would say that there would then be actual changes made to the treaty text and the Council would sign off on it(as was done with the European constitution) . I'd say a British Conservative Government would be involved in the signing of the revamped treaty too. It would then be presented to us as the all new all singing all danncing Treaty of Dublin or the Treaty of Lourdes or something else equally irrelevent. The ambition of the bureaucrats would have to be postponed.
What should happen is that there should be a real debate among EU citizens. Rather than what happened here with the Government asking multiple choice questions to get the answers they want. We were never asked what would would like to see in a treaty, we were asked "which of the following (listed) reasons was of most concern to you in the Lisbon Treaty". This is not a reflection of the people (who are sovereign). Rather than draw up a treaty there should be a debate around what the people want the EU to represent. A treaty based the future direction of the Eu, based on the will of the people. It should then go to referendum in every member state. This will ensure that in order for it to be accepted the views of the majority of EU ctizens would have been addressed.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 03, 2009, 09:01:05 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 03:11:15 PM
Lads it's October 3rd a No has been returned by 85% (never going to happen but lets take the extreme). What now? What do you expect Europe to do and what do you expect Ireland to do.
Is the next step a Referendum on EU membership?
This is a very important question and one that should have been given due attention after the European Constitution was rejected and even more so after Lisbon 1. The problem is that this question was never actually addressed.
I don't believe that there will be a Lisbon 3. If this one fails a side affect of that will be the collapse of the Irish Government and its seemless replacement. A FG/LB Government wouldn't try it again as it could then lead to their collapse.
I would say that there would then be actual changes made to the treaty text and the Council would sign off on it(as was done with the European constitution) . I'd say a British Conservative Government would be involved in the signing of the revamped treaty too. It would then be presented to us as the all new all singing all danncing Treaty of Dublin or the Treaty of Lourdes or something else equally irrelevent. The ambition of the bureaucrats would have to be postponed.
What should happen is that there should be a real debate among EU citizens. Rather than what happened here with the Government asking multiple choice questions to get the answers they want. We were never asked what would would like to see in a treaty, we were asked "which of the following (listed) reasons was of most concern to you in the Lisbon Treaty". This is not a reflection of the people (who are sovereign). Rather than draw up a treaty there should be a debate around what the people want the EU to represent. A treaty based the future direction of the Eu, based on the will of the people. It should then go to referendum in every member state. This will ensure that in order for it to be accepted the views of the majority of EU ctizens would have been addressed.
The trouble with the No side for my point of view is they don't know what will happen with a other No or even what they want .
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 03, 2009, 07:20:22 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 03:11:15 PM
Lads it's October 3rd a No has been returned by 85% (never going to happen but lets take the extreme). What now? What do you expect Europe to do and what do you expect Ireland to do.
Is the next step a Referendum on EU membership?
Very hypotheticcal but the EU will have to like it and leave it. They should have the balls to ask other countries to vote on the same treaty on the same day as we are. In my opinion it would go some way to solving my main problems with it. Who knows what is going to happen further down the line with the 'EU project'. And I also think the Nice treaty was the worst thing to hit the country.
Does the treaty require unanimous acceptance by every state?
What negatives did nice bring?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 09:32:51 PM
The trouble with the No side for my point of view is they don't know what will happen with a other No or even what they want .
That's not true. They know the Union will continue under Nice untill there is an acceptable treaty produced. It's simple (to coin a phrase from the Yes side). They do know what they want too, there have been many documents produced to advise on an alternative. There have also been many debates in which the No side have said what they would like to see changed in the treaty. In fact the say it all the time it's a huge part of their campaigns.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 03, 2009, 09:43:55 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 03, 2009, 09:32:51 PM
The trouble with the No side for my point of view is they don't know what will happen with a other No or even what they want .
That's not true. They know the Union will continue under Nice untill there is an acceptable treaty produced. It's simple (to coin a phrase from the Yes side). They do know what they want too, there have been many documents produced to advise on an alternative. There have also been many debates in which the No side have said what they would like to see changed in the treaty. In fact the say it all the time it's a huge part of their campaigns.
Can you provide some links . I haven't heard any alternative from the no side apart for SF's classic we will renegotiate it before the last vote. That worked out well ::)
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/16466
EDIT Sorry that's an alternative Guide to the treaty. They did produce an alterantaive but I can't find it online.
The removal of Article 48 is one alternative most No campaigners are looking for. Removal of the the instruction to increase Military spending is one. The removal of the part creating a Minister for foreign is one etc.
Not to mention my own ideas above. As you said above too renegotiate it. Just because the Irish Government don't do it does not mean it isn't an alternative.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 03, 2009, 10:04:49 PM
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/16466
EDIT Sorry that's an alternative Guide to the treaty. They did produce an alterantaive but I can't find it online.
The removal of Article 48 is one alternative most No campaigners are looking for. Removal of the the instruction to increase Military spending is one. The removal of the part creating a Minister for foreign is one etc.
Not to mention my own ideas above. As you said above too renegotiate it. Just because the Irish Government don't do it does not mean it isn't an alternative.
Owe I've heard plenty of wish lists and shopping lists from the no side . We want x ,y or z but I've not heard anyone say we propose this framework and are willing to compromise of a,b or c .
Would SF be happy if the current document was amended to include what they want or must it be binned?
Would the no side in general? No one knows .
What happens if the EU come back and say f off . Do we leave the EU or stay as bit players .Does the no side swallow it's pride and accept something for the good of the nation?
What is it with SF an treaties?
Quote from: Zapatista on September 03, 2009, 09:01:05 PM
This is a very important question and one that should have been given due attention after the European Constitution was rejected and even more so after Lisbon 1. The problem is that this question was never actually addressed.
I don't believe that there will be a Lisbon 3. If this one fails a side affect of that will be the collapse of the Irish Government and its seemless replacement. A FG/LB Government wouldn't try it again as it could then lead to their collapse.
See the way Zap is trying to make out that a No vote will mean an end to FF. ;D
Very cool.
Deliberately misleading from the No campaign. Now, there's a surprise.
Gnevin, you are really talking nonsense now. You have been given the answers yet continue to peddal the same question.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 12:34:11 AM
Owe I've heard plenty of wish lists and shopping lists from the no side . We want x ,y or z but I've not heard anyone say we propose this framework and are willing to compromise of a,b or c .
The wish list is an alterative. The Lisbon treaty itself is a wish list.
Now you are looking for a frame work? Are you for real here? The frame work is there already, the treaty is there. The EU exists! Of course they are willing to comprimise. Why do you think they wouldn't be? Everyone understands Comprimise is important. Just because you say something does not make it true.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 12:34:11 AM
What happens if the EU come back and say f off . Do we leave the EU or stay as bit players .Does the no side swallow it's pride and accept something for the good of the nation?
You are really ranting now/ This can't happen. You are acting like this will be the first rejected treaty. This can't happen as there is no possible way for it to happen. What do you mean by swallow thier pride and accdept something for the good of the Nation? Have you listened to any argument by the No side? How is it still unclear to you? Have you no idea that the No side think the treaty is bad for the Nation?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 12:34:11 AM
What is it with SF an treaties?
Do you have any questions worth responding to?
Quote from: Hound on September 04, 2009, 07:20:04 AM
See the way Zap is trying to make out that a No vote will mean an end to FF. ;D
Very cool.
Deliberately misleading from the No campaign. Now, there's a surprise.
I was afraid it would come across like that. Cowen has said that it will prob be the end of him and I did state that it would be a side affect. I based my predictions on what Cowen said and on the recent Polls. I think it is a logical position. The question was regarding what would happen after a No vote and I gavew an honest responce. There are anti FF posts earlier in the thread which I didn't respond to as they are side issues.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 04, 2009, 07:37:06 AM
Gnevin, you are really talking nonsense now. You have been given the answers yet continue to peddal the same question.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 12:34:11 AM
Owe I've heard plenty of wish lists and shopping lists from the no side . We want x ,y or z but I've not heard anyone say we propose this framework and are willing to compromise of a,b or c .
The wish list is an alterative. The Lisbon treaty itself is a wish list.
Now you are looking for a frame work? Are you for real here? The frame work is there already, the treaty is there. The EU exists! Of course they are willing to comprimise. Why do you think they wouldn't be? Everyone understands Comprimise is important. Just because you say something does not make it true.
No it's list of what people would like too which differs from party member to party member on the No side. There is no frame work as too how this will be achieved. Will we present a document to the EU or go back around the table can Lisbon be change or does it have to be binned . I all see is just that they want or like like something and the EU will change it . Who is supporting us in the EU . Who is against?
Quote from: Zapatista on September 04, 2009, 07:37:06 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 12:34:11 AM
What happens if the EU come back and say f off . Do we leave the EU or stay as bit players .Does the no side swallow it's pride and accept something for the good of the nation?
You are really ranting now/ This can't happen. You are acting like this will be the first rejected treaty. This can't happen as there is no possible way for it to happen. What do you mean by swallow thier pride and accdept something for the good of the Nation? Have you listened to any argument by the No side? How is it still unclear to you? Have you no idea that the No side think the treaty is bad for the Nation?
Why can't this happen? Why can't the EU say we are moving on without you?
Quote from: Zapatista on September 04, 2009, 07:37:06 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 12:34:11 AM
What is it with SF an treaties?
Do you have any questions worth responding to?
Lighten up that was a joke .
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 09:02:42 AM
No it's list of what people would like too which differs from party member to party member on the No side. There is no frame work as too how this will be achieved. Will we present a document to the EU or go back around the table can Lisbon be change or does it have to be binned . I all see is just that they want or like like something and the EU will change it . Who is supporting us in the EU . Who is against?
OF course it differs as they are different partys. Just like the Labour Party and Ryan Air differ on their views.
This is not the first time a treaty has been rejected. The Format is - The Council will decide how to proceed and what format should be taken within the laws of the EU - this has always been the case and is the format in place to deal with rejection. Joe Higgans can't change the format that deals with treaty rejection. There are options.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 12:34:11 AM
Why can't this happen? Why can't the EU say we are moving on without you?
Because it needs a treaty to allow for this to happen. Such a treaty does not exist. For example you can't take the bus into town if there are no buses.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 12:34:11 AM
Lighten up that was a joke .
Ok, it's just gets a little annoying when it's constantly repeated.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 04, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 09:02:42 AM
No it's list of what people would like too which differs from party member to party member on the No side. There is no frame work as too how this will be achieved. Will we present a document to the EU or go back around the table can Lisbon be change or does it have to be binned . I all see is just that they want or like like something and the EU will change it . Who is supporting us in the EU . Who is against?
OF course it differs as they are different partys. Just like the Labour Party and Ryan Air differ on their views.
This is not the first time a treaty has been rejected. The Format is - The Council will decide how to proceed and what format should be taken within the laws of the EU - this has always been the case and is the format in place to deal with rejection. Joe Higgans can't change the format that deals with treaty rejection. There are options.
I meant within Parties .
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 09:30:44 AM
I meant within Parties .
That's across the board and not unusual. In fact it is encouraging.
It is particularly present in the Green party (almost half of the opposed Lisbon last time and the party ended up taking no position but members campaigned individually) and the Labour Party (my local Labour Cllr is opposed to Lisbon). It is usually the same with any issue from Health Care to NAMA.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 04, 2009, 09:37:23 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 09:30:44 AM
I meant within Parties .
That's across the board and not unusual. In fact it is encouraging.
It is particularly present in the Green party (almost half of the opposed Lisbon last time and the party ended up taking no position but members campaigned individually) and the Labour Party (my local Labour Cllr is opposed to Lisbon). It is usually the same with any issue from Health Care to NAMA.
give up, you are trying to talk to someone with a childs rudimentary understanding of all things - espthe lisbon treaty.
Good response from Billy.
I would agree that the EU and the EU countries have always done what they said and set out to do, which is why after a few years of their desire to'take down our lower taxation regieme' that they all believe is unconstitutional, unfair and anti-competitive - I still believe that they will then try to engineer the 're-structure' of this by imposition meaning we end up changing it ourselves or face other financially disadvantageous measures. They wont change their much aired aims just becasue Ireland ratified the lisbon treaty.
As I believe it is inevitible that we do this, I believe that the only hope we have is to fend off the yes vote for now and allow thecountry get back on its feet first.
The rest of the treaty doesnt interest me and I have nothing against it or the stuff being discussed.
Zap makes a good point. FF could fall with a no vote.
If people start thinking that this could be used to enforce a change of government, then it will empower the no vote on its own.
A proper and informative 'yes' campaign would normally see this through, especially as people associate the downturn with us not having ratified lisbon and its come kind of act of the financial gods in anger !
But a given the dissatisfaction with the gov currently, this could swell no voters towards that side of things in a pure attempt to oust the FF lead gov.
I think that would also put us in a precarious position and put us back 6-12 months from the recovery that I believe we are currently on (as I see and know of people getting jobs in the sectors and disciplines that were closed for the past 12 months).
That's another element to this that must be taken into account. People say that we shouldn't be hurting the country in order to give Fianna Fáil a kick. Fair enough, in theory. It's like some lad you don't like, do you smash your Waterford Crystal vase over his head?
However what if the guy was about to rob you? Does that not make smashing the vase the right option, the least worst course of action, so to speak?
That's roughly where we are now - Fianna Fáil are about to sodomise the nation for their own corrupt ends through NAMA, and while I accept that there are good aspects to Lisbon (notwithstanding my point above) then if voting no to Lisbon brings them down, surely that's the greater good?
Quote from: Lone Shark on September 04, 2009, 10:42:00 AM
That's another element to this that must be taken into account. People say that we shouldn't be hurting the country in order to give Fianna Fáil a kick. Fair enough, in theory. It's like some lad you don't like, do you smash your Waterford Crystal vase over his head?
However what if the guy was about to rob you? Does that not make smashing the vase the right option, the least worst course of action, so to speak?
That's roughly where we are now - Fianna Fáil are about to sodomise the nation for their own corrupt ends through NAMA, and while I accept that there are good aspects to Lisbon (notwithstanding my point above) then if voting no to Lisbon brings them down, surely that's the greater good?
Yes you shame the crystal over the robbers head however the protest vote is like being robbed and smashing the crystal over your uninvolved neighbours head
General elections are for voting on governments. If you really have a major issue with them get off you ass and protest. The protest vote is frankly pointless as it often achieves nothing other than getting something you actually agree with rejected!
My view is that you shouldn't use Lisbon to protest against the Government.
Part of the Grey area is -
The Government help negotiate the treaty from 2002.
Bertie Ahern signed it in 2007, the same year he was so convinced in the strength of our economy that he suggested suicide for those who disagreed. In the current economic circumstance it is hard to believe a document with Aherns blessing between 2002 & 2007 will help the economy. Espeacially since it was wrote in a mind set that the boom will never end.
The direction the treaty takes the EU is the same direction the Govenment from 2002 to 2007 wanted to take Ireland and as we see in 2009 it's not a nice place.
If people vote No for this reason it could be seen as protest but in truth, it would really be connected.
Also, there will be (and it is encouraged by the Government) people voting Yes in order to protest against SF and Coir etc. The two might cancel eashother out.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 04, 2009, 11:24:27 AM
My view is that you shouldn't use Lisbon to protest against the Government.
Part of the Grey area is -
The Government help negotiate the treaty from 2002.
Bertie Ahern signed it in 2007, the same year he was so convinced in the strength of our economy that he suggested suicide for those who disagreed. In the current economic circumstance it is hard to believe a document with Aherns blessing between 2002 & 2007 will help the economy. Espeacially since it was wrote in a mind set that the boom will never end.
The direction the treaty takes the EU is the same direction the Govenment from 2002 to 2007 wanted to take Ireland and as we see in 2009 it's not a nice place.
If people vote No for this reason it could be seen as protest but in truth, it would really be connected.
Also, there will be (and it is encouraged by the Government) people voting Yes in order to protest against SF and Coir etc. The two might cancel eashother out.
thats it though Zap,
while this is a lisbon ref - the reality is , as LS points out - people will quite likely use this as an opportunity to show their displeasure at the gov and vote now.
I would have expected a 'yes' vote win in ordinary circumstances with the downturn/recession making people vote 'yes' expecting some expediency in the recovery (rightly or wrongly).
However looking at the poll results of satisfaction in the political parties, I would be fearful that this will snowball into the referendum and manifest itself into a 'no' vote - to either spite or bring down the current gov.
I think that is the reality of all this.
QuoteHowever what if the guy was about to rob you? Does that not make smashing the vase the right option, the least worst course of action, so to speak?
In this case though the vase belongs to someone else. All of Europe will be affected if a local dislike of FF here leads people to vote out of spite rather than some view of what is appropriate for Europe.
QuoteThe direction the treaty takes the EU is the same direction the Govenment from 2002 to 2007 wanted to take Ireland and as we see in 2009 it's not a nice place.
The treaty has nothing whatsoever to do with the direction of Government from 2002 to 2007, however misguided this was. This treaty is in a series of things going back to 1973, a series that has largely been of benefit to Ireland.
Quote from: armaghniac on September 04, 2009, 12:04:33 PM
The treaty has nothing whatsoever to do with the direction of Government from 2002 to 2007, however misguided this was. This treaty is in a series of things going back to 1973, a series that has largely been of benefit to Ireland.
Of course it has. They were an equal part of the negotiation which began in 2002 and finished with their blessing in 2007. They make no secret that this is the direction they want to go, infact they say so all the time. Your argument is like saying NAMA is a series of things going back to the 16 century when we first got banks.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Lone Shark on September 04, 2009, 10:42:00 AM
That's another element to this that must be taken into account. People say that we shouldn't be hurting the country in order to give Fianna Fáil a kick. Fair enough, in theory. It's like some lad you don't like, do you smash your Waterford Crystal vase over his head?
However what if the guy was about to rob you? Does that not make smashing the vase the right option, the least worst course of action, so to speak?
That's roughly where we are now - Fianna Fáil are about to sodomise the nation for their own corrupt ends through NAMA, and while I accept that there are good aspects to Lisbon (notwithstanding my point above) then if voting no to Lisbon brings them down, surely that's the greater good?
Yes you shame the crystal over the robbers head however the protest vote is like being robbed and smashing the crystal over your uninvolved neighbours head
General elections are for voting on governments. If you really have a major issue with them get off you ass and protest. The protest vote is frankly pointless as it often achieves nothing other than getting something you actually agree with rejected!
I have voted against the government, time and again. I can't remember the last time (if at all) I voted for a TD, councillor or President who ended up in power. I don't protest since (a) it's utterly pointless in this country, and (b) it's hardly fair of me to go against what the people want. I hate Fianna Fáil and everything they represent, but the nation as a whole likes what they do and how they do it, because they vote for them. They say they don't in polls, but at the ballot box, they vote for them.
My point is this - I am faced with a treaty which has a lot of scaremongering on both sides, but which essentially appears to do little more only make life smoother for certain people. Billy's Boots put up a good case for a yes vote, but equally my concern about transferring powers makes it more likely for me to want to vote no. Overall I am somewhere in the middle ground, as are most of the country.
Now in that situation, where I can vote directly on the basis of something that it's ridiculously hard to get a clear answer on, or I can vote in such a way as to try create a result which will then lead to a live possibility of this government to be thrown out on it's ear, then surely if I oppose that government, then I should do that? Certainly when the difference between this government lasting another six months and getting removed now is a bill for 100k for every worker in this country all to no end other than making sure that the price of shelter stays high and that certain people who took huge risks don't get punished?
Plus, don't for a minute give me that nonsense about how the rest of Europe misses out on something "appropriate". The citizens of Europe didn't get to vote on this, indeed it was contrived specifically so that they wouldn't. I would treat this very differently if other European countries had gone to their people and passed this measure, but they didn't. The constitutional requirement argument was thrown out as soon as France and Holland basically took their referenda results and essentially worked on a process to circumvent what the people said.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 09:54:36 AM
I would agree that the EU and the EU countries have always done what they said and set out to do, which is why after a few years of their desire to'take down our lower taxation regieme' that they all believe is unconstitutional, unfair and anti-competitive - I still believe that they will then try to engineer the 're-structure' of this by imposition meaning we end up changing it ourselves or face other financially disadvantageous measures. They wont change their much aired aims just becasue Ireland ratified the lisbon treaty.
As I believe it is inevitible that we do this, I believe that the only hope we have is to fend off the yes vote for now and allow thecountry get back on its feet first.
Having thought your point through, I don't believe they would/could do anything that would make us increase our corporation tax (we're not the only ones who demand control of our own tax rates). But I think they would be far more likely to attempt to do something if we voted No, than if we vote Yes.
The CCABI (representing most of the accountants in Ireland - chartered/certified/management/cpa) who would be strong and loud advocates of the 12.5% rate have called for a yes vote, though haven't really explained why!
Quote"The general business case for a Yes vote on this occasion has already been made. We are an open economy that exports 80% of our output, over 60% to the European Union. Our EU and euro membership has been a rare source of stability for Ireland's business community in what has been a difficult year.
The accountancy profession has a particular interest in Ireland being represented strongly in Europe. The parameters governing company law, financial reporting and our audit regulatory systems are all substantially set in Europe. The application of International Financial Reporting Standards in Ireland is governed by EU decisions, as will, in the near future, the application across the continent of International Standards on Auditing.
Ireland has been successful in the past in influencing the outcome of discussions on these issues and with a strong Yes vote, CCAB-I believes we can continue to do that."
Still not sure how I'll vote on this one ...but if we have to be bailed out by the ECB ( to save us after the FFBuilderNAMA disaster fcuks our National Finances and threaten the €) you can be sure that the ECB and EU will decide our tax rates and will make sure we pay water rates/property taxes etc.
Only for we're in the €zone now we'd be worse than Iceland.
QuoteOf course it has. They were an equal part of the negotiation which began in 2002 and finished with their blessing in 2007. They make no secret that this is the direction they want to go, infact they say so all the time. Your argument is like saying NAMA is a series of things going back to the 16 century when we first got banks.
Because a bad government introduced something doesn't mean that everyting they did is wrong, each case has to be looked at on its merits. The smoking ban should not be abolished because a FF government introduced it.
Quote
Plus, don't for a minute give me that nonsense about how the rest of Europe misses out on something "appropriate". The citizens of Europe didn't get to vote on this, indeed it was contrived specifically so that they wouldn't. I would treat this very differently if other European countries had gone to their people and passed this measure, but they didn't. The constitutional requirement argument was thrown out as soon as France and Holland basically took their referenda results and essentially worked on a process to circumvent what the people said.
However it is not the case that that the peoples of Europe are up in arms about this, in many countries it is thought appropriate for the elected government to deal with complex State treaties. European people in general do not wish to saved by the Irish voter. On the contrary the average European voter does not want the process to be delayed by bloodymindedness on the part of the Irish voter. The concept of the Treat as a multilateral agreement where compromises have to be made by everyone seems to be completely lost in the Irish debate, where it often seems to be more about whether your TD is a bollix.
I think the proper thing to do here is to elect a new Irish government with a mandate to conduct EU matters in a different way.
RTÉ news very interesting .
http://euobserver.com/9/27183
Czech court green-lights EU Lisbon Treaty and according to RTÉ rules that Lisbon doesn't give the EU the power to increase its own powers
QuoteCzech court green-lights EU Lisbon Treaty and according to RTÉ rules that Lisbon doesn't give the EU the power to increase its own powers
Who cares what the Czechs think or their court, the Irish people want to kick FF and they couldn't give a damn about the other 300m in the EU.
armaghniac
Because a bad government introduced something doesn't mean that everyting they did is wrong, each case has to be looked at on its merits. The smoking ban should not be abolished because a FF government introduced it.
You are taking it out of context here. This is not one issue. There is 90+% of a Constitution in this treaty.
Gnevin
Czech court green-lights EU Lisbon Treaty and according to RTÉ rules that Lisbon doesn't give the EU the power to increase its own powers
I did't see it. Just to play Devils advocate Are the EU answerable to a Czech court? Does 'not give the EU power to increase it's own Power' mean it can't ammend the treaty? Does it mean that it won't give the EU the power to do anything not in the treaty? If so, does that mean the EU can still act on article 48?
Quote from: Zapatista on September 04, 2009, 07:33:53 PM
Gnevin
Czech court green-lights EU Lisbon Treaty and according to RTÉ rules that Lisbon doesn't give the EU the power to increase its own powers
I did't see it. Just to play Devils advocate Are the EU answerable to a Czech court? Does 'not give the EU power to increase it's own Power' mean it can't ammend the treaty? Does it mean that it won't give the EU the power to do anything not in the treaty? If so, does that mean the EU can still act on article 48?
I won't answer that as I'll only be putting my own spin on it. Can't you get the news on rte.ie?
It's not on there at the minute.
Its a bit like the old joke about the guy in the flood aand a fire engine, the boat and the helipcopter came, but the guy was waiting for God to save him.
Voter : I don't understand the Lisbon, nobody explained it
the government explained it to you
the commission clarified it for you
Czech Supreme court interpreted it for you
Shite I'm starting to think that Jim Corr has a valid point about a "one world order".
This treaty is starting to look like a subtle way for Europe to circumvent national constitutions. Btw before the usual suspects jump on me asking for proof, I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor).
I support Ireland being in the EU, not a part of the EU being Ireland.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 10:18:29 PM
Shite I'm starting to think that Jim Corr has a valid point about a "one world order".
This treaty is starting to look like a subtle way for Europe to circumvent national constitutions. Btw before the usual suspects jump on me asking for proof, I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor).
I support Ireland being in the EU, not a part of the EU being Ireland.
Translation you plucked it out of your ass?
From Twenty Major...
So many people are still confused about the Lisbon Treaty I thought it'd be a good idea to break it down into simple terms. Here 6 things that will happen if we vote 'Yes' and 6 things that will happen if we vote 'No'.
YES
Conscription of young Irish men into a European defence force will begin within 18 months
All women will be forced to have at least one abortion in their lifetime
Ireland will become a missile silo with rockets aimed at the USA in case they start to get uppity
The Irish language will be outlawed and replaced with mandatory teaching of a Bavarian dialect
A new Europe-wide culture, as outlined by Culture Führer Ray Cokes, will be enforced from September 2013
Any job you want to do will already be done by a Latvian or an ethnic Turk for €0.87c per hour
NO
The European Commission will require Ireland to hand back all the roads it has built with European money
Automatic entry to European countries for stag weekends and sex parties will be rescinded and we'll have to apply for expensive visas
Irish football clubs will no longer be allowed play in the Champions League
Wales will become a missile silo with rockets aimed at Ireland in case we get start to get uppity
With nobody to export goods to Irish farmers will start growing opium, condeming the country to a Trainspottingesque existence
All non-Irish natives will be either deported or forced to work as butlers to ensure the purity of our race
Hopefully that clears things up for you. Happy voting!
From Generation Yes:
(http://hughgreen.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/trotsky-punishing-two-sisters.jpg?w=350&h=344)
(http://hughgreen.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/trotsky.jpg?w=500&h=312)
QuoteAll women will be forced to have at least one abortion in their lifetime
Even nuns?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 10:18:29 PM
Shite I'm starting to think that Jim Corr has a valid point about a "one world order".
This treaty is starting to look like a subtle way for Europe to circumvent national constitutions. Btw before the usual suspects jump on me asking for proof, I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor).
I support Ireland being in the EU, not a part of the EU being Ireland.
Translation you plucked it out of your ass?
Fcuk your one arrogant illiterate w**ker, you spout your crap on here and it's tickity bo, when someone offers an opinion different from yours they are "plucking it out of their arse" - twat. ::)
So where did you draw your conclusions from?
Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt
"If it is a No, then we keep on with the Nice treaty," said Mr Reinfeldt, who also downplayed claims that the first No vote had damaged Ireland's reputation and led to a loss of its influence at EU level.
"There is a deep respect for political processes and democracies. We have had No referendums in other countries as well. It is important to see that every time we have seen that the EU has shown an openness to listen," he said. "This will not affect the possibility of Ireland to have influence."
Mr Reinfeldt said talks have been held about what to do if there is a No vote, particularly on how to comply with the Nice treaty provision that mandates an immediate reduction in size of the next European Commission.
Mr Reinfeldt said a "26 plus one option" was probably the best solution, whereby 26 states retain their commissioner and the 27th state is offered the post of high representative for foreign affairs instead
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0905/1224253907844.html
Sweden currently hold the Presidency. This will take from much of the scare mongering from the Yes side. Like I said before it isn't the first time the EU have been told No and hopefully it won't be the last (in the interest of debate and democracy). It also addresses Gnevins quetion about what happens next.
It also says that a No vote will mean we will keep our commissioner. This make the Yes side argument that "only a Yes vote will secure a commissioner" a lie.
Quote from: Hound on September 04, 2009, 04:41:54 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 09:54:36 AM
I would agree that the EU and the EU countries have always done what they said and set out to do, which is why after a few years of their desire to'take down our lower taxation regieme' that they all believe is unconstitutional, unfair and anti-competitive - I still believe that they will then try to engineer the 're-structure' of this by imposition meaning we end up changing it ourselves or face other financially disadvantageous measures. They wont change their much aired aims just becasue Ireland ratified the lisbon treaty.
As I believe it is inevitible that we do this, I believe that the only hope we have is to fend off the yes vote for now and allow thecountry get back on its feet first.
Having thought your point through, I don't believe they would/could do anything that would make us increase our corporation tax (we're not the only ones who demand control of our own tax rates). But I think they would be far more likely to attempt to do something if we voted No, than if we vote Yes.
The CCABI (representing most of the accountants in Ireland - chartered/certified/management/cpa) who would be strong and loud advocates of the 12.5% rate have called for a yes vote, though haven't really explained why!
Quote"The general business case for a Yes vote on this occasion has already been made. We are an open economy that exports 80% of our output, over 60% to the European Union. Our EU and euro membership has been a rare source of stability for Ireland's business community in what has been a difficult year.
The accountancy profession has a particular interest in Ireland being represented strongly in Europe. The parameters governing company law, financial reporting and our audit regulatory systems are all substantially set in Europe. The application of International Financial Reporting Standards in Ireland is governed by EU decisions, as will, in the near future, the application across the continent of International Standards on Auditing.
Ireland has been successful in the past in influencing the outcome of discussions on these issues and with a strong Yes vote, CCAB-I believes we can continue to do that."
with all due respect hound, it wouldnt make sense for the EU or any of the unhappy miffed leading eu superpower countries to level any kind of 'penalties' on Ireland BEFORE the country ratifies the treaty. I would expect that this will be 'amended' and more referrenda undertaken until a yes result is obtained (and maybe amendments concessions actually given towards us in these).
It just does not make business sense for Ireland to fall foul of any embargo prior to this, as Ireland are still a member of the EU and as a country we require a referrendum to give an answer on this.
as for the accountants voting yes. No offence to them, but in all times of the economy, accountants are required and whether to file bumper tax returns after large profits or to pick through the dead carion of a failed company looking for liquidation or redundancies - the accountants will have work.
By comparison in/to industy - One of the only industries still actively recruiting for jobs this past few years (obv for those with a bit of experience behind them).
If manufacturing, agriculture and Irish based US multinationals all said the same then I'd sit up and take notice !
I think a yes vote would do us no harm in the short term. Am just wary of longer term repercussions with larger EU powers finally getting their chance to leverage us to loosen our corporate taxation haven.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 05, 2009, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 10:18:29 PM
Shite I'm starting to think that Jim Corr has a valid point about a "one world order".
This treaty is starting to look like a subtle way for Europe to circumvent national constitutions. Btw before the usual suspects jump on me asking for proof, I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor).
I support Ireland being in the EU, not a part of the EU being Ireland.
Translation you plucked it out of your ass?
Fcuk your one arrogant illiterate w**ker, you spout your crap on here and it's tickity bo, when someone offers an opinion different from yours they are "plucking it out of their arse" - t**t. ::)
So where did you draw your conclusions from?
I can provide a link for anything I've said
Quote from: Gnevin on September 06, 2009, 11:49:28 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 05, 2009, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 10:18:29 PM
Shite I'm starting to think that Jim Corr has a valid point about a "one world order".
This treaty is starting to look like a subtle way for Europe to circumvent national constitutions. Btw before the usual suspects jump on me asking for proof, I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor).
I support Ireland being in the EU, not a part of the EU being Ireland.
Translation you plucked it out of your ass?
Fcuk your one arrogant illiterate w**ker, you spout your crap on here and it's tickity bo, when someone offers an opinion different from yours they are "plucking it out of their arse" - t**t. ::)
So where did you draw your conclusions from?
I can provide a link for anything I've said
As can I - quote: "I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio[/b] (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor)". I can assume you have used similar media sources?? , so why is it that I'm "plucking it out of my arse"?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 05, 2009, 03:07:32 PM
If manufacturing, agriculture and Irish based US multinationals all said the same then I'd sit up and take notice !
Intel, like Ryanair, have put money into a Yes campaign.
The
American Chamber of Commerce represents most US multinationals in Ireland - including among others, Pfizer, Google, Microsoft, Lotus, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Boston Scientific, Wyeth....
They have called for a Yes vote:
QuoteA vote for Lisbon is a vote for jobs, a vote for investment, a vote for growth and a vote for economic security.
The many real concerns of voters in the last Referendum have been adequately addressed and the protocols secured by Government must give comfort to Irish citizens. The willingness of our EU partners to provide the guarantees on issues such as taxation sovereignty, neutrality and social issues reaffirms their goodwill towards Ireland and their desire to see Ireland remain a full and active member within the Union.
The American Chamber is advocating a Yes Vote in the Lisbon Treaty because we believe it is in Ireland's economic and social interests to do so. There is nothing to fear from this Treaty. At a time when our focus must be on the retention and creation of jobs, Ireland as a full member of the Union will be better positioned to create the conditions for innovation, entrepreneurship and employment creation.
I have no doubt that Ireland's success in attracting such a strong base of multinationals to Ireland is intrinsically linked to our membership of the European Union. US companies in particular are attracted to establish European headquarters here because of our skilled labour force, our excellent business environment and the ready access to European markets from Ireland.
More jobs are likely to be created in US companies here if Ireland is at the heart of Europe and influencing decisions at EU level. Adopting an isolationist policy may cause future investment and future jobs to be lost to Ireland.
The European Social Fund support for education and training, for example, led to a faster increase in the stock of skilled labour - one of our chief attractions for foreign direct investment - than would otherwise have occurred. Continued support from the EU will enable Ireland to invest in R&D, innovation, people as well as physical infrastructure creating a climate for job retention and economic growth.
Multinational companies contribute approximately 40% of the Ireland's total corporate tax. In 2008 that amounted to €2.5 bn. This significant contribution to the public purse helps Ireland to meet its social and fiscal expenditure requirements. Our success in maintaining and growing this investment, as a committed member of the European Union, will have an important influence on our future growth.
The stark reality of a small open economy trading in a globalised world has been brought home very clearly by the current economic recession. It has reinforced, in a very strong way, the fact that Ireland cannot afford to be isolationist and cannot afford to adopt a 'Mé Fein' strategy".
Being a member of the Union, has helped protect Ireland from the effects of the global economic recession. Our membership of the EMU for example, has provided us with interest rate stability, removed exchange rate fluctuations with many of our trading partners and has protected our currency from weak investor sentiment.
EU support will help see us through our current economic difficulties. In 2008 the EU launched a European Economic Recovery Plan valued at some €200 billion. The plan, which is funded directly by Member States, includes €5 billion of additional funding from the EU's own Budget. It will provide vital funding to support a return to economic growth and job creation across the European Union.
http://www.amcham.ie/article.cfm?idarticle=642
Quote from: Hound on September 08, 2009, 01:48:22 PM
The American Chamber of Commerce represents most US multinationals in Ireland - including among others, Pfizer, Google, Microsoft, Lotus, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Boston Scientific, Wyeth....
They have called for a Yes vote:
Are they the same crowd who represented DELL?
Multinationals come and go. The interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. The welfare of Ireland is at the most secondary to profits. It's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
Ryan Air and have invested money in Ryan Air. Do not confuse that with a Yes Campaign for a better Ireland and Europe. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:13:14 AM
Multinationals come and go.
Really? If unions and the likes of Sinn Fein got their way there'd be a lot going and none coming.
QuoteIt's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
More typical "No" campaign scaremongering nonsense. "Forget the facts, lets just make crap up".
QuoteThe interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Of course multi-nationals have their own interests at heart (as does everyone else), and absolutely they'll be out of here if they can do better elsewhere. But some people seem to think that would be a good thing.
I only put it up as Lynchbhoy said he wondered what the positon of US multinationals on Lisbon is. And clearly they strongly advocate a Yes vote.
Here's is what Intel themselves have to say on it:
http://www.intel.com/corporate/europe/emea/irl/intel/lisbon/
QuoteLast year, like many others I stood back more than I should have, convinced, to be honest, that a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion. I was wrong This time, after discussions with my corporate colleagues, Intel as a matter of corporate social responsibility believes that we have a duty to speak up. As a company, Intel chose to invest in an Ireland, which offers strategic certainty on its national commitments to a business friendly environment and its full embrace of its connection to the EU.
The dynamics of Ireland fully connected to Europe have been powerful and positive for the people of Ireland – good for Foreign Direct Investment, good for jobs, good for prosperity and ultimately good for business.
We are convinced that for future growth and innovation Ireland needs to stay fully connected to Europe. Ireland as a fully connected player in the EU, matters to us. Our question to the Irish people is – does it matter to you?
Best wishes,
Jim O'Hara
General Manager, Intel Ireland
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:13:14 AM
Quote from: Hound on September 08, 2009, 01:48:22 PM
The American Chamber of Commerce represents most US multinationals in Ireland - including among others, Pfizer, Google, Microsoft, Lotus, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Boston Scientific, Wyeth....
They have called for a Yes vote:
Are they the same crowd who represented DELL?
Multinationals come and go. The interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. The welfare of Ireland is at the most secondary to profits. It's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
Ryan Air and have invested money in Ryan Air. Do not confuse that with a Yes Campaign for a better Ireland and Europe. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Sounds like you're advocating a NO vote so the multi nationals will leave the country.
What's the Sinn Fein line when that happens? (I know they had no answer to this when the f**king stupid c***ts sent Gerry onto Q & A before the last election to spell out their economic policy and he advocated raising corporation tax, before performing the mother of all back flips when the consequences were pointed out)
Idiots
Really? If unions and the likes of Sinn Fein got their way there'd be a lot going and none coming.
To be fair thats unfounded. Are you advocating an end to workers Unions?
More typical "No" campaign scaremongering nonsense. "Forget the facts, lets just make crap up". (BTW who are you quoting here?)
If this is there intention or not is speculation on my part but it is fact that Lisbon is a bad deal for workers. It is also a fact that multinational companies would benefit from reduced workers right.
Of course multi-nationals have their own interests at heart (as does everyone else), and absolutely they'll be out of here if they can do better elsewhere. But some people seem to think that would be a good thing.
Are you saying the No campaigners think it would be good if these companies went elsewhere? Again that is unfounded and as far as i'm concernd it's rediculous to suggest it. It makes no sense and I suspect you made that up for some reason. You do seem to accept that multinationals have their own (financial) interests as a priority.
I only put it up as Lynchbhoy said he wondered what the positon of US multinationals on Lisbon is. And clearly they strongly advocate a Yes vote.
Here's is what Intel themselves have to say on it:
http://www.intel.com/corporate/europe/emea/irl/intel/lisbon/
Last year, like many others I stood back more than I should have, convinced, to be honest, that a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion. I was wrong This time, after discussions with my corporate colleagues, Intel as a matter of corporate social responsibility believes that we have a duty to speak up. As a company, Intel chose to invest in an Ireland, which offers strategic certainty on its national commitments to a business friendly environment and its full embrace of its connection to the EU.
The dynamics of Ireland fully connected to Europe have been powerful and positive for the people of Ireland – good for Foreign Direct Investment, good for jobs, good for prosperity and ultimately good for business.
We are convinced that for future growth and innovation Ireland needs to stay fully connected to Europe. Ireland as a fully connected player in the EU, matters to us. Our question to the Irish people is – does it matter to you?
Best wishes,
Jim O'Hara
General Manager, Intel Ireland
That is what he said. I was justtrying to add an alternative view. What O'Hara says though is scare mongering. Our position in the EU is not in question, we are and will be fully connected. It is clearfrom both Yes ands No campaigns that the EU matters to Irish people and for O'Hara to question that is insulting.
Quote from: stephenite on September 09, 2009, 08:40:49 AM
Sounds like you're advocating a NO vote so the multi nationals will leave the country.
I'm trying to have an honest debate here and yet you try to drag it down with this sort of nonsense. Seriously???
I'm in favour of business in an environment where workers rights are protected. I would like for the EU to go in the direction of protecting workers rights rather than follow this course of eroding them in favour of competition. I can't make it any clearer than that.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:58:01 AM
Quote from: stephenite on September 09, 2009, 08:40:49 AM
Sounds like you're advocating a NO vote so the multi nationals will leave the country.
I'm trying to have an honest debate here and yet you try to drag it down with this sort of nonsense. Seriously???
I'm in favour of business in an environment where workers rights are protected. I would like for the EU to go in the direction of protecting workers rights rather than follow this course of eroding them in favour of competition. I can't make it any clearer than that.
Manufacturing jobs and the like are onthe way out regardless of the result of the treaty. Where in Lisbon, exactly are businesses given an environment where workers rights are not protected?
They are futher eroded.
Have a look on at this link, the second part. It is a view I agree with.
http://www.socialistparty.net/index.php/lisbon/67-workers-rights/239-why-lisbon-is-bad-for-workers-rights.html
Quote from: stephenite on September 09, 2009, 09:01:47 AM
Manufacturing jobs and the like are onthe way out regardless of the result of the treaty.
If this is the case do you think that Intel are sare mongering? Do you think employees in Intel will be afraid to vote No?
All that Vaxholm/Laval finding did was to ensure that Trade Unions couldn't force employers to adhere to minimum payments and conditions from a country outside the host country where they were operating, I'm not sure that's relevant
Not only where the Union were operating but where the workers were operating too. They couldn't force companies to adhere to the minimum wage and conditions in the country were the Union, Company and employees were operating.
Post Lisbon the Euro Court of Justice will be charged with setting the limits on workers rights. With these rulings the ECJ has set a standard. Once that is done again post Lisbon it will be the legal marker for future rulings. The past cases can all be refereed to as evidence in the interpretations of European Justice in cases where workers rights have faced the open market. You won't even be able to take a case like that to court again. Even if there was another 'Irish Ferries' type case happening in Intel, employees wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Either work for minimum wage or don't work. You won't even have the right to picket in these cases.
Quote from: stephenite on September 09, 2009, 08:40:49 AM
What's the Sinn Fein line when that happens? (I know they had no answer to this when the f**king stupid c***ts sent Gerry onto Q & A before the last election to spell out their economic policy and he advocated raising corporation tax, before performing the mother of all back flips when the consequences were pointed out)
Idiots
I would say going from "the economic foundations are sound" to NAMA is actually a bigger back flip than the one Adams did. I don't think any of them (Adams included) have a right to claim a greater grasp on economics. In fact they all seem illiterate now.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:13:14 AM
Quote from: Hound on September 08, 2009, 01:48:22 PM
The American Chamber of Commerce represents most US multinationals in Ireland - including among others, Pfizer, Google, Microsoft, Lotus, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Boston Scientific, Wyeth....
They have called for a Yes vote:
Are they the same crowd who represented DELL?
Multinationals come and go. The interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. The welfare of Ireland is at the most secondary to profits. It's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
Ryan Air and have invested money in Ryan Air. Do not confuse that with a Yes Campaign for a better Ireland and Europe. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Hence the support of ETUC?
http://www.etuc.org/a/6357
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 11:18:00 AM
Hence the support of ETUC?
http://www.etuc.org/a/6357
I take it you are singling out the Charter of Fundamental Rights as the rest of what he said is meaningless and we've already discussed most of it.
A commitment to full employment has no bearing on workers rights. It is merely a commitment by politicians. Just like the commitment to end world hunger, to save the environment and reach a target of zero road deaths.. If it is not reached it is not reached.
As I said above the workers rights (which are included in the charter) are to be limited by the ECJ. The stance of the ECJ on workers rights has also been discussed above.
The socail market as we know it (which has no definition in the EU) has been overruled by the ECJ each time it has come up against the open market. Again the charter is to be limited (defined) by the ECJ.
There is also no definition of what a Public service is. Health and Education are increasingly open to privatisation. I would argue that Health Care should be defined as a Public Service. I doubt that the ECJ would agree and would ask Ireland to implement Universal Health Care though.
I could post links without comment that disagree with your link but it would take away from the debate.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 11:51:59 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 11:18:00 AM
Hence the support of ETUC?
http://www.etuc.org/a/6357
I take it you are singling out the Charter of Fundamental Rights as the rest of what he said is meaningless and we've already discussed most of it.
A commitment to full employment has no bearing on workers rights. It is merely a commitment by politicians. Just like the commitment to end world hunger, to save the environment and reach a target of zero road deaths.. If it is not reached it is not reached.
As I said above the workers rights (which are included in the charter) are to be limited by the ECJ. The stance of the ECJ on workers rights has also been discussed above.
The socail market as we know it (which has no definition in the EU) has been overruled by the ECJ each time it has come up against the open market. Again the charter is to be limited (defined) by the ECJ.
There is also no definition of what a Public service is. Health and Education are increasingly open to privatisation. I would argue that Health Care should be defined as a Public Service. I doubt that the ECJ would agree and would ask Ireland to implement Universal Health Care though.
I could post links without comment that disagree with your link but it would take away from the debate.
Why would the ETUC support Lisbon if the doomsdays you predict is going to happen?
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 11:51:59 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 11:18:00 AM
Hence the support of ETUC?
http://www.etuc.org/a/6357
I take it you are singling out the Charter of Fundamental Rights as the rest of what he said is meaningless and we've already discussed most of it.
I took it that he was singling out that the European Trade Union Confederation consider the Treaty as good for workers and have called for a Yes vote.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 11:57:49 AM
Why would the ETUC support Lisbon if the doomsdays you predict is going to happen?
I don't know.
I don't predict a doomsday on this just an erosion of workers rights.
Quote from: Hound on September 09, 2009, 11:58:15 AM
I took it that he was singling out that the European Trade Union Confederation consider the Treaty as good for workers and have called for a Yes vote.
Touché
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 12:03:11 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 11:57:49 AM
Why would the ETUC support Lisbon if the doomsdays you predict is going to happen?
I don't know.
I don't predict a doomsday on this just an erosion of workers rights.
Your nearly claiming we will be chained too our desks but clearly you and the socialist know more than the ETUC
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 12:05:26 PM
Your nearly claiming we will be chained too our desks but clearly you and the socialist know more than the ETUC
Why do you continue with this? You have said I think Lisbon will 'end society as we know it'. Tankie says I have a low IQ. Stephenite reckons I want to get rid of multinational companies and Hound says I forget the facts and just make stuff up. I can't keep up with having to defend myself here.
I don't claim to know more as I don't claim they know more. This is a topic of wide discussion across Europe and particualarly in IReland. To have an opinion and express it is a right I choose to use. Anyone who has an opinion can express it and someone else can disagree. Cowen didn't read it last time yet his opinion was still expressed (and rightly so). I think it is a cornerstone of democracy.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 12:25:20 PM
I can't keep up with having to defend myself here.
We got him lads ;D
Quote from: stephenite on September 09, 2009, 12:37:36 PM
We got him lads ;D
(http://www.clipartguide.com/_named_clipart_images/0060-0807-1220-5847_A_Beat_Up_Man_Waving_the_White_Flag_of_Surrender_clipart_image.jpg)
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 12:43:03 PM
Quote from: stephenite on September 09, 2009, 12:37:36 PM
We got him lads ;D
(http://www.clipartguide.com/_named_clipart_images/0060-0807-1220-5847_A_Beat_Up_Man_Waving_the_White_Flag_of_Surrender_clipart_image.jpg)
So you'll vote yes so? ;)
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 12:43:34 PM
So you'll vote yes so? ;)
Ah Gnevin sure that would qualify as torture of a political prisoner.
Maybe I won't vote in order to balance your disenfranchised vote.
Quote from: Hound on September 09, 2009, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:13:14 AM
Multinationals come and go.
Really? If unions and the likes of Sinn Fein got their way there'd be a lot going and none coming.
QuoteIt's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
More typical "No" campaign scaremongering nonsense. "Forget the facts, lets just make crap up".
QuoteThe interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Of course multi-nationals have their own interests at heart (as does everyone else), and absolutely they'll be out of here if they can do better elsewhere. But some people seem to think that would be a good thing.
I only put it up as Lynchbhoy said he wondered what the positon of US multinationals on Lisbon is. And clearly they strongly advocate a Yes vote.
Here's is what Intel themselves have to say on it:
http://www.intel.com/corporate/europe/emea/irl/intel/lisbon/
QuoteLast year, like many others I stood back more than I should have, convinced, to be honest, that a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion. I was wrong This time, after discussions with my corporate colleagues, Intel as a matter of corporate social responsibility believes that we have a duty to speak up. As a company, Intel chose to invest in an Ireland, which offers strategic certainty on its national commitments to a business friendly environment and its full embrace of its connection to the EU.
The dynamics of Ireland fully connected to Europe have been powerful and positive for the people of Ireland – good for Foreign Direct Investment, good for jobs, good for prosperity and ultimately good for business.
We are convinced that for future growth and innovation Ireland needs to stay fully connected to Europe. Ireland as a fully connected player in the EU, matters to us. Our question to the Irish people is – does it matter to you?
Best wishes,
Jim O'Hara
General Manager, Intel Ireland
OK Intel have pushed for a yes vote.
The american chamber of commers may have come out with a yes notion,but in general the actual companies have kept rather quiet.
Was thinking about it, and it struck me that either way they are winners here.
If the taxation goes here, they can relocate to a cheaper eastern european country , with the local country subsidising their relocation and premises and it will not make a dent in their profit margins.
However we here would lose out.
But what you said regarding he yes vote is probably true. It is unknown whether we would be forced into making the change in the corporate taxation here. I would be extremely fearful that given the recent declarations from France, Germany etc on us being anti-competitive in the EU market - that they wont take up the charge against it again in the future once we have lessened/diluted our powers after a lisbon ratification.
I could be just completely wrong, but sentiment like that does not go away - at least without being paid off or getting their way. This kind of thing (and there could be more with regard to agriculture, energy, fisheries) is not dealt with in the lisbon treaty. these things are outside of the context of it all.
A small nation such as ourselves have cornered the market in jobs and service industry money (through taxes and duties). That has rankled the EU super powers who struggle to balance the books and keep large workforces employed. Where there is money, people usually dont give up too easily.
I dont think anyone from the pro-yes camp has answered Lone harks reservations/questions yet though ?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 09, 2009, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:13:14 AM
Multinationals come and go.
Really? If unions and the likes of Sinn Fein got their way there'd be a lot going and none coming.
QuoteIt's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
More typical "No" campaign scaremongering nonsense. "Forget the facts, lets just make crap up".
QuoteThe interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Of course multi-nationals have their own interests at heart (as does everyone else), and absolutely they'll be out of here if they can do better elsewhere. But some people seem to think that would be a good thing.
I only put it up as Lynchbhoy said he wondered what the positon of US multinationals on Lisbon is. And clearly they strongly advocate a Yes vote.
Here's is what Intel themselves have to say on it:
http://www.intel.com/corporate/europe/emea/irl/intel/lisbon/
QuoteLast year, like many others I stood back more than I should have, convinced, to be honest, that a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion. I was wrong This time, after discussions with my corporate colleagues, Intel as a matter of corporate social responsibility believes that we have a duty to speak up. As a company, Intel chose to invest in an Ireland, which offers strategic certainty on its national commitments to a business friendly environment and its full embrace of its connection to the EU.
The dynamics of Ireland fully connected to Europe have been powerful and positive for the people of Ireland – good for Foreign Direct Investment, good for jobs, good for prosperity and ultimately good for business.
We are convinced that for future growth and innovation Ireland needs to stay fully connected to Europe. Ireland as a fully connected player in the EU, matters to us. Our question to the Irish people is – does it matter to you?
Best wishes,
Jim O'Hara
General Manager, Intel Ireland
OK Intel have pushed for a yes vote.
The american chamber of commers may have come out with a yes notion,but in general the actual companies have kept rather quiet.
Was thinking about it, and it struck me that either way they are winners here.
If the taxation goes here, they can relocate to a cheaper eastern european country , with the local country subsidising their relocation and premises and it will not make a dent in their profit margins.
However we here would lose out.
But what you said regarding he yes vote is probably true. It is unknown whether we would be forced into making the change in the corporate taxation here. I would be extremely fearful that given the recent declarations from France, Germany etc on us being anti-competitive in the EU market - that they wont take up the charge against it again in the future once we have lessened/diluted our powers after a lisbon ratification.
I could be just completely wrong, but sentiment like that does not go away - at least without being paid off or getting their way. This kind of thing (and there could be more with regard to agriculture, energy, fisheries) is not dealt with in the lisbon treaty. these things are outside of the context of it all.
A small nation such as ourselves have cornered the market in jobs and service industry money (through taxes and duties). That has rankled the EU super powers who struggle to balance the books and keep large workforces employed. Where there is money, people usually dont give up too easily.
I dont think anyone from the pro-yes camp has answered Lone harks reservations/questions yet though ?
Taxation can't be affected . The Germans have got a guarantee to that affect .
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0701/1224249838658.html
Yet an other no myth busted .
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 09, 2009, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:13:14 AM
Multinationals come and go.
Really? If unions and the likes of Sinn Fein got their way there'd be a lot going and none coming.
QuoteIt's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
More typical "No" campaign scaremongering nonsense. "Forget the facts, lets just make crap up".
QuoteThe interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Of course multi-nationals have their own interests at heart (as does everyone else), and absolutely they'll be out of here if they can do better elsewhere. But some people seem to think that would be a good thing.
I only put it up as Lynchbhoy said he wondered what the positon of US multinationals on Lisbon is. And clearly they strongly advocate a Yes vote.
Here's is what Intel themselves have to say on it:
http://www.intel.com/corporate/europe/emea/irl/intel/lisbon/
QuoteLast year, like many others I stood back more than I should have, convinced, to be honest, that a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion. I was wrong This time, after discussions with my corporate colleagues, Intel as a matter of corporate social responsibility believes that we have a duty to speak up. As a company, Intel chose to invest in an Ireland, which offers strategic certainty on its national commitments to a business friendly environment and its full embrace of its connection to the EU.
The dynamics of Ireland fully connected to Europe have been powerful and positive for the people of Ireland – good for Foreign Direct Investment, good for jobs, good for prosperity and ultimately good for business.
We are convinced that for future growth and innovation Ireland needs to stay fully connected to Europe. Ireland as a fully connected player in the EU, matters to us. Our question to the Irish people is – does it matter to you?
Best wishes,
Jim O'Hara
General Manager, Intel Ireland
OK Intel have pushed for a yes vote.
The american chamber of commers may have come out with a yes notion,but in general the actual companies have kept rather quiet.
Was thinking about it, and it struck me that either way they are winners here.
If the taxation goes here, they can relocate to a cheaper eastern european country , with the local country subsidising their relocation and premises and it will not make a dent in their profit margins.
However we here would lose out.
But what you said regarding he yes vote is probably true. It is unknown whether we would be forced into making the change in the corporate taxation here. I would be extremely fearful that given the recent declarations from France, Germany etc on us being anti-competitive in the EU market - that they wont take up the charge against it again in the future once we have lessened/diluted our powers after a lisbon ratification.
I could be just completely wrong, but sentiment like that does not go away - at least without being paid off or getting their way. This kind of thing (and there could be more with regard to agriculture, energy, fisheries) is not dealt with in the lisbon treaty. these things are outside of the context of it all.
A small nation such as ourselves have cornered the market in jobs and service industry money (through taxes and duties). That has rankled the EU super powers who struggle to balance the books and keep large workforces employed. Where there is money, people usually dont give up too easily.
I dont think anyone from the pro-yes camp has answered Lone harks reservations/questions yet though ?
Taxation can't be affected . The Germans have got a guarantee to that affect .
why do people keep going on about taxtation? do people really believe that we are the only country who want control of their tax affairs? britain wont even join the euro and have said that they will never lose a veto on tax....
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 09, 2009, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:13:14 AM
Multinationals come and go.
Really? If unions and the likes of Sinn Fein got their way there'd be a lot going and none coming.
QuoteIt's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
More typical "No" campaign scaremongering nonsense. "Forget the facts, lets just make crap up".
QuoteThe interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Of course multi-nationals have their own interests at heart (as does everyone else), and absolutely they'll be out of here if they can do better elsewhere. But some people seem to think that would be a good thing.
I only put it up as Lynchbhoy said he wondered what the positon of US multinationals on Lisbon is. And clearly they strongly advocate a Yes vote.
Here's is what Intel themselves have to say on it:
http://www.intel.com/corporate/europe/emea/irl/intel/lisbon/
QuoteLast year, like many others I stood back more than I should have, convinced, to be honest, that a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion. I was wrong This time, after discussions with my corporate colleagues, Intel as a matter of corporate social responsibility believes that we have a duty to speak up. As a company, Intel chose to invest in an Ireland, which offers strategic certainty on its national commitments to a business friendly environment and its full embrace of its connection to the EU.
The dynamics of Ireland fully connected to Europe have been powerful and positive for the people of Ireland – good for Foreign Direct Investment, good for jobs, good for prosperity and ultimately good for business.
We are convinced that for future growth and innovation Ireland needs to stay fully connected to Europe. Ireland as a fully connected player in the EU, matters to us. Our question to the Irish people is – does it matter to you?
Best wishes,
Jim O'Hara
General Manager, Intel Ireland
OK Intel have pushed for a yes vote.
The american chamber of commers may have come out with a yes notion,but in general the actual companies have kept rather quiet.
Was thinking about it, and it struck me that either way they are winners here.
If the taxation goes here, they can relocate to a cheaper eastern european country , with the local country subsidising their relocation and premises and it will not make a dent in their profit margins.
However we here would lose out.
But what you said regarding he yes vote is probably true. It is unknown whether we would be forced into making the change in the corporate taxation here. I would be extremely fearful that given the recent declarations from France, Germany etc on us being anti-competitive in the EU market - that they wont take up the charge against it again in the future once we have lessened/diluted our powers after a lisbon ratification.
I could be just completely wrong, but sentiment like that does not go away - at least without being paid off or getting their way. This kind of thing (and there could be more with regard to agriculture, energy, fisheries) is not dealt with in the lisbon treaty. these things are outside of the context of it all.
A small nation such as ourselves have cornered the market in jobs and service industry money (through taxes and duties). That has rankled the EU super powers who struggle to balance the books and keep large workforces employed. Where there is money, people usually dont give up too easily.
I dont think anyone from the pro-yes camp has answered Lone harks reservations/questions yet though ?
Taxation can't be affected . The Germans have got a guarantee to that affect .
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0701/1224249838658.html
Yet an other no myth busted .
incorrect as usual.
Politics is performed by leverage and trade-offs
not that you would understand.
spelling as wonderful as ever ! :D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:34:34 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 09, 2009, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:13:14 AM
Multinationals come and go.
Really? If unions and the likes of Sinn Fein got their way there'd be a lot going and none coming.
QuoteIt's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
More typical "No" campaign scaremongering nonsense. "Forget the facts, lets just make crap up".
QuoteThe interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Of course multi-nationals have their own interests at heart (as does everyone else), and absolutely they'll be out of here if they can do better elsewhere. But some people seem to think that would be a good thing.
I only put it up as Lynchbhoy said he wondered what the positon of US multinationals on Lisbon is. And clearly they strongly advocate a Yes vote.
Here's is what Intel themselves have to say on it:
http://www.intel.com/corporate/europe/emea/irl/intel/lisbon/
QuoteLast year, like many others I stood back more than I should have, convinced, to be honest, that a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion. I was wrong This time, after discussions with my corporate colleagues, Intel as a matter of corporate social responsibility believes that we have a duty to speak up. As a company, Intel chose to invest in an Ireland, which offers strategic certainty on its national commitments to a business friendly environment and its full embrace of its connection to the EU.
The dynamics of Ireland fully connected to Europe have been powerful and positive for the people of Ireland – good for Foreign Direct Investment, good for jobs, good for prosperity and ultimately good for business.
We are convinced that for future growth and innovation Ireland needs to stay fully connected to Europe. Ireland as a fully connected player in the EU, matters to us. Our question to the Irish people is – does it matter to you?
Best wishes,
Jim O'Hara
General Manager, Intel Ireland
OK Intel have pushed for a yes vote.
The american chamber of commers may have come out with a yes notion,but in general the actual companies have kept rather quiet.
Was thinking about it, and it struck me that either way they are winners here.
If the taxation goes here, they can relocate to a cheaper eastern european country , with the local country subsidising their relocation and premises and it will not make a dent in their profit margins.
However we here would lose out.
But what you said regarding he yes vote is probably true. It is unknown whether we would be forced into making the change in the corporate taxation here. I would be extremely fearful that given the recent declarations from France, Germany etc on us being anti-competitive in the EU market - that they wont take up the charge against it again in the future once we have lessened/diluted our powers after a lisbon ratification.
I could be just completely wrong, but sentiment like that does not go away - at least without being paid off or getting their way. This kind of thing (and there could be more with regard to agriculture, energy, fisheries) is not dealt with in the lisbon treaty. these things are outside of the context of it all.
A small nation such as ourselves have cornered the market in jobs and service industry money (through taxes and duties). That has rankled the EU super powers who struggle to balance the books and keep large workforces employed. Where there is money, people usually dont give up too easily.
I dont think anyone from the pro-yes camp has answered Lone harks reservations/questions yet though ?
Taxation can't be affected . The Germans have got a guarantee to that affect .
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0701/1224249838658.html
Yet an other no myth busted .
incorrect as usual.
Politics is performed by leverage and trade-offs
not that you would understand.
spelling as wonderful as ever ! :D
I understand the point your making . What I don't understand is the idea your putting forward that voting no will some how off set or delay this leverage and trade-offs effect.
Lisbon has nothing to do with leverage and trade-offs
Quote from: Tankie on September 09, 2009, 01:28:00 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 09, 2009, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:13:14 AM
Multinationals come and go.
Really? If unions and the likes of Sinn Fein got their way there'd be a lot going and none coming.
QuoteIt's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
More typical "No" campaign scaremongering nonsense. "Forget the facts, lets just make crap up".
QuoteThe interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Of course multi-nationals have their own interests at heart (as does everyone else), and absolutely they'll be out of here if they can do better elsewhere. But some people seem to think that would be a good thing.
I only put it up as Lynchbhoy said he wondered what the positon of US multinationals on Lisbon is. And clearly they strongly advocate a Yes vote.
Here's is what Intel themselves have to say on it:
http://www.intel.com/corporate/europe/emea/irl/intel/lisbon/
QuoteLast year, like many others I stood back more than I should have, convinced, to be honest, that a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion. I was wrong This time, after discussions with my corporate colleagues, Intel as a matter of corporate social responsibility believes that we have a duty to speak up. As a company, Intel chose to invest in an Ireland, which offers strategic certainty on its national commitments to a business friendly environment and its full embrace of its connection to the EU.
The dynamics of Ireland fully connected to Europe have been powerful and positive for the people of Ireland – good for Foreign Direct Investment, good for jobs, good for prosperity and ultimately good for business.
We are convinced that for future growth and innovation Ireland needs to stay fully connected to Europe. Ireland as a fully connected player in the EU, matters to us. Our question to the Irish people is – does it matter to you?
Best wishes,
Jim O'Hara
General Manager, Intel Ireland
OK Intel have pushed for a yes vote.
The american chamber of commers may have come out with a yes notion,but in general the actual companies have kept rather quiet.
Was thinking about it, and it struck me that either way they are winners here.
If the taxation goes here, they can relocate to a cheaper eastern european country , with the local country subsidising their relocation and premises and it will not make a dent in their profit margins.
However we here would lose out.
But what you said regarding he yes vote is probably true. It is unknown whether we would be forced into making the change in the corporate taxation here. I would be extremely fearful that given the recent declarations from France, Germany etc on us being anti-competitive in the EU market - that they wont take up the charge against it again in the future once we have lessened/diluted our powers after a lisbon ratification.
I could be just completely wrong, but sentiment like that does not go away - at least without being paid off or getting their way. This kind of thing (and there could be more with regard to agriculture, energy, fisheries) is not dealt with in the lisbon treaty. these things are outside of the context of it all.
A small nation such as ourselves have cornered the market in jobs and service industry money (through taxes and duties). That has rankled the EU super powers who struggle to balance the books and keep large workforces employed. Where there is money, people usually dont give up too easily.
I dont think anyone from the pro-yes camp has answered Lone harks reservations/questions yet though ?
Taxation can't be affected . The Germans have got a guarantee to that affect .
why do people keep going on about taxtation? do people really believe that we are the only country who want control of their tax affairs? britain wont even join the euro and have said that they will never lose a veto on tax....
...its the key issue for me at least - there may be other areas but for me, if we lost of took any kind of hit in the corporate tax rate we have, I think we will really see a recession and the doomsday merchants that have been somewhat happy in the past year woul dbe dancing up the streets of closed down shops and businesses then.
Its the be all and end all for us.
We have something that the other countries want.
Multi national companies, their wealth, their jobs etc that these companies bring in.
shutting us down wont be done on a childish type demand from the EU.
they wer happy to write off a clause saying that they wouldnt enforce change, however they didnt put in anything that would stop them from leveraging stuff (infrastructure, agri,fisheries, increased levies, higher subscription payments to Brussels etc) against us that would cripple us financially and effectively make US increase our rate of corporation tax.
That will tip some of the Investing companies over the edge and they will relocate to eastern europe (or france/germany etc).
I could be wrong and I really hope I am wrong.
A no vote will only prolong this. a yes vote leaves us closer to the edge. I am hoping that we can get ourselves back into shape soon (reducing the minimum wage and sundry operating costs such as gas, electricity, employer tax/prsi contributions etc etc) to make ourselves more competitive in preparation.
A no vote buys us that bit more time to stave off disaster.
A yes vote thereafter would be fine. We would have mitigated against this hopefully by then.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:34:34 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 09, 2009, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:13:14 AM
Multinationals come and go.
Really? If unions and the likes of Sinn Fein got their way there'd be a lot going and none coming.
QuoteIt's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
More typical "No" campaign scaremongering nonsense. "Forget the facts, lets just make crap up".
QuoteThe interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Of course multi-nationals have their own interests at heart (as does everyone else), and absolutely they'll be out of here if they can do better elsewhere. But some people seem to think that would be a good thing.
I only put it up as Lynchbhoy said he wondered what the positon of US multinationals on Lisbon is. And clearly they strongly advocate a Yes vote.
Here's is what Intel themselves have to say on it:
http://www.intel.com/corporate/europe/emea/irl/intel/lisbon/
QuoteLast year, like many others I stood back more than I should have, convinced, to be honest, that a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion. I was wrong This time, after discussions with my corporate colleagues, Intel as a matter of corporate social responsibility believes that we have a duty to speak up. As a company, Intel chose to invest in an Ireland, which offers strategic certainty on its national commitments to a business friendly environment and its full embrace of its connection to the EU.
The dynamics of Ireland fully connected to Europe have been powerful and positive for the people of Ireland – good for Foreign Direct Investment, good for jobs, good for prosperity and ultimately good for business.
We are convinced that for future growth and innovation Ireland needs to stay fully connected to Europe. Ireland as a fully connected player in the EU, matters to us. Our question to the Irish people is – does it matter to you?
Best wishes,
Jim O'Hara
General Manager, Intel Ireland
OK Intel have pushed for a yes vote.
The american chamber of commers may have come out with a yes notion,but in general the actual companies have kept rather quiet.
Was thinking about it, and it struck me that either way they are winners here.
If the taxation goes here, they can relocate to a cheaper eastern european country , with the local country subsidising their relocation and premises and it will not make a dent in their profit margins.
However we here would lose out.
But what you said regarding he yes vote is probably true. It is unknown whether we would be forced into making the change in the corporate taxation here. I would be extremely fearful that given the recent declarations from France, Germany etc on us being anti-competitive in the EU market - that they wont take up the charge against it again in the future once we have lessened/diluted our powers after a lisbon ratification.
I could be just completely wrong, but sentiment like that does not go away - at least without being paid off or getting their way. This kind of thing (and there could be more with regard to agriculture, energy, fisheries) is not dealt with in the lisbon treaty. these things are outside of the context of it all.
A small nation such as ourselves have cornered the market in jobs and service industry money (through taxes and duties). That has rankled the EU super powers who struggle to balance the books and keep large workforces employed. Where there is money, people usually dont give up too easily.
I dont think anyone from the pro-yes camp has answered Lone harks reservations/questions yet though ?
Taxation can't be affected . The Germans have got a guarantee to that affect .
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0701/1224249838658.html
Yet an other no myth busted .
incorrect as usual.
Politics is performed by leverage and trade-offs
not that you would understand.
spelling as wonderful as ever ! :D
I understand the point your making . What I don't understand is the idea your putting forward that voting no will some how off set or delay this leverage and trade-offs effect.
Lisbon has nothing to do with leverage and trade-offs
there really isnt any point in myself or anyone else attempting to discuss things like this with the likes of yourself who is still not past enid blyton or beatrix potter level.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:44:48 PM
there really isnt any point in myself or anyone else attempting to discuss things like this with the likes of yourself who is still not past enid blyton or beatrix potter level.
Translation you've no evidence to back up this claim.
Also read this in your free time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 08, 2009, 10:57:40 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 06, 2009, 11:49:28 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 05, 2009, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 10:18:29 PM
Shite I'm starting to think that Jim Corr has a valid point about a "one world order".
This treaty is starting to look like a subtle way for Europe to circumvent national constitutions. Btw before the usual suspects jump on me asking for proof, I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor).
I support Ireland being in the EU, not a part of the EU being Ireland.
Translation you plucked it out of your ass?
Fcuk your one arrogant illiterate w**ker, you spout your crap on here and it's tickity bo, when someone offers an opinion different from yours they are "plucking it out of their arse" - t**t. ::)
So where did you draw your conclusions from?
I can provide a link for anything I've said
As can I - quote: "I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio[/b] (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor)". I can assume you have used similar media sources?? , so why is it that I'm "plucking it out of my arse"?
Yes but most if not all of what is said in other sources is repeated on the Internet. So why can't you provide some links ?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 01:48:20 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:44:48 PM
there really isnt any point in myself or anyone else attempting to discuss things like this with the likes of yourself who is still not past enid blyton or beatrix potter level.
Translation you've no evidence to back up this claim.
Also read this in your free time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
go catch up on your education and leave business to the big boys !
:D
There is no chance of Ireland increasing its CT rate. Each of FF, FG and Labour have given committments on such.
Doesnt matter what pressure you imagine the Germans or French put on us, our CT rate will not go up. We cannot be forced to put it up.
The Germans and French have given up on us increasing the rate and are instead looking at something called the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) - which if implemented would mean that an MNCs profits would be reallocated between the countries it does business in, so in almost all cases Ireland would be allocated less profits to tax.
Obviously Ireland is fighting tooth and nail to avoid this being brought it (along with the UK and others) and those in favour cannot force it on us.
Quote from: Hound on September 09, 2009, 03:06:11 PM
There is no chance of Ireland increasing its CT rate. Each of FF, FG and Labour have given committments on such.
Doesnt matter what pressure you imagine the Germans or French put on us, our CT rate will not go up. We cannot be forced to put it up.
The Germans and French have given up on us increasing the rate and are instead looking at something called the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) - which if implemented would mean that an MNCs profits would be reallocated between the countries it does business in, so in almost all cases Ireland would be allocated less profits to tax.
Obviously Ireland is fighting tooth and nail to avoid this being brought it (along with the UK and others) and those in favour cannot force it on us.
Not in disagreement with you hound. what you are saying is whats on the table. I only hope that the new measures are enough for the Germans, French etc
Its also a slight revenue loss to us, but I'd be willing to take that hit as I feel we would achieve that more quickly than we would get around to addressing those other measures I mentioned.
However , I still am not sure that this is enough for some of the other member states that want a bigger slice of the pie or who just cant stomach a little upstart such as us with no historical benefit and only a wet year ago was being bailed out to have its roads, agri and industry propped up by EU sump funds.
Time will tell, I would prefer if you are 100% correct.
Very interesting opening post on this link -
http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/100860-yes-campaign-getting-51-print-media-coverage.html
Surprisingly (maybe it is no surprise) Intel and IBEC have received more printed coverage than SF and doub;e that of the Socailist party.
This might explain where Gnevin gets all his links.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 04:25:49 PM
Very interesting opening post on this link -
http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/100860-yes-campaign-getting-51-print-media-coverage.html
Surprisingly (maybe it is no surprise) Intel and IBEC have received more printed coverage than SF and doub;e that of the Socailist party.
This might explain where Gnevin gets all his links.
www.google.ie . Heard of it?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 03:24:42 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 09, 2009, 03:06:11 PM
There is no chance of Ireland increasing its CT rate. Each of FF, FG and Labour have given committments on such.
Doesnt matter what pressure you imagine the Germans or French put on us, our CT rate will not go up. We cannot be forced to put it up.
The Germans and French have given up on us increasing the rate and are instead looking at something called the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) - which if implemented would mean that an MNCs profits would be reallocated between the countries it does business in, so in almost all cases Ireland would be allocated less profits to tax.
Obviously Ireland is fighting tooth and nail to avoid this being brought it (along with the UK and others) and those in favour cannot force it on us.
Not in disagreement with you hound. what you are saying is whats on the table. I only hope that the new measures are enough for the Germans, French etc
Its also a slight revenue loss to us, but I'd be willing to take that hit as I feel we would achieve that more quickly than we would get around to addressing those other measures I mentioned.
However , I still am not sure that this is enough for some of the other member states that want a bigger slice of the pie or who just cant stomach a little upstart such as us with no historical benefit and only a wet year ago was being bailed out to have its roads, agri and industry propped up by EU sump funds.
Time will tell, I would prefer if you are 100% correct.
Still haven't said how a no vote buys us any time !.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 02:04:15 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 08, 2009, 10:57:40 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 06, 2009, 11:49:28 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 05, 2009, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 10:18:29 PM
Shite I'm starting to think that Jim Corr has a valid point about a "one world order".
This treaty is starting to look like a subtle way for Europe to circumvent national constitutions. Btw before the usual suspects jump on me asking for proof, I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor).
I support Ireland being in the EU, not a part of the EU being Ireland.
Translation you plucked it out of your ass?
Fcuk your one arrogant illiterate w**ker, you spout your crap on here and it's tickity bo, when someone offers an opinion different from yours they are "plucking it out of their arse" - t**t. ::)
So where did you draw your conclusions from?
I can provide a link for anything I've said
As can I - quote: "I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio[/b] (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor)". I can assume you have used similar media sources?? , so why is it that I'm "plucking it out of my arse"?
Yes but most if not all of what is said in other sources is repeated on the Internet. So why can't you provide some links ?
I could just google links for you (as you do) but can't be bothered, you still haven't said why my opinion is plucked out of my arse, whereas, seemingly yours is well researched and relevant?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:43:18 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 09, 2009, 01:28:00 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 09, 2009, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 09, 2009, 08:13:14 AM
Multinationals come and go.
Really? If unions and the likes of Sinn Fein got their way there'd be a lot going and none coming.
QuoteIt's no surprise they wish to see Lisbon passed as it futher erodes workers rights. Wouldn't it be great for Intel if they could bring in workers from Estonia and pay them the minimum wage for specialist skilled jobs. They wouldn't have to up root their plants or change their systems. They could get the exact same expertise here and pay the minimum wage.
More typical "No" campaign scaremongering nonsense. "Forget the facts, lets just make crap up".
QuoteThe interest of multinationals is the multinational itself. I didn't know Intel had put money into the Yes campaign but if they did I'd be surprised if they didn't have their own interests as a priority.
Of course multi-nationals have their own interests at heart (as does everyone else), and absolutely they'll be out of here if they can do better elsewhere. But some people seem to think that would be a good thing.
I only put it up as Lynchbhoy said he wondered what the positon of US multinationals on Lisbon is. And clearly they strongly advocate a Yes vote.
Here's is what Intel themselves have to say on it:
http://www.intel.com/corporate/europe/emea/irl/intel/lisbon/
QuoteLast year, like many others I stood back more than I should have, convinced, to be honest, that a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion. I was wrong This time, after discussions with my corporate colleagues, Intel as a matter of corporate social responsibility believes that we have a duty to speak up. As a company, Intel chose to invest in an Ireland, which offers strategic certainty on its national commitments to a business friendly environment and its full embrace of its connection to the EU.
The dynamics of Ireland fully connected to Europe have been powerful and positive for the people of Ireland – good for Foreign Direct Investment, good for jobs, good for prosperity and ultimately good for business.
We are convinced that for future growth and innovation Ireland needs to stay fully connected to Europe. Ireland as a fully connected player in the EU, matters to us. Our question to the Irish people is – does it matter to you?
Best wishes,
Jim O'Hara
General Manager, Intel Ireland
OK Intel have pushed for a yes vote.
The american chamber of commers may have come out with a yes notion,but in general the actual companies have kept rather quiet.
Was thinking about it, and it struck me that either way they are winners here.
If the taxation goes here, they can relocate to a cheaper eastern european country , with the local country subsidising their relocation and premises and it will not make a dent in their profit margins.
However we here would lose out.
But what you said regarding he yes vote is probably true. It is unknown whether we would be forced into making the change in the corporate taxation here. I would be extremely fearful that given the recent declarations from France, Germany etc on us being anti-competitive in the EU market - that they wont take up the charge against it again in the future once we have lessened/diluted our powers after a lisbon ratification.
I could be just completely wrong, but sentiment like that does not go away - at least without being paid off or getting their way. This kind of thing (and there could be more with regard to agriculture, energy, fisheries) is not dealt with in the lisbon treaty. these things are outside of the context of it all.
A small nation such as ourselves have cornered the market in jobs and service industry money (through taxes and duties). That has rankled the EU super powers who struggle to balance the books and keep large workforces employed. Where there is money, people usually dont give up too easily.
I dont think anyone from the pro-yes camp has answered Lone harks reservations/questions yet though ?
Taxation can't be affected . The Germans have got a guarantee to that affect .
why do people keep going on about taxtation? do people really believe that we are the only country who want control of their tax affairs? britain wont even join the euro and have said that they will never lose a veto on tax....
...its the key issue for me at least - there may be other areas but for me, if we lost of took any kind of hit in the corporate tax rate we have, I think we will really see a recession and the doomsday merchants that have been somewhat happy in the past year woul dbe dancing up the streets of closed down shops and businesses then.
Its the be all and end all for us.
We have something that the other countries want.
Multi national companies, their wealth, their jobs etc that these companies bring in.
shutting us down wont be done on a childish type demand from the EU.
they wer happy to write off a clause saying that they wouldnt enforce change, however they didnt put in anything that would stop them from leveraging stuff (infrastructure, agri,fisheries, increased levies, higher subscription payments to Brussels etc) against us that would cripple us financially and effectively make US increase our rate of corporation tax.
That will tip some of the Investing companies over the edge and they will relocate to eastern europe (or france/germany etc).
I could be wrong and I really hope I am wrong.
A no vote will only prolong this. a yes vote leaves us closer to the edge. I am hoping that we can get ourselves back into shape soon (reducing the minimum wage and sundry operating costs such as gas, electricity, employer tax/prsi contributions etc etc) to make ourselves more competitive in preparation.
A no vote buys us that bit more time to stave off disaster.
A yes vote thereafter would be fine. We would have mitigated against this hopefully by then.
alot of small/close minded views if you ask me......
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 09, 2009, 09:38:24 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 09, 2009, 02:04:15 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 08, 2009, 10:57:40 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 06, 2009, 11:49:28 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 05, 2009, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 04, 2009, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 10:18:29 PM
Shite I'm starting to think that Jim Corr has a valid point about a "one world order".
This treaty is starting to look like a subtle way for Europe to circumvent national constitutions. Btw before the usual suspects jump on me asking for proof, I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor).
I support Ireland being in the EU, not a part of the EU being Ireland.
Translation you plucked it out of your ass?
Fcuk your one arrogant illiterate w**ker, you spout your crap on here and it's tickity bo, when someone offers an opinion different from yours they are "plucking it out of their arse" - t**t. ::)
So where did you draw your conclusions from?
I can provide a link for anything I've said
As can I - quote: "I have drawn my opinion at this stage from what I've read here, in the papers on other forums, on the radio[/b] (although it seems all to be very pro yes, using the shock factor)". I can assume you have used similar media sources?? , so why is it that I'm "plucking it out of my arse"?
Yes but most if not all of what is said in other sources is repeated on the Internet. So why can't you provide some links ?
I could just google links for you (as you do) but can't be bothered, you still haven't said why my opinion is plucked out of my arse, whereas, seemingly yours is well researched and relevant?
I only said that as you refuse to provide any credible source for your opinions and are apparently too lazy to google for them . Now your opinion may be well informed , well researched and well thought out but until I see some links I believe nothing .
Thought I'd just pop in and ask (again) what are we voting FOR if we vote yes? What are the advantages that will (not might) accrue to this country, its economy, me and my family? I've been asking this for a long time without any success. Instead, the only answer I get is the awful things that could happen if I vote no. Why are they trying to scare me? Surely there is at least one positive that the 'yes' campaign could sell? I'm a very positive, progressive sort, me. I'll embrace the positive if I understand it. I just hate being threatened. Especially by the government. Even more especially by an alliance of parties that are normally at each others' throats. As a side effect, it makes me wonder what the opposition is for. More to the point, I find it very scary when the entire political class gangs up on the people.
They couldn't be making things up, could they? Surely not. I understand already that it's only the 'No' side that does that. I know becaues the government and their opposition allies have told me and they wouldn't lie. So they must be telling the truth when they suggest we will be expelled from the "heart of Europe". (Remind me again - what exactly is that?) They just never explain how this will happen and where the rest of the EU got this power to expel us from this, whatever it is. And of course I believe them when the say that we will be consigned to the "second tier". Again, though, I can't seem to find out what that is. Who else is in it? How do you get into it? How do you get out of it? What does it not qualify for?
Can anyone help? I'm being told that my whole future and that of my family depends on this. Why is it so hard to explain why it's so important that I do the right thing? I'm scared. Help.
(http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/sep2009/lisbon_treaty_1.jpg)
(http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/sep2009/lisbon_treaty.jpg)
(http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/sep2009/1.jpg)
(http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/sep2009/michael_oleary.jpg)
(http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/aug2009/axisofeejitslisbon.jpg)
(http://www.coircampaign.org/images/Photos/PagePhotos/p_posterfreedom.jpg)
(http://www.coircampaign.org/images/Photos/PagePhotos/p_postermonkey.jpg)
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2009, 12:42:57 PM
Thought I'd just pop in and ask (again) what are we voting FOR if we vote yes?
Hardy, in all fairness, whats the point in asking (again) if you don't look at or care what the response is? Its as if you prefer not to find out, prefer not to be told, prefer not to research it.
Apart from all the scaremongering on both sides, 2 or 3 posters made their attempt at directly answering your question when you posed it earlier in the thread. Others gave links to sources with analysis of the benefits of voting Yes.
You certainly don't have to agree with it, but to cry about nobody telling you is just lazy.
Hound, I am lazy. Guilty as charged. But I honestly can't find any answer to my question*. Can you help?
* There was the following, from Gnevin, but I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to take it seriously as an answer (even if I could translate it):
QuoteThe heart of Europe isn't a constitutional term and you know that. I've hear directly from Irish civil servants of the effect of the last no vote had to our position in the scheme of things.
There is potential is there for us to be banished from 'the heart of Europe'. As I understand it, the Nice treaty allowed for bilateral arrangements between member states. The other countries could say, 'right, Ireland won't play ball so we'll arrange Lisbon amongst ourselves and the Irish can go lump it'. It's not destined to happen, but it only takes one big hitter like Sarkozy to mention it in anger for it to be on the agenda.
I had heard about that OK. I'm not sure if it's true, but I have also heard the balancing (and maybe circular) argument that if we're afraid of the big lads fecking off without us if we don't pass Lisbon, we should be a lot more afraid of what we'd be empowering them to do without us and all the other little lads if we DO pass Lisbon. The very threat of this implied in the "Heart of Europe" argument is in itself an argument against ceding more sovereignty and decision-making power to an institution that would contemplate acting like this. A bit like the schoolyard bully saying "I'll kick the bejaysus out out of you if you don't sign this form giving me the right to kick the bejaysus out of you".
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2009, 02:54:45 PM
Hound, I am lazy. Guilty as charged. But I honestly can't find any answer to my question*. Can you help?
* There was the following, from Gnevin, but I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to take it seriously as an answer (even if I could translate it):
QuoteThe heart of Europe isn't a constitutional term and you know that. I've heard directly from Irish civil servants of the effects the no vote had to our position in the scheme of things.
Its antidotal all right. So take it with a pinch of salt but at least put the effort into reading this thread instead of insulting me .
Sorry about the insult. I apologise.
Be careful mixing salt with your antidote, though.
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2009, 03:28:34 PM
I had heard about that OK. I'm not sure if it's true, but I have also heard the balancing (and maybe circular) argument that if we're afraid of the big lads fecking off without us if we don't pass Lisbon, we should be a lot more afraid of what we'd be empowering them to do without us and all the other little lads if we DO pass Lisbon. The very threat of this implied in the "Heart of Europe" argument is in itself an argument against ceding more sovereignty and decision-making power to an institution that would contemplate acting like this. A bit like the schoolyard bully saying "I'll kick the bejaysus out out of you if you don't sign this form giving me the right to kick the bejaysus out of you".
That's not the choice, any more than it is for countries in Efta who negotiate with the EU as a whole. You can choose to be part of the negotiations where you will have a small input but an input nonetheless, or you can choose to let the others do their own thing and deal with that agreed position when they arrive at it. Either position is legitimate. It does not imply that the other countries are bullies.
Consolidated version of the treaty:
www.statewatch.org/news/2008/jan/eu-lisbon-treaty-consilidated.pdf (http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/jan/eu-lisbon-treaty-consilidated.pdf)
'30 seconds on Why Taking a Second Look at the Lisbon Treaty Makes Sense for Ireland'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tiM5SBzQF4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tiM5SBzQF4)
Quote from: Donagh on September 10, 2009, 04:02:51 PM
'30 seconds on Why Taking a Second Look at the Lisbon Treaty Makes Sense for Ireland'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tiM5SBzQF4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tiM5SBzQF4)
(http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/images/2009/0425/1224245370001_1.jpg)
(http://i946.photobucket.com/albums/ad301/cest_la_craic/genyes.jpg)
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2009, 02:54:45 PM
Hound, I am lazy. Guilty as charged. But I honestly can't find any answer to my question*. Can you help?
* There was the following, from Gnevin, but I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to take it seriously as an answer (even if I could translate it):
QuoteThe heart of Europe isn't a constitutional term and you know that. I've hear directly from Irish civil servants of the effect of the last no vote had to our position in the scheme of things.
Not only that but the Current EU President disagrees with gnevins civil servant friends as I posted earlier. I didn't get a responce though.
Dear ~~~~~~~
I'm just wondering when you guys are like going to get stuck into Coir? Why is it that the Times is totally on top of the lies that are being spread against the Treaty when you lot in the ~~~~~~ are sitting by and doing nothing to stop the misinformation?
Like, you guys are a newspaper, right? Isn't it, like news, when, oh I dunno, a group of fringe loons is spreading lies which could imperil our relationship with the EU, which is more important now than ever?
Take this minimum wage thing? You wrote yesterday that it was "controversial" - it's not controversial, it's totally a lie?
I wish the media would like, get off the fence and do its part. This isn't a game, it's the most important decision for our entire generation, and you guys treat it like it's just another political debate with who's up and who's down?
Young people are out there every day fighting these lies. It's really demoralising that the so-called press give them total credence all the time. I always thought you were a better journalist than that?
Anyway, sorry about the rant. Just needed to vent.
Yours,
~~~~~~~~
Quote from: deiseach on September 10, 2009, 03:16:57 PM
There is potential is there for us to be banished from 'the heart of Europe'. As I understand it, the Nice treaty allowed for bilateral arrangements between member states. The other countries could say, 'right, Ireland won't play ball so we'll arrange Lisbon amongst ourselves and the Irish can go lump it'. It's not destined to happen, but it only takes one big hitter like Sarkozy to mention it in anger for it to be on the agenda.
Member states can agree what the want anytime. Britain can agree with Poland to invade Iraq while France can disagree. There is no reason for anyone to think we can't agree with other states. If we pass Lisbon and create a common foriegn policy as a Unit it will be much more difficult (and dangerous) to agree and disagree.
Quote from: deiseach on September 10, 2009, 03:48:26 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2009, 03:28:34 PM
I had heard about that OK. I'm not sure if it's true, but I have also heard the balancing (and maybe circular) argument that if we're afraid of the big lads fecking off without us if we don't pass Lisbon, we should be a lot more afraid of what we'd be empowering them to do without us and all the other little lads if we DO pass Lisbon. The very threat of this implied in the "Heart of Europe" argument is in itself an argument against ceding more sovereignty and decision-making power to an institution that would contemplate acting like this. A bit like the schoolyard bully saying "I'll kick the bejaysus out out of you if you don't sign this form giving me the right to kick the bejaysus out of you".
That's not the choice, any more than it is for countries in Efta who negotiate with the EU as a whole. You can choose to be part of the negotiations where you will have a small input but an input nonetheless, or you can choose to let the others do their own thing and deal with that agreed position when they arrive at it. Either position is legitimate. It does not imply that the other countries are bullies.
I think this is a bit different, though, and there is a clear implication of bullying in the threat of banishment from the heart of Europe, since (they imply) it will only happen if we vote against the treaty that supersedes the one that allows it to happen. I don't know of anything in Nice or anywhere else that excludes us from participation in these putative multilateral agreements, whichever way we vote on Lisbon. We will still be equal members of the EU under Nice and free to participate in any agreements we fancy.
Éamon de Valera on the Lisbon Treaty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD09AwrWWkI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD09AwrWWkI)
Hardy - I posted this earlier on the thread. I hope you get a look at it.
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=12932.msg635959#msg635959
The Lisbon Tweety. Lesson101
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjHdNd6D3B8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjHdNd6D3B8)
Germany Calling: "it's Ireland's Call"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz3YhDzF4cE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz3YhDzF4cE)
Uncle EU says James Connolly would vote No!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBcnyOX4dhI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBcnyOX4dhI)
(http://www.eirigi.org/images/lisbon2_cover.gif)
Quote from: Zapatista on September 10, 2009, 04:10:53 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2009, 02:54:45 PM
Hound, I am lazy. Guilty as charged. But I honestly can't find any answer to my question*. Can you help?
* There was the following, from Gnevin, but I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to take it seriously as an answer (even if I could translate it):
QuoteThe heart of Europe isn't a constitutional term and you know that. I've hear directly from Irish civil servants of the effect of the last no vote had to our position in the scheme of things.
Not only that but the Current EU President disagrees with gnevins civil servant friends as I posted earlier. I didn't get a responce though.
Missed this and can't find it .As I said this is my experience on the ground. It is of stories of a cold shoulder but I don't expect you to put much weight into what is basically a rumour as I cant reference it
Quote from: Zapatista on September 10, 2009, 04:21:33 PM
Hardy - I posted this earlier on the thread. I hope you get a look at it.
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=12932.msg635959#msg635959
Yes - saw that. A useful intervention by Mr Reinfeldt .
No to Lisbon: When in doubt make stuff up!
Higgins denies 'misleading' Lisbon claim
watch Thursday, 10 September 2009 22:53
Socialist Party MEP Joe Higgins has strenuously denied falsifying part of the Lisbon Treaty in his No vote campaign material.
Yesterday, Civil and Public Services Union General Secretary Blair Horan accused the Mr Higgins of changing part of the Treaty to suit his own arguments.
Mr Higgins has admitted that his website contains an incorrect version of article 52 of the Charter, but described Mr Horan's allegation as 'a disgusting Stalinist ploy'.
Advertisement
'I ask Blair Horan, are we lying when we saying that Article 52 of the Charter - all seven paragraphs of it - places limits on workers' rights?'
Earlier today Taoiseach Brian Cowen said voters should put aside their feelings about the Government when voting in next month's referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
'This is not about whether you support or oppose the government, or agree or disagree with Brian Cowen,' Mr Cowen said at a party conference in Sandyford.
'If you are frustrated or angry about our current economic challenges, here is one specific opportunity for you to do something positive about it,' he told delegates.
Also on the Yes side, Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin and EU commissioner Margot Wallstrom attended a pro Lisbon gathering of 290 companies and associations involved in foreign trade.
The Workers Party also launched its anti-Lisbon Treaty campaign today, claiming that it weakens workers' rights.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0910/eulisbon.html
I'm voting No because the Brits are part of Europe yet can opt out of the Euro. This is a major issue which affects the island of Ireland. How are the Irish meant to even feel part of Europe when they cannot freely spend the Euro coin on the opposite side of a 'boarder free Europe'? If I want to see my brothers and sisters or they want to see me we are forced to pay for currency by virture of the Brits' stance.
The Lisbon treaty erodes my rights. I want the right to vote on any referredum that affects me. If Lisbon is passed I no longer will have this right.
Quote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 12:33:36 AM
I'm voting No because the Brits are part of Europe yet can opt out of the Euro. This is a major issue which affects the island of Ireland. How are the Irish meant to even feel part of Europe when they cannot freely spend the Euro coin on the opposite side of a 'boarder free Europe'? If I want to see my brothers and sisters or they want to see me we are forced to pay for currency by virture of the Brits' stance.
The Lisbon treaty erodes my rights. I want the right to vote on any referredum that affects me. If Lisbon is passed I no longer will have this right.
Lisbon doesn't change the British opt out on the EMU. So you may as well vote no on Lisbon because you disagree with the EU's stance on the name on regional chesses
The Lisbon treaty doesn't erodes your right. Lisbon doesn't change Crotty v. An Taoiseach
This is really really hard.
I voted no the last time.
That time, apparently, the side opposite Fianna Fáil made things up and they (FF) are upset about false canvassing.
This from the party whose only message for a decade is that there is no opposition to themselves and yes we are an idiotic nation because we keep voting them back in on that basis.
Their solution to the banking crisis was the bank guarantee (the only western country to try to bluff their way out). It didn't work, so now we are told the NAMA is 'the only show in town'.
No it's not.
The US has allowed 89 banks to go under so far this year alone, never mind Lehman's (which was last year).
A yes vote sends the wrong message to the wrong people.
I'm still voting no.
Gnevin yes it does change my rights. If this one gets in as a yes vote then we in Ireland no longer have a right to vote on any referredum that applies to Europe.
Quote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:20:35 AM
Gnevin yes it does change my rights. If this one gets in as a yes vote then we in Ireland no longer have a right to vote on any referredum that applies to Europe.
Where are you getting that from?
If people vote yes to Lisbon it is framed in such a fashion that the right of the Irish people ever to vote on a European issue is removed. The Government dictates our direction in Europe solely if a yes prevails.
Quote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:27:24 AM
If people vote yes to Lisbon it is framed in such a fashion that the right of the Irish people ever to vote on a European issue is removed. The Government dictates our direction in Europe solely if a yes prevails.
This is a key question. Is the vote being presented as a 'Treaty' while it is in fact a 'referendum' to end all Europe related referendums?
Very good question. How do we answer it objectively?
If you look at the downloadable version of the Treaty Bertie Ahern's name is on it. Do people really trust any document with his name on it?
Quote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:27:24 AM
If people vote yes to Lisbon it is framed in such a fashion that the right of the Irish people ever to vote on a European issue is removed. The Government dictates our direction in Europe solely if a yes prevails.
I'm not sure that's correct - have you got a link?
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_other_proposed_changes.html
Quote from: stephenite on September 11, 2009, 01:23:42 AMQuote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:20:35 AMGnevin yes it does change my rights. If this one gets in as a yes vote then we in Ireland no longer have a right to vote on any referredum that applies to Europe.
Where are you getting that from?
It's not clear to me from the wording whether this clause removes the necessity EVER to have a referendum in Ireland on treaty changes, but it certainly specifies that under Lisbon, the European Council will have power to amend the treaties with the approval only of the Oireachtas, and without the requirement for a referendum in Ireland. Here's how it's stated by the Referendum Commission:
The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting (see pages 6 & 25) to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give it the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (see page -) in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposal must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.
This means that any member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland. (The bold emphasis is mine).
This means that if we vote Yes to Lisbon, we hand over to the government of the day our right as a people to approve future fundamental changes to our sovereignty within the EU. To me, it's a black joke that the government is effectively saying "we are asking you to hand over to us your power to make constitutional decisions; you can trust us never to compromise your interests in doing that, never mind the fact that that's exactly what this treaty itself does". Their appeal for trust falls at the start, never mind the first fence.
This is the reason I voted No the last time – nothing to do with commissioners or armies or workers. I refuse to abandon my right to veto the people who brought you the standard of government we've been experiencing for the last decade.
Strangely, this issue hardly ever even arises in the debate.
In answer to a question from Sinn Féin MEP Bairbre de Brún in Brussels today as to whether the Commission will treat Ireland differently to other EU member states if Irish people again reject the Lisbon Treaty on 2 October, President Barroso said: "There will be no discrimination against Irish people if there is a No vote. You will not hear from me any threat to Ireland."
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/17300
So that's the president of the EU and the President of the Commission that have dispelled the threats from Cowen.
I get, and commiserate with, your concerns Hardy, and would agree to a certain extent. However, the business of everyday government can't become the concern (from a decision-making perspective) of the citizen. On that basis, we should be having a General Election every week.
The General Election is the time to make your point about everyday governance - sadly, we've succumbed to the hype at election-time for quite a while, rather than assessing what our needs actually are.
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 11, 2009, 09:11:44 AM
I get, and commiserate with, your concerns Hardy, and would agree to a certain extent. However, the business of everyday government can't become the concern (from a decision-making perspective) of the citizen. On that basis, we should be having a General Election every week.
The General Election is the time to make your point about everyday governance - sadly, we've succumbed to the hype at election-time for quite a while, rather than assessing what our needs actually are.
I completely disagree. The Lisbon treaty and it's content was not on the agenda during the 2007 election. NAMA was not on the agenda in 2007. The mandate of the people is sovereign and can be expressed at any time including times of no election. BTW the possibility of an end to Referendum on EU affairs can not be considered as 'everyday Government'.
OK, at what point do you think the citizen should not become involved in the government/legislative process?
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 11, 2009, 09:30:09 AM
OK, at what point do you think the citizen should not become involved in the government/legislative process?
When it's not practical. Ciitizens are involved in this everyday. From volunteer sectors, old peoples groups, specail needs groups, business groups etc. If it is relevant to any sector of the public it should (and usually is) have them included in the process. If it's an issue of National importance then the public as a whole should be consulted.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 11, 2009, 09:08:46 AM
In answer to a question from Sinn Féin MEP Bairbre de Brún in Brussels today as to whether the Commission will treat Ireland differently to other EU member states if Irish people again reject the Lisbon Treaty on 2 October, President Barroso said: "There will be no discrimination against Irish people if there is a No vote. You will not hear from me any threat to Ireland."
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/17300
So that's the president of the EU and the President of the Commission that have dispelled the threats from Cowen.
He has to said that doesn't he .
It's interesting that after 15 pages of discussion I've only seen one legitimate* no argument .
*=legitimate being something that is in the treaty
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 11, 2009, 09:11:44 AM
I get, and commiserate with, your concerns Hardy, and would agree to a certain extent. However, the business of everyday government can't become the concern (from a decision-making perspective) of the citizen. On that basis, we should be having a General Election every week.
The General Election is the time to make your point about everyday governance - sadly, we've succumbed to the hype at election-time for quite a while, rather than assessing what our needs actually are.
I take your point, Billy and, as you suggest in your later post, it comes down to a decision on where the cut-off point should be for government decision making versus referendum. And I'm not so much concerned about the principle of ceding decision-making power to the EU - for the most part, our best legislation has been prompted by the EU, as I seem to remember you pointed out before. (Though I am worried about their absolute determination to force this stuff through, to the extent of disguising a constitution as a treaty with the express aim of circumventing the stated decision of all who voted on it previously).
My real concern, though, is the idea of handing over any further decision-making power to the political class in this country - the people who brought you the HSE, the collapse of the economy, NAMA, featherbedding of crooked developers, etc. Especially when they're ganging up together and more especially when they're clearly lying to me in trying to convince me to do it and even more especially when they have shown their predisposition in a hundred ways to act in their own interests rather than those of the people.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure it'll fail again. They simply have nothing to sell. FF, of all people should know you can't win a poll with nothing to offer the electorate. All they are trying to sell us is a negative and they can't even support that. Miriam O'Callaghan last night was the first I've seen to ask the straight question - what WILL happen to us if we vote 'no'? The best Cowen could do (I'm paraphrasing as best I can from memory) was that it's not a question of anything changing on the morning after the vote, but where would we be in 3 years? In 5 years? But he didn't answer his own question. Just went on to say our whole economy is based on our membership of the EU. Of course it is. What's that got to do with the Lisbon Treaty?
Apologies if this is already posted but its great reading
Wall Street Journal
How the Irish Can Save Civilization (Again)
Just say no to the Lisbon Treaty. Again.
By BRIAN M. CARNEY
In three weeks' time, Ireland will, for a moment, hold the fate of Europe in its hands. Through a quirk of Irish constitutional procedure, on Oct. 2 the Republic of Ireland will be the only European Union nation to hold a referendum on a treaty to revamp how the EU, home to half a billion people, does business. The Lisbon Treaty, therefore, will stand or fall on the votes of perhaps one and a half million Irishmen and women.
From the perspective of Brussels, this is grossly unfair—a miscarriage of democracy masquerading as democracy. The Irish have stymied the denizens of Brussels' European Quarter before, most recently the first time they voted against the Lisbon Treaty last year.
Back then, the establishment in Brussels blamed one man above all for the defeat. His name is Declan Ganley. He was one of the driving forces behind the No campaign the last time around, and he's back to do it again. Your correspondent recently sat down with him to find out what he's fighting for in trying to see to it that Ireland once again votes No to Lisbon—and in the process, he hopes, forces the EU to choose a different path.
***
View Full Image
GANLEY
Ismael Roldan
GANLEY
GANLEY
I put it to Mr. Ganley, an impeccably dressed, balding Irishman of 42, that from Brussels, this whole referendum looks profoundly unjust. Why should 1.5 million Irish voters get the opportunity to hold back the progress of 500 million citizens of Europe?
"I would look at it a very different way," he shoots back. "It's profoundly undemocratic to walk all over democracy. . . The Irish people had a vote on the Lisbon Treaty. They voted no. A higher percentage of the electorate voted no than voted for Barack Obama in the United States of America. No one's suggesting he should run for re-election next month. But—hey, presto!—15 months later we're being told to vote again on exactly the same treaty." He taps the table for emphasis: "Not one comma has changed in the document."
But the insult to democracy is more egregious, in his view, than simply asking the Irish to vote twice—that was already done to Ireland with the Nice Treaty in 2002. In this case, it is not just the Irish whose democratic prerogatives are being trampled, but the French and the Dutch, among others, as well.
In 2005, France and the Netherlands each rejected the proposed EU Constitution in referendums. Lisbon, Mr. Ganley contends, "is the same treaty." What is the evidence for that? "Well, first of all, the people who drafted the European Constitution say it is. Like [former French President Valéry] Giscard d'Estaing. He called it the same document in a different envelope. And having chaired the presidium that drafted the Constitution, he would know." There's more. "He also said in respect of the Lisbon Treaty that public opinion would be led to adopt, without knowing it, policies that we would never dare to present to them directly. All of the earlier proposals for the new Constitution will be in the new text, the Lisbon Treaty, but will be hidden or disguised in some way. That's what he said. And he's absolutely right. There is no law that could be made under the European Constitution that cannot be made under the Lisbon Treaty. None."
So in trying to ram the Lisbon Treaty through, the EU is also undoing the democratic choice of the French and Dutch electorates. "Millions of people in France, a majority, voted No to this European Constitution. In the Netherlands, millions of people did exactly the same thing. When the Irish were asked the same question, they voted no also. Those three times that it was presented to an electorate, the people voted no." Far from thwarting the will of those hundreds of millions of fellow Europeans, then, the way Mr. Ganley sees it, Ireland has a duty to them to uphold the results of those earlier votes. Approving the treaty would be a betrayal of those in France and the Netherlands—not to mention the millions of others who were never offered a vote on the Constitution or Lisbon.
Mr. Ganley speaks in a low, measured tone, even when, as he occasionally does, he slips into rhetorical bomb-throwing mode. "Why," he asks, "when the French voted no, the Dutch voted no and the Irish voted no, are we still being force-fed the same formula? You don't have to scratch your head and wonder about democracy in some intellectualized, distant way and wonder, is there some obscure threat to it." He adds, without raising his voice, "This is manifest contempt for democracy. It is a democracy-hating act. . . . This is so bold a power grab as to be almost literally unbelievable."
The nature of the power grab that Mr. Ganley refers to deserves some elaboration. What, exactly, is wrong with the Lisbon Treaty itself? "The treaty is a product and indeed enshrines a set of principles and a way of governing the European Union that clearly shows no will or intent for democracy," Mr. Ganley says. "You will hear it discussed quietly across the dinner tables in certain sections of Brussels and elsewhere that we're entering into this post-democratic era, that democracy is not the perfect mechanism or tool with which to deal with the challenges of global this-that-or-the-other. This idea of entering into some form of post-democracy is dangerous. It's ill-advised. It's naïve."
The Lisbon Treaty, like the EU Constitution would have, puts this idea of post-democracy into practice in a number of concrete ways. The most striking is Article 48, universally known by its French nickname, the passerelle clause. It says that "with just intergovernmental agreement, with no need of going back to the citizens anywhere, they can make any change to this constitutional document, adding any new powers, without having to revisit an electorate anywhere," Mr. Ganley explains. "Do you think they want to revisit an electorate anywhere? Of course they don't." If the Irish vote yes, in other words, Oct. 2 would mark the last time that Brussels would ever have to bother giving voters a say on what the EU does and how it does it. Ireland would have, in effect, voted away the last vestige of European direct democracy not just for itself, but for the entire continent.
The passerelle clause is not the only evidence in the treaty of a post-democratic mindset. "The other thing it does," Mr. Ganley says, "is it creates its own president—the president of the European Council, commonly referred to as the president of the European Union." This EU president, Mr. Ganley notes, "will represent the European Union on the global stage. This will be one of the two people that Henry Kissiner would call, in answer to his famous question, when I want to speak to Europe, who do I call? He's now going to have a telephone number, a voice that speaks for Europe, because that voice will have half a billion citizens, legally."
The other person who would speak for Europe is the "grandly named" High Representative for Foreign and Security Affairs, the EU's foreign minister, in effect. Mr. Ganley is, as he puts it, "cool with that." But there is this: "Presumably they're going to be speaking for me, right, because I'm a citizen," he says. "But I don't get to vote for or against these people. So, who mandates them, if not me, as a citizen, or you? Oh, so somebody who is how many places removed from me selects from within one of their own. They never have to debate with a competitor. I'm never given a choice of, do you want Tom, Joe or Anne. I'm presented with my president. Do I walk backward out of the room now?" Just as a yes vote in Ireland would mean that future expansions of the powers of the EU would never have to be put to a popular vote, it would also mean that Europeans would never get the opportunity to elect its highest officials.
It's easy to see why Mr. Ganley has made himself unpopular in Brussels. And yet, he avows, "I am a committed European. I am not a euroskeptic, not in any way, shape or form. I believe that Europe's future as united is the only sensible way forward." It's just that he fears that Europe, as it is presently constituted, is setting itself up for a fall. "I'm very sure about one thing," he says. "Which is, if it is not built on a solid foundation of democracy and accountability and transparency in governance, then it will fail. And it's too valuable a project, and it has cost too much in terms of blood and treasure, to create an environment where this could happen."
The whole political dynamic in the European Union, he argues, is outmoded. To talk of only euroskeptics and europhiles actually serves the interests of the mandarins in Brussels because it doesn't allow for the existence of a loyal opposition or constructive dissent. But a loyal opposition is precisely what Mr. Ganley hopes to create. "What I've been saying since the beginning of the last Lisbon campaign, it blows fuses in Brussels," he says. "They just can't process it. The system crashes. They have to reboot every time because I don't fit into the euroskeptic box." Their mentality, he says, is "friend-enemy. Uh, no." And he points to himself: "Friend—a real friend, because I'm telling you the truth. I'm telling you, you've got a problem and we've got to fix it."
He adds, referring to the European establishment in Brussels: "I've got news for them. This little European citizen, along with millions of others in France, the Netherlands and Ireland, have now said something to them. And they can either carry on the way that they're going, and fail, or they can listen to the people, engage them, and bring them along with them."
Instead of a dense, almost unreadable treaty that shuffles the deck chairs of the Berlaymont building in Brussels, the Commission's headquarters, Mr. Ganley would like to see a readable, 25-page document that provides for the direct election of an EU president, greater transparency in decision-making and a bigger voice for the people of Europe. "We have to ask more of people," he says. But equally, "we have to trust people. They talk about the democratic deficit. The deficit of trust is a yawning gap right now in Europe. And the biggest loss of trust has been between those that govern and the people, not the other way around. What was it Bertolt Brecht said? 'That the people have lost the confidence of their government?' This is the identical mentality."
***
Still, for all this talk about democracy and higher principles, the people of Ireland have their own parochial concerns to consider as well. There's been a lot of talk about how a No vote could hurt the Irish economy in some way. And a number of big multinationals in Ireland have called on the Irish to ratify the treaty and let it go forward. Is Mr. Ganley putting his country at risk by calling for a No vote?
He emphatically denies it. "The only people at risk in the Lisbon Treaty are these elites in Brussels," he scoffs. "Somebody said last time that Ireland would be the laughing stock of Europe if we voted no. Well, we voted no, and actually these elites in Brussels became the laughing stock of the people of Europe. That's what I saw in the weeks that came afterwards." He goes on: "The only people we risk annoying are a bunch of unelected bureaucrats and what I call this tyranny of mediocrity that we have across Europe." What's more, he says, "the Irish have never been afraid throughout history of asking the tough questions and standing up for freedom and what was right against much, much bigger opponents. In fact, we seem to revel in it."
It was easier to revel, however, when Ireland was still enjoying a boom of historic proportions. Will the Irish decide, this time around, that it is safer to keep their heads down, and go along with the program? In Mr. Ganley's view, this would be totally self-defeating. If Ireland votes Yes, he says, "We're getting nothing in return except to be patted on the head by some mandarins and told we're good Europeans. Would we be acting as good Europeans if we said yes to this?" He thinks not. "If this question was asked of the people of Europe, whether they wanted this constitution, we know almost for sure that en masse they would vote no." And yet, "We're almost literally being held hostage, with a gun pointed to our head, and being told, if you don't sign this thing, unspecified bad things will happen. But what they're asking us to do is to sell out the rest of the people of Europe."
And the whole European project—which he supports—"has to be about 'We, the people,'" Mr. Ganley says. "It's not top-down, it's got to be bottom-up. And the European Union right now is top-down. It does not have the support of the mass of its people. It does not have their engagement. They don't even know what's going on. And it literally conducts its business behind closed doors, and that has to stop and it has to stop now." If Mr. Ganley has anything to say about it, it will stop in three weeks, in a little country called Ireland on the Atlantic periphery of Europe.
Mr. Carney, the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe, is the co-author of "Freedom, Inc.," due out in October.
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: stephenite on September 11, 2009, 01:23:42 AMQuote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:20:35 AMGnevin yes it does change my rights. If this one gets in as a yes vote then we in Ireland no longer have a right to vote on any referredum that applies to Europe.
Where are you getting that from?
It's not clear to me from the wording whether this clause removes the necessity EVER to have a referendum in Ireland on treaty changes, but it certainly specifies that under Lisbon, the European Council will have power to amend the treaties with the approval only of the Oireachtas, and without the requirement for a referendum in Ireland. Here's how it's stated by the Referendum Commission:
The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting (see pages 6 & 25) to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give it the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (see page -) in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposal must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.
This means that any member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.
(The bold emphasis is mine).
This means that if we vote Yes to Lisbon, we hand over to the government of the day our right as a people to approve future fundamental changes to our sovereignty within the EU.
Expect the Czech supreme court ruled the treaty doesn't give the EU the power to increase it's powers. So this power is vested in the Dáil the people in this country who always had these powers and only with in the scope of the current treaty i.e 'allow Qualified Majority Voting'
If you can't trust
any government of this country maybe if time you moved some where you can?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 10:27:42 AM
Expect the Czech supreme court ruled the treaty doesn't give the EU the power to increase it's powers. So this power is vested in the Dáil the people in this country who always had these powers and only with in the scope of the current treaty i.e 'allow Qualified Majority Voting'
If you can't trust any government of this country maybe if time you moved some where you can?
Czech courts have no bearing on Ireland or the EU or anywhere other than the Czech Rep. Ultimately the ECj will define the treaty.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 11, 2009, 10:38:19 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 10:27:42 AM
Expect the Czech supreme court ruled the treaty doesn't give the EU the power to increase it's powers. So this power is vested in the Dáil the people in this country who always had these powers and only with in the scope of the current treaty i.e 'allow Qualified Majority Voting'
If you can't trust any government of this country maybe if time you moved some where you can?
Czech courts have no bearing on Ireland or the EU or anywhere other than the Czech Rep. Ultimately the ECj will define the treaty.
Any change make for 1 is made for the whole if its unconstitutional in the Czech Republic that change can't be made . Also the main trust of the point is the changes that treaty allows to be made to other treaties are only changes in voting .
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 10:27:42 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: stephenite on September 11, 2009, 01:23:42 AMQuote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:20:35 AMGnevin yes it does change my rights. If this one gets in as a yes vote then we in Ireland no longer have a right to vote on any referredum that applies to Europe.
Where are you getting that from?
It's not clear to me from the wording whether this clause removes the necessity EVER to have a referendum in Ireland on treaty changes, but it certainly specifies that under Lisbon, the European Council will have power to amend the treaties with the approval only of the Oireachtas, and without the requirement for a referendum in Ireland. Here's how it's stated by the Referendum Commission:
The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting (see pages 6 & 25) to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give it the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (see page -) in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposal must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.
This means that any member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.
(The bold emphasis is mine).
This means that if we vote Yes to Lisbon, we hand over to the government of the day our right as a people to approve future fundamental changes to our sovereignty within the EU.
Expect the Czech supreme court ruled the treaty doesn't give the EU the power to increase it's powers. So this power is vested in the Dáil the people in this country who always had these powers and only with in the scope of the current treaty i.e 'allow Qualified Majority Voting'
If you can't trust any government of this country maybe if time you moved some where you can?
If that's another example of the 'Yes' mentality, it's chilling - "if you don't like it here in this new version of your country we're designing for you, then f**k off somewhere else".
As a matter of interest, what is your motivation for ceding forever to future governments of the day, of whatever make-up, the say in the governance of the EU that you now possess? Do you view it as an enhancement of your rights as a citizen or otherwise? What's in it for you? For the country? For the rest of the citizens of Europe?
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 10:45:02 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 10:27:42 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: stephenite on September 11, 2009, 01:23:42 AMQuote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:20:35 AMGnevin yes it does change my rights. If this one gets in as a yes vote then we in Ireland no longer have a right to vote on any referredum that applies to Europe.
Where are you getting that from?
It's not clear to me from the wording whether this clause removes the necessity EVER to have a referendum in Ireland on treaty changes, but it certainly specifies that under Lisbon, the European Council will have power to amend the treaties with the approval only of the Oireachtas, and without the requirement for a referendum in Ireland. Here's how it's stated by the Referendum Commission:
The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting (see pages 6 & 25) to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give it the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (see page -) in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposal must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.
This means that any member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.
(The bold emphasis is mine).
This means that if we vote Yes to Lisbon, we hand over to the government of the day our right as a people to approve future fundamental changes to our sovereignty within the EU.
Expect the Czech supreme court ruled the treaty doesn't give the EU the power to increase it's powers. So this power is vested in the Dáil the people in this country who always had these powers and only with in the scope of the current treaty i.e 'allow Qualified Majority Voting'
If you can't trust any government of this country maybe if time you moved some where you can?
If that's another example of the 'Yes' mentality, it's chilling - if you don't like it here in this new version if your country we're designing for you, then f**k off somewhere else.
As a matter of interest, what is your motivation for ceding the say in the governance of the EU that you now possess, forever to future governments of the day, of whatever make-up? Do you view it as an enhancement of your rights as a citizen or otherwise? What's in it for you? For the country? For the rest of the citizens of Europe?
Nothing to do with Lisbon. I know for one I wouldn't live in a country where I couldn't trust the government to make decision in the best interest of the nation.
What is it you believe we are ceding? The only thing Lisbon can change in other treaties is the voting method .
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 10:47:57 AM
What is it you believe we are ceding? The only thing Lisbon can change in other treaties is the voting method .
The voting method is the core decision-making system of the EU. Under the proposed treaty, the European Council can decide, on its own, to change the voting requirement on any issue from unanimity to QMV. In simple terms, the veto is gone an any issue where the council decides to get rid of it, as long as the government agrees. Now they no longer have to ask you.
So I'll ask you again - why would you give up that right as a citizen? What's in it for you? For the country? For the citizens of the EU (all of whom, who have been asked, have refused to)?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 10:44:30 AM
Any change make for 1 is made for the whole if its unconstitutional in the Czech Republic that change can't be made . Also the main trust of the point is the changes that treaty allows to be made to other treaties are only changes in voting .
I understand that but the ECJ can rule that the Czech ruling was wrong. The EU take definition from the ECJ. If the Euro Council decide to ignore the ruling by the Czech court the Czech (or anyone) would have to fight for the definition in the ECJ. If it isn't challenged in the ECJ the Council can define it how they like.
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 10:53:30 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 10:47:57 AM
What is it you believe we are ceding? The only thing Lisbon can change in other treaties is the voting method .
The voting method is the core decision-making system of the EU. Under the proposed treaty, the European Council can decide, on its own, to change the voting requirement on any issue from unanimity to QMV. In simple terms, the veto is gone an any issue where the council decides to get rid of it, as long as the government agrees. Now they no longer have to ask you.
So I'll ask you again - why would you give up that right as a citizen? What's in it for you? For the country? For the citizens of the EU (all of whom, who have been asked, have refused to)?
A better more efficient EU.
As is stands one nation can't veto the other 26! They never asked us in the past. The just kept fudging the issue till it past. We've only ever vote on treaties . Lisbon doesn't change this. The power was always vested with the Dáil the only difference now is if want to move to QMV we can. Also a move to QMV means your elected MEP has the vote rather than a TD's that may not be from your constituency
Quote from: Zapatista on September 11, 2009, 10:57:49 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 10:44:30 AM
Any change make for 1 is made for the whole if its unconstitutional in the Czech Republic that change can't be made . Also the main trust of the point is the changes that treaty allows to be made to other treaties are only changes in voting .
I understand that but the ECJ can rule that the Czech ruling was wrong. The EU take definition from the ECJ. If the Euro Council decide to ignore the ruling by the Czech court the Czech (or anyone) would have to fight for the definition in the ECJ. If it isn't challenged in the ECJ the Council can define it how they like.
So why don't they simple over turn Crotty v. An Taoiseach ?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 11:02:14 AM
So why don't they simple over turn Crotty v. An Taoiseach ?
We are talking about Post Lisbon.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 11:00:57 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 10:53:30 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 10:47:57 AM
What is it you believe we are ceding? The only thing Lisbon can change in other treaties is the voting method .
The voting method is the core decision-making system of the EU. Under the proposed treaty, the European Council can decide, on its own, to change the voting requirement on any issue from unanimity to QMV. In simple terms, the veto is gone an any issue where the council decides to get rid of it, as long as the government agrees. Now they no longer have to ask you.
So I'll ask you again - why would you give up that right as a citizen? What's in it for you? For the country? For the citizens of the EU (all of whom, who have been asked, have refused to)?
A better more efficient EU.
As is stands one nation can't veto the other 26! They never asked us in the past. The just kept fudging the issue till it past. We've only ever vote on treaties . Lisbon doesn't change this. The power was always vested with the Dáil the only difference now is if want to move to QMV we can. Also a move to QMV means your elected MEP has the vote rather than a TD's that may not be from your constituency
The point is they'll never need another treaty if this passes. That's the essence of this move - they'll never have to consult the people directly again. That's why they changed it from the EU Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty when the French and Dutch rejected it.
And your motivation for agreeing to this is a "more efficient EU". I think it's a high price to pay for efficiency, myself, but go ahead and do as you're told. It's a (soon to be slightly less) free country.
By the way, this was a joke, wasn't it? You're still living here, right? Think HSE, electronic voting, financial regulator, etc. before answering:
QuoteI know for one I wouldn't live in a country where I couldn't trust the government to make decision in the best interest of the nation.
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 11:09:06 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 11:00:57 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 10:53:30 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 10:47:57 AM
What is it you believe we are ceding? The only thing Lisbon can change in other treaties is the voting method .
The voting method is the core decision-making system of the EU. Under the proposed treaty, the European Council can decide, on its own, to change the voting requirement on any issue from unanimity to QMV. In simple terms, the veto is gone an any issue where the council decides to get rid of it, as long as the government agrees. Now they no longer have to ask you.
So I'll ask you again - why would you give up that right as a citizen? What's in it for you? For the country? For the citizens of the EU (all of whom, who have been asked, have refused to)?
A better more efficient EU.
As is stands one nation can't veto the other 26! They never asked us in the past. The just kept fudging the issue till it past. We've only ever vote on treaties . Lisbon doesn't change this. The power was always vested with the Dáil the only difference now is if want to move to QMV we can. Also a move to QMV means your elected MEP has the vote rather than a TD's that may not be from your constituency
The point is they'll never need another treaty if this passes. That's the essence of this move - they'll never have to consult the people directly again. That's why they changed it from the EU Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty when the French and Dutch rejected it.
And your motivation for agreeing to this is a "more efficient EU". I think it's a high price to pay for efficiency, myself, but go ahead and do as you're told. It's a (soon to be slightly less) free country.
By the way, this was a joke, wasn't it? You're still living here, right? Think HSE, electronic voting, financial regulator, etc. before answering:
QuoteI know for one I wouldn't live in a country where I couldn't trust the government to make decision in the best interest of the nation.
The point is they will still have to consult people with new treaties. They can only changing the voting type not the treaties. Crotty still stands.
Which is better 'Important' or 'Vital'?
This is one of the changes in the Treaty!!! C'mon even a 4 year old would ask whats the difference. The Treaty is full of silly word changes like this to misdirect people and stop people like Brian Cowen from even reading the full text. If the Treaty was an honest document there would be no need for such disdirection.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 11:20:33 AM
The point is the will still have to consult people with new treaties. They can only changing the voting type not the treaties. Crotty still stands.
Crotty still stands as it is. If the ECJ define the treaty in the way Hardy fears, the power given to the ECJ by our referendum will enable them to overrule Crotty as the Irish courts must act in accordance with the Irish constitution. If we pass Lisbon by referendum and amend our constitution to enable the ECJ to define Lisbon the Irish courts must accept that.
Quote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 11:25:46 AM
Which is better 'Important' or 'Vital'?
This is one of the changes in the Treaty!!! C'mon even a 4 year old would ask whats the difference. The Treaty is full of silly word changes like this to misdirect people and stop people like Brian Cowen from even reading the full text. If the Treaty was an honest document there would be no need for such disdirection.
A 4 year old would know the difference between Vital and Important
Quote from: Zapatista on September 11, 2009, 11:29:16 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 11:20:33 AM
The point is the will still have to consult people with new treaties. They can only changing the voting type not the treaties. Crotty still stands.
Crotty still stands as it is. If the ECJ define the treaty in the way Hardy fears, the power given to the ECJ by our referendum will enable them to overrule Crotty as the Irish courts must act in accordance with the Irish constitution. If we pass Lisbon by referendum and amend our constitution to enable the ECJ to define Lisbon the Irish courts must accept that.
Link?
The same difference between totally and absolute.
I'm claiming copyright on disdirection by the way! ;)
Link?
[/quote]
I don't have one. It's an original.
Quote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 11:32:54 AM
The same difference between totally and absolute.
I'm claiming copyright on disdirection by the way! ;)
Important . Your eyes are important
Vital . Your heart is vital .
Quote from: Zapatista on September 11, 2009, 11:39:54 AM
Link?
I don't have one. It's an original.
[/quote]
::)
Maybe Coir or Joe can make something up for you?
::) ::)
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 11, 2009, 09:30:09 AM
OK, at what point do you think the citizen should not become involved in the government/legislative process?
Budgets and legislation and normal Government issues that don't require a constitutional amendment.
Our constitution, at the moment, gives us the right to vote on constitutional amendments.
It seems we are being asked to give up that right and to put our faith in our Government to act in our best interests. Governments everywhere, no matter how good they are, always act in their own best interests, in particular with regard to getting re-elected.
We are returning to a sort of landlord voting system whereby your betters decide how to vote for you. For example we have no say in electing the President of the European Commission. That is done by Cowen & co.
If I want to exercise a vote in protest at Barroso's support of the war in Iraq how can I do it? Vote against Fianna Fáil? I'll be doing that anyway. So how can an Irish person democratically record their disgust at Barroso's support of the war in Iraq?
Just because your heart is vital it does not stop it from being important. In political word speak it is utter nonsense.
I also claim copyright on his cousin datdirection! :-\
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
::)
Maybe Coir or Joe can make something up for you?
::) ::)
Pot Kettle Black.
BTW what do you make of my (all important) links to assurances from the EU that our influence in the EU will not be affected?
It is impossible to change something that never existed. As it stands Ireland has no influence on the EU because if we really had it would not have taken over 30 years for the Irish language to be given official recognition, nor would we have told farmers to stop growing beet or give all our fishing rights up to Spanish pirates!
Quote from: Zapatista on September 11, 2009, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
::)
Maybe Coir or Joe can make something up for you?
::) ::)
Pot Kettle Black.
BTW what do you make of my (all important) links to assurances from the EU that our influence in the EU will not be affected?
I've give my opinion on that.
Quote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 11:45:49 AM
Just because your heart is vital it does not stop it from being important. In political word speak it is utter nonsense.
I also claim copyright on his cousin datdirection! :-\
Yes but there is a clear difference vital things are important by there very nature while important thing aren't necessarily vital
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 11:53:25 AM
I've give my opinion on that.
Maybe I should ask all elected and unelected reps to put together a lie for me so.
In my dictionary Chambers it also defines the word vital as 'of the greatest importance'.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 11, 2009, 12:00:17 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 11:53:25 AM
I've give my opinion on that.
Maybe I should ask all elected and unelected reps to put together a lie for me so.
Touché
Quote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 12:03:05 PM
In my dictionary Chambers it also defines the word vital as 'of the greatest importance'.
And ? Isn't that what I said?
Just got word my name has been included in the latest supplement to the register. Surprisingly easy process, it's a wonder Gerry and the boys hadn't that one figured out for the last election. Providing I now get a postal vote, I'll exercising my democratic duty for the 2nd of October. The sovereignty of my country is too important to be left to 'Free Staters'.
Quote from: Donagh on September 11, 2009, 12:39:22 PM
Just got word my name has been included in the latest supplement to the register. Surprisingly easy process, it's a wonder Gerry and the boys hadn't that one figured out for the last election. Providing I now get a postal vote, I'll exercising my democratic duty for the 2nd of October. The sovereignty of my country is too important to be left to 'Free Staters'.
No postal votes.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 12:58:27 PM
No postal votes.
Very undemocratic, but I suppose I shouldn't have expected any more. Ah well, a long weekend in the BaNAMA Republic is a small price to pay.
Quote from: Donagh on September 11, 2009, 01:06:36 PM
Very undemocratic, but I suppose I shouldn't have expected any more. Ah well, a long weekend in the BaNAMA Republic is a small price to pay.
If you can't get a postel try to email your vote to www.someoverpricedwarehouseinmonaghan.ie.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 11, 2009, 01:13:56 PM
Quote from: Donagh on September 11, 2009, 01:06:36 PM
Very undemocratic, but I suppose I shouldn't have expected any more. Ah well, a long weekend in the BaNAMA Republic is a small price to pay.
If you can't get a postel try to email your vote to www.someoverpricedwarehouseinmonaghan.ie.
I clicked on that :D
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: stephenite on September 11, 2009, 01:23:42 AMQuote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:20:35 AMGnevin yes it does change my rights. If this one gets in as a yes vote then we in Ireland no longer have a right to vote on any referredum that applies to Europe.
Where are you getting that from?
It's not clear to me from the wording whether this clause removes the necessity EVER to have a referendum in Ireland on treaty changes, but it certainly specifies that under Lisbon, the European Council will have power to amend the treaties with the approval only of the Oireachtas, and without the requirement for a referendum in Ireland. Here's how it's stated by the Referendum Commission:
The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting (see pages 6 & 25) to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give it the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (see page -) in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposal must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.
This means that any member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.
(The bold emphasis is mine).
This means that if we vote Yes to Lisbon, we hand over to the government of the day our right as a people to approve future fundamental changes to our sovereignty within the EU. To me, it's a black joke that the government is effectively saying "we are asking you to hand over to us your power to make constitutional decisions; you can trust us never to compromise your interests in doing that, never mind the fact that that's exactly what this treaty itself does". Their appeal for trust falls at the start, never mind the first fence.
This is the reason I voted No the last time – nothing to do with commissioners or armies or workers. I refuse to abandon my right to veto the people who brought you the standard of government we've been experiencing for the last decade.
Strangely, this issue hardly ever even arises in the debate.
I haven't seen this anywhere before (granted I haven't been looking that hard) but if the vote is successful on 2nd Oct is there actual changes going to be made to our constitution???
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 01:23:41 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: stephenite on September 11, 2009, 01:23:42 AMQuote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:20:35 AMGnevin yes it does change my rights. If this one gets in as a yes vote then we in Ireland no longer have a right to vote on any referredum that applies to Europe.
Where are you getting that from?
It's not clear to me from the wording whether this clause removes the necessity EVER to have a referendum in Ireland on treaty changes, but it certainly specifies that under Lisbon, the European Council will have power to amend the treaties with the approval only of the Oireachtas, and without the requirement for a referendum in Ireland. Here's how it's stated by the Referendum Commission:
The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting (see pages 6 & 25) to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give it the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (see page -) in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposal must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.
This means that any member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.
(The bold emphasis is mine).
This means that if we vote Yes to Lisbon, we hand over to the government of the day our right as a people to approve future fundamental changes to our sovereignty within the EU. To me, it's a black joke that the government is effectively saying "we are asking you to hand over to us your power to make constitutional decisions; you can trust us never to compromise your interests in doing that, never mind the fact that that's exactly what this treaty itself does". Their appeal for trust falls at the start, never mind the first fence.
This is the reason I voted No the last time – nothing to do with commissioners or armies or workers. I refuse to abandon my right to veto the people who brought you the standard of government we've been experiencing for the last decade.
Strangely, this issue hardly ever even arises in the debate.
I haven't seen this anywhere before (granted I haven't been looking that hard) but if the vote is successful on 2nd Oct is there actual changes going to be made to our constitution???
You serious? Its a referendum if yes wins the constitution automatically changes.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 01:23:41 PM
I haven't seen this anywhere before (granted I haven't been looking that hard) but if the vote is successful on 2nd Oct is there actual changes going to be made to our constitution???
Yes. But don't be to worried about that. There is always a romantic element attached to Constitutions but they should be reviewed and updated when they need to be. In this case however it needs to be protected.
For eg. we couldn't have passed the GFA without a change to the constitution. I would say we need a debate around and a change to our position on neutrality too.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 01:32:50 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 01:23:41 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: stephenite on September 11, 2009, 01:23:42 AMQuote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:20:35 AMGnevin yes it does change my rights. If this one gets in as a yes vote then we in Ireland no longer have a right to vote on any referredum that applies to Europe.
Where are you getting that from?
It's not clear to me from the wording whether this clause removes the necessity EVER to have a referendum in Ireland on treaty changes, but it certainly specifies that under Lisbon, the European Council will have power to amend the treaties with the approval only of the Oireachtas, and without the requirement for a referendum in Ireland. Here's how it's stated by the Referendum Commission:
The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting (see pages 6 & 25) to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give it the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (see page -) in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposal must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.
This means that any member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.
(The bold emphasis is mine).
This means that if we vote Yes to Lisbon, we hand over to the government of the day our right as a people to approve future fundamental changes to our sovereignty within the EU. To me, it's a black joke that the government is effectively saying "we are asking you to hand over to us your power to make constitutional decisions; you can trust us never to compromise your interests in doing that, never mind the fact that that's exactly what this treaty itself does". Their appeal for trust falls at the start, never mind the first fence.
This is the reason I voted No the last time – nothing to do with commissioners or armies or workers. I refuse to abandon my right to veto the people who brought you the standard of government we've been experiencing for the last decade.
Strangely, this issue hardly ever even arises in the debate.
I haven't seen this anywhere before (granted I haven't been looking that hard) but if the vote is successful on 2nd Oct is there actual changes going to be made to our constitution???
You serious? Its a referendum if yes wins the constitution automatically changes.
Well for those of us who don't get all our facts from wikipedia it ain't that obvious, now continue on pontificating...
Thanks Zap, makes perfect sense now that I think of it. Would I be right that it would consist of a couple of lines to the effect of "The Lisbon Treaty superceedes Nice and removes our right to vote on any European Treaty, blah, blah, blah???
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 01:23:41 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: stephenite on September 11, 2009, 01:23:42 AMQuote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:20:35 AMGnevin yes it does change my rights. If this one gets in as a yes vote then we in Ireland no longer have a right to vote on any referredum that applies to Europe.
Where are you getting that from?
It's not clear to me from the wording whether this clause removes the necessity EVER to have a referendum in Ireland on treaty changes, but it certainly specifies that under Lisbon, the European Council will have power to amend the treaties with the approval only of the Oireachtas, and without the requirement for a referendum in Ireland. Here's how it's stated by the Referendum Commission:
The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting (see pages 6 & 25) to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give it the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (see page -) in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposal must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.
This means that any member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.
(The bold emphasis is mine).
This means that if we vote Yes to Lisbon, we hand over to the government of the day our right as a people to approve future fundamental changes to our sovereignty within the EU. To me, it's a black joke that the government is effectively saying "we are asking you to hand over to us your power to make constitutional decisions; you can trust us never to compromise your interests in doing that, never mind the fact that that's exactly what this treaty itself does". Their appeal for trust falls at the start, never mind the first fence.
This is the reason I voted No the last time – nothing to do with commissioners or armies or workers. I refuse to abandon my right to veto the people who brought you the standard of government we've been experiencing for the last decade.
Strangely, this issue hardly ever even arises in the debate.
I haven't seen this anywhere before (granted I haven't been looking that hard) but if the vote is successful on 2nd Oct is there actual changes going to be made to our constitution???
Yes, that's why we're having a referendum. More importantly though, if this ends up with a yes vote, it gives the Seanad and Dáil the ability to change the Constitution in some areas without recourse to the Irish people. This is the main reason I will be voting no.
I'm pro-Europe and I've supported every Euro related treaty/referendum to date but this is my line in the sand. As I said at the time of the last vote - people didn't follow Libertas/SF and assorted numpties lead in huge numbers. The reasons for a "No" vote were much bigger than that. However, our government (for whatever reason - either stupidity or convenience) addressed the "issues" these clowns brought up. Now maybe it might be enough to sway the few percent they need to to get their way but it wasn't a genuine attempt to address our view of Europe or our place in it. They know politics and they know how to win at it and that's all they give a shit about. We're supposed to give these people more powers to decide our future for us when its patently obvious they don't care what we think? Please.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 01:52:51 PM
Thanks Zap, makes perfect sense now that I think of it. Would I be right that it would consist of a couple of lines to the effect of "The Lisbon Treaty superceedes Nice and removes our right to vote on any European Treaty, blah, blah, blah???
It is found here. It is published before any referendum. You will need a copy of the current position (online somewhere) to be able to see the changes. http://www.irishelection.com/2009/07/lisbon-referendum-wording/
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 01:32:50 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 01:23:41 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2009, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: stephenite on September 11, 2009, 01:23:42 AMQuote from: Eoghan Mag on September 11, 2009, 01:20:35 AMGnevin yes it does change my rights. If this one gets in as a yes vote then we in Ireland no longer have a right to vote on any referredum that applies to Europe.
Where are you getting that from?
It's not clear to me from the wording whether this clause removes the necessity EVER to have a referendum in Ireland on treaty changes, but it certainly specifies that under Lisbon, the European Council will have power to amend the treaties with the approval only of the Oireachtas, and without the requirement for a referendum in Ireland. Here's how it's stated by the Referendum Commission:
The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting (see pages 6 & 25) to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give it the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (see page -) in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposal must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.
This means that any member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.
(The bold emphasis is mine).
This means that if we vote Yes to Lisbon, we hand over to the government of the day our right as a people to approve future fundamental changes to our sovereignty within the EU. To me, it's a black joke that the government is effectively saying "we are asking you to hand over to us your power to make constitutional decisions; you can trust us never to compromise your interests in doing that, never mind the fact that that's exactly what this treaty itself does". Their appeal for trust falls at the start, never mind the first fence.
This is the reason I voted No the last time – nothing to do with commissioners or armies or workers. I refuse to abandon my right to veto the people who brought you the standard of government we've been experiencing for the last decade.
Strangely, this issue hardly ever even arises in the debate.
I haven't seen this anywhere before (granted I haven't been looking that hard) but if the vote is successful on 2nd Oct is there actual changes going to be made to our constitution???
You serious? Its a referendum if yes wins the constitution automatically changes.
Well for those of us who don't get all our facts from wikipedia it ain't that obvious, now continue on pontificating...
Thanks Zap, makes perfect sense now that I think of it. Would I be right that it would consist of a couple of lines to the effect of "The Lisbon Treaty superceedes Nice and removes our right to vote on any European Treaty, blah, blah, blah???
Maybe if you bothered to get your facts from wikipedia you wouldn't be so ignorant as too the purpose of this vote. It's less than a month before it's due and more than a year after the last one was rejected .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-ninth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2009
Shockingly has a list of the changes
ps. I don't get all my facts from Wiki
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 11, 2009, 01:57:11 PM
Yes, that's why we're having a referendum. More importantly though, if this ends up with a yes vote, it gives the Seanad and Dáil the ability to change the Constitution in some areas without recourse to the Irish people. This is the main reason I will be voting no.
I'm pro-Europe and I've supported every Euro related treaty/referendum to date but this is my line in the sand. As I said at the time of the last vote - people didn't follow Libertas/SF and assorted numpties lead in huge numbers. The reasons for a "No" vote were much bigger than that. However, our government (for whatever reason - either stupidity or convenience) addressed the "issues" these clowns brought up. Now maybe it might be enough to sway the few percent they need to to get their way but it wasn't a genuine attempt to address our view of Europe or our place in it. They know politics and they know how to win at it and that's all they give a shit about. We're supposed to give these people more powers to decide our future for us when its patently obvious they don't care what we think? Please.
Why did you vote no last time and why where these issues addressed by the guarantees? Why are you voting no?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 02:06:56 PM
Maybe if you bothered to get your facts from wikipedia you wouldn't be so ignorant as too the purpose of this vote. It's less than a month before it's due and more than a year after the last one was rejected .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-ninth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2009
Shockingly has a list of the changes
ps. I don't get all my facts from Wiki
I could have but I saw Hardy's post and decided to reply to it there and then. To my detriment I forgot you were back here annoying all and sundry...
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 02:06:56 PM
Maybe if you bothered to get your facts from wikipedia you wouldn't be so ignorant as too the purpose of this vote. It's less than a month before it's due and more than a year after the last one was rejected .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-ninth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2009
Shockingly has a list of the changes
ps. I don't get all my facts from Wiki
I could have but I saw Hardy's post and decided to reply to it there and then. To my detriment I forgot you were back here annoying all and sundry...
The point remains. Don't come on here and criticize me and my sources when your too lazy to find any sources of your own , just looking for answers to be feed too you.
Also it's shocking you didn't know the purpose of this vote after all this time .
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 02:06:56 PM
Maybe if you bothered to get your facts from wikipedia you wouldn't be so ignorant as too the purpose of this vote. It's less than a month before it's due and more than a year after the last one was rejected .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-ninth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2009
Shockingly has a list of the changes
ps. I don't get all my facts from Wiki
I could have but I saw Hardy's post and decided to reply to it there and then. To my detriment I forgot you were back here annoying all and sundry...
The point remains. Don't come on here and criticize me and my sources when your too lazy to find any sources of your own , just looking for answers to be feed too you.
Also it's shocking you didn't know the purpose of this vote after all this time .
I'll put a little disclaimer at the bottom of my posts in future so, something along the lines of:
"Anyone apart from that little whingebag gnevin feel free to respond!"
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 02:06:56 PM
Maybe if you bothered to get your facts from wikipedia you wouldn't be so ignorant as too the purpose of this vote. It's less than a month before it's due and more than a year after the last one was rejected .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-ninth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2009
Shockingly has a list of the changes
ps. I don't get all my facts from Wiki
I could have but I saw Hardy's post and decided to reply to it there and then. To my detriment I forgot you were back here annoying all and sundry...
The point remains. Don't come on here and criticize me and my sources when your too lazy to find any sources of your own , just looking for answers to be feed too you.
Also it's shocking you didn't know the purpose of this vote after all this time .
I'll put a little disclaimer at the bottom of my posts in future so, something along the lines of:
"Anyone apart from that little whingebag gnevin feel free to respond!"
No need next time just don't be so lazy as to put no effort in and in the same breath attempt to discredit me and my sources .
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 04:14:08 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 11, 2009, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 11, 2009, 02:06:56 PM
Maybe if you bothered to get your facts from wikipedia you wouldn't be so ignorant as too the purpose of this vote. It's less than a month before it's due and more than a year after the last one was rejected .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-ninth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2009
Shockingly has a list of the changes
ps. I don't get all my facts from Wiki
I could have but I saw Hardy's post and decided to reply to it there and then. To my detriment I forgot you were back here annoying all and sundry...
The point remains. Don't come on here and criticize me and my sources when your too lazy to find any sources of your own , just looking for answers to be feed too you.
Also it's shocking you didn't know the purpose of this vote after all this time .
I'll put a little disclaimer at the bottom of my posts in future so, something along the lines of:
"Anyone apart from that little whingebag gnevin feel free to respond!"
No need next time just don't be so lazy as to put no effort in and in the same breath attempt to discredit me and my sources .
Who's trying to discredit you???
Edit: Actually forget that, I couldn't be bothered, have the last word there & let the thread get back to topic...
This ones for Donagh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQSOj16Dxxk&feature=player_embedded#t=60
alot of the NO side would have you thinking the Europe is out to get Ireland and that everything was drawn up just to fock Ireland up....i do not believe this to be the case and think Europe is a good thing for Ireland and Europe and that the whole of Europe is not out to get us....
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2009, 01:20:23 AM
alot of the NO side would have you thinking the Europe is out to get Ireland and that everything was drawn up just to fock Ireland up
I don't get that impression at all. They have me thinking that the Lisbon treaty is bad and the EU is good. Many of them have actually repeated this many times. The Yes side would have me thinking along those lines if we return another No vote. BUt I don't believe them.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
Tighten your belt Muppet.
Yeah the Irish TD's are saints
Where did I say anything like that?
Now are you willing to comment on the MEP gravy train or not?
Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2009, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
Tighten your belt Muppet.
Yeah the Irish TD's are saints
Where did I say anything like that?
Now are you willing to comment on the MEP gravy train or not?
What is there to comment on. They are all on the gravy train, TD,MP,MLA and MEP's
Will voting no to Lisbon somehow change this?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 07:02:34 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2009, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
Tighten your belt Muppet.
Yeah the Irish TD's are saints
Where did I say anything like that?
Now are you willing to comment on the MEP gravy train or not?
What is there to comment on. They are all on the gravy train, TD,MP,MLA and MEP's
Will voting no to Lisbon somehow change this?
Will voting YES? ::)
Voting no at least might send the message that voters are unhappy with something.
Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 07:02:34 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2009, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
Tighten your belt Muppet.
Yeah the Irish TD's are saints
Where did I say anything like that?
Now are you willing to comment on the MEP gravy train or not?
What is there to comment on. They are all on the gravy train, TD,MP,MLA and MEP's
Will voting no to Lisbon somehow change this?
Will voting YES? ::)
Voting no at least might send the message that voters are unhappy with something.
Or you could
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&language=EN
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=48&language=EN
Contact your MEP
And actually send a message
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 07:02:34 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2009, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
Tighten your belt Muppet.
Yeah the Irish TD's are saints
Where did I say anything like that?
Now are you willing to comment on the MEP gravy train or not?
What is there to comment on. They are all on the gravy train, TD,MP,MLA and MEP's
Will voting no to Lisbon somehow change this?
Will voting YES? ::)
Voting no at least might send the message that voters are unhappy with something.
Or you could
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&language=EN
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=48&language=EN
Contact your MEP
And actually send a message
Dear crook,
Please stop swindling us.
Your faithfuly,
GNaive.
Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2009, 07:18:27 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 07:02:34 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2009, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 22, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
Tighten your belt Muppet.
Yeah the Irish TD's are saints
Where did I say anything like that?
Now are you willing to comment on the MEP gravy train or not?
What is there to comment on. They are all on the gravy train, TD,MP,MLA and MEP's
Will voting no to Lisbon somehow change this?
Will voting YES? ::)
Voting no at least might send the message that voters are unhappy with something.
Or you could
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&language=EN
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=48&language=EN
Contact your MEP
And actually send a message
Dear crook,
Please stop swindling us.
Your faithfuly,
GNaive.
Dear crook.
I'm voting no to Lisbon as a protest that your a crook. The fact you won't know this is why I voted doesn't affect me as my I'll be happy knowing I've protested. Like the other person on here who's protesting as the Brits aren't a member of this Euro .
Your faithfuly,
The Aptly named Muppet
Dear Crook,
I am voting for you and your buddies in Ireland as I always do.
Your Drumcondryly,
The real muppet.
Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2009, 07:30:16 PM
Dear Crook,
I am voting for you and your buddies in Ireland as I always do.
Your Drumcondryly,
The real muppet.
A right pair of comic geniuses here.
Protest voting in referendums is pointless unless your actually tell someone who can make a deference why your voting no and even then your often cutting off your nose to spite your face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU55TEOJXGo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU55TEOJXGo)
Just in case people passed over GNevin's attempt to hide this. ;D
With any referendum the default position should be to protect the constitution unless convinced that the change is worthwhile and legally sound. That should be clear to anyone. I am not convinced in any way that this is an improvement on the status quo and frankly I don't think those pushing it do either.
Some comment there about Lisbon making Europe more democratic is a complete joke. It actually damages democracy and I'll cite three reasons for this. 1) the fact that we are being asked to vote on EXACTLY the same thing shows no respect for the democratic will of the Irish people. That is patently undemocratic. They're hoping the (completely unrelated) recession will scare enough people into caving in this time. Some democracy. 2) power is taken away from the people and given to politicians, some of whom will be unelected. That is not democratic. 3) 26 of the 27 countries do not get to vote on this even though its clear several would reject it.
This is about a lot of things but democracy is certainly not one of them. To suggest so is a monumetal lie on a par with any of the shit spouted by the looney fringe No groups.
I agree that this is not about democracy - I can't believe that issue has come up again. This is about administration - we shouldn't be voting about it at all, the other 26 nation states don't believe that their citizens should be voting about administrative procedures and they're right.
Seanie:
1. you're right, we're voting on the exact same thing again, with 'clarifications' that have cleared nothing up - it's not democratic, but we shouldn't be voting on it at all.
2. this is not about power, it's about the everyday administration of a large confederation of states, which has become larger and the existing procedures cannot work in the way they are needed (in the context of enlargement) - the Irish government administration consists of politicians and administrators, some of whom are unelected.
3. there's a very good reason for that.
I can't understand how this is being seen as 'administration'. It's a power grab! If you want to change the current administration you don't add in issues involving the enviroment, space exploration, military spending, military capability and organisation, charter of rights, foriegn policy etc.
All these things take a form of administration. If you want to become a superstate you need to be able to administrate it. Administration has little to do with the motive of this treaty.
Just to add to Billy. The EU Commission is not remotely like the Civil Service (if that was the comparison you are making).
I'm not comparing it to the civil service - the Commission does a day's work occasionally. ;)
But seriously, no matter what the EU is - confederation of states or whatever, it has to have an administration to ensure its effectiveness on behalf of its members. This administration has to work to the best of its ability, and it should reserve the right to change the way it works to make itself more effective. Am I wrong?
Billy - you are right and some administrative reform is undoubtedly required. However, this treaty is about a lot more than merely adminstrative reform. Its a lot about power. Unfortunately its also about a lot of people in established political parties who do not have a clue what's in the treaty supporting it because the leadership says so. Our politicians have failed us and are doing so again - not least by the very action of forcing a second vote. They failed to explain the benefits the first time and are doing so again. That is because there are few benefits for us - the general public. The extra power is there for them and we're supposed to trust them with it. Not with my support anyway.
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 23, 2009, 03:27:13 PM
I'm not comparing it to the civil service - the Commission does a day's work occasionally. ;)
But seriously, no matter what the EU is - confederation of states or whatever, it has to have an administration to ensure its effectiveness on behalf of its members. This administration has to work to the best of its ability, and it should reserve the right to change the way it works to make itself more effective. Am I wrong?
I don't disagree but that is not reason in itself to claim this treaty is about administration. Every organisation needs to adapt and modify in order to stay effective and reach it's goals. Nobody disagrees with that. The problems arise when those goals are not in the interest of it's members. Take the HSE for example. It has changed and modified it's administration with the claim that it is to improve. The reality is very different. It is a terrible organisation with no control. It serves it's administration more than it serves the sick. This might have been the intention of its creation but we don't know. Its not to difficult to see the intention of this treaty. What it wants to achieve with the EU needs the admin necessary to get its goals. That does not mean it's about admin it means its about the intentions of the EU.
It's like saying to a fooball club # I want to start a joint football and hurling club and will need to set up a committee to oversee it. Can we vote to set up the joint committee to oversee this? The vote is not about establishing a hurling club its only a bit of admin so you don't need to worry about hurling being played here.
In administrative change there are no benefits to you and me - other than it being better and more effectively undertaken on our behalf. I don't see where it's about power, maybe I'm naive. The problem for our wonderful politicians is that there's nothing in it for them, so they can't motivate themselves to sell it - there's nothing to sell anyway, it's administrative reform. The scaremongering is pathetic on both sides, as I see it.
I really don't get your GAA club allegory Zap.
I wouldn't think you're naive but its quite clear that decision making powers are being centralised with this Treaty so it is about power. Crucially though, we're voting on a moving target. This Treaty can be altered or amended in ways that don't require a referendum here and at best may require our approval at the ballot box. Clearly, the politicians think they should be able to decide for us and not have to convince us that a change to our constitution is worthwhile. That's about power. They can dress it up as admin but its about taking our constitutional right to approve changes to our constitution away from us.
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 23, 2009, 05:13:20 PM
I really don't get your GAA club allegory Zap.
Ok maybe it's badly put.
The point is that the administration in Lisbon is being changed to make it fit for purpose. That purpose is also included in Lisbon. It's the purpose the admin will serve that's the problem. Dumbing it down to merely say it's admin changes is a smoke screen.
NAMA is an administrative change. If the Government told us not to worry about NAMA as it's only administrative changes we would be crazy to believe them. If they told us not to worry about NAMA as it only there to make the economy run smoother we'd be crazy not to question what end result the Government want from NAMA. The same applies to LIsbon.
QuoteClearly, the politicians think they should be able to decide for us and not have to convince us that a change to our constitution is worthwhile.
Well, as the only country in 27 that are being asked to vote on this, this gives me a brain ache. Are we the most sensible or craziest democracy in Europe? Emmmmmmmmmmmm.
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 24, 2009, 09:32:46 AM
QuoteClearly, the politicians think they should be able to decide for us and not have to convince us that a change to our constitution is worthwhile.
Well, as the only country in 27 that are being asked to vote on this, this gives me a brain ache. Are we the most sensible or craziest democracy in Europe? Emmmmmmmmmmmm.
obv neither !!!
the rst of the countries that were initially given the opportunity voted NO.
so their referrenda have been done away with and these countries can no longer vote (and therefore cannot vote no !)
It would prob bring down the EU as we know it if all countries were allowed to vote on such matters, so all they are doing in the lisbon vote is to stop us shortcircuting ourselves too.
While this is undemocratic, it will allow the politicians to carry out whatever business they agree on (via debate and /or leverage and trade offs) without having to answer to the people that make up the countries in EU.
Not the worse thing in the world (though I know Zap , Seanie and others will disagree).
My concern is what they agree on to change/allow through this debate and leverage etc!
Completely unknown for now and maybe a paranoid fear. But we all know politicians and the stupid stuff they legislate !
Actually Spain and Luxembourg voted Yes in referendum.
I have no problem with politicians dealing with everyday legislation. I would like to see citizens have a say when in the establishment of a state they are to be citizens in. In my view referendum should be used when establishing a constitution in any state.
If we vote yes, which probably will happen anyway despite my firm holding out and voting no, will Turkey be let in? If so, we can kiss 'millions of euros of money flowing into Ireland' down the drain I suppose?
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 23, 2009, 05:13:20 PM
In administrative change there are no benefits to you and me - other than it being better and more effectively undertaken on our behalf. I don't see where it's about power, maybe I'm naive. The problem for our wonderful politicians is that there's nothing in it for them, so they can't motivate themselves to sell it - there's nothing to sell anyway, it's administrative reform. The scaremongering is pathetic on both sides, as I see it.
I really don't get your GAA club allegory Zap.
Lisbon 2 is the current incarnation of the proposed EU Constitution. To say it is merely about administration is as disingenuous as anything some of the 'No' campaign headbangers have put out.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 24, 2009, 01:58:16 PM
If we vote yes, which probably will happen anyway despite my firm holding out and voting no, will Turkey be let in? If so, we can kiss 'millions of euros of money flowing into Ireland' down the drain I suppose?
I doubt it would make any difference as the EU can enlarge without Lisbon. The 10 previous and Croatia in the future don't need Lisbon. I really don't know though.
If Turkey got their domestic act together they would be as rich and as good a neighbour as Germany or France or any other EU Country.
What Millions?
QuoteTo say it is merely about administration is as disingenuous as anything some of the 'No' campaign headbangers have put out.
Ah come on Elmo, I have no agenda - as far as I'm concerned it is about administration. I haven't heard any argument that would convince me otherwise - want to have a go?
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 24, 2009, 03:48:56 PM
QuoteTo say it is merely about administration is as disingenuous as anything some of the 'No' campaign headbangers have put out.
Ah come on Elmo, I have no agenda - as far as I'm concerned it is about administration. I haven't heard any argument that would convince me otherwise - want to have a go?
Is the Irish Constitution about administration? Remember the 'X' case?
Any constitutional amendment has major consequences that I will leave to the resident lawyers to explain.
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 24, 2009, 03:48:56 PM
Ah come on Elmo, I have no agenda - as far as I'm concerned it is about administration. I haven't heard any argument that would convince me otherwise - want to have a go?
I'd say you are being economical with the truth here. Either that or you need to take you head out from the sand.
It#s like producing a document that enables the GAA become a professional sport and trying to sell it as merely an administration change that will make the GAA work better.
The Coir posters with the hear no evil, see no evil monkeys mightn't be that far wrong.
Is that it? I'm supposed to change my mind on the basis of a Youth Defence poster? ::)
Not at all you just need to accept that your description of the treaty as an administrative change in which there are no benefits to you and me - other than it being better and more effectively undertaken on our behalf is really just a load of bollocks.
Either that or remain to be seen as someone who has no idea whatsoever to what this treaty is about.
(http://www.wsm.ie/attachments/sep2009/lisbon_chancers.jpg)
(http://jadedisle.ie/files/2009/09/C%C3%B3ir-heart.jpg)
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2009/09/17/lisbon-posters1.jpg)
What did ye think about O'Leary getting his ass handed to him by Ganley (and Miriam) last night? Terrible mess up by the Yes side to let O'Leary on against Ganley. I missed the earlier debate between Cox and Mary Lou but heard Cox had it in the bag but then went off on one about Rupert Murdoch.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 25, 2009, 10:52:18 AM
What did ye think about O'Leary getting his ass handed to him by Ganley (and Miriam) last night? Terrible mess up by the Yes side to let O'Leary on against Ganley. I missed the earlier debate between Cox and Mary Lou but heard Cox had it in the bag but then went off on one about Rupert Murdoch.
I thought Martin V Higgans was even yet boring. Martin talked about himself and the EU and Higgans got into to much detail and told it to slowly. Martin might have edged it.
MLM V Cox was better. It depends what you like. Cox was patronising and talked about Rupert Murdoch and the IRA (some people love this stuff). He oozed of that FF smugness. MLM was the up market shinner who didn't really get into a debate but made some points most of which we have heard before.
DG V MOL was a great laugh. Ganley roasted him in the debate but MOL got the laughs. MOL looked out of place and like he couldn't care less about Lisbon. He looked like he had been paid and was just completing his end of the bargin by keeping up appearances. He had about 3 prepared responses which he used for every question. The Commissioner, the fact that Ryanair creates jobs and that Ganley didn't get elected. Ganley came across as knowledgable and interesting.
MOL got told off by Miriam for being a bully :D he looked like a notty school kid.
QuoteNot at all you just need to accept that your description of the treaty as an administrative change in which there are no benefits to you and me - other than it being better and more effectively undertaken on our behalf is really just a load of bollocks.
I don't accept anything of the sort, and you haven't demonstrated it. I've asked you several time to provide evidence of your contentions and you haven't.
I think Ganley is very interesting too - where did he make his money, for instance?
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 25, 2009, 11:43:27 AM
I don't accept anything of the sort, and you haven't demonstrated it. I've asked you several time to provide evidence of your contentions and you haven't.
I think Ganley is very interesting too - where did he make his money, for instance?
I'm not going to argue about it anymore as it is a ridiculous waste of time over nothing. I can't argue with someone in self enforced denial.
I have no support for Ganley or his business. I give my opinion of the debate. I'm no fan of Ganley but I do agree with his interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty. You are playing the man rather than the ball. It can be done on both sides. I can ask you where Pat Cox got his money, the same can be said about MOL or Bertie Ahern. The truth is that it doesn't change the treaty or the intention of the treaty. The money for Ganleys campaign comes from Ganley while there is money for the Yes campaign flooding in from many dodgy interest groups in the EU. This is a reality of modern politics and picking Ganley to question over this while ignoring 99% of the money being spent is disingenuous.
The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.
Ok, let's forget the personalities, and I'll ignore your insults to me. I'll ask one last time.
QuoteI've asked you several time to provide evidence of your contentions and you haven't.
Off ye go, tell me why you're absolutely certain that I'm wrong to support this treaty, without resorting to insults or repeating what 'personalities' have said.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 25, 2009, 12:09:01 PM
The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.
a man with links to the US military know it inside out and spins it his way...this may is anti lisbon as like all american companies and even the US government are very much against giving europe power as europe is very much about equality, competition and regulation...the last think someone like Ganley wants is more regulation, competition etc as it is bad for his business and not for ireland
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 25, 2009, 01:02:17 PM
Ok, let's forget the personalities, and I'll ignore your insults to me. I'll ask one last time.
QuoteI've asked you several time to provide evidence of your contentions and you haven't.
Off ye go, tell me why you're absolutely certain that I'm wrong to support this treaty, without resorting to insults or repeating what 'personalities' have said.
Ye are moving the goal posts. That was the first time you asked me for evidence. I'm not going to provide you with evidence as no matter what I say you will still fall back on the same bull shit re administrative change. I can't be bothered. Readers and contributers can make their own mind up.
You can vote whatever way you like but please don't talk bollocks about how it is merely administrative changes that won't have any affect on you or me. This is an amended constitution for chisake!! The argument you are pedaling is beneath you and beneath a debate on this treaty.
Quote from: Tankie on September 25, 2009, 01:14:57 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 25, 2009, 12:09:01 PM
The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.
a man with links to the US military know it inside out and spins it his way...this may is anti lisbon as like all american companies and even the US government are very much against giving europe power as europe is very much about equality, competition and regulation...the last think someone like Ganley wants is more regulation, competition etc as it is bad for his business and not for ireland
Right idea, wrong reason. The US are against it because they do not want a European military power.
Simples.
Quote from: muppet on September 25, 2009, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 25, 2009, 01:14:57 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 25, 2009, 12:09:01 PM
The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.
a man with links to the US military know it inside out and spins it his way...this may is anti lisbon as like all american companies and even the US government are very much against giving europe power as europe is very much about equality, competition and regulation...the last think someone like Ganley wants is more regulation, competition etc as it is bad for his business and not for ireland
Right idea, wrong reason. The US are against it because they do not want a European military power.
Simples.
But I thought if we didn't vote for it no-one from the US would invest in our country and we'd all have no jobs and no future! Very confusing, isn't it! ;D
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 25, 2009, 04:04:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 25, 2009, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 25, 2009, 01:14:57 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 25, 2009, 12:09:01 PM
The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.
a man with links to the US military know it inside out and spins it his way...this may is anti lisbon as like all american companies and even the US government are very much against giving europe power as europe is very much about equality, competition and regulation...the last think someone like Ganley wants is more regulation, competition etc as it is bad for his business and not for ireland
Right idea, wrong reason. The US are against it because they do not want a European military power.
Simples.
But I thought if we didn't vote for it no-one from the US would invest in our country and we'd all have no jobs and no future! Very confusing, isn't it! ;D
American corporations located in Ireland are very much for it.
Hadn't heard The Muppet's insight that the American government is against it because they are scared of the EU's military power.
Quote from: Hound on September 25, 2009, 04:47:55 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 25, 2009, 04:04:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 25, 2009, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 25, 2009, 01:14:57 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 25, 2009, 12:09:01 PM
The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.
a man with links to the US military know it inside out and spins it his way...this may is anti lisbon as like all american companies and even the US government are very much against giving europe power as europe is very much about equality, competition and regulation...the last think someone like Ganley wants is more regulation, competition etc as it is bad for his business and not for ireland
Right idea, wrong reason. The US are against it because they do not want a European military power.
Simples.
But I thought if we didn't vote for it no-one from the US would invest in our country and we'd all have no jobs and no future! Very confusing, isn't it! ;D
American corporations located in Ireland are very much for it.
Hadn't heard The Muppet's insight that the American government is against it because they are scared of the EU's military power.
I meant the US military rather than the Government.
We have two businessmen in Ireland who have large contracts with the US military.
Declan Ganley and Ulick McEvaddy. Both have campaigned for a 'NO' vote.
Mc Evaddy is now on the Yes campaign.
Quote from: Hound on September 25, 2009, 04:47:55 PM
American corporations located in Ireland are very much for it.
Google , Starbucks, McDonalds, blah blah. The truth is that a few Irish leaders of a few American companies support Lisbon, as does Ryanair. The rest haven't expressed an opinion. Dell hasn't give an opinion but that may have to do with moving to Poland with an EU grant. To say they "are very very much for it" is a scam as most haven't been asked and those that have are connected to Irish politics at a high level. Many of those that have been asked probably couldn't care less as they will go where the profit is regardless of Lisbon.
The latest No poster in Dublin:
No to Ryanair Health Care
:D
Quote from: Zapatista on September 25, 2009, 11:42:01 PM
Mc Evaddy is now on the Yes campaign.
Really? Can't find anything online.
Quote from: muppet on September 26, 2009, 10:02:40 PM
Really? Can't find anything online.
You're right I just looked it up. Sorry, i put 2 & 2 together and got 5.
QuoteGanley's backer revealed
By Nick Webb
Sunday September 27 2009
DECLAN Ganley's 'No to Lisbon Campaign' has been bankrolled by a secretive British hedge fund boss that made hundreds of millions of euros "short selling" Irish banks last year.
Regulatory filings reveal that the wealthy investor, Crispin Odey, donated almost €3,500 to "Pro-Democracy: Libertas.eu" on May 28. The Mayfair-based hedge fund boss also donated nearly €15,000 worth of services to the organisation. Libertas is also backed by other London financiers.
Odey, who received a near €35m bonus last year, was one of the leading short sellers of Anglo Irish Bank, before the bank imploded.
Another lad who would hate the EU due to its regulation....i suppose he donated the money for the 'good of Ireland' too ::)
It mightn't even be passed at all!!! The Czech president mightn't sign it into law over there until June next year, after Britain's election. What a shambolic hames of a treaty. ::)
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 27, 2009, 11:45:07 AM
It mightn't even be passed at all!!! The Czech president mightn't sign it into law over there until June next year, after Britain's election. What a shambolic hames of a treaty. ::)
well that will be upto them to do what they want.....but from what i have heard on the news over the past year is that he will support it and it is just that he hates the EU but knows he will lose too muc supposrt if he starts messing with stuff like this
Spotted this on politics.ie
Default Fist-fight narrowly averted between De Rossa and Ganley
I've just heard that following an on ar debate on Newstalk's Wide Angle (of which Declan Ganley and Proinsias De Rossa were panel members) things got a bit physical between the two.
As they were leaving the studio there a bit of pushing and shoving, with one calling the other a CIA agent, and the other replying with allegations of previous IRA membership.
Richard Boyd Barrett apparently had to pull them apart.
Putting calls in to various places, so will try to see what the story is.
13.18 : Newstalk have confirmed there was a profane exchange of views, but are not sure if there was any physical exchanges. Things got heated between the two, and quite profane, Ganley called De Rossa a 'fu*king traitor'.
Examiner seem to be following up on this, hope you'll credit P.ie lads.
Would love to have been a fly on the wall to watch these two chancers beat seven buckets of brown stuff out of each other, but looks like Ganley has DeRossa pegged right with the "traitor" remark. Plenty of old Sticks around the country will allow themselves a wry smile at that one.
Classic follow-up post:
newsflash - fight caught by Cedar Lounge CCTV -----
Ganley tried to waterboard De Rossa, who responded with a rolled up bag of tax exemption slips. Ganley went in low with some skills picked up from former KGB, now Russian mafia operatives, while De Rossa countered with skills picked up from actual KGB agents. De Rossa headbutted Ganley but Ganley had an American football helmet on by that stage. De Rossa made a quick call to some old comrades but the phone in Cyprus Street has been disconnected for some time. Ganley was summoning up a crack Blackwater unit when Frank blinded him with a load of inky £5 notes...both men made their escape, Ganley in an SUV with tinted windows and De Rossa on the back of a motorbike.
Quote from: Hound on September 25, 2009, 04:47:55 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 25, 2009, 04:04:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 25, 2009, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 25, 2009, 01:14:57 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 25, 2009, 12:09:01 PM
The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.
a man with links to the US military know it inside out and spins it his way...this may is anti lisbon as like all american companies and even the US government are very much against giving europe power as europe is very much about equality, competition and regulation...the last think someone like Ganley wants is more regulation, competition etc as it is bad for his business and not for ireland
Right idea, wrong reason. The US are against it because they do not want a European military power.
Simples.
But I thought if we didn't vote for it no-one from the US would invest in our country and we'd all have no jobs and no future! Very confusing, isn't it! ;D
American corporations located in Ireland are very much for it.
Hadn't heard The Muppet's insight that the American government is against it because they are scared of the EU's military power.
McAfee didn't seem to worry too much about it, announcing new jobs in Ireland last week.
Quote from: muppet on September 26, 2009, 10:02:40 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 25, 2009, 11:42:01 PM
Mc Evaddy is now on the Yes campaign.
Really? Can't find anything online.
McEvaddy is in today's papers still voting NO.
Where did you hear that Zap?
Quote from: muppet on September 27, 2009, 07:00:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 26, 2009, 10:02:40 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 25, 2009, 11:42:01 PM
Mc Evaddy is now on the Yes campaign.
Really? Can't find anything online.
McEvaddy is in today's papers still voting NO.
Where did you hear that Zap?
Addressed this earlier. Was mixed up with other high profile ex-libertas members.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 25, 2009, 11:42:01 PM
Mc Evaddy is now on the Yes campaign.
Quote from: Hound on September 25, 2009, 04:47:55 PM
American corporations located in Ireland are very much for it.
Google , Starbucks, McDonalds, blah blah. The truth is that a few Irish leaders of a few American companies support Lisbon, as does Ryanair. The rest haven't expressed an opinion. Dell hasn't give an opinion but that may have to do with moving to Poland with an EU grant. To say they "are very very much for it" is a scam as most haven't been asked and those that have are connected to Irish politics at a high level. Many of those that have been asked probably couldn't care less as they will go where the profit is regardless of Lisbon.
Scam my arse.
The American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland represents most of the US multi-nationals:
21 September press release from them: Dr. Paul Duffy, President of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland, responding to Mr. Justice Frank Clarke's statement 'that claims that ratifying the treaty would affect job levels were political statements about which people might have different views', stated the following:
"The American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland, which represents 600 US companies in Ireland is in no doubt that the future of jobs and investment in Ireland is inextricably linked to our future in Europe and a Yes vote to the Lisbon Referendum.
"Nearly 300,000 people in Ireland depend on over 600 US multinational companies for their livelihoods. These same companies contribute €13 bn to the economy in terms of payroll and goods and services employed in their operations and pay nearly 40% of Ireland's corporation tax. This significant contribution to Ireland's public purse pays for social and economic expenditure.
"While it is impossible to calculate the medium or long term effect of a No vote, we have no doubt that a second rejection of the Lisbon Treaty would inflict a severe injury on the prospects for future foreign direct investment in Ireland. Many US multinationals are attracted to Ireland because of the access to European markets this country gives them. Ireland is seen as an influential player in a marketplace of 500 million people. If we reject this Treaty on October 2nd, it will cause uncertainty about our commitment to Europe and will weaken our competitive position when trying to win new FDI investment in the future.
"As a country we cannot afford to vote No".
24 September press release from them:There are 300,000 very good reasons to Vote 'Yes to Lisbon' the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland stated today. 300,000 jobs are supported by almost 600 US companies in Ireland and a Yes Vote will help protect these jobs and secure future investment according to the Chamber.
"With 300,000 people dependent on US companies for their jobs and livelihoods, we cannot afford to be complacent. Europe's market of 500 million consumers is a huge opportunity as we seek to drive our economic recovery. As an open economy we export to live and our recovery will be export led. US companies are our largest exporters and are the backbone to the economy. The largest potential for job creation in the foreseeable future will be in the foreign direct investment sector.
"However future investment and future job creation by these companies will be influenced by our international reputation as being a stable, pro-business place to do business. In the volatile global environment, Europe gives us significant economic stability. The perception of Ireland's influence within EU is also hugely important to investment decision makers. It is imperative that we seize the opportunity to place ourselves at the heart of Europe by voting Yes so we can safeguard jobs and future investment", said Dr. Paul Duffy, President of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland and VP Manufacturing, Ireland and Singapore, Pfizer. Dr. Duffy was joined by American Chamber of Commerce board members from Microsoft, Intel and Medtronic in launching the American Chamber's 300,000 reasons to vote Yes campaign.
Ganley's posters with the young girl are despicable. Typical of that individual.
Whatever about the merits of Yes or No, people giving that toe-rag credit on this thread turns my stomach.
Quote from: Hound on September 28, 2009, 07:26:38 AM
Ganley's posters with the young girl are despicable. Typical of that individual.
Whatever about the merits of Yes or No, people giving that toe-rag credit on this thread turns my stomach.
I completely agree.
Regarding the other post, I am of the view of Justice Clarke that it is a political statement. I don't believe believe McDonalds and other money making business' will close shop if there is a no vote. Besides, what this country is short of is indigenous business. It's the only way to keep economic stability.
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2ebbfo2.jpg)
(http://i36.tinypic.com/29fxaox.jpg)
(http://i35.tinypic.com/2qb6bev.jpg)
:D :D
Taken from - http://www.politics.ie/political-humour/105348-spoof-coir-posters.html - there's more.
QuoteRichard Boyd Barrett apparently had to pull them apart.
Excellent Donagh. :)
The Yes campaign has totally collapsed. They are running scared of Ganley. Did anyone else think it hilarious that they were trying to tarnish Ganley because of him taking a donation off a guy who speculated against our economy when they were wining and dining the likes of Dermot Desmond in Farmleigh a not long ago! You couldn't make it up.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 29, 2009, 09:57:13 AM
The Yes campaign has totally collapsed. They are running scared of Ganley. Did anyone else think it hilarious that they were trying to tarnish Ganley because of him taking a donation off a guy who speculated against our economy when they were wining and dining the likes of Dermot Desmond in Farmleigh a not long ago! You couldn't make it up.
This campaign has demonstrated how our country really works.
All the mainstream political parties, all of the media, all of the trade unions and with a couple of notable exceptions, all of our very wealthy businessmen support a yes vote. They have all spent a fortune campaigning for it.
The NO campaign is an assortment of fringe groups, eccentrics and, but it won the last time.
I believe a NO vote will have serious repercussions for all of the really important people in the former group while it will have little impact on the little people.
The YES campaign have put a massive gun to the electorates head and I think the people will do as they are told this time, unfortunately.
After next weekend we will wake up to a whole new world. The real story is that Ireland is most of the way to bankruptcy (possibly by Christmas) and incredibly the Government/Opposition/media/unions agreed to leave that off the table until Lisbon was passed.
: Treaty of Lisbon
No 37 (60.7%)
Yes 22 (36.1%)
Undecided 2 (3.3%)
3 days campaigning to go and this is how it looks.
I assume there have been quite a few from the 6 counties voting and it may have distorted this poll as to the referendum result.
As far as I can see in polls on the Radio and on other internet sites this is pretty much in line with them.
In the offical polls carried out it looks like the Yes side are far in front (even moreso than a direct opposite of this poll).
The GAAboard members got the result right the last time. Will it be the same again?
Any comments on the poll?
How about the two undecided, have you decided yet?
The Poll will close at (around) 7am Friday morning.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 29, 2009, 12:44:15 PM
: Treaty of Lisbon
No 37 (60.7%)
Yes 22 (36.1%)
Undecided 2 (3.3%)
3 days campaigning to go and this is how it looks.
I assume there have been quite a few from the 6 counties voting and it may have distorted this poll as to the referendum result.
As far as I can see in polls on the Radio and on other internet sites this is pretty much in line with them.
In the offical polls carried out it looks like the Yes side are far in front (even moreso than a direct opposite of this poll).
The GAAboard members got the result right the last time. Will it be the same again?
Any comments on the poll?
How about the two undecided, have you decided yet?
The Poll will close at (around) 7am Friday morning.
i am a bit confused on what your aguments are now since in another thread you were voting No to bring the government down...so are you opposed to Lisbon or opposed to Lisbon is this jsut another SF rejection of another European Treaty nut still claim to be a party for Europe....very confused and Mary Lou didnt help on Pat Kenny today...
Quote from: Tankie on September 29, 2009, 12:48:57 PM
i am a bit confused on what your aguments are now since in another thread you were voting No to bring the government down...so are you opposed to Lisbon or opposed to Lisbon is this jsut another SF rejection of another European Treaty nut still claim to be a party for Europe....very confused and Mary Lou didnt help on Pat Kenny today...
You confuse me Tankie.
I've said on this thread and other threads why i'm voting no. If you don't know why (and would like to know) read back through this thread and the Lisbon 1 thread. Using my vote tactically to destabilise the Government and put a stop to the rot including NAMA would be a bonus to rejecting the treaty. There are enough reasons in the treaty itself for me to vote No and some of them can be seen in the threads I refer to. If you are still confused I'm sorry but I'm not willing to explain it to you any further.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 29, 2009, 01:17:21 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 29, 2009, 12:48:57 PM
i am a bit confused on what your aguments are now since in another thread you were voting No to bring the government down...so are you opposed to Lisbon or opposed to Lisbon is this jsut another SF rejection of another European Treaty nut still claim to be a party for Europe....very confused and Mary Lou didnt help on Pat Kenny today...
You confuse me Tankie.
I've said on this thread and other threads why i'm voting no. If you don't know why (and would like to know) read back through this thread and the Lisbon 1 thread. Using my vote tactically to destabilise the Government and put a stop to the rot including NAMA would be a bonus to rejecting the treaty. There are enough reasons in the treaty itself for me to vote No and some of them can be seen in the threads I refer to. If you are still confused I'm sorry but I'm not willing to explain it to you any further.
well you and SF seem to have a million reasons to vote No with most of them nothing to do with Lisbon so I guess there is really no point in discussing it as SF have never ever vote for a european treaty so why would we expect the anto europe party to start now.... ::)
Quotethe anto europe party
Is this based in Finglas?
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 29, 2009, 01:34:47 PM
Quotethe anto europe party
Is this based in Finglas?
:-[
if it was though SF would still vote No
Quote from: Tankie on September 29, 2009, 01:26:20 PM
so I guess there is really no point in discussing it
Lets agree on this Tankie.
Anything to say about the poll/polls?
Paddypower has a No vote at 8/1 - longer odds than I expected
Quote from: Hound on September 29, 2009, 01:39:51 PM
Paddypower has a No vote at 8/1 - longer odds than I expected
For a two horse race it's big odds. Would ye put a few Euro on it?
I might circle this as a chain email asking everyone to put on the bet at 5.30 today and then vote No ;) It could be a recession buster.
I'm not really going to do that.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 29, 2009, 01:39:21 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 29, 2009, 01:26:20 PM
so I guess there is really no point in discussing it
Lets agree on this Tankie.
Anything to say about the poll/polls?
well as you said the poll is not correct as people with no vote have voted....but it is the result I would expect from this board...i read a rugby forum leinsterfans.com who also have a poll http://forum.leinsterfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=15468 and there you can see that
73 posters voted:
88% Yes
7% No
5% Undecided
so I dont really follow polls but it does make interesting reading to see the difference between the two different views
Quote from: Tankie on September 29, 2009, 01:47:35 PM
well as you said the poll is not correct as people with no vote have voted....but it is the result I would expect from this board...i read a rugby forum leinsterfans.com who also have a poll http://forum.leinsterfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=15468 and there you can see that
73 posters voted:
88% Yes
7% No
5% Undecided
so I dont really follow polls but it does make interesting reading to see the difference between the two different views
That's based on an EU made up of 6 nations ;)
From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8281098.stm
Looks like the Czechs have put a right spanner in the works.
I think the bits in bold are very telling!!
New Czech move to block EU treaty
Czech senators opposed to the EU's Lisbon Treaty have filed a new complaint against it with the country's constitutional court.
The complaint could create a new delay to treaty ratification, even if Irish voters back the treaty in a referendum on Friday.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a Eurosceptic, says he will not sign the treaty until the court decides.
The treaty cannot take effect unless all 27 EU member states back it.
The Czech court has rejected previous complaints about the treaty, which is aimed at streamlining EU institutions to improve decision-making in the enlarged bloc.
But it could take the court as long as six months to deliver its verdict on the new complaint, the BBC's Rob Cameron reports from Prague.
Sovereignty battle
Seventeen Eurosceptic senators signed the latest petition, despite the fact that the Czech parliament has approved the treaty.
The senator who lodged the new complaint, Jiri Oberfalzer, told the BBC it centred on persisting concerns that Lisbon infringed upon Czech sovereignty.
He and his colleagues want the court to decide whether the treaty forms the legal foundations for the creation of a European superstate. If it does, they say, then it clearly violates the Czech constitution.
A further threat to Lisbon would emerge if it is not ratified in time for the UK general election, expected next April or May, which the British Conservatives are favourites to win. They have pledged to put Lisbon to a UK referendum if it is not yet in force.
The treaty's opponents say it undermines national sovereignty and concentrates too much power in Brussels. They also argue that it is simply the EU's defunct constitution repackaged.
The Republic of Ireland will hold a second referendum on Lisbon on 2 October.
Irish voters rejected the treaty last year, but EU governments, anxious to bring the treaty into force, then gave Ireland legally binding "guarantees" that Lisbon would not affect key aspects of Irish sovereignty. These Irish guarantees have not yet been attached to the treaty. Opinion polls suggest that this time round the Irish "Yes" camp will win, despite widespread criticism of the Dublin government over its handling of the economic crisis.
Ireland is the only EU member state to hold a referendum on the treaty, though there have been calls for referendums in several other countries.
Under Irish law, any major amendment to an EU treaty entails an amendment to the Irish constitution - and that requires a referendum.
Elsewhere in the EU, governments argue that Lisbon amends earlier EU treaties and does not need to be put to a referendum.
The treaty would bring in some major changes. It would expand the policy areas subject to qualified majority voting (QMV), rather than unanimity. It would also establish a new post of president of the European Council - the grouping of EU states' leaders - and a high representative for foreign affairs.
Tankie will come on and dismiss that as been irrelevant though GDA.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 29, 2009, 09:16:03 PM
Tankie will come on and dismiss that as been irrelevant though GDA.
it is irrelevent....Pat Cox explained that it is a proccess that takes place and I don't see why these thing would be agreed and then taken away...has that ever happened in the EU....NO
That sorts it surely? We'll all vote yes, thus keeping in good favour with the Europeans and getting all that lovely money all the while knowing that the Czechs and the Brits will scupper the whole thing anyway!
Seriously though - this man says it better than I can...
http://spailpin.blogspot.com/ (http://spailpin.blogspot.com/)
well Britain Torys would love to get rid of this as the treaty favours smaller counties over larger counties and aslo the Torys hate the EU so if you wanna sign upto that vote NO i guess....its always been said that you just have to look at the people backing the No side and it says alot...between US military Ganley, Joe 'Vote no to bring down the government' Higgens and SF who have never once said yes to the EU but now claim to be all for the EU...these lads are con men with only self interest at the heart of the NO vote
And FF aren't con men? Ever considered a career in comedy Tankie?
From spailpin.blogspot.com, as Stephenite posted:
Another No Vote is the Real Threat to Irish Sovereignty
An Spailpín Fánach finds the current Lisbon debate exasperating. The issues seem quite simple indeed – either we are capable as a nation of electing governments to govern, or we are not. And if we are not capable of this fundamental aspect of running a democracy, then whether or not we have one, two, or four-and-twenty EU Commissioners is really by the way. It's the least of our worries.
There are loud voices on the No side talking about Irish sovereignty. It would interesting to find out what exactly they mean by sovereignty. Sovereignty, as An Spailpín understands it, is the ability of the Irish government to treat with other sovereign governments to form international agreements.
There is a ground-up process here – everyone in Ireland who spent long years negotiating the Lisbon treaty in the first place is either elected him or herself or else answers to those who are elected by the people to represent the people. If the Irish nation doesn't like Lisbon, then it needs to start voting for politicians who feel the same way, and let them negotiate the international treaties instead. That's how it works.
It's the only way it can work. The Lisbon treaty is long and complex. Suppose you don't like one article. Is that enough to shoot it down? Do you think, of the hundreds and hundreds of people that wrote this document, every one of them thinks it's perfect? At what stage do you find it so objectionable that you consign all those years of work to the dustbin? And are you prepared to accept the consequences of that?
An Spailpín is sadly aware that there are those who are planning to vote No as a protest vote. This is a very misguided attitude to take. Because while that No voter may believe in good conscience that he or she is doing his best by the nation, that is not at all obvious to the exterior world.
A No vote as an anti-government protest vote makes political sense to the exterior world only in the sense of support for anti-Lisbon parties having similar support. This means that there is a credible political philosophy behind the No vote, and once something exists, it can be dealt with. But pro-Lisbon parties dominate the Dáil. Dominate it. If a majority of people keep shooting down a treaty supported by ninety per cent of the politicians they themselves elect, there is a profound and serious disconnect in the entire system.
This dualism is what makes it very difficult for other political cultures to understand how to do business with the Irish. If the Irish can't be consistent about this, how can they be consistent in international agreements? When Europe deals with the Irish, to whom are they really talking?
To talk of European wrath in response to a second no vote is disingenuous. It would be more a question of indifference that wrath. And this is bad news.
If it were wrath, at least Europe would care. If it's indifference, the more politically evolved European nations will simply continue along themselves and slide the Irish to the periphery, where it seems they want to be in the first place. As expressed in consecutive referenda. And if the Irish want that, fine. It's really no skin or Europe's nose either way.
If your son or daughter is running with a bad crowd after school you experience wrath, because you are concerned for his or her future. If it's the neighbour's kid, you simply expect the police to lock the brat up and be done with it. You feel sorry for the parents, of course, but no so much as you'd bother your barney getting involved yourself. That's all heartache and no reward. Who'd be bothered with that?
Anybody who thinks Ireland can drag these negotiations out indefinitely while we mess around here needs to ask if the rest of Europe sees us as neighbours or family. It's pints of cop-on all around for the Gael.
The miracle of Europe, the fact that so many nations have found common bonds after spending all of recorded Western history fighting wars against each other, is a little lost on us here in Ireland because we were not involved in those wars ourselves, except as a dominion of another power. And the fact that we are still tied economically in so many ways to Britain, who has not quite cottoned on to the fact she is no longer a world power on her own, creates certain tension here.
One of the reasons for independence from the United Kingdom in the first place was that we, the Irish nation, believed we had no say in the governance of the UK. Irish politicians and diplomats and have punched above their weight in Europe since we joined the EEC in 1973 and we are not viable as an independent island without alliance to greater markets. Ireland gets so much more from Europe than we put in.
Let's try and act like grown-ups for once in our lives and acknowledge that being democrats has responsibilities as well as rights. In this case, having mandated our government to treat with other governments we should accept what they come back with, rather than simply throwing rattles from prams just because we can. Vote yes.
The American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland has surveyed 100 CEOs of US MNCs in Ireland. Bear in mind that the vast majority of these CEOs are Irish:
93% of respondents believe future investment and Irish jobs will be lost if we vote no in the Lisbon Treaty Referendum on October 2nd. 91% said that Ireland's membership of the European Union is important to their global parent when making invest decisions.
"Let there be no mistake, this Treaty is vital to our national interests and to securing jobs and investment in Ireland", said Dr. Paul Duffy, President of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland and head of Pfizer, which employs over 2000 people here. "95% of respondents believe our international reputation will be damaged if we vote no and that could have far reaching consequences.
"For many of our members companies, a crucial part of their strategy and reason for being here is that Ireland is a part of Europe. Not only that, but Ireland is seen to have influence and power within Europe. If there is any doubt about our commitment to Europe or our influence within the Union, it could cause future investment to be lost to Ireland. Investing directly in mainland Europe would be considerably more attractive than investing in an island off the continent, which has little influence".
"US companies have invested over €146 bn in Ireland and employ over 300,000 people directly and indirectly. This survey shows clearly that people at the coalface of Irish business are overwhelmingly convinced of the critical importance of a Yes vote next Friday on the Lisbon referendum.
"The good news is that 91% believe a Yes vote will have a positive impact on their business. These CEOs are immersed in the reality of retaining Irish jobs. They are working in an intensely competitive international environment. They know what it takes for Ireland to succeed and they are overwhelmingly convinced of the importance of a Yes vote for Irish jobs and for Ireland's economy".
Is Ireland's ability to influence decision making at EU level important to your business?
Yes - 98 (98%)
No - 2 (2%)
Do you think Ireland will lose influence in Europe if we vote No on October 2nd?
Yes - 95 (95%)
No - 5 (5%)
Is Ireland's membership of the EU important to your global parent when making investment decisions?
Yes - 91 (91%)
No - 9 (9%)
Will our international reputation be damaged if we vote No to Lisbon?
Yes - 95 (95%)
No - 5 (5%)
Will a Yes Vote have a positive impact on your business?
Yes - 89 (89%)
No - 11 (11%)
Will future foreign investment be lost to Ireland if we vote No?
Yes - 93 (93%)
No - 7 (7%)
Will jobs be lost to Ireland if we vote no?
Yes - 93 (93%)
No - 7 (7%)
Do you believe the Lisbon Treaty, if ratified, will have any impact on our corporation taxes?
Yes - 15 (15%)
No - 85 (85%)
http://www.amcham.ie/article.cfm?idarticle=654
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 30, 2009, 12:16:45 PM
There is a ground-up process here – everyone in Ireland who spent long years negotiating the Lisbon treaty in the first place is either elected him or herself or else answers to those who are elected by the people to represent the people. If the Irish nation doesn't like Lisbon, then it needs to start voting for politicians who feel the same way, and let them negotiate the international treaties instead. That's how it works.
Is that article arguing for an end to opposition?
No FG, Lab, SF, and some independents? We didn't elect them into Government so should they just quit and let FF and the Greens get on with it?
No Unions, No Socail lobby groups, environment lobby groups, business lobby groups?
Should we not question anything the Gardai or HSE do as they answer to the Government ministers? Why have an ombudsman?
If the Irish nation doesn't like Lisbon, then it needs to start voting for politicians who feel the same wayWrong! If the Irish nation don't like Lisbon they need to Vote NO. It's that simple.
To let the Government do what they want without oppostition in the opposite of Democracy it's a dictatorship.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 01, 2009, 08:36:52 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 30, 2009, 12:16:45 PM
There is a ground-up process here – everyone in Ireland who spent long years negotiating the Lisbon treaty in the first place is either elected him or herself or else answers to those who are elected by the people to represent the people. If the Irish nation doesn't like Lisbon, then it needs to start voting for politicians who feel the same way, and let them negotiate the international treaties instead. That's how it works.
Is that article arguing for an end to opposition?
No FG, Lab, SF, and some independents? We didn't elect them into Government so should they just quit and let FF and the Greens get on with it?
No Unions, No Socail lobby groups, environment lobby groups, business lobby groups?
Should we not question anything the Gardai or HSE do as they answer to the Government ministers? Why have an ombudsman?
If the Irish nation doesn't like Lisbon, then it needs to start voting for politicians who feel the same way
Wrong! If the Irish nation don't like Lisbon they need to Vote NO. It's that simple.
To let the Government do what they want without oppostition in the opposite of Democracy it's a dictatorship.
I am struggling to see how you can take the above and query if it's arguing for an end to opposition. Why introduce unions and social lobby groups into the mix when they are not even mentioned?
Poor attempt to muddy the waters though, ending with the notion of a dictatorship sunk you.
Fail.
Quote from: stephenite on October 02, 2009, 01:49:58 AM
I am struggling to see how you can take the above and query if it's arguing for an end to opposition. Why introduce unions and social lobby groups into the mix when they are not even mentioned?
Poor attempt to muddy the waters though, ending with the notion of a dictatorship sunk you.
Fail.
They were examples. THere is opposition to the Lisbon treaty and it has to be heard. That's how democracy works. Everyone who has an opiniopn can give their opinion. To suggeast all decision making should be left up to politicans is anti-democratic. It is a very poor definition of democracy if the people have no imput.
There are more than one type of dictatorship. If our politicans make all the decisions without imput from others (such as citizens) then they are dictating. That doesn't mean they will be bad decision it just means the people don't have a say and policy is dictated to them. The way democracy works here is that everyone and anyone has the right to lobby politicans, go on strike etc. that's democracy.
QuoteEveryone who has an opiniopn can give their opinion.
That's not an issue with me - the issue is when they present it as a fact.
Quote from: Billys Boots on October 02, 2009, 08:42:07 AM
That's not an issue with me - the issue is when they present it as a fact.
That works both ways.
Do you think our elected reps don't do that?
The point he was making is that the vast majority of our elected politicans are on the Yes side - that we cannot seem to agree with the vast majority of politicans that we elected, on this issue is curious to say the least.
There is nothing in the piece that argues for an end to opposition, which is how you tried to spin it
Quote from: Zapatista on October 02, 2009, 08:55:46 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on October 02, 2009, 08:42:07 AM
That's not an issue with me - the issue is when they present it as a fact.
That works both ways.
Do you think our elected reps don't do that?
That's exactly what I mean (also). I don't always disagree with you, Mr. Paranoid.
Enjoy polling-day Zap; how many times do ye reckon you'll vote? :P
Quote from: stephenite on October 02, 2009, 09:06:34 AM
The point he was making is that the vast majority of our elected politicans are on the Yes side - that we cannot seem to agree with the vast majority of politicans that we elected, on this issue is curious to say the least.
There is nothing in the piece that argues for an end to opposition, which is how you tried to spin it
The quote I used heavily implies that we should agree with our politicans. The only reason given is that we voted for them. We voted FF into Government and by the quote I used it suggests we should agree with them until the next election then elect someone we do agree with. As if there is one issue. That is undemocratic. Democracy is voting for someone and disagreeing with them when you disagree with them.
It's not undemodratic in my book - in fact it's complete common sense. You vote in politicans that you agree with - of course you're entitled to disagree with them.
But when the vast, vast majority of political parties in the country are supporting Lisbon-and the referendum was voted No, well then there is something wrong somewhere.
Pointing out that fact, dose not equate to arguing for an end to all opposition.
Anyhoo-I'm off to the pub for bank holiday weekend beers. Enjoy exercising your right to vote whichever way you're going.
Quote from: Billys Boots on October 02, 2009, 09:09:06 AM
I don't always disagree with you, Mr. Paranoid.
I like being paraniod it makes me feel like i'm getting some attention.
Quote from: Billys Boots on October 02, 2009, 09:09:06 AM
Enjoy polling-day Zap; how many times do ye reckon you'll vote? :P
When I go after work it'll have been my second time voting on Lisbon ;)
I wouldn't rule out a third time either :D
Quote from: stephenite on October 02, 2009, 09:19:06 AM
It's not undemodratic in my book - in fact it's complete common sense. You vote in politicans that you agree with - of course you're entitled to disagree with them.
But when the vast, vast majority of political parties in the country are supporting Lisbon-and the referendum was voted No, well then there is something wrong somewhere.
Pointing out that fact, dose not equate to arguing for an end to all opposition.
Anyhoo-I'm off to the pub for bank holiday weekend beers. Enjoy exercising your right to vote whichever way you're going.
I think we are starting from different places. I am of the view that the politicans should follow the people while some think the people should follow te politicans.
Enjoy your pints.
Shouldn't we be having a moratorium today?
Seriously, though, a few points to ponder as our pencil hovers over the ballot paper:
Why are we voting on this again?
If we had voted as we were instructed the last time, would we be voting today?
Does this not succinctly illustrate the respect for democracy held by the politicians we democratically elected to do the will of us, the people? We instructed them already to reject this treaty. This was on the specific basis, assured both by our own government and the EU institutions, that if we rejected it, it was dead. We killed it, but it's not dead. Why is this zombie constitution treaty still stalking the land despite the wishes of its executioners?
Since they lied to us the last time, why should we believe anything they say this time?
Why do they ask us the question if they are not prepared to accept our answer? Why do they lie to us by implying that our answer matters, when clearly it's accepted only if we give one answer and not if we give the other? How many times must we say "No" before our decision is accepted?
If we say "No" again, when is the next referendum? If we say "Yes" will there be another referendum?
Why has our government, instead of implementing the decision we gave them, instead specifically gone against the will of their people and conspired with outsiders to pervert our solemn democratic decision?
Remember these politicians, who are today demonstrating their unwillingness to represent the people as the people instruct them, are the same politicians who are asking us to sign over our decision making power to them and to trust them to do the right thing by us in every future decision on the constitution and administration of the EU.
How will we be removed from "The Heart of Europe" if we fail to vote as instructed? Specifically – how? By the terms of what treaty, agreement or constitution or by what mechanism will we be "moved to the periphery" and what, specifically, does that mean? How, specifically, will the "more politically evolved nations" "move ahead" without us? What will they be "moving ahead" on? What in our rejection of this proposal for the governance of the EU will prevent us from deciding whether or not to participate in any future agreement or partnership?
If we vote "No", will we still be members of the EU on exactly the same terms as we are now and on exactly the same terms as every other member state? The simple answer, despite the lie implicit in the "Heart of Europe" platform, is yes.
Vote "No".
Quote from: Hardy on October 02, 2009, 10:10:12 AM
If we had voted as we were instructed the last time, would we be voting today?
Does this not succinctly illustrate the respect for democracy held by the politicians we democratically elected to do the will of us, the people? We instructed them already to reject this treaty. This was on the specific basis, assured both by our own government and the EU institutions, that if we rejected it, it was dead. We killed it, but it's not dead. Why is this zombie constitution treaty still stalking the land despite the wishes of its executioners?
Since they lied to us the last time, why should we believe anything they say this time?
Why do they ask us the question if they are not prepared to accept our answer? Why do they lie to us by implying that our answer matters, when clearly it's accepted only if we give one answer and not if we give the other? How many times must we say "No" before our decision is accepted?
Hardy - that's just totally untrue.
Everybody knew there would be a second referendum if the first was defeated. There was huge discussions about that right here. A significant part of the No campaign was "go back, try again, and get us a better deal" (notably not part of this campaign).
I posted previously on this, but I'm not sure you read many posts. There was a survey down by a reputable independent firm asking people why they voted the way they did. 40%+ said it was because they didnt understand the treaty. 25%+ said it was because of abortion, conscription or other things that had nothing to do with Lisbon.
We are having another vote because we are all better informed this time - apart from the really lazy, the uninterested or those who knew it all already. And because we've got legal guarantees that Right to Life, family and education, Taxation, Security and defence, are not impacted by Lisbon.
So while the text might be the same, a substanital amount of people are voting on something they perceive to be different because it has been clarified.
Nail on the head Hardy.
Not for the first time, an Irish Government is cursing the egalitarian nature of the Irish Constitution in necessitating yet another referendum, on yet another question that has already been put to the plebians and roundly rejected at the first time of asking.
I fear that it will be carried today, this egregious piece of Milton Friedmanesque obfuscation, and all Europe will suffer for it, eventually; our instinctive 'No' was absolutely correct initially, though the somewhat sinister scaremongering will probably reverse that today. But then, we don't matter.
Quote from: Hardy on October 02, 2009, 10:10:12 AM
Does this not succinctly illustrate the respect for democracy held by the politicians we democratically elected to do the will of us, the people? We instructed them already to reject this treaty. This was on the specific basis, assured both by our own government and the EU institutions, that if we rejected it, it was dead. We killed it, but it's not dead. Why is this zombie constitution treaty still stalking the land despite the wishes of its executioners?
The Government can claim they listened to the people last time. They took down a list of concerns expressed and now come back to the people with those concerns addressed. The Government can claim they are fully compatible with the concept of democracy.
I would vote no if I had a vote. Not that I disagree with a fundamental European wide constitution or close ties with Europe. I am fundamentally opposed to the EU as it currently stands. Whatever was gained by EU membership has been lost and lost 5 times over. The actual EU economic and agricultural model is a failed model. The EU model of deregulation, separating the FSA from the Central Bank is a failed model. The model of increased money supply, easy access to house loans and the spiralling price of property in relation to salaries, is as big a con as the Maddoff scheme.
Quote from: Hound on October 02, 2009, 10:37:25 AM
Hardy - that's just totally untrue.
Everybody knew there would be a second referendum if the first was defeated. There was huge discussions about that right here. A significant part of the No campaign was "go back, try again, and get us a better deal" (notably not part of this campaign).
We only assumed there'd be another one as there is form in that regard. We have no faith in our Government to address it properly and rightly predicted a rerun. The position taken by the Government before was that the treaty falls on a No vote. We believed they were telling lies and we were right. They said there is no plan B. If you believe in the guarntees then they lied on that also. Gilmore said 'the treaty is dead'. In 2001 Dick Roach said 'to attempt to rerun a referendum as a means tof reversing a decision taken by the people would rightly be regarded as an affron'' he is right on that. It is an affornt. The only precedent we can set is to vote No again. They are trying to call our bluff but we aren't bluffing and instead should call theirs.
I won't rule out a Lisbon 3 if we vote No again as I have Nofaith in the Government. Not because I find it acceptable.
Quote from: Hound on October 02, 2009, 10:37:25 AMHardy - that's just totally untrue.
Not only is it not "totally" untrue, not one word of it is untrue.
Quote
Everybody knew there would be a second referendum if the first was defeated. There was huge discussions about that right here. A significant part of the No campaign was "go back, try again, and get us a better deal" (notably not part of this campaign).
Show me where the government told us there would be a second referendum and we would be asked again to vote on the same treaty if we voted "No" and where, conversely, they said this wouldn't happen if we voted "Yes". Show me where we were told that the consequence of a "Yes" vote would be acceptance of the decision, while the consequence of a "No" vote would be different. Show me where they said they would seek "clarifications" if we voted "No" and then put this same treaty (but now "clarified") to us again.
I certainly don't remember being told that and I don't think you'll find it documented anywhere. On the other hand, you'll very easily find the documented statements that if we rejected Lisbon it was dead and would have to be renegotiated.
Quote
We are having another vote because we are all better informed this time - apart from the really lazy, the uninterested or those who knew it all already. And because we've got legal guarantees that Right to Life, family and education, Taxation, Security and defence, are not impacted by Lisbon.
So while the text might be the same, a substanital amount of people are voting on something they perceive to be different because it has been clarified.
When was this new version of democracy introduced? The one that says "we didn't really mean it when we said that the Lisbon treaty was dead if you rejected it. What we really meant was that we would clarify it and show you why you were wrong to reject it"?
What is the constitutional status of "clarification"? Who decides which items need clarification? Isn't this self-assigned editorial power on the decision of the people a perversion of democracy? Why do the government get a second chance to "clarify" what they could have clarified the first time? Who else has that power? What clause in the constitution assigns to the government of the day this power to interpret the vote and denies it to everyone else? If we had voted the other way, who would have been given the opportunity to clarify why we were wrong to vote "Yes" and have another go at it?
Who would decide, after the next general election that the defeated party would have won if the electorate had better understood their manifesto and that therefore there should be another election because of that misunderstanding?
I believe it up to the elected government (subject to the Attorney General) as to what goes to referendum.
There is nothing in the constitution that stops the government putting something to a referendum more than once, whether it be to try and obtain a Yes or to try and reverse a Yes. I believe this is the third time we've voted twice for something the same or similar. It must be 80% or 90% of the politicians we elected to the Dail that have supported the putting of this referendum to the people for a second time.
The legal guarantees on Right to Life, family and education, Taxation, Security and defence give great comfort to those people who had genuine fears in relation to those areas.
Hound, that's a reasonable response and a lot different to the one where you said I posted untruths.
Anyway, do you think it's fair and reasonable that the government should refuse to accept the decision of the people and put the SAME treaty to a referendum again having specifically stated that this wouldn't happen? As you say, they do have the power to put anything to referendum and as often as they wish. But at what point are they abusing that power and how many lies are you willing to accept as a voter?
Hardy, your analysis is getting rather Jesuitical. You object to the fact that the politicians are putting the same treaty to the people. Fair enough. What statutory safeguards would you like introduced to prevent this happening?
Quote from: Hardy on October 02, 2009, 11:42:04 AM
Hound, that's a reasonable response and a lot different to the one where you said I posted untruths.
Anyway, do you think it's fair and reasonable that the government should refuse to accept the decision of the people and put the SAME treaty to a referendum again having specifically stated that this wouldn't happen? As you say, they do have the power to put anything to referendum and as often as they wish. But at what point are they abusing that power and how many lies are you willing to accept as a voter?
Well I don't believe the government ever said they would not have a Lisbon II.
In any event, its not the same treaty in the eyes of many people because of the legal guarantees that now attach. A lot of the No campaign last time was based around those very things and according to the survey influenced a lot of people to vote No.
Nobody can deny that the Yes side ran a generally poor campaign last time. They have done a much better side in trying to get their message across. Its also telling (in my view) that so many job creators / entreprenuers have come out and said they believe that a Yes vote will result in more jobs and more inward investment. I was marginally Yes last time because I had doubts on certain issues. I'm strongly Yes this time.
IF the treaty still isn't ratified by the time the British get around to it and they have a referendum on it, will they have to vote twice? My f**king hole they will.
Quote from: deiseach on October 02, 2009, 11:48:03 AM
Hardy, your analysis is getting rather Jesuitical. You object to the fact that the politicians are putting the same treaty to the people. Fair enough. What statutory safeguards would you like introduced to prevent this happening?
I think I'll take comfort from the fact that the worst you can call it is "Jesuitical" must mean you can't find anything untrue in it. To be honest, on a re-read I'd have called it more Redemptorist myself - you know, a bit of a rant.
To answer your question, I'm not suggesting we can do much statutorily about it or proposing (more) constitutional changes. Sure that would require another referendum (or ten, until we got it right). I'm simply arguing that the electorate should respond in the only way it can to the barefaced duplicity of those whom we entrust with power. We should give the appropriate answer to those who, in a display of cynical jiggery-pokery that would give you a squint, are abusing their power in the course of asking us to give them more power. So my proposal just boils down to my exhortation at the end of the first post - vote "No".
Hound - just a few points. You often mention the people who voted know but said they didn't understand the Treaty. What about those that didn't (and still don't) undertand it but vote yes. Is it ok because they're on the governements side?
Also - there are no legally binding guarantees. What there is is a promise to include legally binding guarantees. If there was any legal alteration to this Treaty then every country would have to re-ratify it. that hasn't happened because no legally binding amendment has yet been made to it. I'm consident these guarantees will eventually materialise but as of now they are not legally binding.
Hardy - you analysis is spot on.
Quote from: deiseach on October 02, 2009, 11:48:03 AM
Hardy, your analysis is getting rather Jesuitical. You object to the fact that the politicians are putting the same treaty to the people. Fair enough. What statutory safeguards would you like introduced to prevent this happening?
iI'd like to see -
A referendum can not be held twice on the same issue within one term of Government.
Then wouldn't the country need a referendum to make that change to the Constitution
Quote from: Hardy on October 02, 2009, 12:06:02 PM
I think I'll take comfort from the fact that the worst you can call it is "Jesuitical" must mean you can't find anything untrue in it. To be honest, on a re-read I'd have called it more Redemptorist myself - you know, a bit of a rant.
To answer your question, I'm not suggesting we can do much statutorily about it or proposing (more) constitutional changes. Sure that would require another referendum (or ten, until we got it right). I'm simply arguing that the electorate should respond in the only way it can to the barefaced duplicity of those whom we entrust with power. We should give the appropriate answer to those who, in a display of cynical jiggery-pokery that would give you a squint, are abusing their power in the course of asking us to give them more power. So my proposal just boils down to my exhortation at the end of the first post - vote "No".
So even if you voted Yes the first time round, you should vote No to tell the politicians what you think of them? I would suggest that the appropriate place to tell the politicians what you think of them is a general election. That's what I'll be doing
Still, vote whatever why you like for whatever reason you like. The government will still get in
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 02, 2009, 12:07:15 PM
Hound - just a few points. You often mention the people who voted know but said they didn't understand the Treaty. What about those that didn't (and still don't) undertand it but vote yes. Is it ok because they're on the governements side?
Also - there are no legally binding guarantees. What there is is a promise to include legally binding guarantees. If there was any legal alteration to this Treaty then every country would have to re-ratify it. that hasn't happened because no legally binding amendment has yet been made to it. I'm consident these guarantees will eventually materialise but as of now they are not legally binding.
Seanie, its only a good thing that more people understand the treaty better this time, regardless of which way they voted last time and which way they vote this time.
According to one of the foremost experts in EU law in this country, the guarantees are legally binding:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/no-claims-have-no-basis-in-law-1898157.html
"THROUGHOUT the referendum campaign certain groups advocating a 'No' vote have been making statements regarding the Lisbon Treaty that have no basis in law or in fact.
Certain 'No' groups claim that the guarantees secured by the Government in June are worthless. This is wrong.
The outcome of the deliberations in June could not be any clearer regarding the guarantees on taxation, abortion and neutrality. These decisions give legal guarantees to the Irish people, are fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and are legally binding.
To suggest otherwise is to mislead the Irish people.
...
Declan J Walsh
Lecturer in EU Law
University College Cork"
Quote from: Main Street on October 02, 2009, 12:17:46 PM
Then wouldn't the country need a referendum to make that change to the Constitution
I don't know. I'd say it could be done in the Dail. If it did need a referendum then just have one or two ;)
Quote from: deiseach on October 02, 2009, 12:19:24 PM
Quote from: Hardy on October 02, 2009, 12:06:02 PM
I think I'll take comfort from the fact that the worst you can call it is "Jesuitical" must mean you can't find anything untrue in it. To be honest, on a re-read I'd have called it more Redemptorist myself - you know, a bit of a rant.
To answer your question, I'm not suggesting we can do much statutorily about it or proposing (more) constitutional changes. Sure that would require another referendum (or ten, until we got it right). I'm simply arguing that the electorate should respond in the only way it can to the barefaced duplicity of those whom we entrust with power. We should give the appropriate answer to those who, in a display of cynical jiggery-pokery that would give you a squint, are abusing their power in the course of asking us to give them more power. So my proposal just boils down to my exhortation at the end of the first post - vote "No".
So even if you voted Yes the first time round, you should vote No to tell the politicians what you think of them?
Certainly, but not so much to show what we think of them as to make the point that we find it unacceptable to be so misused and in the hope that the point will be taken for future reference.
The argument about the Government holding a second referendum on the same Treaty doesn't hold water. It is a non argument.
It is an issue but has no value on it's own unless you can back it up with a substance of opposition to what the Treaty is about.
If you have supported the policies of the EU over the past 20 years, then vote yes.
We could not manage an independent currency and we could not manage being part of the Euro currency.
What is the argument, that it would have been worse to have an independent currency?
Indeed, when you have followed the insane EU policies on Money Supply, deregulation and miniscule Central Bank reserves it would have been worse with an independent currency.
Quote from: Main Street on October 02, 2009, 12:36:51 PM
If you have supported the policies of the EU over the past 20 years, then vote yes.
So if you've supported the EU policies over the last 20 years, vote yes... to fundamentally change them?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on October 02, 2009, 12:41:09 PM
So if you've supported the EU policies over the last 20 years, vote yes... to fundamentally change them?
:D :D :D 5 Stars.
Quote from: Maiden1 on October 02, 2009, 12:35:38 PM
From the daily mail today
Ministers can sign agreements across europe on healthcare, security ...
I don't think anyone will dispute that this is a lie. Wouldnt expect much more from the Mail!
Though amazing that some people will use British right wing arguments to back up their No stance!
Quote from: Hound on October 02, 2009, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 02, 2009, 12:07:15 PM
Hound - just a few points. You often mention the people who voted know but said they didn't understand the Treaty. What about those that didn't (and still don't) undertand it but vote yes. Is it ok because they're on the governements side?
Also - there are no legally binding guarantees. What there is is a promise to include legally binding guarantees. If there was any legal alteration to this Treaty then every country would have to re-ratify it. that hasn't happened because no legally binding amendment has yet been made to it. I'm consident these guarantees will eventually materialise but as of now they are not legally binding.
Seanie, its only a good thing that more people understand the treaty better this time, regardless of which way they voted last time and which way they vote this time.
According to one of the foremost experts in EU law in this country, the guarantees are legally binding:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/no-claims-have-no-basis-in-law-1898157.html
"THROUGHOUT the referendum campaign certain groups advocating a 'No' vote have been making statements regarding the Lisbon Treaty that have no basis in law or in fact.
Certain 'No' groups claim that the guarantees secured by the Government in June are worthless. This is wrong.
The outcome of the deliberations in June could not be any clearer regarding the guarantees on taxation, abortion and neutrality. These decisions give legal guarantees to the Irish people, are fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and are legally binding.
To suggest otherwise is to mislead the Irish people.
...
Declan J Walsh
Lecturer in EU Law
University College Cork"
I'm sorry Hound but I don't think that gentleman is correct. In a debate on George Hook's programme the other evening the Yes and No people agreed it was as I put it. The guarantees are all but legally binding. They are far from worthless and are as good as legally binding without actually being so. Guarantees or promises of this nature have been followed through 100% of the time. In my view its not a major issue anyway - if our leaders are leaned on to go the other way they will anyway.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on October 02, 2009, 12:41:09 PM
So if you've supported the EU policies over the last 20 years, vote yes... to fundamentally change them?
That is a contradiction and a figment of libertarian fantasy because fundamental change will not happen with a no vote.
I'd imagine that change will not even threaten to happen until the scale of destruction of following EU policies has been realised.
Quote from: Main Street on October 02, 2009, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on October 02, 2009, 12:41:09 PM
So if you've supported the EU policies over the last 20 years, vote yes... to fundamentally change them?
That is a contradiction and a figment of libertarian fantasy because fundamental change will not happen with a no vote.
I'd imagine that change will not even threaten to happen until the scale of destruction of following EU policies has been realised.
Have you read the Lisbon Treaty?
And what you're now saying is that a yes vote will change nothing!
Ok, going to vote and one thing that someone might clear up for me (apologies if this has been dealt with before on the thread). Why don't the various protocols come into effect now rather than at the conclusion of the next accession treaty?
Quote from: Zapatista on October 02, 2009, 12:15:22 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 02, 2009, 11:48:03 AM
Hardy, your analysis is getting rather Jesuitical. You object to the fact that the politicians are putting the same treaty to the people. Fair enough. What statutory safeguards would you like introduced to prevent this happening?
iI'd like to see -
A referendum can not be held twice on the same issue within one term of Government.
I'd rephrase that to the
exact same referendum can't be put to the people a second time. An amended question would be fair enough but that is not what we have here.
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on October 02, 2009, 01:55:09 PM
Ok, going to vote and one thing that someone might clear up for me (apologies if this has been dealt with before on the thread). Why don't the various protocols come into effect now rather than at the conclusion of the next accession treaty?
It would mean every Country who had ratified the treaty would have to ratify it again with the protocaols added to give it treaty status. This way the have just agreed to add them on at the next treaty.
Makes sense. No it is. ;D
The Czech courts have said that the Lisbon treaty does not affect the Czech costitution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8339464.stm
I guess David Cameron will have to go to Plan B.
Quote from: Denn Forever on November 03, 2009, 11:50:41 AM
The Czech courts have said that the Lisbon treaty does not affect the Czech costitution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8339464.stm
I guess David Cameron will have to go to Plan B.
This is old news. The reason he won't stand in the way now is he got opt-out including on the Charter of Rights. The court decision was had little to do with his decision.
The treaty is coming into effect across europe on the 1st of December.
Are we really going to see much change at the start or will the beauracrats start ringin the changes straight away?
Or is there even any changes to be done?
Anytime now for those jobs please.
This isn't the begining nor the end.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0209/bosi.html
Bank of Scotland Ireland is to shed 750 jobs from its workforce of 1,600, with most of the redundancies taking effect by July.
(http://theconservativeblog.co.uk/wp-content/articlepics/3913864596_9633606125-300x273.jpg)
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2009/10/08/yes-to-jobs-poster.jpg)
(http://www.fiannafool.com/jobs.jpg)
The most popular politician in ireland on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sED3iApAvE
I know, I know. The No side lied about abortion, the dirty lying scaremongers.
Anytime now for those jobs please.
(http://theconservativeblog.co.uk/wp-content/articlepics/3913864596_9633606125-300x273.jpg)
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2009/10/08/yes-to-jobs-poster.jpg)
(http://www.fiannafool.com/jobs.jpg)
The most popular politician in ireland on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sED3iApAvE
Jobless rate over 30% in some occupations
State training agency FÁS has said the number of people in work this year is likely to fall by 87,000 compared with last year.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0212/fas.html
You told us Zapista. Nobody likes to be reminded that they were hoodwinked.
Quote from: Denn Forever on February 15, 2010, 10:59:28 AM
You told us Zapista. Nobody likes to be reminded that they were hoodwinked.
It's for the purpose of record ;)
The thing is I was the one made out to be a liar.
Point of order Zap, the only one calling people liars was you!
Quote from: Billys Boots on February 15, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Point of order Zap, the only one calling people liars was you!
Ah Billy FFS you sure know how to ruin a good gloat :D
Quote from: Zapatista on February 15, 2010, 11:17:12 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on February 15, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Point of order Zap, the only one calling people liars was you!
Ah Billy FFS you sure know how to ruin a good gloat :D
Thanks.
And shure while I'm at it; wasn't the support of Lisbon argued to help us see the end of the recession earlier, not stop the leakage of jobs while the recession was happening. That's what I understood I was voting for. ;)
Quote from: Billys Boots on February 15, 2010, 11:20:09 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 15, 2010, 11:17:12 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on February 15, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Point of order Zap, the only one calling people liars was you!
Ah Billy FFS you sure know how to ruin a good gloat :D
Thanks.
And shure while I'm at it; wasn't the support of Lisbon argued to help us see the end of the recession earlier, not stop the leakage of jobs while the recession was happening. That's what I understood I was voting for. ;)
I was voting against conscription and whatever else Jim Corr was chatting about... swine flu I think.
Ok then. :)
On a serious note; Anyone here who voted yes for lisbon now feel they were misled?
Looks like Treaties are to be ammended without referendum. I think this used to be a big issue.
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st00/st00011.en10.pdf
'Limited' changes to Lisbon Treaty needed
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1029/eu_lisbon.html
Limited and Needed :D
more worried that if we have to be bailed out by IMF or Eurozone - that we will lose the only thing thats keeping this country afloat - the low corporation tax rate !
in recent weeks it has been said again by the vultures circling the Irish financial patient that there shoul dbe a standard corporate rate of tax in the eurozone.
if we default and have to be bailed out - this is what they will be after - we will have to concede in order to be bailed out.
Originally I thought that they might try to squeeze us via threats over fishing/agri quotas etc - which we may have been able to get past. If its a default then its game over for our pole position in attracting and retaiining foreign multinationals!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 09:37:38 AM
more worried that if we have to be bailed out by IMF or Eurozone - that we will lose the only thing thats keeping this country afloat - the low corporation tax rate !
in recent weeks it has been said again by the vultures circling the Irish financial patient that there shoul dbe a standard corporate rate of tax in the eurozone.
if we default and have to be bailed out - this is what they will be after - we will have to concede in order to be bailed out.
Originally I thought that they might try to squeeze us via threats over fishing/agri quotas etc - which we may have been able to get past. If its a default then its game over for our pole position in attracting and retaiining foreign multinationals!
If we are to be bailed out the bailout will be more important to us than our corp tax rate. If we are to be bailed out it's becauce even the tax rate can't save us. It's much more than the tax rate at stake it's what's left of our sovereignty.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 29, 2010, 09:44:22 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 09:37:38 AM
more worried that if we have to be bailed out by IMF or Eurozone - that we will lose the only thing thats keeping this country afloat - the low corporation tax rate !
in recent weeks it has been said again by the vultures circling the Irish financial patient that there shoul dbe a standard corporate rate of tax in the eurozone.
if we default and have to be bailed out - this is what they will be after - we will have to concede in order to be bailed out.
Originally I thought that they might try to squeeze us via threats over fishing/agri quotas etc - which we may have been able to get past. If its a default then its game over for our pole position in attracting and retaiining foreign multinationals!
If we are to be bailed out the bailout will be more important to us than our corp tax rate. If we are to be bailed out it's becauce even the tax rate can't save us. It's much more than the tax rate at stake it's what's left of our sovereignty.
being bailed out will help prop us up temporarily. After this if we have no industry left due to losing jobs through multinatinal spulling the plug then the bailout will be all for nothing.
its a catch 22 but I disagree with you over which of these is more important.
Short term yes bailout is more important, but long term expense of our financial viability.
Suppose its just critical to avoid having to be bailed out really !
Quote from: Lone Shark on September 03, 2009, 12:36:17 PM
I have one reason for voting no, and one reason only, which I am willing to change my mind over if anyone can convince me otherwise. This was why I voted no the last time, and why I will do again unless anyone can explain to me why I'm mistaken.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html (http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html)
The above is the text for Article 48 of the Treaty. As with all parts of the treaty, it's difficult for a layman to understand, but I've been told by others who would be quite competent in this area, that this basically means that the Lisbon Treaty has the power to expand itself, so to speak.
Essentially, my concern is not what is in the Lisbon Treaty currently, but what they can choose to add in down the line, with only the say so of our national government. By installing the Lisbon Treaty into our constitution, are we essentially installing the Lisbon Treaty as it stands, or installing it in whatever shape or form it may take in time?
Put simply, I don't trust our government to uphold the will of the people on European matters - our politicians simply want a quiet life. I'm not sure why that is, whether they like the idea of the European parliament doing the dog's work behind legislating or they simply like being the nice guys at parties, but in every European referendum, we tend to vote something between 60% yes and 45% yes. In every European referendum so far, our elected TD's have been 90% yes more or less. They simply don't represent our wishes in this area - so I'm not willing to sign over competency from our constitution over to our government. I've been told that this is what I'm doing, can anyone tell me otherwise - or indeed confirm for everyone else out there?
Looks like I've finally managed to get my answer on this anyway.