gaaboard.com

The title allows those in the six countys to vote.

You can change your vote as time goes as I am sure we will all learn something new about it before the referendum.

Could you not post some details on the main issues. I know nothing about it and I would follow current affairs. I sure there's a lot of others in the same boat.

I could, but I would only be posting the translation and point of view of others.

As is normal with any proposal on treaty change they is a copy of the old treaty, the new treaty and a document outlining the difference between the two. However the European Council have outlawed the copy containing the difference until after the treaty is accepted or rejected by the 27 member states.

I believe some independent groups are funding and putting together a third document but it is not available yet due to the complexity of the two treaty documents. When it is available I will post a link to it.

For now I would like the debate to grow with the Yes and No campaigns.

Ok. Let's go back to basics. What the f**k is a Lsibon Treaty?

It's woeful complicated, but basically it's another attempt to push through a pseudo European Constitution after that was defeated in referenda in France and Holland.

It's not really a new treaty as such, as Zapatista said, it's more a series of amalgamations and amendments to other treaties, namely the Treaty of the European Union and the Treaty to Establish the European Community.

There's a pile of stuff here......

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm (http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm) *This site is obviously promoting the treaty, so is not objective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon)

The Lisbon Treaty is a redraft of the EU Constitution. The Constitution requires referendum from most 27 member States. As it has been rejected by France and the Netherlands it meant there was no need for a referendum here as it had already fallen due to France and the Netherlands.

The Constitution was then redrafted to take out the details that made it subject to referendum in all States except this one (There was very nearly no referendum here). As our Constitution makes us a Neutral Country and empowers the people to make decision's on International treaty's it would have left a huge legal challenge if the Government where not to hold a referendum (they looked very Hard at this option). It has been changed in very little but name and instead of a Constitution it is now called a treaty.

It is basically to empower the EU to act like an Independent State. If passed the EU could represent the ROI on the Global stage in areas such as Defence and take a seat on the UN among many other powers.

Can you answer this. If the EU 'state' decided to go to war with Iran, for example, would all member states be obliged to send troops? Are we essentially removing any element of neutrality?

Will the EU have an army itself, including volunteers etc, or will it draw on constituent countries' armies, and will those countries have to supply people and munitions if asked?

So why are you against it exactly?

Ireland has done very well out of the EU thank you very much. We don't want a load of long haired malcontents ruining our relations with the rest of Europe.

Who is against it?

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 14, 2008, 09:36:18 AM
Can you answer this. If the EU 'state' decided to go to war with Iran, for example, would all member states be obliged to send troops? Are we essentially removing any element of neutrality?

Will the EU have an army itself, including volunteers etc, or will it draw on constituent countries' armies, and will those countries have to supply people and munitions if asked?

All member States would be obliged to fund the war and publically announce their support for the action wether they support it or not.. It is difficult to know if they would have to send troops, it will depend on how the text is interpreted afterwards. It claims all members will have to provide troops for the Rapid action Force and peace keeping and disarmament missions ( the later like Iraq was) but the EU will concider independent State policy while on attack missions.

The Eu will have an army and a foreign affairs minister able to make decisions like any independent state.

Quote from: Aristotle Flynn on February 14, 2008, 09:39:13 AM
So why are you against it exactly?

Ireland has done very well out of the EU thank you very much. We don't want a load of long haired malcontents ruining our relations with the rest of Europe.

I didn't say I oppose it.

Ireland has done well and will continue to do well. No one is getting kicked out of the EU. The EU has done well from Ireland too. And if it's not broke why fix it? It is worth noting that in some polls 70% of EU citizens oppose the Treaty , so to oppose it would be the wish of the EU as a democracy.

QuoteThe Eu will have an army and a foreign affairs minister able to make decisions like any independent state.

But who will make up the army? Will the EU army recruit from school in the same way the Irish Army, British Army etc does, via cadetships etc, or will it lay claim to a certain percentage of the individual countries' standing armies?

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 14, 2008, 10:12:08 AM

QuoteThe Eu will have an army and a foreign affairs minister able to make decisions like any independent state.

But who will make up the army? Will the EU army recruit from school in the same way the Irish Army, British Army etc does, via cadetships etc, or will it lay claim to a certain percentage of the individual countries' standing armies?

The point of an EU army is subject to interpretation too as since the Constitution feel in France and the Netherlands the part about EU symbols eg flag for a united army has been withdrawn to not effect the Constitution of some member States.

They will not need to lay claim as we will give the troops. The army will be made up of troops donated from all EU states. However, it's unclear where or how many troops would be deployed as the interpretation of the treaty is not clear and can mean different things to different States. Larger armies such as France and Germany will take on larger tasks but Ireland will be mandated to increase military spending to reach an EU quota. It is unclear too how much Britain would provide as they are currently at war.

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 14, 2008, 09:36:18 AM
Can you answer this. If the EU 'state' decided to go to war with Iran, for example, would all member states be obliged to send troops? Are we essentially removing any element of neutrality?

Will the EU have an army itself, including volunteers etc, or will it draw on constituent countries' armies, and will those countries have to supply people and munitions if asked?

No we won't
The EU defense force will be like the UN made up of other countries army's . I think its for the best the sooner we are able to engage in peace keeping missions with out the US dragging its feet the better

If it's a sort of peacekeeping unit, I'd have no great objections, but if it is a standing EU army, then I would have some reservations, on the basis that if the EU state determines that we should attack Iran, or help the US in Iraq or whatever, then Irish soldiers could be caught up in that.

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 14, 2008, 11:33:21 AM
If it's a sort of peacekeeping unit, I'd have no great objections, but if it is a standing EU army, then I would have some reservations, on the basis that if the EU state determines that we should attack Iran, or help the US in Iraq or whatever, then Irish soldiers could be caught up in that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy#Future
We have an opt out of any military action taken by the EU from the last referendum

Quote from: Gnevin on February 14, 2008, 11:38:59 AM

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 14, 2008, 11:33:21 AM
If it's a sort of peacekeeping unit, I'd have no great objections, but if it is a standing EU army, then I would have some reservations, on the basis that if the EU state determines that we should attack Iran, or help the US in Iraq or whatever, then Irish soldiers could be caught up in that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy#Future
We have an opt out of any military action taken by the EU from the last referendum

There is not one mention of the word neutrality and no direct
acknowledgement of the neutral member states. This is very different to the references to NATO obligations and NATO compatibility.
While there is a reference to the "specific character of the security and defence
policy of certain member states", this is not the same as neutrality and provides
little protection. It will not stop a EU minister for foriegn affairs acting on our behalf nor will it stop us funding war or publically supporting it.

Quote from: Gnevin on February 14, 2008, 11:30:29 AM

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 14, 2008, 09:36:18 AM
Can you answer this. If the EU 'state' decided to go to war with Iran, for example, would all member states be obliged to send troops? Are we essentially removing any element of neutrality?

Will the EU have an army itself, including volunteers etc, or will it draw on constituent countries' armies, and will those countries have to supply people and munitions if asked?

No we won't
The EU defense force will be like the UN made up of other countries army's . I think its for the best the sooner we are able to engage in peace keeping missions with out the US dragging its feet the better

Do you mean allowing the EU to behave like the US?

Quote from: Zapatista on February 14, 2008, 12:11:33 PM


Do you mean allowing the EU to behave like the US?

No i mean allowing the EU to send troops in to area when requested by the legitimate Governments of those area , i bid to provide peace keeping , with out having to go cap in hand to the Yanks who are too busy fighting for oil to give a shit .

Just like the ones we are sending to ex-French colony Chad at the request of French whom still have many economical interests there?

Can't see how a European army could ever get off the ground unless as a purely peace-keeping force.  You can still find young men willing to fight and die for their countries, but who on earth would be willing to put their life on the line for Europe?

Voting No whenever the time comes. The fact that no other country is puttng it to the people shows just how undemocratic the European project is, knowing full well it could fall (especially in Britain, that right Gordon?), going from being a trade alliance when it was set up, to a wannabe superstate. France and Holland did the right thing, hopefully voters here ignore the spineless parties' urgings.

As a supporter of the European Union,as at presently constituted, i oppose this treaty, on the following grounds
A. It is an attempt too bring in by the back Door, that which the Irish people along with the Dutch, rejected at the front Door by way of referendums, namely the proposed European Constitution. There is no essential difference between the two documents other than there titles.
B. It entails a serious erosion of our Neutrality, military and financial committments to a european defence force, whose duties will not be confined to peacekeeping as in the U.N., but will be empowered to advance european interest in any sphere deemed necessary.
C. It proposes the appointment of a President, in whose election the people will have no direct say
D. Many of the current opt-outs which we currently exercise will no longer apply.
E. The increased voting power of the larger countries will nullify and weaken the position of smaller countries such as ourselves.
F.I fear, though there is no evidence for this in the proposed Treaty, that as Europe begins to function as a Superstate, we will see the introduction of conscription, to a European Army. As i say no evidence, just foresight based on past history of European developmental history.
Other concerns are the use of public monies by the aligned forces of the government parties and opposition, to promote a yes vote, while they make no serious attempt to inform or educate people on the issues, and discourage any kind of serious debate. We are presented with a take it choice with no option to leave it. Their strategy is clearly to keep coming back with referendums until they get the answer they desire, as in the Abortion issue. I am open to be convinced that this treaty will be good for Ireland and Europe, but no politician can be bothered to try. The issues are too complex, they say, trust us.  Do you, would you,trust them on that basis. Give them their answer, in the referendum, and defend what little is left of Democracy

Quote from: Pangurban on February 15, 2008, 01:51:25 AM
As a supporter of the European Union,as at presently constituted, i oppose this treaty, on the following grounds
A. It is an attempt too bring in by the back Door, that which the Irish people along with the Dutch, rejected at the front Door by way of referendums, namely the proposed European Constitution. There is no essential difference between the two documents other than there titles.
B. It entails a serious erosion of our Neutrality, military and financial committments to a european defence force, whose duties will not be confined to peacekeeping as in the U.N., but will be empowered to advance european interest in any sphere deemed necessary.
C. It proposes the appointment of a President, in whose election the people will have no direct say
D. Many of the current opt-outs which we currently exercise will no longer apply.
E. The increased voting power of the larger countries will nullify and weaken the position of smaller countries such as ourselves.
F.I fear, though there is no evidence for this in the proposed Treaty, that as Europe begins to function as a Superstate, we will see the introduction of conscription, to a European Army. As i say no evidence, just foresight based on past history of European developmental history.Other concerns are the use of public monies by the aligned forces of the government parties and opposition, to promote a yes vote, while they make no serious attempt to inform or educate people on the issues, and discourage any kind of serious debate. We are presented with a take it choice with no option to leave it. Their strategy is clearly to keep coming back with referendums until they get the answer they desire, as in the Abortion issue. I am open to be convinced that this treaty will be good for Ireland and Europe, but no politician can be bothered to try. The issues are too complex, they say, trust us.  Do you, would you,trust them on that basis. Give them their answer, in the referendum, and defend what little is left of Democracy

Can I for some examples of past history you're basing this foresight on? I'm in broad agreement with your stance but can't for the life of me figure out which section of history you might be referring to

The Government led by B Ahern are claiming a victory for having climate change introduced to the Lisbon Treaty. The fact is that the from the original document the change the Irish Government achieved through the leadership of B Ahern consists of six words. In the environment section the treaty it says the EU must protect it's environment (here is the great Irish addition) "and in particular climate change" . This adds nothing binding for the EU and can be totally ignored. There are no targets or penalty's included. I think the negotiations might have been more about Berties big job in the EU when he is done here rather than Climate change or what is good for the Irish people.


EDIT
Also of interest is there is 24 times more content of the treaty dedicated to Space Exploration than the Environment :o

More like the Greens trying to prove that they have some degree of influence, making them somehow relevant. Makes a change from screwing us on motor tax, €50 more for mine this year, thanks John. >:(

And the thing is, if people don't trust Bertie in his explanations for the money matters, how can they take his word on the Treaty as gospel? Just because SF are the only party (now that the Greens have been seduced by power) that opposes it, doesn't mean that their position is wrong, and means we should support it.

Quote from: Owenmoresider on February 15, 2008, 11:06:10 AM
More like the Greens trying to prove that they have some degree of influence, making them somehow relevant. Makes a change from screwing us on motor tax, €50 more for mine this year, thanks John. >:(

And the thing is, if people don't trust Bertie in his explanations for the money matters, how can they take his word on the Treaty as gospel? Just because SF are the only party (now that the Greens have been seduced by power) that opposes it, doesn't mean that their position is wrong, and means we should support it.

SF are like the Torys when it comes to Europe

Quote from: Gnevin on February 15, 2008, 11:22:58 AM
SF are like the Torys when it comes to Europe

One of the few things I agree with them on. Conversely the others seem to be content to worship at the EU altar, regardless of the issue. It's probably somewhere in-between, but I'll side with the Shinners on this one.

SF are not the only party to oppose it.
The Socialist party (Joe Higgins) oppose it in Ireland as well as many Political groups and organisations (not necessarily partys) as many partys across Europe including the Labour Party in France and many Green Partys:-[

Also the Greens don't support or oppose it here :-[

Not only do the Greens not support it, or oppose it, they are not even 'neutral' on it.  ::)

See the Green Party position (or lack of) on it here -

http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?PHPSESSID=05fec951e5eb5bca2df725fc3e5f4c00&topic=6466.0

It's all very complicated. I'll abstain.

Quote from: Silky on February 15, 2008, 11:59:02 AM
It's all very complicated. I'll abstain.

Are you in the Green Party?

No, if he was in the Greens, the issue wouldn't even exist. :D

I think the Green Party don't exist in regard to this issue. Have you been sucked into that vacuum Silky?

I was looking for a copy of the treaty and apparently it is only available to download (if your knowledge of the internet allows you and you can print the 100s of pages required) or, for the modest fee of E42 in Westmoreland St Dublin, and that's only the new treaty. Still no old treaty or third document to tell the difference. I will write to my local Cllrs to try and make it available in the library. I will let you know how I get on.

Here is the website for the independent group set up by the Government (FF-PD-Ind who support yes and the Greens who don't know there is a debate) to encourage debate on the issue -

http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index.asp

I attended a meeting they held recently (their first public meeting) and they we widely criticized for swaying towards a yes vote. They did say the would review and amend their approach.

Report here. Looks like an army to me.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-0013&language=EN#title8

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86337

Sinn Féin Dublin MEP Mary Lou Mc Donald has this afternoon expressed her
"anger and incredulity" over the European Parliaments vote today NOT to
respect the result of the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

The plot thickens :o

Where to now? I'd say Ahern has a weakening position in relation to a big EU job. If this trearty dosen't pass you can rule him out. It's thought the referendum would be held in June. If it is put back we might not get time to run it again if we make the wrong choice.

I took this from P.ie. It's one of Dave Cochrane's posts with scaned pages from the Daily Mail. I'm sure he won't mind me posting it here?

" This morning's Daily Mail has a front page story on a leaked email that the Mail has obtained. Written by a civil servant in the Department of Foreign Affairs to a Diplomat in the British Embassy.

Amongst the items reported in the memo

1. The Government have ruled out a delay in the referendum to October for fear of the French Presidency

2. That Dermot Ahern has sought guarantees that the European Commission will tone down or delay any announcements that might damage the Yes campaign.

3. That developments in the area of Common Defence pushed by the French Presidency would damage the Yes campaign.

4. Concerns of losing support by the Agriculture community as a result of the latest WTO discussions.

5. An intention to not discuss the treaty but focus on the overall benefits of EU membership

6. A plan to fool No campaigners over the date of the referendum by playing with the date of the referendum - the memo suggests May 29th as the referendum date.

I've uploaded scans of the article, they are there below."


http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=33911

I tell you in all seriousness if this referendum wins assent, we are fecked. It will also be the last referendum ever held in this country, as Brussels will have been given a blank cheque to decide our future, we will in effect have torn up our own constitution and replaced it with a document which they dont even want us to see , discuss or understand.

Quote from: Pangurban on April 14, 2008, 08:21:42 PM
I tell you in all seriousness if this referendum wins assent, we are fecked. It will also be the last referendum ever held in this country, as Brussels will have been given a blank cheque to decide our future, we will in effect have torn up our own constitution and replaced it with a document which they dont even want us to see , discuss or understand.

Indeed, but just like the grants debate at Congress, people won't see the wood from the trees, can't see what the long-term agenda of those pushing it is, and will do what they are told is good for them by their betters. Merkel and her ilk can f**k off and stay out of trying to influence the matter.

Incidentally, I believe there was an EU directive introduced some time ago seeking to impose an effective ban on turf cutting, and we are due to implement it soon. Haven't been able to locate any report on this (the Irish media report something negative on the EU, never!) but no doubt it'll be kept to one side, would do the 'yes' camp no good in this part of the country, not least in our own household. The EEC we joined (signed in by President Hillery incidentally, RIP) was broadly a trading market, and that was fine. But it's going too far, the fact that Govts have to implement directives, whether they like it or not, doesn't exactly smack of democracy. We didn't join back in 1973 to be told whether we can cut turf, or view people's corpses at wakes etc. And do we ever get to have our say on the EU Commission? Hell no, at least we get that with the Govt every five years max.

Whenever they decide to put it to us, my decision will be, in the words of a certain woman on the same topic, "No, No, No".

I think it's all going to be 'Imperialism by Stealth'. If we vote yes, we will be removing 32 more law-making decisions from Dáil Éireann to Brussells. I presume it's going to be the same for all the other parliaments. Yes, I saw that from a 'No' campaigner, but the fact that no Yes men/women have come out against it means it is probably true. And as for the bullshit of us getting kicked out if we vote no, well it's just a load of nonsense...

I don't think we really have a choice on this one as all the European lads will go crazy if we vote No so i'm gonna vote Yes regardless. If we vote no we could find ourselves in trouble when to comes to looking for help down the line. Sure it cant be that bad if every government is going for it and even the opposition are going for it. except SF of course.

Quote from: Tankie on April 14, 2008, 11:31:00 PMI don't think we really have a choice on this one as all the European lads will go crazy if we vote No so i'm gonna vote Yes regardless.

Marvellous. Sure we shouldn't even be an inconvenience to those wonderful Europeans by going through that awful democracy thing with a referendum? Maybe we should just avoid it like the other 26, what's a constitution between friends anyway eh?

QuoteSure it cant be that bad if every government is going for it and even the opposition are going for it. except SF of course.

They always have, they would take on anything the EU says, FG especially. And Bertie wants a gig in Brussels too, wouldn't want to deny him that either I suppose.

Quote from: Tankie on April 14, 2008, 11:31:00 PM
I don't think we really have a choice on this one as all the European lads will go crazy if we vote No so i'm gonna vote Yes regardless. If we vote no we could find ourselves in trouble when to comes to looking for help down the line. Sure it cant be that bad if every government is going for it and even the opposition are going for it. except SF of course.

I see Tankie, the Irish people will not be bullied by the British Empire but if the EU want to bully us that's fine we will roll over and take it up the ****** willingly. How could we find our selves in trouble down the line? Will the EU implement a type of ethnic cleansing against the Irish? How about they act like a democracy and draw up a better and more acceptable treaty (like they have pretended to do since the French and Dutch rejected this treaty). SF are not they only party to oppose it. There are other parties and groups (trade Unions) in Ireland who oppose it not to mention the French and Dutch people, many Labour, Green and other partys across Europe. I think this is pure electioneering by FG and labour, the Greens can't convince their own people to support it and who knows what kind of deal FF have done to sell this treaty - will Celia Larkin be buying up property in South of France next year?

We have to remember our place in Europe, we are one of the smallest countries in the Union and we must remember that. There has to be reform to get the Union working more freely for everyone in Europe, we have done very well out of this EU gig and i do not beleive that the government or the other 26 governments are out to screw themselves and us over. You always have to give something up but atleast we have kept control of our taxation and i would be will to give up a commissioner for that.

Quote from: Tankie on April 15, 2008, 10:20:53 AM
We have to remember our place in Europe, we are one of the smallest countries in the Union and we must remember that. There has to be reform to get the Union working more freely for everyone in Europe, we have done very well out of this EU gig and i do not beleive that the government or the other 26 governments are out to screw themselves and us over. You always have to give something up but atleast we have kept control of our taxation and i would be will to give up a commissioner for that.

We know our place in Europe. Our place in Europe is at an equal with the rest of Europe. Stop trying to divert from the treaty. You can talk all you want about Europe but the issue is the treaty.

Do you think the good people in Rossport should accept whatever Shell and the Government offer on the first go just because they are a small community or because the Government opened a FAS centre there 10 years ago? Have they no right to question what is on offer in order to decide if it is good or bad and maybe secure a better deal?

So are you admiting we are not gaining anthing but instead giving up something? But that it is fine as the benevolant EU are allowing us to keep a tax system which we already have? Germany and France (and some others) are in favour of one European Corperate Tax Rate. This Treaty allow more power to big Countrys such as Germany and France as it becomes population centred and does away with our veto. It is a very real posibility that in the near future the EU will have one CTR if this current Treaty on offer is accepted.

Quote from: Tankie on April 15, 2008, 10:20:53 AM
We have to remember our place in Europe

Yep, as an equal member with the other 26.

Quote from: Tankie on April 15, 2008, 10:20:53 AM
we are one of the smallest countries in the Union and we must remember that

Feck that kowtowing, grovelling, colonial bs.

Quote from: Tankie on April 15, 2008, 10:20:53 AM
There has to be reform to get the Union working more freely for everyone in Europe

No one has yet even addressed what this treaty does that's such an improvement on our existing situation and that's what worries me. There's a certain "let's not talk about it and hope they sign it" type attitude amongst they cosy political cabal in this country. It needs to be sold to me, as a good european, and no one has done that thus far, nor even tried.

Did anyone see this being discussed on Prime Time lastnight? It was very interesting and there are good and bad sides to this treaty but I think I will vote YES for sure now.

Quote from: Tankie on April 18, 2008, 12:58:12 PM
Did anyone see this being discussed on Prime Time lastnight? It was very interesting and there are good and bad sides to this treaty but I think I will vote YES for sure now.

Didnt see Prime Time but can you tell us what were the main arguments put forward which have convinced you to vote Yes.

The main selling point for me was that it is required for the EU to function better as an enlarged entity. Also I like the idea of the EU having a Foreign minister that will speack for Europe on World issues, I am also very much in favour of European laws which will help fight criminality. A more open market is also a good thing.

I aint saying that I agree with every part of this but i am all for european nations working closer together on alot of issues. Also we keep control of our Taxation with a Veto so that is a major plus!

Why are the other countries not voting for it? Is it because all the other parliaments are afraid it will be rejected. People talk about democracy etc, but this is the most undemocratic treaty ince well the Nice Treaty when only a handful of countries voted for it. We were forced to vote twice. Sorry tankie, I am against the EU as one entity, we are grand as we are imo. The Dáil will become like a glorified local council then it seems...

I can see your views but I aswell am againts a eurpean state and i bdo not believe that this will make it the case but it does need a constitution. I aint in the game to try and convince people but as i said i aint happy with all of it but in general i think it is a good thing.

Quote from: Tankie on April 18, 2008, 02:11:36 PM
I aint saying that I agree with every part of this but i am all for european nations working closer together on alot of issues. Also we keep control of our Taxation with a Veto so that is a major plus!

Are you full sure of yourself on that one Tankie??

I am not a farmer and far from being a Sinn Fein supporter, but below is a piece taken from the Shinners website and it is the reason that I am currently going to vote no.


Lisbon Treaty will give Peter Mandelson more control over Irish Farming

Sharing the Irish Farmer Associations concern on the future of the Irish beef industry Sinn Féin TD Martin Ferris has noted that the Lisbon Treaty if ratified would significantly increase EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's power to negotiate the future of the industry with no recourse for Irish farmers.
Deputy Ferris said, "I share the concerns of the Irish Farmers Association (IFA) regarding EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's move to dilute trade barriers. However the IFA should consider the fact that the Lisbon Treaty will copper-fasten such policies if it comes into being.
"Farmers need to be aware that Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the European Commission 'exclusive competence' over international trade agreements. Article 10 of the Treaty makes 'the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade' a key aim of the EU. Article 188 states that decisions on international trade will be taken by qualified majority vote.
"These are three reasons alone why farmers should consider voting against the Lisbon Treaty in the forthcoming referendum.
"The Lisbon Treaty will empower the European Commission to accelerate its existing approach to international trade, as exampled by Peter Mandelson, regardless of the cost to Irish farmers.
"It will remove the ability of the Irish government to influence the detail of trade negotiations or block there outcome if they are not in our interest.
"In addition Article 9 of the Treaty removes Ireland's right to a European Commissioner for 5 out of every 15 years. This means that when the Commission is discussing the detail of such international trade negotiations there may not even be an Irish voice at the table.
"The IFA is absolutely right to be concerned at the actions of Peter Mandelson at WTO talks, however they should also be concerned with the significant increase in powers he will have if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified." ENDS

http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/24895

I love a good bit of Irish Beef that has been reared to the highest standards, I am totally against anything that promotes the importing of cheap foreign sh**e which Mandelson is dying for the EU to do!

that could be considered a negative alrite but i didnt see anywhere it said that we were going to be eating crap beef! sure i guess we'll see how it turns out on polling day but i'm still a Yes vote here.

Quote from Tankie....Also we keep control of our Taxation with a Veto so that is a major plus!.
A veto that is not worth the paper it is written on. Not my opinion, the opinion of the French and German finance Ministers, who have stated openly that under the new trading conditions created by the treaty, if a case were taken to the European Court, citing unfair trading advantage against a country operating a lower rate of corporation tax than its european partners, such a case would likely succeed. Under the terms of this treaty decisions will be made by qualified majority voting, procedures and finer points of law and protocol will be determined by the european court, smaller states even if they were stick together as a block, which is unlikely, will not have the power to lick a stamp.

Quote from: Pangurban on April 18, 2008, 07:53:24 PM
Quote from Tankie....Also we keep control of our Taxation with a Veto so that is a major plus!.
A veto that is not worth the paper it is written on. Not my opinion, the opinion of the French and German finance Ministers, who have stated openly that under the new trading conditions created by the treaty, if a case were taken to the European Court, citing unfair trading advantage against a country operating a lower rate of corporation tax than its european partners, such a case would likely succeed. Under the terms of this treaty decisions will be made by qualified majority voting, procedures and finer points of law and protocol will be determined by the european court, smaller states even if they were stick together as a block, which is unlikely, will not have the power to lick a stamp.

i think its called a Veto for a reason!!!!! they asked the EU president this question lastnite and he said Ireland hold onto their Veto on tax which means they cannot be bullied. look are the positives boys.

Quote from: Tankie on April 18, 2008, 09:26:08 PM

Quote from: Pangurban on April 18, 2008, 07:53:24 PM
Quote from Tankie....Also we keep control of our Taxation with a Veto so that is a major plus!.
A veto that is not worth the paper it is written on. Not my opinion, the opinion of the French and German finance Ministers, who have stated openly that under the new trading conditions created by the treaty, if a case were taken to the European Court, citing unfair trading advantage against a country operating a lower rate of corporation tax than its european partners, such a case would likely succeed. Under the terms of this treaty decisions will be made by qualified majority voting, procedures and finer points of law and protocol will be determined by the european court, smaller states even if they were stick together as a block, which is unlikely, will not have the power to lick a stamp.

i think its called a Veto for a reason!!!!! they asked the EU president this question lastnite and he said Ireland hold onto their Veto on tax which means they cannot be bullied. look are the positives boys.

I think you you pretty much believe anything you are fed Tankie, without question!!

Quote from: Louth Exile on April 18, 2008, 09:53:43 PM

Quote from: Tankie on April 18, 2008, 09:26:08 PM

Quote from: Pangurban on April 18, 2008, 07:53:24 PM
Quote from Tankie....Also we keep control of our Taxation with a Veto so that is a major plus!.
A veto that is not worth the paper it is written on. Not my opinion, the opinion of the French and German finance Ministers, who have stated openly that under the new trading conditions created by the treaty, if a case were taken to the European Court, citing unfair trading advantage against a country operating a lower rate of corporation tax than its european partners, such a case would likely succeed. Under the terms of this treaty decisions will be made by qualified majority voting, procedures and finer points of law and protocol will be determined by the european court, smaller states even if they were stick together as a block, which is unlikely, will not have the power to lick a stamp.

i think its called a Veto for a reason!!!!! they asked the EU president this question lastnite and he said Ireland hold onto their Veto on tax which means they cannot be bullied. look are the positives boys.

I think you you pretty much believe anything you are fed Tankie, without question!!

No I dont but things have to change for Europe to progress, its not just all about what we can get, we have to help other EU nations at some point. People for get that when we got everything from Europe others didnt and if markets are opened up to help other EU counties it is upto us to become more competitive in wages and productivity to remain at the top.

But lads i aint trying to convince anyone here to vote yes, all i'm saying is that i'm voting yes but if it gets rejected I guess thats democracy.

I'm am really sick of the scaremongering coming from the Yes side in the Lisbon Treaty. Ahern (the guy forced to resign against corruption allegations) has said it would be disastrous for Ireland to vote No. I wish someone would tell us why it would be disastrous. Perhaps it would be disastrous for Ahern as he would not get that big job he is holding out for. The No side could claim it would be disastrous to vote Yes  and leave it at that but they are actually saying it would be disastrous to vote Yes because....
I'm sick of it :-[

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 08:36:18 AM
I'm am really sick of the scaremongering coming from the Yes side in the Lisbon Treaty. Ahern (the guy forced to resign against corruption allegations) has said it would be disastrous for Ireland to vote No. I wish someone would tell us why it would be disastrous. Perhaps it would be disastrous for Ahern as he would not get that big job he is holding out for. The No side could claim it would be disastrous to vote Yes  and leave it at that but they are actually saying it would be disastrous to vote Yes because....
I'm sick of it :-[

I think he was saying it would be disastrous because of the amount of political friends we will lose in Europe as this is being passed by every other country in Europe.

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 08:36:18 AM
I'm am really sick of the scaremongering coming from the Yes side in the Lisbon Treaty. Ahern (the guy forced to resign against corruption allegations) has said it would be disastrous for Ireland to vote No. I wish someone would tell us why it would be disastrous. Perhaps it would be disastrous for Ahern as he would not get that big job he is holding out for. The No side could claim it would be disastrous to vote Yes  and leave it at that but they are actually saying it would be disastrous to vote Yes because....
I'm sick of it :-[

Is the big job not gone at this stage? With him now being 'tainted' goods!

Got the leaflet through the letterbox this morning, that is supposed to explain what it is all about. Didn't have a chance to look at it, just looked to see who published it, The Department of Foreign Affairs. Given that it is produced by a govt dept is this an impartial document, or is going to try and sell the yes vote?

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 10:28:02 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 08:36:18 AM
I'm am really sick of the scaremongering coming from the Yes side in the Lisbon Treaty. Ahern (the guy forced to resign against corruption allegations) has said it would be disastrous for Ireland to vote No. I wish someone would tell us why it would be disastrous. Perhaps it would be disastrous for Ahern as he would not get that big job he is holding out for. The No side could claim it would be disastrous to vote Yes  and leave it at that but they are actually saying it would be disastrous to vote Yes because....
I'm sick of it :-[

I think he was saying it would be disastrous because of the amount of political friends we will lose in Europe as this is being passed by every other country in Europe.

You think he was saying that. My point exactly. Why will he not tell us why he was saying that? Then at least we would know. If he is saying that then he is about pleasing other countries and not about what this Treaty does for Ireland. That is not a good enough reason for me. We should look to see how the treaty will affect us and the EU and not just be about pleasing the European Council. The debate on pleasing others takes completely away from our democratic right to vote in referendum and makes the Irish people vote in fear rather on the merit of the document. The last time we voted under this type of outside pressure we voted for partition which lead to years of war which still divides our people today.

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 12:02:19 PM

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 10:28:02 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 08:36:18 AM
I'm am really sick of the scaremongering coming from the Yes side in the Lisbon Treaty. Ahern (the guy forced to resign against corruption allegations) has said it would be disastrous for Ireland to vote No. I wish someone would tell us why it would be disastrous. Perhaps it would be disastrous for Ahern as he would not get that big job he is holding out for. The No side could claim it would be disastrous to vote Yes  and leave it at that but they are actually saying it would be disastrous to vote Yes because....
I'm sick of it :-[

I think he was saying it would be disastrous because of the amount of political friends we will lose in Europe as this is being passed by every other country in Europe.

You think he was saying that. My point exactly. Why will he not tell us why he was saying that? Then at least we would know. If he is saying that then he is about pleasing other countries and not about what this Treaty does for Ireland. That is not a good enough reason for me. We should look to see how the treaty will affect us and the EU and not just be about pleasing the European Council. The debate on pleasing others takes completely away from our democratic right to vote in referendum and makes the Irish people vote in fear rather on the merit of the document. The last time we voted under this type of outside pressure we voted for partition which lead to years of war which still divides our people today.

I think you are talking this up a bit! If you want to know how to vote just read all the information, why do you have to be told what way to vote?

I'm struggling to see the case for No.

In every constituency in Ireland we vote for politicians to represent us. Taking Fianna Fail and Fine Gael together they would have a huge majority, that we elected. I really don't see why they'd support something bad for this country? And while there are certainly a few bad apples in both camps, most of those elected are well clued-in.

Is there any well respected high profile person out there who has publicly come out against it (and who isnt part of the looney left)?

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 01:06:38 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 12:02:19 PM

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 10:28:02 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 08:36:18 AM
I'm am really sick of the scaremongering coming from the Yes side in the Lisbon Treaty. Ahern (the guy forced to resign against corruption allegations) has said it would be disastrous for Ireland to vote No. I wish someone would tell us why it would be disastrous. Perhaps it would be disastrous for Ahern as he would not get that big job he is holding out for. The No side could claim it would be disastrous to vote Yes  and leave it at that but they are actually saying it would be disastrous to vote Yes because....
I'm sick of it :-[

I think he was saying it would be disastrous because of the amount of political friends we will lose in Europe as this is being passed by every other country in Europe.

You think he was saying that. My point exactly. Why will he not tell us why he was saying that? Then at least we would know. If he is saying that then he is about pleasing other countries and not about what this Treaty does for Ireland. That is not a good enough reason for me. We should look to see how the treaty will affect us and the EU and not just be about pleasing the European Council. The debate on pleasing others takes completely away from our democratic right to vote in referendum and makes the Irish people vote in fear rather on the merit of the document. The last time we voted under this type of outside pressure we voted for partition which lead to years of war which still divides our people today.

I think you are talking this up a bit! If you want to know how to vote just read all the information, why do you have to be told what way to vote?

If you were to read all the information as you suggest it would mean reading a 500+ page document. But the document on its own is meaningless as you need to refer back to the original treaties that it is amending. Who is going to do this in reality!!
There is going to be a comprehensive document produced which pulls the whole thing together, but guess what..... It is only going to be published after it has been ratified!! What have they got to hide that they can't produce this document before the referendum?

Quote from: Hound on April 28, 2008, 01:25:48 PM
I'm struggling to see the case for No.

In every constituency in Ireland we vote for politicians to represent us. Taking Fianna Fail and Fine Gael together they would have a huge majority, that we elected. I really don't see why they'd support something bad for this country? And while there are certainly a few bad apples in both camps, most of those elected are well clued-in.

Is there any well respected high profile person out there who has publicly come out against it (and who isnt part of the looney left)?

I am a die hard blue shirt, doesn't mean I am going to swallow the party line on a referendum. The whole idea of a referendum is so the people can decide, not the politicans.

Ulick McEvaddy and Declan Ganley have both come out against the treaty as have other business people, it is not just the left the are opposing it

Quote from: Louth Exile on April 28, 2008, 01:34:40 PM

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 01:06:38 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 12:02:19 PM

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 10:28:02 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 08:36:18 AM
I'm am really sick of the scaremongering coming from the Yes side in the Lisbon Treaty. Ahern (the guy forced to resign against corruption allegations) has said it would be disastrous for Ireland to vote No. I wish someone would tell us why it would be disastrous. Perhaps it would be disastrous for Ahern as he would not get that big job he is holding out for. The No side could claim it would be disastrous to vote Yes  and leave it at that but they are actually saying it would be disastrous to vote Yes because....
I'm sick of it :-[

I think he was saying it would be disastrous because of the amount of political friends we will lose in Europe as this is being passed by every other country in Europe.

You think he was saying that. My point exactly. Why will he not tell us why he was saying that? Then at least we would know. If he is saying that then he is about pleasing other countries and not about what this Treaty does for Ireland. That is not a good enough reason for me. We should look to see how the treaty will affect us and the EU and not just be about pleasing the European Council. The debate on pleasing others takes completely away from our democratic right to vote in referendum and makes the Irish people vote in fear rather on the merit of the document. The last time we voted under this type of outside pressure we voted for partition which lead to years of war which still divides our people today.

I think you are talking this up a bit! If you want to know how to vote just read all the information, why do you have to be told what way to vote?

If you were to read all the information as you suggest it would mean reading a 500+ page document. But the document on its own is meaningless as you need to refer back to the original treaties that it is amending. Who is going to do this in reality!!
There is going to be a comprehensive document produced which pulls the whole thing together, but guess what..... It is only going to be published after it has been ratified!! What have they got to hide that they can't produce this document before the referendum?

Are you not getting a little paroniod here?

Quote from: Hound on April 28, 2008, 01:25:48 PM
I'm struggling to see the case for No.

In every constituency in Ireland we vote for politicians to represent us. Taking Fianna Fail and Fine Gael together they would have a huge majority, that we elected. I really don't see why they'd support something bad for this country? And while there are certainly a few bad apples in both camps, most of those elected are well clued-in.

Is there any well respected high profile person out there who has publicly come out against it (and who isnt part of the looney left)?

As in most of the USA and Britan wanted to support an Iraqi invaison? Like most of the Govewrnment support Harneys health policy? This is a constitutional matter. It is not up to anyone but the people. It is the responibiltity of our elected reps to provide us with the proper information in which we can make an informed decision.

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 01:06:38 PM

I think you are talking this up a bit! If you want to know how to vote just read all the information, why do you have to be told what way to vote?

What information? My point is that there is an intentional lack of information and just talk about our relationship and past with the EU. None of this stuff is relevant to the treaty and only a side show and diversion. All I have heard from the yes side is - this is good - Ireland will be the laughing stock of Europe if we say No - We owe this to the EU. None of these points reflect the content or purpose of the treaty.

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 01:46:35 PM

Quote from: Louth Exile on April 28, 2008, 01:34:40 PM

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 01:06:38 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 12:02:19 PM

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 10:28:02 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 08:36:18 AM
I'm am really sick of the scaremongering coming from the Yes side in the Lisbon Treaty. Ahern (the guy forced to resign against corruption allegations) has said it would be disastrous for Ireland to vote No. I wish someone would tell us why it would be disastrous. Perhaps it would be disastrous for Ahern as he would not get that big job he is holding out for. The No side could claim it would be disastrous to vote Yes  and leave it at that but they are actually saying it would be disastrous to vote Yes because....
I'm sick of it :-[

I think he was saying it would be disastrous because of the amount of political friends we will lose in Europe as this is being passed by every other country in Europe.

You think he was saying that. My point exactly. Why will he not tell us why he was saying that? Then at least we would know. If he is saying that then he is about pleasing other countries and not about what this Treaty does for Ireland. That is not a good enough reason for me. We should look to see how the treaty will affect us and the EU and not just be about pleasing the European Council. The debate on pleasing others takes completely away from our democratic right to vote in referendum and makes the Irish people vote in fear rather on the merit of the document. The last time we voted under this type of outside pressure we voted for partition which lead to years of war which still divides our people today.

I think you are talking this up a bit! If you want to know how to vote just read all the information, why do you have to be told what way to vote?

If you were to read all the information as you suggest it would mean reading a 500+ page document. But the document on its own is meaningless as you need to refer back to the original treaties that it is amending. Who is going to do this in reality!!
There is going to be a comprehensive document produced which pulls the whole thing together, but guess what..... It is only going to be published after it has been ratified!! What have they got to hide that they can't produce this document before the referendum?

Are you not getting a little paroniod here?

No this is a fact. In fact the Council of Europe have banned any production of such a document by any EU institution before the treaty is passed.

So is there an actual reason you are considering voting NO or is it you believe the government are trying to pull a fast one?

There are plenty of reasons to vote no. My problem is there are no efforts being made to give me a reason to vote Yes, other than bullying and scaremongering about something that has nothing to do with the treaty. I am begging for reason to vote Yes at this stage but I haven't been given any.

If you are voting Yes then what are your reasons for doing so?

earlier in the thread i said why i was voting Yes but maybe the yes vote sold it to me. what are the reasons to vote NO?

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 03:46:51 PM
earlier in the thread i said why i was voting Yes but maybe the yes vote sold it to me. what are the reasons to vote NO?

So as when we reject it, the govt can tell us that we are wrong, we can learn from our mistake, have a second vote and get it right that time, democracy at its finest  ;)

Time to explain the Lisbon Treaty fully

Sunday, April 27, 2008 
Today's Red C poll suggests that the vote on the Lisbon Treaty may be a close-run thing.

After months when the Yes side seemed to be outnumbering the No supporters by about two to one, a significant number have now swung against the treaty, while almost one third of the electorate have still to make up their mind.

This change is not surprising, for two reasons. First, there are reasons to dislike the treaty. It is impossible to read and difficult to understand, raising many people's suspicions. This is before account is taken of the substantial group which will always vote against European treaties because of its outright opposition to the EU project, stated or not. Meanwhile, the farmers are, opportunistically, also threatening to vote No, because of unconnected fears over the world trade talks.

The second reason is that the Yes campaign has been slow out of the blocks, allowing the No side to make much of the running. As with the Nice campaign, many pro-campaigners, rather than trying to win hearts and minds, are instead telling the electorate that they should simply trust their political leaders and vote the treaty through. This approach is arrogant - and it clearly is not working.

The government, deflected by the crisis over Bertie Ahern's finances, has not done a good job to date. Its refusal to name the day for the vote is bizarre. If, as a leaked British memo based on a briefing from senior Irish officials claimed, this tactic was meant to catch the No side off guard, it seems to have had the opposite effect. The people do not appreciate being told that the rest of Europe is depending on them.

We have been asked to vote on the treaty and we must assess it on its merits. While the Yes side has had many faults, many of the claims made by the No side are preposterous. Perhaps tellingly, many of the claims made by No campaigners in previous EU treaty referenda are being heard once more.

Of course, just because the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty and the Nice Treaty didn't result in conscription into a warmongering European army, an EU super-state, the legalisation of abortion on demand and the end of the Irish nation, doesn't mean that the Lisbon Treaty won't. But past experience should perhaps offer some guidance to the consideration of those and similar claims in the present debate.

It is not clear what positive advantages a No vote would achieve for Ireland. However, if the public is to be persuaded to approve the treaty, the pro side of the argument is going to have to come out and persuade them. It is becoming a difficult sell - confusion about the treaty is the friend of the No side. Perhaps today's poll will encourage the government to get on with the job.

http://www.thepost.ie/ezineSBP/story.asp?storyid=32364

Quote from: Louth Exile on April 28, 2008, 04:11:01 PM
Time to explain the Lisbon Treaty fully

Sunday, April 27, 2008 
Today's Red C poll suggests that the vote on the Lisbon Treaty may be a close-run thing.

After months when the Yes side seemed to be outnumbering the No supporters by about two to one, a significant number have now swung against the treaty, while almost one third of the electorate have still to make up their mind.

This change is not surprising, for two reasons. First, there are reasons to dislike the treaty. It is impossible to read and difficult to understand, raising many people's suspicions. This is before account is taken of the substantial group which will always vote against European treaties because of its outright opposition to the EU project, stated or not. Meanwhile, the farmers are, opportunistically, also threatening to vote No, because of unconnected fears over the world trade talks.

The second reason is that the Yes campaign has been slow out of the blocks, allowing the No side to make much of the running. As with the Nice campaign, many pro-campaigners, rather than trying to win hearts and minds, are instead telling the electorate that they should simply trust their political leaders and vote the treaty through. This approach is arrogant - and it clearly is not working.

The government, deflected by the crisis over Bertie Ahern's finances, has not done a good job to date. Its refusal to name the day for the vote is bizarre. If, as a leaked British memo based on a briefing from senior Irish officials claimed, this tactic was meant to catch the No side off guard, it seems to have had the opposite effect. The people do not appreciate being told that the rest of Europe is depending on them.

We have been asked to vote on the treaty and we must assess it on its merits. While the Yes side has had many faults, many of the claims made by the No side are preposterous. Perhaps tellingly, many of the claims made by No campaigners in previous EU treaty referenda are being heard once more.
Of course, just because the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty and the Nice Treaty didn't result in conscription into a warmongering European army, an EU super-state, the legalisation of abortion on demand and the end of the Irish nation, doesn't mean that the Lisbon Treaty won't. But past experience should perhaps offer some guidance to the consideration of those and similar claims in the present debate.

It is not clear what positive advantages a No vote would achieve for Ireland. However, if the public is to be persuaded to approve the treaty, the pro side of the argument is going to have to come out and persuade them. It is becoming a difficult sell - confusion about the treaty is the friend of the No side. Perhaps today's poll will encourage the government to get on with the job.

http://www.thepost.ie/ezineSBP/story.asp?storyid=32364

good article

Oh my God you need to take the blinkers off  :D

The NO campaign has given no real reason to vote NO!

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 10:28:02 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on April 28, 2008, 08:36:18 AM
I'm am really sick of the scaremongering coming from the Yes side in the Lisbon Treaty. Ahern (the guy forced to resign against corruption allegations) has said it would be disastrous for Ireland to vote No. I wish someone would tell us why it would be disastrous. Perhaps it would be disastrous for Ahern as he would not get that big job he is holding out for. The No side could claim it would be disastrous to vote Yes  and leave it at that but they are actually saying it would be disastrous to vote Yes because....
I'm sick of it :-[

I think he was saying it would be disastrous because of the amount of political friends we will lose in Europe as this is being passed by every other country in Europe.

Really? Must have missed all those referenda being passed. ::)

Quotefarmers are, opportunistically, also threatening to vote No, because of unconnected fears over the world trade talks.

You see that's the problem. The scaremongering from the "NO" side really annoys me and its littered through the pages of this thread. The article is correct to highlight this:

QuoteWhile the Yes side has had many faults, many of the claims made by the No side are preposterous. Perhaps tellingly, many of the claims made by No campaigners in previous EU treaty referenda are being heard once more.

From the document we all received into our homes I see no reason to oppose this Treaty and certainly cannot see how it would bring about any of those doomsday scenarios touted by "NO" campaigners. Those same people would question the neutrality of the issuers of the document but I'd have more faith in them than the collection of cranks who have continuosly predicted the end of the world only to be wrong. If they are materially wrong I assume they could be sued over it anyway so I'll take it that it is correct.

I have some reservations about Europe but I don't think this Treaty is a problem.

The Government and FG and Labour etc need to get off their holes and sell this Treaty though because in the current environment people might just vote no to spite them.

OMS - other countries do not need to hold referenda like we do.

Quote from: magpie seanie on April 28, 2008, 04:40:59 PM
OMS - other countries do not need to hold referenda like we do.

Course they don't - wouldn't want to risk it being voted down, like the French and Dutch did before? And it would be in all probability be lost in Britain too. Thanks to our Constitution, we actually get to have a say on these things, even if we will probability be browbeaten into doing the will of Europe as on previous occasions. Can's see what's to gain from supporting it, bar this vague notion of losing face or influence in Europe (like we really had it anyway), the days of Albert getting £8bn deals are a thing of the past IMO.

Quotethis vague notion of losing face or influence in Europe (like we really had it anyway), the days of Albert getting £8bn deals are a thing of the past IMO.

Yeah - those deals are long gone alright as we are a net contributer now I believe. Also, I couldn't care less about losing face etc with the rest of Europe. That argument is a red herring. Whatever is right for Ireland should be done and everyone else will have to live with that.

Quote from: Owenmoresider on April 28, 2008, 04:58:58 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on April 28, 2008, 04:40:59 PM
OMS - other countries do not need to hold referenda like we do.

Course they don't - wouldn't want to risk it being voted down, like the French and Dutch did before? And it would be in all probability be lost in Britain too. Thanks to our Constitution, we actually get to have a say on these things, even if we will probability be browbeaten into doing the will of Europe as on previous occasions. Can's see what's to gain from supporting it, bar this vague notion of losing face or influence in Europe (like we really had it anyway), the days of Albert getting £8bn deals are a thing of the past IMO.

so why would you vote no? Also if another country does not neeed to pass it well then that is there business.

Maybe you can give us a good reason to vote NO other than the highlight text you have provided us with.

Quote from: magpie seanie on April 28, 2008, 05:06:14 PM

Quotethis vague notion of losing face or influence in Europe (like we really had it anyway), the days of Albert getting £8bn deals are a thing of the past IMO.

Yeah - those deals are long gone alright as we are a net contributer now I believe. Also, I couldn't care less about losing face etc with the rest of Europe. That argument is a red herring. Whatever is right for Ireland should be done and everyone else will have to live with that.

A true european ::)

Quote from: Louth Exile on April 28, 2008, 04:11:01 PM
Time to explain the Lisbon Treaty fully

Sunday, April 27, 2008 
Today's Red C poll suggests that the vote on the Lisbon Treaty may be a close-run thing.

After months when the Yes side seemed to be outnumbering the No supporters by about two to one, a significant number have now swung against the treaty, while almost one third of the electorate have still to make up their mind.

This change is not surprising, for two reasons. First, there are reasons to dislike the treaty. It is impossible to read and difficult to understand, raising many people's suspicions. This is before account is taken of the substantial group which will always vote against European treaties because of its outright opposition to the EU project, stated or not. Meanwhile, the farmers are, opportunistically, also threatening to vote No, because of unconnected fears over the world trade talks..

It is impossible to read and difficult to understand. There is no reason for this to be the case and it makes me wonder why it is like this. There is no honest reason for the EU or Irish Government not to produce white paper pointing out where the changes between the old treaty and new treaty are. The farmers have very real fears surrounding Peter Mandleson and the WTO. While this has nothing to do with the EU the farmers as a group are not on the NO side they are on the Farmers side and threatening the Government with a No vote.

Quote from: Louth Exile on April 28, 2008, 04:11:01 PM
The second reason is that the Yes campaign has been slow out of the blocks, allowing the No side to make much of the running. As with the Nice campaign, many pro-campaigners, rather than trying to win hearts and minds, are instead telling the electorate that they should simply trust their political leaders and vote the treaty through. This approach is arrogant - and it clearly is not working.

The government, deflected by the crisis over Bertie Ahern's finances, has not done a good job to date. Its refusal to name the day for the vote is bizarre. If, as a leaked British memo based on a briefing from senior Irish officials claimed, this tactic was meant to catch the No side off guard, it seems to have had the opposite effect. The people do not appreciate being told that the rest of Europe is depending on them.


We have been asked to vote on the treaty and we must assess it on its merits. While the Yes side has had many faults, many of the claims made by the No side are preposterous. Perhaps tellingly, many of the claims made by No campaigners in previous EU treaty referenda are being heard once more.

Yes many of the claims are preposterous. However the claims on both sides are preposterous. The Yes side are saying will will be kicked out of Europe ::) This did not happen to France or The Netherlands. The Yes side have not put across any points on the merit of the Treaty. Their campagin is soley -Europe is Good (this we know but that does not say the Lisbon Treaty is good) - Europe will marginalise Us (it didn't happen to the others and is actually an argument for the EU being undemocratic. Would we accept it if the Vatican marginalised us if we were to elect  David Norris as President? No, we would tell them where to go) - The No side are Mad -(this is a lie and blackening the names of others is akin to the shit politics we see in the USA, who ever says this should be ashamed of themselves). - We owe it to the EU (we owe it to the people of Ireland and the EU to pass or reject this Treaty on merit and on how it will benefit the people of Ireland and the EU).

Quote from: Louth Exile on April 28, 2008, 04:11:01 PMOf course, just because the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty and the Nice Treaty didn't result in conscription into a warmongering European army, an EU super-state, the legalisation of abortion on demand and the end of the Irish nation, doesn't mean that the Lisbon Treaty won't. But past experience should perhaps offer some guidance to the consideration of those and similar claims in the present debate.

I agree with this. The EU is in a bit of a mess and I don't think anyone is saying we don't need a treaty. We do need one to sort out all the red tape and the structures of the EU. This we can decide on alone but as this treaty has been giving to us it includes much stuff unrelated to the workings of the EU. There are many additional needless parts to this treaty which leaves us in a bad situation. We can accept what needs to be accepted along with all the other bad additions or reject them all outright and wait until the EU come back to us with a better treaty. I would say two documents would be the way forward rather than so much all bunched together.

Quote from: Louth Exile on April 28, 2008, 04:11:01 PMIt is not clear what positive advantages a No vote would achieve for Ireland. However, if the public is to be persuaded to approve the treaty, the pro side of the argument is going to have to come out and persuade them. It is becoming a difficult sell - confusion about the treaty is the friend of the No side. Perhaps today's poll will encourage the government to get on with the job.
http://www.thepost.ie/ezineSBP/story.asp?storyid=32364

Confusion about the treaty is not good enough. It is the failure of the Government that we are confused. This is a referendum and the people have a right to know. Confusion is not acceptable. While is is not clear of the merits of a No vote it is equally not clear of the merits of a Yes vote. We should reject this Treaty unless we are clear on what it is about. I assure you if we reject for this reason the Government will have to start to educate us on the issue.

This is a referendum which will result in a change to our constitution. Shame on the Government for claiming it is merely a favour we owe Europe and only about the Treaty. Our constitution deserves a proper defence.

Quote from: Tankie on April 28, 2008, 02:30:44 PM
So is there an actual reason you are considering voting NO or is it you believe the government are trying to pull a fast one?

Tankie, my sway towards the No side is due to the two campagins. If the Yes side put forward a good arguement I am not above changing my mind, it's not to late. I have made my points in the duration of the thread if you wish to have a look back. Now can you tell me why you will vote Yes in the hope someone will tell me as the Yes side havn't as yet?

Quote from: Zapatista on April 29, 2008, 08:09:29 AM

Quote from: Louth Exile on April 28, 2008, 04:11:01 PM


It is impossible to read and difficult to understand. There is no reason for this to be the case and it makes me wonder why it is like this. There is no honest reason for the EU or Irish Government not to produce white paper pointing out where the changes between the old treaty and new treaty are.

Aren't all these legal documents. I know people who studied Irish law and the amount of things that have a knock on effect on a simplest law it unreal. Image trying to combine massive treaties.

They will be legal if they are accepted. There is an existing Treaty and they which to replace it with a new one. It would very very simple to produce a document outlining the changes in the two documents. The idea that you wouldn't understand it anyway is complete contempt for the people. It is not a reason to not tell us the difference and have us relay on Yes and No campaginers with obvious agendas.

Tell you the difference between old and new treaties, the truth is they are absolutely petrified you will find out pre referendum. Expect to be treated like a Mushroom, kept in the dark and fed shit.

Quote from: Pangurban on April 30, 2008, 10:26:35 PM
Tell you the difference between old and new treaties, the truth is they are absolutely petrified you will find out pre referendum. Expect to be treated like a Mushroom, kept in the dark and fed shit.

I fear your right Pangurban. We will probably sit back and accept this though which is a little scary to be honest. If it is rejected they will have to come back with it again. make a more acceptable version of it and they will have to make clear to us what is in it.

It is like a publishing company producing a book they have not read and just take the word of the author. The company wouldn't stay in business to long.

Did anyone her the No campaign guy on Matt Cooper yesterday? it was more entertaining than anything with all his ranting! he was also talking horse crap!

Quote from: Tankie on May 01, 2008, 10:45:58 AM
Did anyone her the No campaign guy on Matt Cooper yesterday? it was more entertaining than anything with all his ranting! he was also talking horse crap!

Thank you for most insightfull post!!  ::)  What the "No campaign guy"'s name??

Quote from: Louth Exile on May 01, 2008, 10:52:53 AM

Quote from: Tankie on May 01, 2008, 10:45:58 AM
Did anyone her the No campaign guy on Matt Cooper yesterday? it was more entertaining than anything with all his ranting! he was also talking horse crap!

Thank you for most insightfull post!!  ::)  What the "No campaign guy"'s name??

what was insightful about it? it was a question followed by a one line statement.

I do't know what the guys name was. email matt cooper as i'm sure he can tell you.

Quote from: Tankie on May 01, 2008, 10:45:58 AM
Did anyone her the No campaign guy on Matt Cooper yesterday? it was more entertaining than anything with all his ranting! he was also talking horse crap!

Your right the No side are all Mad. As proven by that one guy out of a possible 70% of the people in Europe who oppose or don't understand and distrust the treaty. Fair play to Matt Cooper for highlighting this and to you tankie as you have played your part too ::)

Quote from: Zapatista on May 01, 2008, 12:50:06 PM

Quote from: Tankie on May 01, 2008, 10:45:58 AM
Did anyone her the No campaign guy on Matt Cooper yesterday? it was more entertaining than anything with all his ranting! he was also talking horse crap!

Your right the No side are all Mad. As proven by that one guy out of a possible 70% of the people in Europe who oppose or don't understand and distrust the treaty. Fair play to Matt Cooper for highlighting this and to you tankie as you have played your part too ::)

where did i say that all the no side were Mad?

your as bad as that guy lastnite just making stuff up to make the yes side ook bad  ::)

And like those on the Yes side your comments have nothing to do with the Treaty itself and are more about personalities and misdirection.

I have no idea who that guy whose or what he said but I do know that there are some many good people on the Yes side Matt Cooper could have interviewed. \it would have been the least he could do after Ahern had a world audience and no opportunity to be questioned on his blatant canvass in the US yesterday.

On a different note- How dare Ahern assume (in that arena) that the Irish people will pass the Treaty. After the recent polls it goes to show how obnoxious he is and how he claims 31% of the Irish peoples opinions are wrong and those who have not decided will support it or else they are wrong too. He is so far removed from the opinion of the people and takes us so much for granted it is below contempt. The point of a referendum is that the people decide. It does not matter if it is Yes or No as in a referendum the people are always right.

Interestingly a poll on Politics.ie has their members on 101 Yes and 181 No. These are political people who are clued in and would actually look at the political aspect of the treaty to make their decision.

Surely anyone who doesnt know what the changes are, would be duty bound to go out and vote no?
Why accept something unless its made clear to us?
I cant say whether the treaty is a good or bad thing, due to lack of information, so I certainly would rather keep the status quo unless its made clear to us what we are getting into.

QuoteThese are political people who are clued in...

That's certainly not a given.

Quoteand would actually look at the political aspect of the treaty to make their decision

Nor that.

As in you being a GAA fan and have and educated opinion of the GAA is not a ginen?

You are right it is not a given but it is equally not a given on both sides. (not a given either ;)

Quote from: Zapatista on May 01, 2008, 01:42:12 PM
As in you being a GAA fan and have and educated opinion of the GAA is not a ginen?

You are right it is not a given but it is equally not a given on both sides. (not a given either ;)

Enda, wtf are you talking about??

Maybe if I register at zaptista.ie I will automatically be more clued in as to the workings of your mind  ;)

I see it that there are two sets of obligations not being met: (1) voters need to inform themselves, rather than waiting to be spoonfed, or taking a 'No' (or 'Yes') stance because they couldn't be arsed (what's the point of democracy otherwise), and (2) the appropriate information needs to be made freely and easily available to voters by the appropriate authorities (can you imagine the parties leaving this kind of 'knowledge vacuum' if their Dáil/Seanad/County Council seats were at risk?).

Quote from: his holiness nb on May 01, 2008, 01:45:15 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on May 01, 2008, 01:42:12 PM
As in you being a GAA fan and have and educated opinion of the GAA is not a ginen?

You are right it is not a given but it is equally not a given on both sides. (not a given either ;)

Enda, wtf are you talking about??

Maybe if I register at zaptista.ie I will automatically be more clued in as to the workings of your mind  ;)

It was a reply to Billy Boots HH. The workings of my mind are in the contract I asked you all to sign at the last general election :D :D

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 01, 2008, 01:53:17 PM
I see it that there are two sets of obligations not being met: (1) voters need to inform themselves, rather than waiting to be spoonfed, or taking a 'No' (or 'Yes') stance because they couldn't be arsed (what's the point of democracy otherwise), and (2) the appropriate information needs to be made freely and easily available to voters by the appropriate authorities (can you imagine the parties leaving this kind of 'knowledge vacuum' if their Dáil/Seanad/County Council seats were at risk?).

Billy, the average Joe soap wouldnt know what to make of a 50 odd page document with lots of legal jargond in there. Even if they do bother their arses.

Quote from: Zapatista on May 01, 2008, 01:56:27 PM
The workings of my mind are in the contract I asked you all to sign at the last general election :D :D

:D :D

Good one

:D

put our trust in the hands of our Irish politicians ?

...the ones that seem to be inept/corrupt/selfishly following their own aims
hmmmmmmm

I would be all for a united states of the EU - as I think Financially we are improving and becoming the world superpower (china is bound to implode with corruption and everyone wanting their cut before too long).

However, the status quo is doing quite nicely right now, and until I see/hear a decent set of reasons and reasoning from the 'yes' camp - well I would be inclined to vote no.

I am very worried about the rise in EU interest in our low corporate taxation policy. A Veto is one thing, but a veto with limited voting powers after a change of legislation in a few years time should the yes vote win, means we are not untouchable.

the rest of europe want our Financial and service industries business - you can be sure of that. Right now the yes vote and how we are 'protected' just wont cut it.

A lot of the 'yes' argument here is fecking hilarious - we will be a better EU if we get enlargement ? etc etc
FFS  :D

Good news for the Pro - Lisbon Treaty side today:

QuoteNew poll shows Lisbon support up
Sunday, 11 May 2008 11:02
A new opinion poll shows an increase in support for the Lisbon Treaty.

The Red C poll for the Sunday Business Post reveals a shift back to the Yes side in the past two weeks, with support up three points at 38%.

Support for the No camp is at 28%, down three points.

AdvertisementJust over one third of voters remain undecided. 

A fortnight ago, the Yes lead was 4%, but this latest poll puts it at 10%.

Yesterday, the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, said that securing a Yes vote is the priority for his Government.

Is it definitely on the 12th of June?

Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 12, 2008, 05:28:53 PM
Is it definitely on the 12th of June?

Good question. I have no idea. I know Bertie said probably 12 June but he did not say it was. If it has not officially been called then all the posters up at the minute are illegal.

I have been all over Dublin today and lastnight and have seen the place covered in FF, FG, IBEC and  some other group all calling for a Yes. I have yet to see a NO poster. I think the No side have no idea if the date has been set and it looks like a co-ordinated effort by the Yes side to launch a huge 'Shock and Awe' type poster campaign. It was found in a leaked document from the British Embassay published a few weeks ago that one of the Yes campaign plans was to keep the No side in the dark surrounding the date of the Referendum in order to get a good head start. It really looks like this has happened. This is illegal too and as it's a referendum it is also unconstitutional and underminds the state.

A very pertinent question is who is funding the Yes campaign, are government funds being employed, in other words tax-payers money.
Its pathetic and sad that with so many challenges facing the country, and real pressing needs to be met in health provision, housing and education, that Cowan should declare his main priority to be the Lisbon Treaty. If they achieve the same level of success as they did with previous declared priorities, we will have nothing to worry about as the referendum will fall short of their targets

You are lucky if you haven't seen the No posters, there are plenty of different ones around Navan and they are all pathethic. You also can't see who is advocating the No vote, which makes them completely lacking credibility. They would make me want to vote Yes!! The govt can't fund the Yes campaign, that is coming from the pockets of the individual parties.

Quote from: Louth Exile on May 12, 2008, 11:37:39 PM
You are lucky if you haven't seen the No posters, there are plenty of different ones around Navan and they are all pathethic. You also can't see who is advocating the No vote, which makes them completely lacking credibility. They would make me want to vote Yes!! The govt can't fund the Yes campaign, that is coming from the pockets of the individual parties.

Sure it is ;)

If you are making a decision on YES or NO due to the quality of the poster then the Yes campaign have succeded in making this about who is who rather than anything to do with the document we are suppose to support or not support (our irreverseable future). I can understand you falling for this though as Cowen himself has not read the document and is making it a priority for his Government for some reason other than it's content. I wonder what that reason could be ???

Quote from: Zapatista on May 13, 2008, 08:20:58 AM

Quote from: Louth Exile on May 12, 2008, 11:37:39 PM
You are lucky if you haven't seen the No posters, there are plenty of different ones around Navan and they are all pathethic. You also can't see who is advocating the No vote, which makes them completely lacking credibility. They would make me want to vote Yes!! The govt can't fund the Yes campaign, that is coming from the pockets of the individual parties.

Sure it is ;)

Paranoid City or what Zapatista ;D

Stop talking about me and laughing at me Tankie :'(

Quote from: Zapatista on May 13, 2008, 09:07:53 AM
Stop talking about me and laughing at me Tankie :'(

this is a new low for the No campaign, there is no way you guys can pull a sympathy vote! also it was a Grin!!!

Referendun date 12th June

How will/would you vote?
Yes                                 14 (41.2%)
No                                  15 (44.1%)
Undecided                        5 (14.7%)
Total Voters:                    34

As it stands.

It's close and the 5 undecided will swing it. Have the arguments you have heard helped you to decide yet?

Reminder that you can change your vote if you wish. Polling will close on Referendum Day.

Undecided will generally vote yes as that what the government say is best. looks like a Yes win if you ask me.

Quote from: Tankie on May 13, 2008, 09:29:15 AM
Undecided will generally vote yes as that what the government say is best. looks like a Yes win if you ask me.

In referendum many undecided usually don't vote. I think your could be right that those who do vote will vote yes. However since there are currently 5 undecide - 2 Yes - 1 No - and 2 not voting will leave it at 16 Yes 16 No and the referendum falls ;)  I'm so nervous.

Damn those late voters :-[ :-[ :-[

a Yes vote win then!  :D

this is better than the US Primary's

Quote from: Tankie on May 13, 2008, 09:29:15 AM
Undecided will generally vote yes as that what the government say is best. looks like a Yes win if you ask me.

:D :D

Looks like the Govenment are trelling us Porkeys.


EUobserver reports that it has also emerged that despite previous warnings of a "disaster" if Ireland votes no, the Irish Government has admitted in an interview with an Argentine newspaper that this was in fact untrue, and a no vote would make little difference. "There would be no dire consequence should the referendum go amiss," Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern told the Buenos Aires Herald. "Life will go on as it did after the French and Dutch rejected the European constitutional treaty in 2005."

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/summary.aspx?id=585

They are very wrong. A no vote will means the prospect of an EU superstate and an Irish fly weight in not where we want to go.

Posters starting to go up.Have still yet to hear a good reason to vote no.

Quote from: Gnevin on May 15, 2008, 03:03:28 PM
Poster starting to go up,have still yet to hear a good reason to vote no.

;D ;D ;D  You are some criac.

Quote from: Zapatista on May 15, 2008, 03:09:49 PM

Quote from: Gnevin on May 15, 2008, 03:03:28 PM
Poster starting to go up,have still yet to hear a good reason to vote no.

;D ;D ;D  You are some criac.

Enjoy your protest vote  ::)

Quote from: Gnevin on May 15, 2008, 03:15:24 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on May 15, 2008, 03:09:49 PM

Quote from: Gnevin on May 15, 2008, 03:03:28 PM
Poster starting to go up,have still yet to hear a good reason to vote no.

;D ;D ;D  You are some criac.

Enjoy your protest vote  ::)

What are good reasons to vote Yes?

It will be interesting to see how the protest vote does affect this referendum? There are local interest groups such as those in Ennis and Roscommon advocating a NO vote to get the plight of their local hospitals noticed. There are also the likes of the IFA who originally advocated Yes but are no swaying towards No as a protest against Peter Mandelson's "Pro Brazilian Beef" stance in the WTO talks.

Unless the referendum is on a very sustansive issue such as divorce or abortion the turn out is likely to be low. With so much confusion out there, if a strong protest vote did get legs in parts of the country it could be a No result!

Quote from: Louth Exile on May 15, 2008, 05:27:49 PM
It will be interesting to see how the protest vote does affect this referendum? There are local interest groups such as those in Ennis and Roscommon advocating a NO vote to get the plight of their local hospitals noticed. There are also the likes of the IFA who originally advocated Yes but are no swaying towards No as a protest against Peter Mandelson's "Pro Brazilian Beef" stance in the WTO talks.

Unless the referendum is on a very sustansive issue such as divorce or abortion the turn out is likely to be low. With so much confusion out there, if a strong protest vote did get legs in parts of the country it could be a No result!

The term "protest vote" is mere mud slinging. I wonder how the "conformance vote" effects the result. The term 'protest vote' is used to explain a vote cast on something other than the meritocracy of the treaty. As far as I can see the Yes side campaign is totally avoiding the merits of the document making it a Yes vote for some reason other than meritocracy. This makes the Yes vote a 'protest vote'. It is a protest against anyone who asks questions, or anyone who won't accept the Irish or EU leaders simpley on their word. The No side want to explain the document making a No vote an educated vote. 

The people you talk about are well within their right to vote No. The treaty opens up health care to futher privatisation which is what is the problem with our health care at the minute. Preventing it happening futher and faster from the EU is a perfectly acceptable reason to vote No.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/yes-side-fears-large-swing-among-undecided-voters-1387014.html

He insisted the 'Yes' campaign would be taking nothing for granted, with Fianna Fail determined to avoid embarrassment for new leader Mr Cowen.

This is from the indo so there is no guarantee this was actually said. I don't think an embarrassment for Cowen should have a factor on how anyone votes in June.

I met Brian Cowen outside Portlaoise yesterday, canvassing for a Yes vote. He told me the chips I was eating would kill me. I told him they hadn't killed him yet :D

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2008, 10:15:14 AM
I met Brian Cowen outside Portlaoise yesterday, canvassing for a Yes vote. He told me the chips I was eating would kill me. I told him they hadn't killed him yet :D

This is a first hand account of how Brain Cowen is unwilling to discuss the merits of the Lisbon Treaty with the common chip eaters of Offaly. And instead employing the scare tactic of eating chips and voting no to Lisbon will kill you. ;) ;) You told him AZ fair balls to ye.

I should have said 'That doesn't say much for the health service'.

Damn hindsight :D

Quote from: Hound on April 28, 2008, 01:25:48 PM
I'm struggling to see the case for No.

In every constituency in Ireland we vote for politicians to represent us. Taking Fianna Fail and Fine Gael together they would have a huge majority, that we elected. I really don't see why they'd support something bad for this country? And while there are certainly a few bad apples in both camps, most of those elected are well clued-in.

Is there any well respected high profile person out there who has publicly come out against it (and who isnt part of the looney left)?

You are assuming that TD's always voice their concerns over every political issue and you are also assuming that they strictly only vote for what they believe is right. The reality is that they are more likely to just follow the party whip.

Quote from: Tankie on April 18, 2008, 02:11:36 PM
The main selling point for me was that it is required for the EU to function better as an enlarged entity. Also I like the idea of the EU having a Foreign minister that will speack for Europe on World issues, I am also very much in favour of European laws which will help fight criminality. A more open market is also a good thing.

I aint saying that I agree with every part of this but i am all for european nations working closer together on alot of issues. Also we keep control of our Taxation with a Veto so that is a major plus!

How can you be assured that this foreign minister will represent your views, the views of this country or even the views of the majority of the people in Europe? With the EU voting becoming more population based it is very possible in the future for an EU foreign minister to be expressing a view or even acting on a view that the majority of the people in this country are strongly against.

We are handing over our (granted I am from the North) foreign policy to an extremely diverse and unpredictable population who's states through history have conferred power on such right-wing fascists and war criminals as Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Blair.

It seems obvious to me that an EU foreign minister can not represent the peoples views. If you look at our closest neighbours (Britain) we are a very similar people in many ways but the main difference is in foreign affairs. The people of Ireland are almost polar opposite to Britain in terms of foreign affairs and have completely different interests in Iraq, Africa, Palestine, Russia etc. We simply can not be represented as a unit with the rest of the member states in relation to foreign affairs.

Quote from: Zapatista on May 26, 2008, 10:33:05 AM

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2008, 10:15:14 AM
I met Brian Cowen outside Portlaoise yesterday, canvassing for a Yes vote. He told me the chips I was eating would kill me. I told him they hadn't killed him yet :D

This is a first hand account of how Brain Cowen is unwilling to discuss the merits of the Lisbon Treaty with the common chip eaters of Offaly. And instead employing the scare tactic of eating chips and voting no to Lisbon will kill you. ;) ;) You told him AZ fair balls to ye.

There you have it folks, a Yes Vote equates to voting against the good honest to God Irish Chip. Do you want to know why? Its a conspiracy to propogate Frnech Fries  :D Good damn it, I love the good old fashion fat greasy chip. You can keep your French Fries Mr Cowen.

Did anyone hear Jens-Peter Bonde on Matt Cooper's show yesterday. He was having a debate with Dick Roche about the treaty. Basically, Jens-Peter was saying that the referendum commission & the government are misleading the public on the treaty particularly in the argument regarding unanimous voting & veto. He maintains that, having read the treaty in depth, he cannot think of any major decision or agreement which would require a unanimous vote, it would all be done by qualified majority. He challenged Roche on this and Roche couldnt point out any specific area either.

I found this a bit worrying and I am beginning to think that the government arent fully versed on the treaty and might not know what they are pushing us to sign up to.

Jens Peter has produced a "Reader Friendly Lisbon Treay" which I downloaded from here:
http://www.bonde.com/index.php/bonde_uk/article/reader_friendly_edition_of_the_lisbon_treaty

It's still a very complicated document but the comment section on the left is very useful for cutting through the jargon. Certainly no need to read every line but the following sections are informative:
Article 16 (Page 22-23) - Details the Council of Ministers & QMV (qualified majority voting)
Article 17 (Page 23-25) - European commission. Every state will have a member until 2014 and then by rotation
Article 121 (Page 80) - How the council will monitor the economic policy of the member states and how it will deal with states breaching the guidelines. Does this mean our favourable corporation tax???
Article 126 (Page 81-83) - How it will deal with member states with Deficits. With the state of our finances, could we be disciplined??

Any Veto will never be used. The Government are telling us not to veto the Lisbon treaty because if we vote no we will be on our own. We will be holding up the rest of the EU. We will be a laughing stock and outcasts of Europe. If the WTO deal is a bad deal for Ireland this Government will not use our veto (if we have one) as the same arguments will stand. If it is seen that we vote yes so not to upset the EU then it will be seen by Mandelson and the WTO that we are not willing to veto anything. The farmers can not trust a Government who is afraid to use a veto for image reasons.

agreed zapista. If we do have a veto, (and the only mention of a veto I can find is in Article 31 but that falls under the Foreign and Security Policy section), it would still take a very brave state to use it. And simply abstaining will not stop a decision going through.

At this stage the Yes camp need to send out very clear & specific reasons why we should be for the treaty (and upsetting the EU isnt a reason at all. FFS - John Bruton is urging the farmers to vote yes because the EU has been very kind to us in the past  ::) ).

Im no expert in the workings of the EU, but reading through some sections of the treaty would certainly give me cause for concern. I think there's an hour long debate on the lisbon treaty on Matt Cooper later on. I'll certainly tune into that.

The Brits will come to our rescue and use their Veto on tax if we don't have the balls to use it. The Brits are totally against tax harmonisation in the EU.

Quote from: Tankie on June 05, 2008, 06:12:01 PM
The Brits will come to our rescue and use their Veto on tax if we don't have the balls to use it. The Brits are totally against tax harmonisation in the EU.

That's that problem solved so.

From RTE this evening...

Quote"'No' Lisbon vote surges ahead in poll"

The latest opinion poll on the Lisbon Referendum is showing the 'No' side surging ahead in a dramatic reversal of opinion.

The TNS/mrbi poll in tomorrow's Irish Times shows opponents of the Treaty with a 5% lead over those in favour.

Up to now, opinion polls on the Referendum campaign have consistently shown the 'Yes' side ahead, although opponents have been closing the gap.

But now the 'No' side has done more than that, surging into a commanding lead with just a week to polling day.

The poll shows the 'Yes' side at 30%, down five points since their last poll three weeks ago, while the 'No' side is at 35%, up a staggering 17%, with 'Don't Knows' down 12 at 35%.

If that result is repeated next week, the political establishment is heading for a crushing defeat and the Lisbon Treaty is dead.

What a turnaround in a week! Have they learned nothing from the Nice Treaty debacle? Simply expecting people to turn out and vote yes, without explaining what they're voting for, is a joke. I's be surprised of the YES camp pull this one back.

And 'no' is surging ahead, both here and nationwide, great stuff.

Apologies if this has already been covered on this thread.

This Libertas crowd that have been the most vocal NO campaigners have some seriously dodgy connections with the US and it's military - that would be a major concern for me, why are the US military so interested in ensuring that there is a NO vote on this treaty?

its a hard one to call. i think the yes vote will win if there is decent turn out.

What's "Official" about this thread?

The "No" camp are ahead, and proper order - this treaty is nothing more than a heavy-handed attempt to erode Irish democracy, accountability, neutrality, and independence; under the guise of 'greater co-operation and manageability of the enlarged European Union', which might otherwise be 'unmanoeuvrable'! Oh yeah? This treaty represents nothing more than a rehash of The Treaty of Nice, which in itself was the embodiment of an extremely dangerous set of proposals to drive us all towards an unfettered free-market Friedmanesque market-based existence -- from health, to social welfare, to medicine, etc. Now, we're faced with this vote to rubber stamp Brussels' very heavy hand in directing our very day-to-day life on this planet.  They have no right. This Treaty is a blueprint for subservience as a people, to yet another greater power. No.


Edit: And what's more, we'll be doing the rest of (disgracefully disenfranchised) Europe a favour by sending this particular dogs dinner (of a treaty) back to the drawing-board (sorry Fido!).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7439104.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7439104.stm)

Quote from: stephenite on June 05, 2008, 11:54:55 PM
Apologies if this has already been covered on this thread.

This Libertas crowd that have been the most vocal NO campaigners have some seriously dodgy connections with the US and it's military - that would be a major concern for me, why are the US military so interested in ensuring that there is a NO vote on this treaty?

I don't like Ganley and I worry about his motives for doing this. However, I don't think the US military are involved in his agenda. I think the British Army have much stronger conections to the US army than Ganley will ever have. I don't think that is any more concerning than than the the British Prime Minister, the French President or any other Government making and selling weapons to the highest bidder and Lisbon telling us to increase Military spending.

Whatever about Ganley & the No camp, I think the YES side are having a disasterous campaign. Brendan Butler seems to think this is a referendum to decide whether we should stay in the EU or not.  ::)

That said, Marian Harkin spoke well yesterday. Although again it seems most of the Yes argument seems to be just refuting the attacks from the No side, and still hasnt spelled out any positive reason for Ireland to vote for this treaty.

Regarding the recent poll, I am a bit surprised with those results but I see it's mainly due to the public still not understanding what the treaty will mean. I dont think it's too late for the Yes side to pull this one back.

Quote from: stephenite on June 05, 2008, 11:54:55 PM
Apologies if this has already been covered on this thread.

This Libertas crowd that have been the most vocal NO campaigners have some seriously dodgy connections with the US and it's military - that would be a major concern for me, why are the US military so interested in ensuring that there is a NO vote on this treaty?

McEvaddy and Ganley have companies in the US who have some connections to US military, afaik these companies are relatively small and contribute very little to either man's wealth, I do however share concerns about both men and their motives - maybe they're simply like the rest of us, ie don't like the way the euro beauraucrats are trying to railroad this treaty through without giving the people a proper say, maybe they're not.  We should be careful of anything we read over the next few days though, as I expect this campaign is going to get very dirty, I'd say Sunday's Indo will have a few 'exclusives'.

Why do the Government of the Day seem to always win the toss with a referendum
with the yes vote  being the one they want?
Has there ever been a referendum where the Government of the day supported/wanted a NO vote?

I heard a good one from the No campaign on the radio this morning

"The positive pro europe vote is a NO"
,

Quote from: Main Street on June 06, 2008, 09:07:25 AM
Why do the Government of the Day seem to always win the toss with a referendum
with the yes vote  being the one they want?
Has there ever been a referendum where the Government of the day supported/wanted a NO vote?

I heard a good one from the No campaign on the radio this morning

"The positive pro europe vote is a NO"
,

Well the government of the day always want a yes vote as they would have agreed to it in negotiations of the treaty and would think it is good for the country.

On the pro europe thing I really think the no camp will say anything to get people to vote NO, a total lack of credability really!

I always thought that the wording of a referendum was framed so that a yes vote reflected what the Government of the day  wanted.
But maybe I´m just  too cynical ::)

For those of us who have not been following the Lisbon treaty debate, could someone outline the 3 main reasons for voting yes and 3 for no.

Thanks.

Yes - It makes changes in how the EU works in order to make the process work better with the recent enlargement.
      - It brings the Charter of Fundamental rights to legal effect in all EU institutions.
      - It enhances the role of the EU on a world stage.

No  - It increases the power of large countries while reducing the power of small countries in the EU Parliament
      - It commits us to a common foreign policy.
      - It promotes competition with in all EU states without defining which services are outside the competition laws.

There are more for both and these ones can all be countered.

Thanks Zapista, on that evidence its a (hypotethical) no vote for me.

Will the Lisbon treaty have the power to unify corporation tax rates in the EU?

I dont think Ireland should enter this treaty if it is to push up the 12.5% rate.

Quote from: stiffler on June 06, 2008, 11:00:52 AM
Thanks Zapista, on that evidence its a (hypotethical) no vote for me.

Will the Lisbon treaty have the power to unify corporation tax rates in the EU?

I dont think Ireland should enter this treaty if it is to push up the 12.5% rate.

As a no voter I might be bias.

Neither side can agree on what the treaty does on Tax rates.

Yes - No it will not effect our Tax rate as reland will retain a veto in relation to tax.

No - Irelands veto on Tax is not secured. + If the veto is secured there is an unwillingness amoungst Irelands repersentaion in the Eu to use a veto.

Quote from: stiffler on June 06, 2008, 10:29:02 AM
For those of us who have not been following the Lisbon treaty debate, could someone outline the 3 main reasons for voting yes and 3 for no.

Thanks.

If you believe the Yes Camp:
1. The EU has been good for Ireland
2. Will mean faster decision making via qualified majority voting (QMV)
3. We will maintain a veto in important negotiations such as the WTO agreement

If you believe the No Camp:
1. Creates an unelected president & foreign minister of europe
2. Reduces Ireland power in negotiations (Halves our voting rights & abolishes irelands commissioner for 5 years)
3. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests

As zapista said, some of the above can be countered by the other side. One of the biggest problems is that it's very unclear how some of the articles in the treaty will effect Ireland (such as the important Tax issue you mention). And I think that uncertainty might be the biggest obstacle for the YES camp to overcome.

Stevo, your no.1 on the Yes side is a big arguement for them but it has nothing to do with the treaty. The No side also agree that the EU has been and is good for Ireland.

Yep, I know that. I was just listing some of the main arguements the Yes & No side are putting forward. In hindsight, that probably wasnt answering stiffler's question.

Have to say, It made me mad listening to Brendan Butler yesterday rhyming off how much Ireland has benefited since joining the EU. As I said previously, some of their arguements sound like its a referendum on Opting out of the EU. But as you rightly say, that has nothing to do with this treaty.

There is too much uncertainty attached with a opting in vote, the Yes vote needs to be made transparent to the voter, and then if the argument is strong enough, it will be passed.

However, from my understanding there is too much ambigouity in the reasons for voting Yes, and the people will choose to keep the status quo.

i'm fairly unsure on the whole thing but I think I would Vote Yes instead of NO as all the unions and Main Parties are backing it. I was a strong Yes man at the start but not so much now but as one of the lads sai today - just look who is tell you to vote NO so that should make your mind up for you.

Just don't know anymore!

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 02:01:18 PM
i'm fairly unsure on the whole thing but I think I would Vote Yes instead of NO as all the unions and Main Parties are backing it. I was a strong Yes man at the start but not so much now but as one of the lads sai today - just look who is tell you to vote NO so that should make your mind up for you.

Just don't know anymore!

Well if the vote was today, then it'd be a NO for me. And I cant see the Yes camp convincing me between today and next thursday either. I dont like the new QMV system, I dont like the new system for rotating the commissioners and I'm worried about the growing attention our tax system is getting from the likes of France (I know we have a veto but am sceptical about us being willing to use it). There's also some doubts about our neutrality status. As stiffler says, there's just too much uncertainty attached.

However, I fear that what you say about the Main Parties & Unions backing the treaty might swing alot of undecided if the turnout is high.

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 02:01:18 PM
i'm fairly unsure on the whole thing but I think I would Vote Yes instead of NO as all the unions and Main Parties are backing it. I was a strong Yes man at the start but not so much now but as one of the lads sai today - just look who is tell you to vote NO so that should make your mind up for you.

Just don't know anymore!

All the unions are not backing it.

Can you explain to me why those saying No are more or less credible than those saying Yes?

Quote
2. Reduces Ireland power in negotiations (Halves our voting rights & abolishes irelands commissioner for 5 years)

Just a point on this - the number of commissioners is being reduced whether we vote yes or not - it has already been passed in the Nice treaty.  Voting Yes will actually defer this until 2014, but a no vote will mean a reduction will be introduced in 2009.  Under the Lisbon treaty, each member is treated equally in this reduction, this may not happen if the reduction is under the Nice treaty, as the format has not been decided and could even end up with larger states with permanent commissioners and smaller states being left with rotating representation.

Quote from: Treasurer on June 06, 2008, 02:49:33 PM

Quote
2. Reduces Ireland power in negotiations (Halves our voting rights & abolishes irelands commissioner for 5 years)

Just a point on this - the number of commissioners is being reduced whether we vote yes or not - it has already been passed in the Nice treaty.  Voting Yes will actually defer this until 2014, but a no vote will mean a reduction will be introduced in 2009. 

I have no problem with the reduction of the commission. I do have a problem with a reduction in a commission which is a  powerful unelected body in which we have no representation for 5 out of 15 years and when they meet they meet in secret. The current model would work better with a reduction but the offer in the treaty makes a bad situation worse. The arguement that it is unworkable now is false. It is not good now but it is working. The Eu are making decision faster post enlargement. With 27 commissioners it is still smaller than the 33 ministers in Ireland which there is no uproar for change in. There needs to be a change in the commission but not merely for the sake of change.

The only point I'm making is that some people are harping on about the reduction and seem blissfully unaware that a reduction is on the cards regardless.

I think Trichet removed any doubt about the Lisbon Treaty vote with his comments yesterday. Its going south with our banking sector and the rest of the economy. I'd say Cowan would deck him if he met him today.

BTW the US military's problem is that they dont want another Federal superpower in Europe with one cohesive military. Buts thats another story.

as someone who would love to see a yes vote its sad to see in todays times poll about 50% of the no voters were in the 'i dont understand it' and 'i dont like being told what to do' category. their reasons for voting no had nothing to do with the treaty but no they were. i think its more a no to politics than europe and with the horseshit coming out of bertie at the mahon tribunal its hard to get people to say yes to anything. that doesnt make it right tho

Quote from: magickingdom on June 06, 2008, 07:44:19 PM
as someone who would love to see a yes vote its sad to see in todays times poll about 50% of the no voters were in the 'i dont understand it' and 'i dont like being told what to do' category. their reasons for voting no had nothing to do with the treaty but no they were. i think its more a no to politics than europe and with the horseshit coming out of bertie at the mahon tribunal its hard to get people to say yes to anything. that doesnt make it right tho

Do you have a problem with the 'Yes but I dont understand it' and 'I do like being told what to do'?

Or better still the 'I'm telling you to vote yes but sure I haven't even read it meself'.

It may be the greatest piece of writing for the Irish since Father Ted but it there anyone who can tell my why? Lenihan on George Hook was ordering us to vote Yes 'because there is no plan B'. He cant even explain what plan A is.

I can understand the absence of a plan and can vote for that.

I cant understand that all of our main leaders agree on a plan that some haven't read, none can explain and certainly none appear to understand. They then attack any opponents for creating confusion.

Europe is on an unavoidable course to being a Federal Republic with a single army run by people who we will never get to elect.  We probably have that situation already (nothing else can explain to me why we give away our only natural resources for free).

Quote from: muppet on June 06, 2008, 08:11:44 PM

Quote from: magickingdom on June 06, 2008, 07:44:19 PM
as someone who would love to see a yes vote its sad to see in todays times poll about 50% of the no voters were in the 'i dont understand it' and 'i dont like being told what to do' category. their reasons for voting no had nothing to do with the treaty but no they were. i think its more a no to politics than europe and with the horseshit coming out of bertie at the mahon tribunal its hard to get people to say yes to anything. that doesnt make it right tho

Do you have a problem with the 'Yes but I dont understand it' and 'I do like being told what to do'?

Or better still the 'I'm telling you to vote yes but sure I haven't even read it meself'.
It may be the greatest piece of writing for the Irish since Father Ted but it there anyone who can tell my why? Lenihan on George Hook was ordering us to vote Yes 'because there is no plan B'. He cant even explain what plan A is.

I can understand the absence of a plan and can vote for that.

I cant understand that all of our main leaders agree on a plan that some haven't read, none can explain and certainly none appear to understand. They then attack any opponents for creating confusion.

Europe is on an unavoidable course to being a Federal Republic with a single army run by people who we will never get to elect.  We probably have that situation already (nothing else can explain to me why we give away our only natural resources for free).

no one in those categories... ???

the anti nice campaigners told similar lies to the anti lisbon campaigners 'it'll cost you/you will lose money, power, etc  yet 6 years on with the irish economy growing at between 4-6% per year (twice eu average) none of these liars are being asked to explain themselves. your last paragraph is a similar bunch of lies

Quote from: magickingdom on June 06, 2008, 08:37:38 PM

Quote from: muppet on June 06, 2008, 08:11:44 PM

Quote from: magickingdom on June 06, 2008, 07:44:19 PM
as someone who would love to see a yes vote its sad to see in todays times poll about 50% of the no voters were in the 'i dont understand it' and 'i dont like being told what to do' category. their reasons for voting no had nothing to do with the treaty but no they were. i think its more a no to politics than europe and with the horseshit coming out of bertie at the mahon tribunal its hard to get people to say yes to anything. that doesnt make it right tho

Do you have a problem with the 'Yes but I dont understand it' and 'I do like being told what to do'?

Or better still the 'I'm telling you to vote yes but sure I haven't even read it meself'.
It may be the greatest piece of writing for the Irish since Father Ted but it there anyone who can tell my why? Lenihan on George Hook was ordering us to vote Yes 'because there is no plan B'. He cant even explain what plan A is.

I can understand the absence of a plan and can vote for that.

I cant understand that all of our main leaders agree on a plan that some haven't read, none can explain and certainly none appear to understand. They then attack any opponents for creating confusion.

Europe is on an unavoidable course to being a Federal Republic with a single army run by people who we will never get to elect.  We probably have that situation already (nothing else can explain to me why we give away our only natural resources for free).

no one in those categories... ???

the anti nice campaigners told similar lies to the anti lisbon campaigners 'it'll cost you/you will lose money, power, etc  yet 6 years on with the irish economy growing at between 4-6% per year (twice eu average) none of these liars are being asked to explain themselves. your last paragraph is similar bunch of lies

Merely my opinion. No one is in a position to say whether it is true or not until we can look back.

Except of course that or Government have given away (as recently as 2006) our natural resources for free. That is completely true. Assuming that they couldn't still be taking brown envelopes in 2006 what explaination is there for a reasonable intelligent man like Dempsey selling billions of euros worth of gas for nothing?

What I know is that (according to Cowan) this is 90% of the Constitution that failed.

I also know that constitutions are usually associated with countries not just merely a continental quilt of countries.

I also remember a time when leaders (for better or worse) were all elected. Even recently I remember a time when elections were seen as a time when 'the voice of the people' would be heard.

All I hear now is that we have to vote yes. If we dont it will be seen like the French and the Dutch(?), i.e. a mistake to be corrected by the government.

'There is no plan B' Lenihan means 'dont you dare vote no'.

What annoys the hell out of me is that we are the only country that is voting on this treaty. If (as all the 'yes-men' say) this is better for democracy in Europe, why the hell aren't the other countries voting for it as well? It's probably because they know bloody well it'd be rejected, like the EU constitution treaty was in France and Holland. I haven't been following the last 7/8 pages of this debate so I don't know if anyone else feels the same as me.

Quote from: muppet on June 06, 2008, 09:00:19 PM

'There is no plan B' Lenihan means 'dont you dare vote no'.

Actually there is: http://unrepentantcommunist.blogspot.com/2008/06/lisbonwho-says-theres-no-plan-b.html (http://unrepentantcommunist.blogspot.com/2008/06/lisbonwho-says-theres-no-plan-b.html)

For any northerners interested in how this all affects us up here, there's a public debate on Monday evening in Conway Mill at 7pm

http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/304 (http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/304)

As well as the three speakers listed there, the DUP have agreed to put someone forward and they are waiting to hear back from the PUP.

Quote from: Farrandeelin on June 06, 2008, 09:04:56 PM
What annoys the hell out of me is that we are the only country that is voting on this treaty. If (as all the 'yes-men' say) this is better for democracy in Europe, why the hell aren't the other countries voting for it as well? It's probably because they know bloody well it'd be rejected, like the EU constitution treaty was in France and Holland. I haven't been following the last 7/8 pages of this debate so I don't know if anyone else feels the same as me.

We're the only country whose constitution requires a referendum on it.

Quote from: Treasurer on June 06, 2008, 10:08:15 PM

Quote from: Farrandeelin on June 06, 2008, 09:04:56 PM
What annoys the hell out of me is that we are the only country that is voting on this treaty. If (as all the 'yes-men' say) this is better for democracy in Europe, why the hell aren't the other countries voting for it as well? It's probably because they know bloody well it'd be rejected, like the EU constitution treaty was in France and Holland. I haven't been following the last 7/8 pages of this debate so I don't know if anyone else feels the same as me.

We're the only country whose constitution requires a referendum on it.

But thats just another problem I have with this treaty. It's basically a rehash of the EU constitution which was rejected by the French & Dutch. I just wonder what the results would be if every country had a referendum on it. But sure that'd be too democratic.

Quote from: Zapatista on June 06, 2008, 02:36:12 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 02:01:18 PM
i'm fairly unsure on the whole thing but I think I would Vote Yes instead of NO as all the unions and Main Parties are backing it. I was a strong Yes man at the start but not so much now but as one of the lads sai today - just look who is tell you to vote NO so that should make your mind up for you.

Just don't know anymore!

All the unions are not backing it.

Can you explain to me why those saying No are more or less credible than those saying Yes?

I was diving home today and say a NO poster saying to Vote NO and not give Europe a chance to control our taxes. I think we can all agree that that is pure scaremongering and that is why i think alot of people sitting on the fence will go Yes.

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 11:14:26 PM
I was diving home today and say a NO poster saying to Vote NO and not give Europe a chance to control our taxes. I think we can all agree that that is pure scaremongering and that is why i think alot of people sitting on the fence will go Yes.

The European Court of Justice will have final say in all such matters, not us, the Irish, in our own jurisdictional parliament. You call it scaremongering, I'd call it a reality-check.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 06, 2008, 11:43:43 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 11:14:26 PM
I was diving home today and say a NO poster saying to Vote NO and not give Europe a chance to control our taxes. I think we can all agree that that is pure scaremongering and that is why i think alot of people sitting on the fence will go Yes.

The European Court of Justice will have final say in all such matters, not us, the Irish, in our own jurisdictional parliament. You call it scaremongering, I'd call it a reality-check.

the european court of justice will have no say in our taxes. tell me you already knew that and are taking the piss.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 06, 2008, 11:43:43 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 11:14:26 PM
I was diving home today and say a NO poster saying to Vote NO and not give Europe a chance to control our taxes. I think we can all agree that that is pure scaremongering and that is why i think alot of people sitting on the fence will go Yes.

The European Court of Justice will have final say in all such matters, not us, the Irish, in our own jurisdictional parliament. You call it scaremongering, I'd call it a reality-check.

We have a VETO on Taxation! every knows this but the NO try argue that our government may not use it - that has nothing to do with the treaty!

Thats total crap you are taking about the EU Court of Justice being able to force it on us.

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 11:52:01 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 06, 2008, 11:43:43 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 11:14:26 PM
I was diving home today and say a NO poster saying to Vote NO and not give Europe a chance to control our taxes. I think we can all agree that that is pure scaremongering and that is why i think alot of people sitting on the fence will go Yes.

The European Court of Justice will have final say in all such matters, not us, the Irish, in our own jurisdictional parliament. You call it scaremongering, I'd call it a reality-check.

We have a VETO on Taxation! every knows this but the NO try argue that our government may not use it - that has nothing to do with the treaty!

Thats total crap you are taking about the EU Court of Justice being able to force it on us.

Tankie, The NO camp have agreed that we have a Veto but I think it's only fair for them to point out that a Veto isnt the "Be All, End All" that the Yes camp are making it out to be. This has everything to do with the Treaty. If passed, can you say for certain that at some stage in the future we wont be forced to change our taxes?? I certainly cant.

Quote from: stevo-08 on June 07, 2008, 12:24:05 AM

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 11:52:01 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 06, 2008, 11:43:43 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 11:14:26 PM
I was diving home today and say a NO poster saying to Vote NO and not give Europe a chance to control our taxes. I think we can all agree that that is pure scaremongering and that is why i think alot of people sitting on the fence will go Yes.

The European Court of Justice will have final say in all such matters, not us, the Irish, in our own jurisdictional parliament. You call it scaremongering, I'd call it a reality-check.

We have a VETO on Taxation! every knows this but the NO try argue that our government may not use it - that has nothing to do with the treaty!

Thats total crap you are taking about the EU Court of Justice being able to force it on us.

Tankie, The NO camp have agreed that we have a Veto but I think it's only fair for them to point out that a Veto isnt the "Be All, End All" that the Yes camp are making it out to be. This has everything to do with the Treaty. If passed, can you say for certain that at some stage in the future we wont be forced to change our taxes?? I certainly cant.

What part of a VETO are you missing? if we have a VETO we can say NO to taxation.

I (unfortunately) don't have a vote in this referendum. But if I had I'd vote yes. Not on the issues of the Treaty per se (although I'd admit that's what we should vote on) but because the EU has been good to this country and I believe that means we have a responsibility to make it work, to allow it to have the positive effect in other European countries that it has had in ours, even though there may be some short term pain involved. Let's sow what we have reaped.

Quote from: magickingdom on June 06, 2008, 08:37:38 PM

the anti nice campaigners told similar lies to the anti lisbon campaigners 'it'll cost you/you will lose money, power, etc  yet 6 years on with the irish economy growing at between 4-6% per year (twice eu average) none of these liars are being asked to explain themselves. your last paragraph is a similar bunch of lies

6 years is a short time in the birth of a Nation. I would say the No to Nice camp where right. We are losing money now (fishermen have no jobs) and with the Lisbon treaty there is a loss of more power. We have US troops in Shannon becuase we allowed it in Nice and we have water charges for schools as enforced from the EU. There is certainly as much evidence to say they were right as there is to say they were wrong.

Quote from: magickingdom on June 06, 2008, 07:44:19 PM
as someone who would love to see a yes vote its sad to see in todays times poll about 50% of the no voters were in the 'i dont understand it' and 'i dont like being told what to do' category. their reasons for voting no had nothing to do with the treaty but no they were. i think its more a no to politics than europe and with the horseshit coming out of bertie at the mahon tribunal its hard to get people to say yes to anything. that doesnt make it right tho

Not understanding the treaty has everything to do with the treaty. Even more since it was delibertly made difficult to understand.

US Troops in shannon is because of the Nice Treaty? - stop talking crap we can stop them landing there at anytime but we choose not too.

Please stop making up stuff!

Quote from: Tankie on June 07, 2008, 09:37:27 AM
US Troops in shannon is because of the Nice Treaty? - stop talking crap we can stop them landing there at anytime but we choose not too.

Please stop making up stuff!

I was suggesting that the No side on Nice were saying it would erode our neutrality and with the troops landing in Shannon since it could be seen as evidence they were right. It is an example of how subtle changes are being made without us connecting them to where it started or to where it is going. The passing of the Nice treaty is used to argue we are not actually Neutral at all when it suits us and so no one can object to troops landing in Shannon.

http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/pamphlets/eu/militarism.html

Quote from: Zapatista on June 07, 2008, 10:13:39 AM

Quote from: Tankie on June 07, 2008, 09:37:27 AM
US Troops in shannon is because of the Nice Treaty? - stop talking crap we can stop them landing there at anytime but we choose not too.

Please stop making up stuff!

I was suggesting that the No side on Nice were saying it would erode our neutrality and with the troops landing in Shannon since it could be seen as evidence they were right. It is an example of how subtle changes are being made without us connecting them to where it started or to where it is going. The passing of the Nice treaty is used to argue we are not actually Neutral at all when it suits us and so no one can object to troops landing in Shannon.

http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/pamphlets/eu/militarism.html

The NO side may want to argue that Nice eroded our Neutrality but that has nothing got to do with troops landing in Shannon. The Irish government can refuse entry and stop the landings if they want. If there are so many people annoyed with troops landing in shannon why aint they on a March or something.

But this is just more crap coming from the NO side try to link too unlinkable things. NO evidence at all to back up your statement!

Quote from: stevo-08 on June 07, 2008, 12:24:05 AM

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 11:52:01 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 06, 2008, 11:43:43 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 06, 2008, 11:14:26 PM
I was diving home today and say a NO poster saying to Vote NO and not give Europe a chance to control our taxes. I think we can all agree that that is pure scaremongering and that is why i think alot of people sitting on the fence will go Yes.

The European Court of Justice will have final say in all such matters, not us, the Irish, in our own jurisdictional parliament. You call it scaremongering, I'd call it a reality-check.

We have a VETO on Taxation! every knows this but the NO try argue that our government may not use it - that has nothing to do with the treaty!

Thats total crap you are taking about the EU Court of Justice being able to force it on us.

Tankie, The NO camp have agreed that we have a Veto but I think it's only fair for them to point out that a Veto isnt the "Be All, End All" that the Yes camp are making it out to be. This has everything to do with the Treaty. If passed, can you say for certain that at some stage in the future we wont be forced to change our taxes?? I certainly cant.

for certain under the lisbom treaty we cannot be forced to change out taxes now or in the future!!! the reason the treaty is not understood is because of all the lies of the no camp, they said our taxes could rise. sinn fein supposidily wanted to raise corporation tax at the last general election now their saying dont vote yes because it will raise taxes. go figure

Quotesinn fein supposidily wanted to raise corporation tax at the last general election now their saying dont vote yes because it will raise taxes. go figure

Sinn Féin are campaigning against the treaty because that's what they've done for every EU treaty since Ireland's ascension. The reasons they come up for the opposition are a side issue for them.

Quote from: Tankie on June 07, 2008, 12:25:38 AM

Tankie, The NO camp have agreed that we have a Veto but I think it's only fair for them to point out that a Veto isnt the "Be All, End All" that the Yes camp are making it out to be. This has everything to do with the Treaty. If passed, can you say for certain that at some stage in the future we wont be forced to change our taxes?? I certainly cant.

What part of a VETO are you missing? if we have a VETO we can say NO to taxation.

Can say No and Will say No are very different. And my point is that it's fair enough for the No camp to highlight this, just as it's fair enough for somebody to vote No next week due to some doubt over the security of our Tax system.

But if you believe that just cos we have a veto, everything is hunky dorey, then fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.

Quote from: stevo-08 on June 07, 2008, 11:34:43 AM

Quote from: Tankie on June 07, 2008, 12:25:38 AM

Tankie, The NO camp have agreed that we have a Veto but I think it's only fair for them to point out that a Veto isnt the "Be All, End All" that the Yes camp are making it out to be. This has everything to do with the Treaty. If passed, can you say for certain that at some stage in the future we wont be forced to change our taxes?? I certainly cant.

What part of a VETO are you missing? if we have a VETO we can say NO to taxation.

Can say No and Will say No are very different. And my point is that it's fair enough for the No camp to highlight this, just as it's fair enough for somebody to vote No next week due to some doubt over the security of our Tax system.

But if you believe that just cos we have a veto, everything is hunky dorey, then fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.

Stevo are you winding us up here or do you really just not have a clue what you are talking about?

This is how politics works:

1. If we have a VETO and choose not to us it we cannot blame the Lisbon treaty and if it is such an issue the people can demand that the government step down but a stike or March.

2. Voting NO does not mean that our government will not agree to taxation as this treaty does not give us a VETO as we already have a VETO and by voting NO the government can still agree to the change.


Total Rubbish being talked here by the NO lads. You boys will convince anyone with a brain to vote yes as you clearly are just making up stuff or just aint got a clue!

Quote from: stevo-08 on June 07, 2008, 11:34:43 AM

Quote from: Tankie on June 07, 2008, 12:25:38 AM

Tankie, The NO camp have agreed that we have a Veto but I think it's only fair for them to point out that a Veto isnt the "Be All, End All" that the Yes camp are making it out to be. This has everything to do with the Treaty. If passed, can you say for certain that at some stage in the future we wont be forced to change our taxes?? I certainly cant.

What part of a VETO are you missing? if we have a VETO we can say NO to taxation.

Can say No and Will say No are very different. And my point is that it's fair enough for the No camp to highlight this, just as it's fair enough for somebody to vote No next week due to some doubt over the security of our Tax system.
But if you believe that just cos we have a veto, everything is hunky dorey, then fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.

people may well have valid reasons for voting no (eg some people dont want ireland in the eu) but voting no for the security of out tax system? its not an issue in this vote..

Quote from: Tankie on June 07, 2008, 11:46:38 AM


Stevo are you winding us up here or do you really just not have a clue what you are talking about?

This is how politics works:

1. If we have a VETO and choose not to us it we cannot blame the Lisbon treaty and if it is such an issue the people can demand that the government step down but a stike or March.

It does seem to be a big issue. The fact is if you don't trust the Government to use the Veto on tax then it is best to not provide them with the opertunity. IF taxation is not within the Lisbon treaty then there are no worries but if it is vote no (veto it) until it is removed.

Quote from: Tankie on June 07, 2008, 11:46:38 AM


2. Voting NO does not mean that our government will not agree to taxation as this treaty does not give us a VETO as we already have a VETO and by voting NO the government can still agree to the change.

They can't agree to change if taxation is dealt with by member states without interference from the EU.

Quote from: Tankie on June 07, 2008, 11:46:38 AM
Total Rubbish being talked here by the NO lads. You boys will convince anyone with a brain to vote yes as you clearly are just making up stuff or
just aint got a clue!

You are lowering the debate.

Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on June 07, 2008, 11:34:10 AM

Quotesinn fein supposidily wanted to raise corporation tax at the last general election now their saying dont vote yes because it will raise taxes. go figure

Sinn Féin are campaigning against the treaty because that's what they've done for every EU treaty since Ireland's ascension. The reasons they come up for the opposition are a side issue for them.

I have not seen SF campagining on Taxation. I think you mean Liberates.

Are you seriously talking about SFs position on the EU in the early 70s? :D :D :D Where have you been the last 40 years? Besides if SF are bad for saying No then the others are bad for being Yes men.

Sinn Fein in the last General Election wanted to raise corporation tax and that is why their argument on tax for the NO campaign makes no sense.

And Zapatista whatever way you try spin this tax issue it has nothing to do with the treaty and nothing more than scaremongering

Quote from: Tankie on June 07, 2008, 12:27:56 PM
Sinn Fein in the last General Election wanted to raise corporation tax and that is why their argument on tax for the NO campaign makes no sense.

And Zapatista whatever way you try spin this tax issue it has nothing to do with the treaty and nothing more than scaremongering

What is their arguement on Tax? They do want to raise corperation tax but they do not want a European wide Corp Tax Rate. Can you point out to me where SF are saing the Lisbon treaty is going to raise taxes? If they want to raise corp tax then they put it in their manifesto and let the people decide. But as you keep saying tankie that has nothing to do with the treaty. 

Quote from: Zapatista on June 07, 2008, 12:42:23 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 07, 2008, 12:27:56 PM
Sinn Fein in the last General Election wanted to raise corporation tax and that is why their argument on tax for the NO campaign makes no sense.

And Zapatista whatever way you try spin this tax issue it has nothing to do with the treaty and nothing more than scaremongering

What is their arguement on Tax? They do want to raise corperation tax but they do not want a European wide Corp Tax Rate. Can you point out to me where SF are saing the Lisbon treaty is going to raise taxes? If they want to raise corp tax then they put it in their manifesto and let the people decide. But as you keep saying tankie that has nothing to do with the treaty. 

QuoteIt does seem to be a big issue. The fact is if you don't trust the Government to use the Veto on tax then it is best to not provide them with the opertunity.

i think the NO lads are really trying to link the two.

sf ran an add in the times this week saying vote no, one of the reasons they gave was to stop taxes increasing. i spat out my cornflakes with the shock... ;D

Quote from: magickingdom on June 07, 2008, 12:47:17 PM
sf ran an add in the times this week saying vote no, one of the reasons they gave was to stop taxes increasing. i spat out my cornflakes with the shock... ;D

I stand corrected. I think that is a foolish arguement.

For some clarification.......so the No people understand and the Yes people stop calling them liars.....the position on Lisbon presented by both camps onTax is incorrect.

The no camp claims it could increase taxes. It could. But they are suggesting that it could increase Coporation Tax. It cant.

The difference is that the Lisbon Treaty allows for the harmonisation of 'indirect' taxation. That includes VAT etc but not Corporation tax. VAT could go up (it is more likely to go down) but whatever happens it will have nothing to do with the requirements of the Irish economy.

I intend to vote no until the EU present me with an accountable democratic process for electing policy makers in the EU. I cant vote to retain or get rid of the EU president or any of its commissioners. They are not accountable to me and therefore it is not a Democracy in any sense of the word.

The behavior of the pro-Treaty parties, especially their not even bothering to read it, highlights the lack of democratic process even further. Finally as has been mentioned the fact that other EU members, due to limitations in their Constitutions, are not even getting a chance to vote on these Treaties tells me all I need to know.

Imagine if some one asked you to sign a contract that they said they had never read, they admitted they didn't understand but said there would be hell to pay if you didn't sign it. What would you do? 

 

Quote from: Tankie on June 07, 2008, 11:46:38 AM

Stevo are you winding us up here or do you really just not have a clue what you are talking about?

This is how politics works:

1. If we have a VETO and choose not to us it we cannot blame the Lisbon treaty and if it is such an issue the people can demand that the government step down but a stike or March.

2. Voting NO does not mean that our government will not agree to taxation as this treaty does not give us a VETO as we already have a VETO and by voting NO the government can still agree to the change.


Total Rubbish being talked here by the NO lads. You boys will convince anyone with a brain to vote yes as you clearly are just making up stuff or just aint got a clue!

Thanks for telling me how politics works Tankie, very useful  ::)

But as zapista says...

Quote from: Zapatista on June 07, 2008, 12:20:32 PM
The fact is if you don't trust the Government to use the Veto on tax then it is best to not provide them with the opertunity. IF taxation is not within the Lisbon treaty then there are no worries but if it is vote no (veto it) until it is removed.

By the way Tankie, have you actually read the treaty. I presume you have since you seem such an expert. So please tell me specifically what article says we have a veto on taxation? As I said earlier in this thread, Jens-Peter Bonde (an MEP since 1979) says the claims about a Veto & Unanimous Voting are far from clearcut. And unlike most of the Yes camp, Jens-Peter has actually read the treaty in full and scrutinised it. Im not saying he's 100% right, but it certainly raises some doubt over the claims from the Yes side.


By the way, i agree fully on the scaremongering tactics being used by sinn fein. The No side would be better off without them. So lets keep them out of the debate, I dont see too many posters here defending them too strongly.

By the way Tankie, have you actually read the treaty. I presume you have since you seem such an expert. So please tell me specifically what article says we have a veto on taxation? As I said earlier in this thread, Jens-Peter Bonde (an MEP since 1979) says the claims about a Veto & Unanimous Voting are far from clearcut. And unlike most of the Yes camp, Jens-Peter has actually read the treaty in full and scrutinised it. Im not saying he's 100% right, but it certainly raises some doubt over the claims from the Yes side.



So we should all read the treaty line by line before we offer an oppinion ?. Who is the MEP ? I am involved every day of the week with Tax and know that tax rates will not be harmonised .
I accept that the treaty is very poorly explained but the fault of that lies with the Government of the day whose ministers were on every media defending the "Bert " and his sterling lodgment's and are now no where to be seen or heard

Quote from: johnpower on June 07, 2008, 11:40:47 PM
So we should all read the treaty line by line before we offer an oppinion ?. Who is the MEP ? I am involved every day of the week with Tax and know that tax rates will not be harmonised . I accept that the treaty is very poorly explained but the fault of that lies with the Government of the day whose ministers were on every media defending the "Bert " and his sterling lodgment's and are now no where to be seen or heard

Did I say that? Everyone's entitled to their opinion and I think I've respected everyone's contributions here. I was directing that comment at Tankie who is taking alot of shots at the No side, claiming they are either mad or havent a clue.

I see the sunday business post has the Yes side ahead in a recent poll
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS-qqqs=news-qqqid=33567-qqqx=1.asp

Quote from: stevo-08 on June 08, 2008, 10:59:29 AM

Quote from: johnpower on June 07, 2008, 11:40:47 PM
So we should all read the treaty line by line before we offer an oppinion ?. Who is the MEP ? I am involved every day of the week with Tax and know that tax rates will not be harmonised . I accept that the treaty is very poorly explained but the fault of that lies with the Government of the day whose ministers were on every media defending the "Bert " and his sterling lodgment's and are now no where to be seen or heard

Did I say that? Everyone's entitled to their opinion and I think I've respected everyone's contributions here. I was directing that comment at Tankie who is taking alot of shots at the No side, claiming they are either mad or havent a clue.

I see the sunday business post has the Yes side ahead in a recent poll
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS-qqqs=news-qqqid=33567-qqqx=1.asp

I aint taking shots at the NO camp I am just pointing out that TAX has nothing to do with the treaty (i dont think that we discussed any other part of the treaty). I think if you listened to what Johnpower had to say you would see that you are wrong on this issue.

But Tax is part of the Treaty. There's a whole chapter on Tax Provisions in it. And article 113 mentions the hamonisation of taxes to avoid distortion of competition. Now as Muppet said earlier, this is in relation to VAT & other indirect taxes (which Im not sure I'd be delighted about either). As regards corporation tax, if we do have a veto, Im just not as confident as you that we'd actually use it. But maybe I am wrong about that.

As regards other issues with the Treaty, I certainly dont like that its basically a rehashed version of the EU constitution, which was already rejected by millions of French & Dutch. But sure lets just change the rules making sure they dont get a say this time. It also enables them to change the Treaty afterwards, and we may not be entitled to a referendum on those changes. The whole thing doesnt sound very democratic to me.

Quote from: stevo-08 on June 08, 2008, 01:59:02 PM
But Tax is part of the Treaty. There's a whole chapter on Tax Provisions in it. And article 113 mentions the hamonisation of taxes to avoid distortion of competition. Now as Muppet said earlier, this is in relation to VAT & other indirect taxes (which Im not sure I'd be delighted about either). As regards corporation tax, if we do have a veto, Im just not as confident as you that we'd actually use it. But maybe I am wrong about that.

As regards other issues with the Treaty, I certainly dont like that its basically a rehashed version of the EU constitution, which was already rejected by millions of French & Dutch. But sure lets just change the rules making sure they dont get a say this time. It also enables them to change the Treaty afterwards, and we may not be entitled to a referendum on those changes. The whole thing doesnt sound very democratic to me.

you do know that it was passed by spain and luxemburg...

Yes I did know that. And Im sure the people who voted No in those countries (particularly in luxemburg where it was a narrow enough victory) arent too happy that their voice wont be heard on the Lisbon Treaty.

Quote from: stevo-08 on June 08, 2008, 08:11:52 PM
Yes I did know that. And Im sure the people who voted No in those countries (particularly in luxemburg where it was a narrow enough victory) arent too happy that their voice wont be heard on the Lisbon Treaty.

and it was a dud when the dutch rejected it as france had already said no. not much point in the dutch yes crowd coming out for that

Did anyone listen to the pat kenny show on radio 1 this morning? God it was hard to listen to. He had about 8 participants in the debate all shouting over each other. He was pathetic at chairing, lost absolute control of the debate. It would have left anyone listening much more confused that they already were.

I was a fairly solid "Yes" at the start of the campaign but after giving it a lot of consideration I've changed my mind and will be voting no. The campaign has been poor with both sides telling loads of lies. I'm of the opinion that sooner or later we need to call a halt to the slide towards a United States of Europe and in the apparent absence of any real tangible benefits from this treaty, I think now is the time. How the EU works is ok for me now. I'm not convinced we should change our constitution so I'll vote no. It says a lot about the political establishment in this country when they couldn't convince me, who'd be fairly willing to listen, that this is a good thing.

Caveat - I still think a large proportion of the "No" campaigners are loons who have no clue about the treaty either and disassociate myself from them.

Did anybody hear the NO guy on the Right Hook this evening? he was very good and gave a decent view point on it. I'll have to wait and hear what BIFFO has to say tomorrow and then make up my mind for sure.

Quote from: magpie seanie on June 09, 2008, 04:17:32 PM
I was a fairly solid "Yes" at the start of the campaign but after giving it a lot of consideration I've changed my mind and will be voting no. The campaign has been poor with both sides telling loads of lies. I'm of the opinion that sooner or later we need to call a halt to the slide towards a United States of Europe and in the apparent absence of any real tangible benefits from this treaty, I think now is the time. How the EU works is ok for me now. I'm not convinced we should change our constitution so I'll vote no. It says a lot about the political establishment in this country when they couldn't convince me, who'd be fairly willing to listen, that this is a good thing.

Caveat - I still think a large proportion of the "No" campaigners are loons who have no clue about the treaty either and disassociate myself from them.

The bold above is a very important point. Saying no does not change anything. It does not mean you are against or ungrateful for the EU. It can mean you are happy with things as they are. We (nor has any other country) have given no mandate to our politicians to present us with Treaty after T(h)reaty bringing European Unity closer and closer. That is not to say I oppose it, I just demand that I (and every other European) have a say in it. It must be done democratically.

A no vote does not mean you are a member of Libertas or any other group.

This is the greatest failure by the pro-Treaty parties. They assume because most of us voted for one of them in the last General Election that we will hang on their every word in a referendum if they all agree to vote yes.

I heard Harney on the radio saying 'it is the same old people voting no as were against us joining the EEC in the first place'. I was 4 at the time. Anyone currently under the age of 52 didn't have a vote in that referendum.

Quote from: Tankie on June 09, 2008, 06:52:33 PM
Did anybody hear the NO guy on the Right Hook this evening? he was very good and gave a decent view point on it. I'll have to wait and hear what BIFFO has to say tomorrow and then make up my mind for sure.

dont you start changing tankie, get out, shut up and vote yes ;) ;D

Quote from: magickingdom on June 09, 2008, 08:36:02 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 09, 2008, 06:52:33 PM
Did anybody hear the NO guy on the Right Hook this evening? he was very good and gave a decent view point on it. I'll have to wait and hear what BIFFO has to say tomorrow and then make up my mind for sure.

dont you start changing tankie, get out, shut up and vote yes ;) ;D

I must say that the guy was very good today, there was no bullshite just facts so i wanna listen to BIFFO and see what he says but i think i will still vote yes as I do not think that there is a better deal to be got and it is a compromise so we gotta give something up

Mary Lou McDonald made absolute shite of the Yes Camp tonight on Questions and Answers.

Quote from: Tankie on June 09, 2008, 10:19:58 PM

Quote from: magickingdom on June 09, 2008, 08:36:02 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 09, 2008, 06:52:33 PM
Did anybody hear the NO guy on the Right Hook this evening? he was very good and gave a decent view point on it. I'll have to wait and hear what BIFFO has to say tomorrow and then make up my mind for sure.

dont you start changing tankie, get out, shut up and vote yes ;) ;D

I must say that the guy was very good today, there was no bullshite just facts so i wanna listen to BIFFO and see what he says but i think i will still vote yes as I do not think that there is a better deal to be got and it is a compromise so we gotta give something up

Cowen was on The Last Word yesterday. Unfortunately I only heard a couple of minutes of the interview but he was making that same arguement & that there was no Plan B. Did anyone hear the full interview? Would like to hear some comments/feedback.

Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2008, 07:20:10 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on June 09, 2008, 04:17:32 PM
I was a fairly solid "Yes" at the start of the campaign but after giving it a lot of consideration I've changed my mind and will be voting no. The campaign has been poor with both sides telling loads of lies. I'm of the opinion that sooner or later we need to call a halt to the slide towards a United States of Europe and in the apparent absence of any real tangible benefits from this treaty, I think now is the time. How the EU works is ok for me now. I'm not convinced we should change our constitution so I'll vote no. It says a lot about the political establishment in this country when they couldn't convince me, who'd be fairly willing to listen, that this is a good thing.

Caveat - I still think a large proportion of the "No" campaigners are loons who have no clue about the treaty either and disassociate myself from them.

The bold above is a very important point. Saying no does not change anything. It does not mean you are against or ungrateful for the EU. It can mean you are happy with things as they are. We (nor has any other country) have given no mandate to our politicians to present us with Treaty after T(h)reaty bringing European Unity closer and closer. That is not to say I oppose it, I just demand that I (and every other European) have a say in it. It must be done democratically.

A no vote does not mean you are a member of Libertas or any other group.

This is the greatest failure by the pro-Treaty parties. They assume because most of us voted for one of them in the last General Election that we will hang on their every word in a referendum if they all agree to vote yes.

I heard Harney on the radio saying 'it is the same old people voting no as were against us joining the EEC in the first place'. I was 4 at the time. Anyone currently under the age of 52 didn't have a vote in that referendum.

Good point Muppet. I also think that anyone who compares SFs No position to the EU in the early 70s is in tune with their No position now is quite mad really.

On plan B - Did the Irish Government sign off on this treaty and say to themselves (and the rest of the EU) 'grand so, we will just take this back to Ireland and get them to vote yes and Bobs your uncle'? Did none of the negotiators even concider Ireland might vote No? If not then it is either complete stupidity or else complete arrogance on the Governments half.

Quote from: Seany on June 10, 2008, 01:00:46 AM
Mary Lou McDonald made absolute shite of the Yes Camp tonight on Questions and Answers.

Enda giving out about the IRA was the worst pro-treaty arguement I have heard yet. Talk about avoiding the topic ::)

Quote from: Seany on June 10, 2008, 01:00:46 AM
Mary Lou McDonald made absolute shite of the Yes Camp tonight on Questions and Answers.

I thought she sounded ridiculous when she was pulled up on the fact that SF want to raise corporation tax so that we have the same rate on the Island of Ireland.

QuoteMary Lou McDonald made absolute shite of the Yes Camp tonight on Questions and Answers.

Not in my view - i thought she was the poorest performer of the 4 and was exposed badly on neutrality and corporation tax.

I was just reading http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html and it seem very clear on the status of our VETO in regard to Tax:

QuoteAreas to which Qualified Majority Voting applies
At present, QMV applies to decisions on a wide range of issues including agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection, environment and judicial co-operation in civil matters. It is proposed to apply QMV to a number of new areas – these include energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in criminal matters and sport.

Certain decisions will continue to be made unanimously – they include decisions on defence and taxation. This means that any Member State may veto a proposed change in these areas.

I'm also very worried about the provisions allowing for changes in the Treaty without recourse to a referendum. It's a bit like signing a blank cheque. I suppose if you trust our political leaders then you'd give them that blank cheque....

Quote from: blast05 on June 10, 2008, 09:45:22 AM

QuoteMary Lou McDonald made absolute shite of the Yes Camp tonight on Questions and Answers.

Not in my view - i thought she was the poorest performer of the 4 and was exposed badly on neutrality and corporation tax.

I didn't think she was bad on neutrality? What makes you think she was?

Quote from: magpie seanie on June 10, 2008, 10:02:58 AM
I'm also very worried about the provisions allowing for changes in the Treaty without recourse to a referendum. It's a bit like signing a blank cheque. I suppose if you trust our political leaders then you'd give them that blank cheque....

as am I seanie. Thats article 48 of the Treaty. However, to be fair it has not been made clear whether it would require a referendum or not. The actual wording is:

QuoteThe European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 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.

Quote from: Tankie on June 10, 2008, 09:48:18 AM
I was just reading http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html and it seem very clear on the status of our VETO in regard to Tax:

QuoteAreas to which Qualified Majority Voting applies
At present, QMV applies to decisions on a wide range of issues including agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection, environment and judicial co-operation in civil matters. It is proposed to apply QMV to a number of new areas – these include energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in criminal matters and sport.

Certain decisions will continue to be made unanimously – they include decisions on defence and taxation. This means that any Member State may veto a proposed change in these areas.

That does seem clear Tankie. However, Article 48 seems to contradict that, with a provision that gives power to the council to change from unanimous voting to QMV for any area other than military or defence (see below).

QuoteWhere the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

Dont get me wrong, unlike some of the scaremongering from some of the NO campaigners, Im not saying we are losing our veto or that the EU are after our corporation tax. My arguement all along is that, it's just not as clear as either the YES/NO side seem to think. There is some uncertainty and until I am given some real tangible benefits for Ireland I will be voting NO.

apologies for the long post...

Quote from: stevo-08 on June 07, 2008, 02:24:33 PM
By the way Tankie, have you actually read the treaty. I presume you have since you seem such an expert. So please tell me specifically what article says we have a veto on taxation? As I said earlier in this thread, Jens-Peter Bonde (an MEP since 1979) says the claims about a Veto & Unanimous Voting are far from clearcut. And unlike most of the Yes camp, Jens-Peter has actually read the treaty in full and scrutinised it. Im not saying he's 100% right, but it certainly raises some doubt over the claims from the Yes side.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI) have examined the treaty, and this was their statement in relation to the treaty and tax:

ICAI has made a public statement to clarify the distinction between the CCCTB and the Lisbon Treaty, insofar as it affects Ireland's tax position.

ICAI is concerned about the confusion being spread by advocates of the Lisbon "No" campaign in relation to Irish Tax policy.

The Lisbon Treaty does not affect Ireland's tax sovereignty. It is not related to the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is a framework of proposals being worked upon by European Union civil servants, which even if they come to fruition cannot be imposed on Ireland.

ICAI has been campaigning against the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base since its inception. There are those who seem to believe that there is an EU wide conspiracy to compel Ireland to take part in the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. But, if that is the case, why are they campaigning against a Treaty that confirms our tax veto?

Far from furthering the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, a Yes vote for Lisbon will help us campaign against it.

Quote from: Hound on June 10, 2008, 02:55:36 PM

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI) have examined the treaty, and this was their statement in relation to the treaty and tax:

ICAI has made a public statement to clarify the distinction between the CCCTB and the Lisbon Treaty, insofar as it affects Ireland's tax position.

ICAI is concerned about the confusion being spread by advocates of the Lisbon "No" campaign in relation to Irish Tax policy.

The Lisbon Treaty does not affect Ireland's tax sovereignty. It is not related to the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is a framework of proposals being worked upon by European Union civil servants, which even if they come to fruition cannot be imposed on Ireland.

ICAI has been campaigning against the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base since its inception. There are those who seem to believe that there is an EU wide conspiracy to compel Ireland to take part in the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. But, if that is the case, why are they campaigning against a Treaty that confirms our tax veto?

Far from furthering the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, a Yes vote for Lisbon will help us campaign against it.

Fair enough and I accept this.

I say this with caution -

It does seem like the ICAI are talking like a political party.
- Is it true that FG and Labour are in favour of CCCTB?
- Do we already have a veto on tax and if so there is noting to gain in a yes vote and the use of the word "confirm" is spin. I do realise that countering the No arguement is the main purpose of the press release.
- How will a Yes vote help us campagin against CCCTB?

A good article from An Spailpin on the whole affair.

http://spailpin.blogspot.com/ (http://spailpin.blogspot.com/)

And another good bloody article beneath it on the football championship.

Quote from: muppet on June 07, 2008, 02:12:20 PM
I intend to vote no until the EU present me with an accountable democratic process for electing policy makers in the EU. I cant vote to retain or get rid of the EU president or any of its commissioners. They are not accountable to me and therefore it is not a Democracy in any sense of the word.

The behavior of the pro-Treaty parties, especially their not even bothering to read it, highlights the lack of democratic process even further. Finally as has been mentioned the fact that other EU members, due to limitations in their Constitutions, are not even getting a chance to vote on these Treaties tells me all I need to know.

Imagine if some one asked you to sign a contract that they said they had never read, they admitted they didn't understand but said there would be hell to pay if you didn't sign it. What would you do? 
 

did you elect brian cowen as taoiseach? or was it bertie but you ended up with brian. the point is you elected the people who elected brian cowen and that system works quite well in most parts of the world. the president of the eu commission will be elected by people we elect whom we should be able to trust

as for signing a contract without reading it thats why people pay solicitors to take care of that angle for them, alot of these contracts require expertise in certain fields. here were trusting our elected representitives to have protected us in this treaty. i think they have done a good job considering the fact that there are 27 different nations involved..

Quote from: magickingdom on June 10, 2008, 06:58:38 PM

Quote from: muppet on June 07, 2008, 02:12:20 PM
I intend to vote no until the EU present me with an accountable democratic process for electing policy makers in the EU. I cant vote to retain or get rid of the EU president or any of its commissioners. They are not accountable to me and therefore it is not a Democracy in any sense of the word.

The behavior of the pro-Treaty parties, especially their not even bothering to read it, highlights the lack of democratic process even further. Finally as has been mentioned the fact that other EU members, due to limitations in their Constitutions, are not even getting a chance to vote on these Treaties tells me all I need to know.

Imagine if some one asked you to sign a contract that they said they had never read, they admitted they didn't understand but said there would be hell to pay if you didn't sign it. What would you do? 
 

did you elect brian cowen as taoiseach? or was it bertie but you ended up with brian. the point is you elected the people who elected brian cowen and that system works quite well in most parts of the world. the president of the eu commission will be elected by people we elect whom we should be able to trust

You completely miss the point. We elected the entire Dáil including Cowan. The Dáil then elected Cowan as its and our leader. None of us had a vote for the EU president. None of us had a vote for the EU comissioners. Under the EU system we would vote for County Councils who would then elect the Dáil with no input from us. 

Quote
as for signing a contract without reading it thats why people pay solicitors to take care of that angle for them, alot of these contracts require expertise in certain fields. here were trusting our elected representitives to have protected us in this treaty. i think they have done a good job considering the fact that there are 27 different nations involved..

Not only did our 3 most senior politians not understand it, they admitted that they hadn't even read it.

You say they have done a great job. Who mandated them to produce this Treaty? Did they ask the people of Europe if they wanted a new Treaty to bring us closer, further apart or the same difference?

BTW people pay solicitors because they dont leave it to chance that the person producing the contract hasn't sold them a pup.

Quote from: muppet on June 10, 2008, 09:02:45 PM

You completely miss the point. We elected the entire Dáil including Cowan. The Dáil then elected Cowan as its and our leader. None of us had a vote for the EU president. None of us had a vote for the EU comissioners. Under the EU system we would vote for County Councils who would then elect the Dáil with no input from us. 

i dont miss the point, we elect the dail and the dail elect the taoiseah on the nomination of the largest party in government. we elect the european parliment and the european parliment elect a president of the commission on the basis of a nomination of the heads of government. no democratic deficit here imo

I see the French are threatening us now to vote yes :o. Well I definitely will not be told what to do by the French, Germans or anyone else. If Ireland votes no, will the EU accept our democratic result? Probably not as they are not real democrats. If they were there would be referenda in all EU member states.

Quote from: magickingdom on June 10, 2008, 09:19:40 PM

Quote from: muppet on June 10, 2008, 09:02:45 PM

You completely miss the point. We elected the entire Dáil including Cowan. The Dáil then elected Cowan as its and our leader. None of us had a vote for the EU president. None of us had a vote for the EU comissioners. Under the EU system we would vote for County Councils who would then elect the Dáil with no input from us. 

i dont miss the point, we elect the dail and the dail elect the taoiseah on the nomination of the largest party in government. we elect the european parliment and the european parliment elect a president of the commission on the basis of a nomination of the heads of government. no democratic deficit here imo

Missed again and this time another wide with it.

Firstly, the EU Parliament didn't elect Barosso, the EU Council nominated him President Delegate and he was then endorsed by the European Parliament. The EU Council has no executive powers, the EU parliament has only joint powers in some areas and no legislative powers on its own. The EU Comission, who are not elected have most of the power.

Secondly the Dáil elected Cowan our leader from the Dáil, not an unelected nominee from a non executive body.

Finally why do the Yes camp not accept that if there is a no vote then that is the democratic vote of the poeple? If there really is no Plan B then any responsible Government would have to resign.

If it is a Yes vote then fine, but it should be because the people have spoken not because they were given no choice.

Quote from: muppet on June 10, 2008, 09:51:02 PM

Quote from: magickingdom on June 10, 2008, 09:19:40 PM

Quote from: muppet on June 10, 2008, 09:02:45 PM

You completely miss the point. We elected the entire Dáil including Cowan. The Dáil then elected Cowan as its and our leader. None of us had a vote for the EU president. None of us had a vote for the EU comissioners. Under the EU system we would vote for County Councils who would then elect the Dáil with no input from us. 

i dont miss the point, we elect the dail and the dail elect the taoiseah on the nomination of the largest party in government. we elect the european parliment and the european parliment elect a president of the commission on the basis of a nomination of the heads of government. no democratic deficit here imo

Missed again and this time another wide with it.

Firstly, the EU Parliament didn't elect Barosso, the EU Council nominated him President Delegate and he was then endorsed by the European Parliament. The EU Council has no executive powers, the EU parliament has only joint powers in some areas and no legislative powers on its own. The EU Comission, who are not elected have most of the power.

Secondly the Dáil elected Cowan our leader from the Dáil, not an unelected nominee from a non executive body.

Finally why do the Yes camp not accept that if there is a no vote then that is the democratic vote of the poeple? If there really is no Plan B then any responsible Government would have to resign.

If it is a Yes vote then fine, but it should be because the people have spoken not because they were given no choice.

The government that we elected has said that this is the best deal that we can get, i think we should believe them over Sinn Fein.

http://spailpin.blogspot.com/ (http://spailpin.blogspot.com/)

good thing on TV3 now

Quote from: muppet on June 10, 2008, 09:51:02 PM
Missed again and this time another wide with it.

Firstly, the EU Parliament didn't elect Barosso, the EU Council nominated him President Delegate and he was then endorsed by the European Parliament. The EU Council has no executive powers, the EU parliament has only joint powers in some areas and no legislative powers on its own. The EU Comission, who are not elected have most of the power.

Secondly the Dáil elected Cowan our leader from the Dáil, not an unelected nominee from a non executive body.

Finally why do the Yes camp not accept that if there is a no vote then that is the democratic vote of the poeple? If there really is no Plan B then any responsible Government would have to resign.

If it is a Yes vote then fine, but it should be because the people have spoken not because they were given no choice.

this is exactly what i said.
"the european parliment elect a president of the commission on the basis of a nomination of the heads of government"
which is the very same as what you said
"the EU Council nominated him President Delegate and he was then endorsed by the European Parliament"

the eu council is the heads of government and by endorsed i presume you mean approve by vote (they can also reject him)

so how did i miss the point? or are you just trying to confuse the issue some more. your point about the eu council having no executive powers is disingenuous - the eu council has better things to do as its the supreme body of the eu

Thought this was an interesting take on the scenarios of what would happen in either a No or Yes vote

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0610/lisbonscenarios.html (http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0610/lisbonscenarios.html)

Quote from: Zapatista on June 10, 2008, 04:19:29 PM
- Is it true that FG and Labour are in favour of CCCTB?

No!

QuoteThe government that we elected has said that this is the best deal that we can get, i think we should believe them over Sinn Fein.

Not only the government, but the main opposition too.

Does anyone really believe that, say, Eamon Gilmore would publicly announce that FF got a fair deal, when they didnt???

Its laughable to hear Sinn Fein and Libertas saying we should go back and get a better deal. No matter what deal was brokered they would have campaigned for a No vote, as they have done in all previous EU debates.

The RTE link posted by stephenite above is a very good summary.

Quote from: Hound on June 11, 2008, 07:25:43 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on June 10, 2008, 04:19:29 PM
- Is it true that FG and Labour are in favour of CCCTB?

No!

You better tell these guys so.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=36197

QuoteThe government that we elected has said that this is the best deal that we can get, i think we should believe them over Sinn Fein.

Quote from: Hound on June 11, 2008, 07:25:43 AM
Not only the government, but the main opposition too.

Does anyone really believe that, say, Eamon Gilmore would publicly announce that FF got a fair deal, when they didnt???

Its laughable to hear Sinn Fein and Libertas saying we should go back and get a better deal. No matter what deal was brokered they would have campaigned for a No vote, as they have done in all previous EU debates.

The RTE link posted by stephenite above is a very good summary.

I believe Gilmore would do that. Labour cannot get the support of their members. Labour's leadership are using this as a show of support for FG. Labour are using this to promote their local cllrs for the next local election rather than fight for a Yes on the treaty. Labour, like FF and FG assumed it would be a resounding Yes and have jumped on the bandwagon for reasons other than the treaty too early in campaign. It has back fired on labour and their core support are voting against this treaty.

I don't remember Libertas campaigning for a No vote before.

Are you really comparing SF saying no now to SF in the early 70s saying No? That is just ridiculous. How did they fight the campaign, by banging bin lids on the ground? SF opposed the Nice treaty and the people agreed. They opposed it again and the people disagreed. Sounds fair to me. Consistently saying No to what the EU want is no different than consistently saying Yes.

It is laughable to be presented with a referendum and have no one consider there might be a No vote leaving us without a plan B. It is an act of contempt to Irish democracy even.

There is a Plan B, C, D and even E.

B - Renegotiate another treaty.
C - Hold referendum until there is a Yes vote.
D - Maintain the status-quo
E - Ignore irelands vote and continue on with the treaty in those countries that have ratified it (there are 11 more to do so after Ireland). Give Ireland the option of ratifying the treaty later if they wish.

I don't think any of these sound too bad.

QuoteD - Maintain the status-quo

I vote for this!

Quote from: magpie seanie on June 11, 2008, 12:00:00 PM

QuoteD - Maintain the status-quo

I vote for this!

Well that aint gonna happen regardless and it stupid to think it will.

I voted no on this thread at the start. But having read the details and heard the debates, I will be voting yes.
Simple enough, it'll make things run a bit smoother, no big deal.

The scaremongering about our neutrality and abortion and the likes coming out of the no camp have really made me lose respect for them.

The best possible argument to be made so far for voting no is that its difficult to understand. All the other arguments have been rubbish, and proved to be so.

That said, I fear a no vote will win out due to some older, more simple people (not an insult) being scared into voting no.
An elder relation of mine told me yesterday she was voting no as she had been told its a step towards legalising abortion!

the people spreading these lies should be banned from campaigning.

It coms down to a question of trust in both the government and Europe really, some people obviously fear that despite what it says on the face of it, Ireland's control over its own affairs will diminish by stealth in the future.  From what I've read I'd vote yes if I'd the chance but I understand the scepticism to a degree.

Quote from: his holiness nb on June 11, 2008, 01:29:25 PM
I voted no on this thread at the start. But having read the details and heard the debates, I will be voting yes.
Simple enough, it'll make things run a bit smoother, no big deal.

The scaremongering about our neutrality and abortion and the likes coming out of the no camp have really made me lose respect for them.

The best possible argument to be made so far for voting no is that its difficult to understand. All the other arguments have been rubbish, and proved to be so.

That said, I fear a no vote will win out due to some older, more simple people (not an insult) being scared into voting no.
An elder relation of mine told me yesterday she was voting no as she had been told its a step towards legalising abortion!

the people spreading these lies should be banned from campaigning.

Goodman HH. It's refreshing to see someone look at the debate and change their mind.

WHile you are right about abortion I have to disagree about neutrality. I do believe some of the No camp are red faced about the abortion claim but it is true that most of the No side never made that claim. Patricia McKenna (Green), Joe Higgans (SP)  and ML McDonald (SF) have all said abortion is not a threat. I think the Yes side are using the untruth from a small section of the No side to beat them all with.

I believe our Neutrality is under threat. While it does not say in the Treaty that we must fight in EU wars it does say we must improve military capability. It does say we must come to the aid of member states under terrorist attack (like Spain and Basque). It says we must take part in disarmenent missions (like Iraq was). It does create an office for minister for foriegn affairs and common defence (this could be Tony Blair Butcher af Bagdad). The French currently hold the Presidency and are withholding a document on a common defence from us until after the treaty is passed at the wish of our Government. Our troops in Chad are there at the request of a colonial French State responsible for the war in Chad and US troops travel through Shannon on their way to war in Iraq. I believe we are not Neutral and I believe our Government don't want us to be neutral. I do not support Neutrality but I do oppose a common defence with powerful countries who have a very different view of their place in the world than we do. I believe, while this not the nail in the coffin of neutrality it is a very big step towards it. Death by a thousand cuts.

There are more arguements than it being hard to understand.

There are lies on both sides. There is a plan B. If not it would be like offering us an apple and saying "take the one you want".

But whats is this Plan B? if we go back to the table with a list of demands I'd say the other 26 will do the same and more could have to be given up.

We negotiated this deal and are our parties are happy its the best out there and I think it would be crazy to go back and try renegotiate

Quote from: his holiness nb on June 11, 2008, 01:29:25 PM
The best possible argument to be made so far for voting no is that its difficult to understand. All the other arguments have been rubbish, and proved to be so.

If you don't understand something, don't vote on it...

Still undecided, it'd be much easier to vote no if all the loons weren't running around spreading rumours...

Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on June 11, 2008, 02:25:03 PM

Quote from: his holiness nb on June 11, 2008, 01:29:25 PM
The best possible argument to be made so far for voting no is that its difficult to understand. All the other arguments have been rubbish, and proved to be so.

If you don't understand something, don't vote on it...

Still undecided, it'd be much easier to vote no if all the loons weren't running around spreading rumours...

I honestly think anyone who votes No because they say that they don't understand it is a pure idiot.

I have a discussion over lunch with a guy about it and he said he was voting No because he didnt understand it but when i asked him did he watch any of the debates or read about it he said he wouldnt have time for that. He is offically a total idiot if you ask me!

Quote from: Tankie on June 11, 2008, 02:18:23 PM
But whats is this Plan B? if we go back to the table with a list of demands I'd say the other 26 will do the same and more could have to be given up.

We negotiated this deal and are our parties are happy its the best out there and I think it would be crazy to go back and try renegotiate

It might be the best out there if you believe increased EU centralisation in all areas of our lives is the best way forward. I don't believe it is.

More what given up and by who?

I'm not asking to give anything up. We could have a referendum on how the EU structures work and there would be very little objection and have it running smoother. THe EU can give up somethings they want from this treaty but don't have now.

Did our Government not suggest at the time they where presented with the treaty that the Irish might vote No? Did they take this treaty and say "thanks, sin sin"? Did nobody think (considering it had been rejected twice before) that perhaps people of the EU don't want this? Are they that arrogant or stupid to think there would be no oposition? IF there is a no vote the world and the EU will go on. There is an automatic plan B of the status-quo.

It is worth remembering that the Lisbon treaty is an actual Plan C.
First we have the status-quo then the EU constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty. We are fools if we believe the EU can or will not have a plan D. If they have any sense Plan D should exclude the grab for power.

Quote from: Zapatista on June 11, 2008, 02:47:34 PM
It is worth remembering that the Lisbon treaty is an actual Plan C.
First we have the status-quo then the EU constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty. We are fools if we believe the EU can or will not have a plan D. If they have any sense Plan D should exclude the grab for power.

So what do you actually want from the EU as you seem to be totally against having 27 countries working together for the greater good.

Quote from: Zapatista on June 11, 2008, 02:44:26 PM
Did our Government not suggest at the time they where presented with the treaty that the Irish might vote No? Did they take this treaty and say "thanks, sin sin"? Did nobody think (considering it had been rejected twice before) that perhaps people of the EU don't want this? Are they that arrogant or stupid to think there would be no oposition? IF there is a no vote the world and the EU will go on. There is an automatic plan B of the status-quo.

They probably thought that they could pass it without a referendum. :P

Quote from: Tankie on June 11, 2008, 02:50:27 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on June 11, 2008, 02:47:34 PM
It is worth remembering that the Lisbon treaty is an actual Plan C.
First we have the status-quo then the EU constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty. We are fools if we believe the EU can or will not have a plan D. If they have any sense Plan D should exclude the grab for power.

So what do you actually want from the EU as you seem to be totally against having 27 countries working together for the greater good.

This is nothing more than a slurr against me. There is no evidence I am against the greater good of anything and now I am left trying to prove a negative.

I would be all for everyone working together for the greater good including the EU, China, USA, India, Africa etc but this is nothing more than a power grab and if we set the standard for global co operation for the greater good it will not be done with the Lisbon treaty. The greater good is not based on increased Militarism and competition.

Quote from: Zapatista on June 11, 2008, 03:04:02 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 11, 2008, 02:50:27 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on June 11, 2008, 02:47:34 PM
It is worth remembering that the Lisbon treaty is an actual Plan C.
First we have the status-quo then the EU constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty. We are fools if we believe the EU can or will not have a plan D. If they have any sense Plan D should exclude the grab for power.

So what do you actually want from the EU as you seem to be totally against having 27 countries working together for the greater good.

This is nothing more than a slurr against me. There is no evidence I am against the greater good of anything and now I am left trying to prove a negative.

I would be all for everyone working together for the greater good including the EU, China, USA, India, Africa etc but this is nothing more than a power grab and if we set the standard for global co operation for the greater good it will not be done with the Lisbon treaty. The greater good is not based on increased Militarism and competition.

There is no slur against you.

And we do have a Veto on our Military. The whole idea of this is not a power grab but more intergration between countries and to do that you cannot give everyone a Veto on everything, people see to forget that the French are giving up their veto in this area too.

Quote from: Tankie on June 11, 2008, 03:13:10 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on June 11, 2008, 03:04:02 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 11, 2008, 02:50:27 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on June 11, 2008, 02:47:34 PM
It is worth remembering that the Lisbon treaty is an actual Plan C.
First we have the status-quo then the EU constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty. We are fools if we believe the EU can or will not have a plan D. If they have any sense Plan D should exclude the grab for power.

So what do you actually want from the EU as you seem to be totally against having 27 countries working together for the greater good.

This is nothing more than a slurr against me. There is no evidence I am against the greater good of anything and now I am left trying to prove a negative.

I would be all for everyone working together for the greater good including the EU, China, USA, India, Africa etc but this is nothing more than a power grab and if we set the standard for global co operation for the greater good it will not be done with the Lisbon treaty. The greater good is not based on increased Militarism and competition.

There is no slur against you.

And we do have a Veto on our Military. The whole idea of this is not a power grab but more intergration between countries and to do that you cannot give everyone a Veto on everything, people see to forget that the French are giving up their veto in this area too.

A Veto is worth nothing unless you are prepared to use it. The fear of being anyway objectionable to the EU by our Government leaves me with little faith in our veto. A veto is not a reason to sign up to this. It would be like getting married because you know you can veto that marrige at any time. It would make it much easier and more sense not to get married at all and remain as partners. It's not that simple Tankie, once we sign up to this we have a conditional veto.

Quote from: Zapatista on June 11, 2008, 03:20:01 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 11, 2008, 03:13:10 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on June 11, 2008, 03:04:02 PM

Quote from: Tankie on June 11, 2008, 02:50:27 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on June 11, 2008, 02:47:34 PM
It is worth remembering that the Lisbon treaty is an actual Plan C.
First we have the status-quo then the EU constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty. We are fools if we believe the EU can or will not have a plan D. If they have any sense Plan D should exclude the grab for power.

So what do you actually want from the EU as you seem to be totally against having 27 countries working together for the greater good.

This is nothing more than a slurr against me. There is no evidence I am against the greater good of anything and now I am left trying to prove a negative.

I would be all for everyone working together for the greater good including the EU, China, USA, India, Africa etc but this is nothing more than a power grab and if we set the standard for global co operation for the greater good it will not be done with the Lisbon treaty. The greater good is not based on increased Militarism and competition.

There is no slur against you.

And we do have a Veto on our Military. The whole idea of this is not a power grab but more intergration between countries and to do that you cannot give everyone a Veto on everything, people see to forget that the French are giving up their veto in this area too.

A Veto is worth nothing unless you are prepared to use it. The fear of being anyway objectionable to the EU by our Government leaves me with little faith in our veto. A veto is not a reason to sign up to this. It would be like getting married because you know you can veto that marrige at any time. It would make it much easier and more sense not to get married at all and remain as partners. It's not that simple Tankie, once we sign up to this we have a conditional veto.

Well if we use it or not has nothing to do with the treaty but rather the Irish people.

The issue of sovereignty is again being dilluted plus the Irish people will not know the full context of the Lisbon treaty because the european commission are decided to hold back certain pieces of information until the actuall Irish referendum has been held. All sounds a little sus to me. If there is nothing to hide then why not just open the whole issue up for proper public debate and scrutiny.

Quote from: magickingdom on June 10, 2008, 11:29:08 PM

Quote from: muppet on June 10, 2008, 09:51:02 PM
Missed again and this time another wide with it.

Firstly, the EU Parliament didn't elect Barosso, the EU Council nominated him President Delegate and he was then endorsed by the European Parliament. The EU Council has no executive powers, the EU parliament has only joint powers in some areas and no legislative powers on its own. The EU Comission, who are not elected have most of the power.

Secondly the Dáil elected Cowan our leader from the Dáil, not an unelected nominee from a non executive body.

Finally why do the Yes camp not accept that if there is a no vote then that is the democratic vote of the poeple? If there really is no Plan B then any responsible Government would have to resign.

If it is a Yes vote then fine, but it should be because the people have spoken not because they were given no choice.

this is exactly what i said.
"the european parliment elect a president of the commission on the basis of a nomination of the heads of government"
which is the very same as what you said
"the EU Council nominated him President Delegate and he was then endorsed by the European Parliament"

the eu council is the heads of government and by endorsed i presume you mean approve by vote (they can also reject him)

so how did i miss the point? or are you just trying to confuse the issue some more. your point about the eu council having no executive powers is disingenuous - the eu council has better things to do as its the supreme body of the eu

There is a subtle but significant difference. You compared the Dáil's election of Cowen as our leader to the EU Heads of State nomination of Barosso and the EU Parliament's endorsement of that nomination. There is a difference.

Firstly Cowen was elected by the people to the Dáil and then elected as leader by the Dáil. All of that body were elected in the same General Election. There were also two other candidates nominated for the position of Taoiseach and there was a vote of the elected members. All very democratic.

Barosso was the only candidate nominated by the non-Executive EU Council and that nomination was endorsed by the EU parliament. One candidate only...from outside the Parliament.

My problem with Barosso is that I had no chance to vote him into or out of office. I have no chance to vote for any party that he is associated with or against. He supported the War on Iraq. If Bertie did that there would have been a reaction at the subsequent elections as there was in many EU countries at the time. Except of course the EU itself. The leaders and decision makers are not accountable to the people. That is my problem and this Treaty is another watering down of the same old problem.  

Quote from: Tankie on June 11, 2008, 12:46:53 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on June 11, 2008, 12:00:00 PM

QuoteD - Maintain the status-quo

I vote for this!

Well that aint gonna happen regardless and it stupid to think it will.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Quote from: muppet on June 11, 2008, 03:49:24 PM

There is a subtle but significant difference. You compared the Dáil's election of Cowen as our leader to the EU Heads of State nomination of Barosso and the EU Parliament's endorsement of that nomination. There is a difference.

Firstly Cowen was elected by the people to the Dáil and then elected as leader by the Dáil. All of that body were elected in the same General Election. There were also two other candidates nominated for the position of Taoiseach and there was a vote of the elected members. All very democratic.

Barosso was the only candidate nominated by the non-Executive EU Council and that nomination was endorsed by the EU parliament. One candidate only...from outside the Parliament.

My problem with Barosso is that I had no chance to vote him into or out of office. I have no chance to vote for any party that he is associated with or against. He supported the War on Iraq. If Bertie did that there would have been a reaction at the subsequent elections as there was in many EU countries at the time. Except of course the EU itself. The leaders and decision makers are not accountable to the people. That is my problem and this Treaty is another watering down of the same old problem.  

the eu parliament could also have rejected barosso! but they didnt, you make it out like all they do is rubber stamp it. if they had rejected barosso the heads of state (all elected) would have to nominate someone else

Quote from: magickingdom on June 11, 2008, 07:05:53 PM

Quote from: muppet on June 11, 2008, 03:49:24 PM

There is a subtle but significant difference. You compared the Dáil's election of Cowen as our leader to the EU Heads of State nomination of Barosso and the EU Parliament's endorsement of that nomination. There is a difference.

Firstly Cowen was elected by the people to the Dáil and then elected as leader by the Dáil. All of that body were elected in the same General Election. There were also two other candidates nominated for the position of Taoiseach and there was a vote of the elected members. All very democratic.

Barosso was the only candidate nominated by the non-Executive EU Council and that nomination was endorsed by the EU parliament. One candidate only...from outside the Parliament.

My problem with Barosso is that I had no chance to vote him into or out of office. I have no chance to vote for any party that he is associated with or against. He supported the War on Iraq. If Bertie did that there would have been a reaction at the subsequent elections as there was in many EU countries at the time. Except of course the EU itself. The leaders and decision makers are not accountable to the people. That is my problem and this Treaty is another watering down of the same old problem.  

the eu parliament could also have rejected barosso! but they didnt, you make it out like all they do is rubber stamp it. if they had rejected barosso the heads of state (all elected) would have to nominate someone else

No, they were told there was no plan B.  ;D

Quote from: muppet on June 11, 2008, 08:47:24 PM

No, they were told there was no plan B.  ;D

ha ha well said! :D :D

Stop this undemocratic power grab, vote early and vote often, vote No NO No

Well thats about it, all i can ask is:

Are you really gonna take economic advice from Sinn Fein ahead of the parties that have built our success?

Vote Yes

Quote from: Tankie on June 11, 2008, 10:40:25 PM
Well thats about it, all i can ask is:

Are you really gonna take economic advice from Sinn Fein ahead of the parties that have built our success?

Vote Yes

If your only reason for supporting the Lisbon treaty (which is a document that will determine the rest of our lives, our children's lives, our grandchildren lives and the lives of billions around the world) is to not take advice economic advice from SF, I really fear for the future.

Are you really going to take advice from the armament industry, unelected bureaucrats and Bertie (the Apprentice) Ahern. Remember, there is No plan B if we vote Yes. There is no turning back if we vote Yes. Will we willingly hand more power to the EU through a document designed to be incomprehensible. We will sign the Irish people (and the European People) up to more Military Capability more Competition and less say in how it is used. Will we create another world super power which can amend the field of work we have allowed it, by itself? Or will we create an unaccountable body of powerful people to act in their own interest and the interest of their partners in control of the movement of people, product and capital?

This is voting day.
The poll will close at 10pm tonight. If you have already cast your vote on the poll it can still be changed.

For those of you who have decided to vote No, I beg you to stick to your decision. A much more educated decision was made before today. Please do not change your mind with a decision made today. Please do not fall victim to the fear that will come at the time of casting your vote. If in doubt vote No. There is no come back on a Yes vote. All that is in the Lisbon treaty will be legal and will be implemented if we vote yes. There will be No second chance. Vote No to lisbon and we can get the wrongs righted. Vote No to Lisbon for your voice to be heard the loudest.

Quote from: Zapatista on June 12, 2008, 08:16:08 AM
Are you really going to take advice from the armament industry, unelected bureaucrats and Bertie (the Apprentice) Ahern. Remember, there is No plan B if we vote Yes. There is no turning back if we vote Yes. Will we willingly hand more power to the EU through a document designed to be incomprehensible. We will sign the Irish people (and the European People) up to more Military Capability more Competition and less say in how it is used. Will we create another world super power which can amend the field of work we have allowed it, by itself? Or will we create an unaccountable body of powerful people to act in their own interest and the interest of their partners in control of the movement of people, product and capital?

That about sums it up for me.

Im voting No and I dont buy the "No Plan B" scaremongering for one second. If we vote No, and everything stays the same, then fine. If we vote No, and they go back and rengotiate, and for some reason a worse deal is put on the table - well guess what, we can vote No again.

If you don't see a compelling argument to change our Constitution (one that has served us fairly well since the foundation of the State) then you really must vote no. Our Constitution is too precious to alter unless you're sure its an improvement. Vote NO.

No turning back if we vote Yes?

The Lisbon treaty sets out the parameters of how a country can leave the EU if they don't think its working for them. So, basically, we can leave at any time.

The treaty as proposed is very fair to Ireland. It does not disadvantage us at all in comparison to other countries. It will help the EU run more effectively and more efficienty. It will not affect our tax status, our neutraility or abortion! The mainsteam political parties are in favour of it, almost all the unions are in favour of it, employers are in favour of it, the extreme left and rigt wing loo-las are against it. Vote yes for Europe.

If we vote no, there will be no substantive change to the treaty, because we already got a fair deal. What will happen is there will be specific clauses put in saying that Ireland has a veto on tax and can keep the 12.5% rate, that Ireland (along with the other neutral EU countries) can remain neutral, and that Ireland cannot be forced to perform abortions in Irish hospitals - just so the lies from the No side will be seen more clearly as lies. And we'll spend a lot more taxpayers money preparing for and holding another referendum.

I have to hand it to the No campaign in how all their lies and scare-mongering have persuaded so many people to vote No. Also have to say how poorly the politicians have done in getting their message across. I saw a debate between a SF treasurer (I think), a Libertas bloke, Gay Mitchell and some woman from a university (in favour), and the person who did the most for the No campaign was the idiot Mitchell.

I'll be voting 'Yes' - we've been in the EU (in its various forms) for 35 years and it has been the best thing that has happened this country; socially and economically.  It has single-handedly dragged 1970s Ireland into the modern world - the 'No' camp have been making the same wrong arguments since then, and nothing has changed on either side.  It's pretty obvious (to me anyway) that, administratively, the EU needed to change to allow for its expansion (in terms of member states), and I'm happy to allow that to happen.  I don't want to live in Pangurban's utopia.

I disagree BB's. The EU has been a massive help but it hasn't "single-handedly dragged 1970s Ireland into the modern world". We did a lot of innovative things ourselves to help spawn the Celtic Tiger and that must not be forgotten. We had the scope to pitch oursleves a certain way.

I'm not anti-Europe at all. I just don't see need for any further integration. We joined an economic grouping in the 70's which has served us and its members well, by and large. I don't feel we need further integration with Europe. No-one has convinced me that the EU is about to fall apart under its current structures. If it aint broke....

Hound - I disagree with some of what you're saying. I'm perfectly satisfied over neutrality, abortion and taxation (though some day the pressure will come on again for us to ditch our low CT rates - you can go to the bank with that). I don't think a lot of people believe the looneys and their scaremongering to be honest. I just feel that a lot of people are of the same opinion as myself - Europe is fine the way it is.

On the point about all the mainstream parties supporting it - Politicians are not neutral in this debate. There's something in it for them - jobs, junkets or whatever. Realisitically, only 5 or 6 at most people decide policy for each of those parties and all the others toe the line. Like the goons who were out marching in support of retaining cancer services in Sligo one week but voted against it in the Dáil the next.

Quote from: Billys Boots on June 12, 2008, 09:27:18 AM
I'll be voting 'Yes' - we've been in the EU (in its various forms) for 35 years and it has been the best thing that has happened this country; socially and economically.  It has single-handedly dragged 1970s Ireland into the modern world - the 'No' camp have been making the same wrong arguments since then, and nothing has changed on either side.  It's pretty obvious (to me anyway) that, administratively, the EU needed to change to allow for its expansion (in terms of member states), and I'm happy to allow that to happen.  I don't want to live in Pangurban's utopia.

I second that BB! well said

QuoteWe had the scope to pitch oursleves a certain way.

Well I disagree too Seanie, we had the scope to pitch ourselves as a member state of a large trading bloc (with the knock on absence of trade barriers) with a favourable tax regimen, which was clever alright, but wouldn't have been possible as an 'independent' state.  We took advantage of a good position, just like we did in 1973, and just like we need to do again now.

I accept a lot of that BB's but I just don't see the benefits of this current proposal.

I'd be interested in your view. How do you think its going to keep our economy strong and keep jobs in the country? Personally I find it hard to see how we will sustain our success. I cannot see a new niche for our country and it worries me a little about the future. Nothing in this treaty eases those worries from what I can see.

Quote from: magpie seanie on June 12, 2008, 10:02:57 AM
I accept a lot of that BB's but I just don't see the benefits of this current proposal.

I'd be interested in your view. How do you think its going to keep our economy strong and keep jobs in the country? Personally I find it hard to see how we will sustain our success. I cannot see a new niche for our country and it worries me a little about the future. Nothing in this treaty eases those worries from what I can see.

It involves looking at a bigger picture, too late in the day to get into it again! A stronger EU benifits Ireland

Well, I'm not too optimistic about keeping our economy strong 'independently', because we're too dependent on factors completely outside our control - we all know what they are.  I'd agree that we need to create new niches for ourselves, in the same way as small companies need to do likewise to compete on the same stage as multinationals.  What is 'good' about our position is that we're able to move quickly from being a 'haven' for electronics/pharmachem companies (as in the early 90s) to teleservices/IT/internet companies (as in the boom times) to financial services (more recently).  Maintaining this 'position' (i.e. allowing us to do this) is absolutely dependent on being part of the EU - placing us on the periphery of a trading bloc, with the absence of trade restrictions therein.  My business has won work (in the past two years) in Cyprus, Holland, Denmark and Britain - I don't for one moment imagine that I could get this work if not in an integrated EU.

By the way, I don't think there are any benefits in the Treaty, for anyone - other than a more effectively operated and managed Commission.

Great debate lads and more illuminating than much of what has polluted the public discourse on this referendum. Sterling stuff from Zapatista in particular.

I would have started out inclined to vote 'Yes', subject to informing myself on the details. My attempt to inform myself has been frustrated by the deliberate policy of the government, the coalition supporting the proposal and the vested interests in the EU itself to cloud the issue, simplify the argument to stultifying "do the right thing because Europe has been good to us" exhortations and lie about the potential consequences of a rejection of the treaty.

This is NOT a referendum about whether we stay in the EU, maintain the benefits of membership, etc. We are being asked to approve a proposal for changing how the EU is governed. We are entitled to say we don't think it's a good proposal without being threatened with expulsion, accused of ingratitude or presumed to be anti-Europe.

With my attempts to inform myself frustrated, I haven't been able to find a good reason to vote 'Yes'. That should leave me in a theoretically neutral position. However, if there's no reason to vote 'Yes' the only reasonable option is to vote 'No', despite my discomfort at the coalition of crusties, malcontents and erstwhile enemies of the state that puts me in communion with.

Zapatista put it best – contrary to the government's proclamations that there is no plan B if we vote no, in fact there is no plan B, no going back, if we vote 'Yes', while the likely aftermath of a 'No' seems straightforward enough – carry on as we are until we get a reasonable proposal for change that we can support. Therefore, I vote to maintain the current system until we are given an honest  and open proposal for improving the workings of the EU that is clear and concise on what we are gaining and what we are giving up.

However, the clinching argument for me was something I found in the Referendum Commission's booklet and that in the whole public debate I have seen mentioned only once, by Magpie Seanie here. It is this (in reference to the proposal to give the European Council the power to amend the treaties by unanimous vote):

"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".

To me, that is the most important change to our constitution proposed in this referendum and I find it amazing that it has hardly even surfaced in the debate.

Vote No. Europe is now dictating everything from cutting turf to cutting hedgerows. Uniform cooperate tax for all members. Whats mine is mine & what yours is mine attitude from  France & Germany. Germany tried to exterminate half the population of Europe. Those guys should never have been allowed to have political autonomy. As for those ignorant French, the ultimate pig ignorant nation.

QuoteTherefore, I vote to maintain the current system until we are given an honest  and open proposal for improving the workings of the EU that is clear and concise on what we are gaining and what we are giving up.

If we're honest, do we really know, understand and approve of the way it's currently governed?  For me, it's about outcomes, not footpaths.

As for Referenda in Ireland, can we honestly say that all of them have been worthwhile?  From a 'everyone gets their say' viewpoint, well certainly.  From an information and truth viewpoint, most definitely not.  Is democracy really always about having your personal say - I think this constant insistence on having (yet another) viewpoint lessens the value of our vote in General Elections, and lessens the pressure on our politicians to make meaningful and accountable decisions.  Why indanamajaysus do we have to have a say about absolutely f*cking everything - especially things we don't (and don't want to, and don't need to) understand.

Death Valley - you seem to be an authority on ignorance. Well done for that incisive contribution.

Thanks for the reply BB's.

Hardy - very similar feelings to myself.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, BB about referenda. In fact I have a problem with democracy itself as currently practiced, to the extent that the uninformed have an equal vote with those who have taken the trouble to understand the issue at hand.

But I would always think long and hard about any attempt by a govermnent to arrogate more power to itself at the expense of the citizen's franchise. I think much longer and harder when it's a coalition of government and opposition - i..e. effectively the entire political class as a unit, seeking to do it. Longest and hardest when they seem to be attempting it by stealth.

Quote from: Billys Boots on June 12, 2008, 10:38:31 AM
If we're honest, do we really know, understand and approve of the way it's currently governed?  For me, it's about outcomes, not footpaths.

We know and have experienced the effects and can make some sort of judgment on whether they've been positive or negative. We have reason to be worried when there seems to be a concerted effort to obfuscate the likely effects of the new proposals.

Quote from: Hardy on June 12, 2008, 10:26:30 AM
Great debate lads and more illuminating than much of what has polluted the public discourse on this referendum. Sterling stuff from Zapatista in particular.

I would have started out inclined to vote 'Yes', subject to informing myself on the details. My attempt to inform myself has been frustrated by the deliberate policy of the government, the coalition supporting the proposal and the vested interests in the EU itself to cloud the issue, simplify the argument to stultifying "do the right thing because Europe has been good to us" exhortations and lie about the potential consequences of a rejection of the treaty.

This is NOT a referendum about whether we stay in the EU, maintain the benefits of membership, etc. We are being asked to approve a proposal for changing how the EU is governed. We are entitled to say we don't think it's a good proposal without being threatened with expulsion, accused of ingratitude or presumed to be anti-Europe.

With my attempts to inform myself frustrated, I haven't been able to find a good reason to vote 'Yes'. That should leave me in a theoretically neutral position. However, if there's no reason to vote 'Yes' the only reasonable option is to vote 'No', despite my discomfort at the coalition of crusties, malcontents and erstwhile enemies of the state that puts me in communion with.

Zapatista put it best – contrary to the government's proclamations that there is no plan B if we vote no, in fact there is no plan B, no going back, if we vote 'Yes', while the likely aftermath of a 'No' seems straightforward enough – carry on as we are until we get a reasonable proposal for change that we can support. Therefore, I vote to maintain the current system until we are given an honest  and open proposal for improving the workings of the EU that is clear and concise on what we are gaining and what we are giving up.

However, the clinching argument for me was something I found in the Referendum Commission's booklet and that in the whole public debate I have seen mentioned only once, by Magpie Seanie here. It is this (in reference to the proposal to give the European Council the power to amend the treaties by unanimous vote):

"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".
To me, that is the most important change to our constitution proposed in this referendum and I find it amazing that it has hardly even surfaced in the debate.

Hardy, excellent post and I agree with you entirely. However, in reference to the section in bold above, you are not entirely correct. The referendum commission handbook says this: allow Ireland to agree at the European Council to certain changes in the EU treaties; these changes may require a referendum or require the approval of the Dáil and Seanad

Thats certainly different to saying it would not require a referendum. But I think it's important that the referendum commission havent actually clarified this issue.

The actual wording in the treaty is:
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 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

I don't know an awful lot about the Lisbon Treaty, but from I can gather.

1) It doesn't affect Irish Neutrality
2) It would seriously affect Ireland's standing with the European Community with there was a No vote.

So even though we know wouldn't have a full-time EU Commissioner anymore, if I had a vote, I'd vote Yes.

Stevo-08 – I haven't read the treaty (so I suppose I shouldn't be voting at all),  but you and I are quoting separate paragraphs (from the same section, though) of the Referendum Commission's booklet.

The paragraph you quote is referring to the proposal to give the European Council the power to propose changes to "certain parts" (it doesn't say which parts)  of the governing treaties. And, as you quote, it says this "may require a referendum in Ireland".

The following paragraph says the treaty "also" (implying that this is a different provision, but it's not clear about the difference) proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the treaties to allow QMV in some areas where unanimity is now required and to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in areas where the Special Legislative Procedure is applied at present. This is the item in relation to which it says "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".

QuoteWe know and have experienced the effects and can make some sort of judgment on whether they've been positive or negative.

I agree, and I think we'd be very, very wrong to consider that the negative has outweighed (or even approached in 'weight') the positive - don't you agree?

QuoteWe have reason to be worried when there seems to be a concerted effort to obfuscate the likely effects of the new proposals.

Well, it hasn't been clear, to be sure, but I'm not assured that the effort at obfuscation has been concerted.  If you bought a car that you were happy enough with - would you require (or expect to be consulted on) a new manual on the engine workings of an improved or changed model, should the manufacturer decide to change it, regardless of whether it 'worked' better or not?  Can we really expect the administrators of the EU to explain, word-by-word, how they manage this monolith, when we don't expect it of our government departments or our county councils?

With the 'new' EU, and additional member states (and a larger market for us to exploit), can we really expect to have the same proportional influence in its administration?  Are we entitled to more Commissioners than Germany or France? - we already have a greater proportional 'say' per head of population.  Let's be fair about this folks.

Hardy, ok Im with you now. Thats another section in Article 48 (exact wording below), which seems to supersede the veto argument for all areas other than military & defence. I think the difference between this section & the section I referred to above, is that this section makes a provision for the European Council to make decisions on all areas (other than military & defence) by QMV rather than unanimity. Not good in my opinion. However, the first section I referred to above, makes a provision to actually change the treaty after it has been ratified and this may not need a referendum. Is it too much to ask the referendum commission to clarify this before we cast out vote!!!

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

Here is the artile in question I only took it from this site as it was the first one on google.

http://www.libertas.org/content/view/203/113/

This part concerns me.

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.

I think we have one year left? It could also be considered as a Plan B.

It's good to have your opinion Ziggy.

It would be interesting to see the opinion of more posters without a vote (topic for another thread on the right to vote). Did many of you vote in this poll and how did you vote in the poll?

Just looking at article 48.5 again ---

I read it as, if 1/5 of member states have not passed the treaty in two years after the signing (14 months from now I think) it will be referred to the Council (the heads of all member states). It does not say why. It might be to implement a plan B of some sort, renegotiation, sidelining, or leave the status-quo. Rather than drop the idea of the treaty this will give the council the chance to do something. I don't understand how this can be the case as this text is in a treaty which won't be ratified which leaves article 48.5 (and the treaty as a whole) illegal. Therefore it cannot be referred to the council as they have no athority to refer it without the ratification of the treaty.

Quote from: Zapatista on June 12, 2008, 12:57:19 PM
Just looking at article 48.5 again ---

I read it as, if 1/5 of member states have not passed the treaty in two years after the signing (14 months from now I think) it will be referred to the Council (the heads of all member states). It does not say why. It might be to implement a plan B of some sort, renegotiation, sidelining, or leave the status-quo. Rather than drop the idea of the treaty this will give the council the chance to do something. I don't understand how this can be the case as this text is in a treaty which won't be ratified which leaves article 48.5 (and the treaty as a whole) illegal. Therefore it cannot be referred to the council as they have no athority to refer it without the ratification of the treaty.

I still think this is the best deal we can get, voting NO will only hold up the EU for another 3 - 5 years and nothing that is being discussed will change

Congrats on your ability to tell the future Tankie.

Ref: Zap

I voted on this poll and voted Yes.

However, since I'm a dirty northerner, I won't be voting in the other poll ;)

Quote from: Tankie on June 12, 2008, 12:59:57 PM

I still think this is the best deal we can get, voting NO will only hold up the EU for another 3 - 5 years and nothing that is being discussed will change

Fair enough but I'm not argueing that. Article 48.5 refers the treaty to the council in the case of a no vote yet article 48.5 cannot be activated without a yes vote.

Also the treaty refers to the president as a man even before a president has be chosen ;)

Quote from: magpie seanie on June 12, 2008, 09:43:08 AM
Hound - I disagree with some of what you're saying. I'm perfectly satisfied over neutrality, abortion and taxation (though some day the pressure will come on again for us to ditch our low CT rates - you can go to the bank with that). I don't think a lot of people believe the looneys and their scaremongering to be honest. I just feel that a lot of people are of the same opinion as myself - Europe is fine the way it is.

On the point about all the mainstream parties supporting it - Politicians are not neutral in this debate. There's something in it for them - jobs, junkets or whatever. Realisitically, only 5 or 6 at most people decide policy for each of those parties and all the others toe the line. Like the goons who were out marching in support of retaining cancer services in Sligo one week but voted against it in the Dáil the next.

Of course there will be pressure to increase our corporate tax rates, there was significant pressure put on McCreevy a few years back, but we will never do it. Never. The CCCTB was a clever idea by the EU to cirumvent our low tax rates, and even if we opted out, if other countries got together and implemented it, there could be serious adverse ramifications for Ireland. However the Lisbon treaty specifies that a select group cannot implement it by themselves, without unanimous permission. So not only can we keep out of CCCTB, we can prevent others from going into it.

I agree that its half a dozen or so from each party who decide what the party-line is, and then everyone else has to toe it. And certainly if the "jobs, junkets" remark was made glibly I could understand it given the scandals. But there is not even a smidgeon of me that believes for one second that the top people in FF, FG and Labour are encouraging a Yes vote for "jobs and junkets". And I think anyone who does has gone way too far over the top in their judgement of our leading politicians.

I agree with Hound on the 'Jobs Junkets' thing. However I do think that Gilmore believes it will promote him domestically and increase his chances of getting into Government with FG in the near future as leader of Labour should the treaty be passed. I think FG are genuine in their favour for it. The jurys still out on FF.

QuoteBut there is not even a smidgeon of me that believes for one second that the top people in FF, FG and Labour are encouraging a Yes vote for "jobs and junkets".

If we're going down that road - what is the single (probably only) most important focus of politicians everywhere?  Getting re-elected.  Taken at the basest level, if all these guys reckons getting re-elected will be easier for them with this treaty than without it, then (even at our most cynical/realistic) can we for a moment imagine that this will disimprove Ireland's standing as a nation or as a member state?  Will voting 'YES' make these gombeens less electable - I don't think so.

Quote from: Zapatista on June 12, 2008, 12:57:19 PM
Just looking at article 48.5 again ---

I read it as, if 1/5 of member states have not passed the treaty in two years after the signing (14 months from now I think) it will be referred to the Council (the heads of all member states). It does not say why. It might be to implement a plan B of some sort, renegotiation, sidelining, or leave the status-quo. Rather than drop the idea of the treaty this will give the council the chance to do something. I don't understand how this can be the case as this text is in a treaty which won't be ratified which leaves article 48.5 (and the treaty as a whole) illegal. Therefore it cannot be referred to the council as they have no athority to refer it without the ratification of the treaty.

I might be wrong but I think this refers to ammendments to the Treaty after it's been ratified. The first point in Article 48 says:
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

This sets the tone for the remainder of Article 48, which goes on to describe how the ammendments can be ratified or agreed. As I said, I could be wrong in this.

Whatever about the job/junkets (I was taking a bit of licence there, I am getting a bit cynical) politicians do receive more power out of this Treaty.

There's f*ck all point in them having more power if we don't consider them electable, or if we think they've sold us down the Swanee.

Less than 4 million Irish people have the fate of Europe and the world in their hands. The powers that be know full well that if all 27 EU member countries voted on their draconian Constitution it would fail. Not only should Ireland vote NO we should also succeed from the EU. It was ushered in quietly by the signing of the Treaty of Rome 51 years ago, much like The North America Union which was signed into law on March 23rd 2005 without the knowledge and consent of the people, a treasonous act. 

Ireland has lost its Sovereignty through the lure of subsidies and the stroke of a pen, a yes vote would be the final nail in the coffin. The main political parties have sold their souls to the devil and do not have the best interest of the Irish people at heart. Just like Paul Gallagher returning from Chantilly, Virginia their feet should be held to the fire for their actions. How could both FF and FG be completely in unison unless they were told how to vote and use propaganda in order to sway the Irish electorate?

A yes vote if implemented will go down in infamy

Quote from: Billys Boots on June 12, 2008, 12:01:16 PM

QuoteWe know and have experienced the effects and can make some sort of judgment on whether they've been positive or negative.

I agree, and I think we'd be very, very wrong to consider that the negative has outweighed (or even approached in 'weight') the positive - don't you agree?

I think we're at cross purposes Billy. I said I'd vote to stay with the current system until we got a clear and understandable proposal for change in how the EU is governed. You questioned whether we know any more about how it's governed at present than we do about the new proposals.

I agree, but my point is at least we have experience of the current system and on the whole it's been positive. Hence my rationale for staying with it until we're offered something better (or at least understandable).

As regards whether the obfuscation has been concerted, I'd cite the refusal (or at best failure) to provide the electorate with a single tangible benefit that will accrue from voting 'Yes',  the continuing lie of presenting this as if it were a referendum on our membership of the EU ('let's stay at the heart of Europe', etc.) and the news management to make sure uncomfortable revelations are kept under wraps until after the referendum - for a start.

You can be sure if there was ANY substantive benefit to the Irish people resulting from approval of the treaty, that is what would be sold in this campaign. The fact that the best they can do is threaten us with unpopularity if we don't do the right thing convinces me that they don't have a positive argument FOR the thing. On the other hand, what we're losing is quite clear. It's not all that much and not all that important and most people would probably support it in the cause of – well whatever the reason is that we're being asked to give up these things, if only we knew. I know – something vague about greater efficiency for the bureaucrats. That's sure to stir the passions of the electorate.

It might not be very noble, but electorates are ultimately mercenary and vote for whatever benefits themselves. Irish politicians, of all politicians and FF of all Irish politicians should know that and I can't believe their stupidity in offering a proposal to the Irish electorate that contains clearly defined negatives (reduced voting power, essentially) and no compensating positives.

the latest straw poll carried out by Bogball has confirmed his worst fears, namely that last weeks shock lead for the NO campaign seems to have galvinised the YES campaign, from last week when amongst co-workers the voting was 7-1 in favour of NO, there has been a huge swing to YES, whilst NO still leads by 12-6, the previously undecideds have stuck with the establishment, a common reason given is "look at who's voting NO, Libertas and Shinners", you should bear in mnd that the people I work with are an extremely cynical bunch, and I think this swing might be replicated countrywide.
It's good that the middle management of Biffo and Enda can go back to Brussels with a job well done, they might even be rewarded....

Bogball - I would have the same fear as you but am clinging to the hope that many would keep schtum about voting no (so as not to be seen to be agreeing with the "loo-laas") yet do the deed in the privacy of the voting booth. Think its possible, moreso than the other way round.

BogBall, I firmly believe that the people will vote Yes. I may be cynical to say this but I am of the opinion that those voting Yes will vote yes most of those intending to vote No up to yesterday will vote No. However, I can see a huge change of mind today. Many people will vote Yes (the I don't knows and some Nos) after deciding today. The fear of a No vote will scare them. They won't know why but when they enter that booth they will go "f**k it, I can't take the chance". I believe they will vote yes. A last minute change of plan will see the Yes camp through due to the false fear of voting No.


BTW did anyone get canvassed at their door and if si by who?

No-one called to my door.

QuoteAs regards whether the obfuscation has been concerted, I'd cite the refusal (or at best failure) to provide the electorate with a single tangible benefit that will accrue from voting 'Yes'

Sorry to keep harping on, but how can there be ANY tangible benefits in rejigging an adminstrative system to account for an effective doubling of the number of countries within the EU (shit, nearly called it Union) - in terms of influence/votes etc., nobody wins (except the newbies).  How can that be 'sold' to the interminably greedy/selfish?

For interests sake, it's reported today that the Greek, Estonian and Finnish parliaments all voted through the Treaty yesterday with massive majorities.

As I said, Billy, it's not noble, but it's a fact that people are reluctant to vote for something that delivers no tangible benefit to them but which does carry tangible detriments. ANd it wouldn't be different if it were French or German or British voters being asked to give up some power without compensation. I'm mixing my pragmatic and principled arguments up a bit, but the point in this case is that, whether or not they do get their desired result, it was incredibly stupid of the Irish government and the EU to put a proposal like this to the electorate without some sort of sweetener.

I don't disagree with a thing you said, but I'll still vote Yes.  We must be more balanced in our upbringing in Longford.  :P

Quote from: magpie seanie on June 12, 2008, 02:31:39 PM
Bogball - I would have the same fear as you but am clinging to the hope that many would keep schtum about voting no (so as not to be seen to be agreeing with the "loo-laas") yet do the deed in the privacy of the voting booth. Think its possible, moreso than the other way round.

Good point.

Also interesting that a lot on here don't mind being associated with the loo-laas   ;)

Sure you know me Hound!

The result is in and the treaty has fallen on the board. It was mighty close throughout.

Result
Yes - 39.3%
No  - 45.2%

That's it bar the shouting. We will Know the Nations result by this afternoon. Whatever the result is it was the poeple who decided and so, it is the right result. Most of the debate was really good and easier to follow than those TV debates when they done a lot of talking over each other.

Well done.

I know there has been variations of this doing the rounds of late - but that it was a bit of a laugh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADbTCSuNSms (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADbTCSuNSms)

i know everyone is sick of this thread and that includes me but one important point that was made a few times was that the referundam was not neccessary.  todays irish times spells it out and i leave it at that..

Was holding referendum on Lisbon Treaty really necessary?


ONE QUESTION that has not been answered in the discussion following the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is why was a referendum necessary in the first place. Or more precisely, what aspects of the Lisbon Treaty conflicted with the provisions of the Constitution to the extent that a referendum was necessary?

In its judgment on the challenge made by Raymond Crotty to the Single European Act, the Supreme Count found that one element of that treaty was not covered by the terms of constitutional amendment governing Ireland's membership of the EU. That element was the agreement to develop a common foreign policy. So at least people knew when voting in the referendum on the Single European Act why a referendum was necessary. In that same judgment, the Supreme Court set down a marker as to whether or not a new treaty required a referendum. The test is whether there is a change to the purpose and objectives of the European Union.

Does the Lisbon Treaty represent a change to the purpose and objectives of the European Union?

The Danes, the most scrupulous watchdogs of national sovereignty, found after careful examination that the treaty did not involve any additional transfer of sovereignty to the union and therefore no referendum was necessary. A number of other member states came to the same conclusion.

What analysis did the Government make?

If it did receive advice on the constitutionality of the treaty, it was not shared with the

Irish people. Instead, it seems to have followed the "safe" option of holding a referendum, even though no one was clear why a referendum was necessary in the first place.

Although the conventional wisdom holds that a referendum is required to ratify all EU treaties in Ireland, this is not the case. The treaties enlarging the EU, with the exception of our own in 1972, have been ratified through the Oireachtas. It is ironic that radical treaties that have expanded democracy to formerly totalitarian states can be ratified by the Oireachtas but rules of procedure treaties, such as Nice and Lisbon, which update and regulate our relationships within the union, are ratified by referendum.

We now know the dangers for Ireland and our partners in Europe of being the only country to hold a referendum on a highly technical treaty such as Lisbon.

The assumption that the treaty requires a referendum because of the Crotty judgment, coupled with the constraints of McKenna judgment on support for both sides of the argument, has led to unforeseen consequences for representative democracy and how we protect our vital national interests.

A referendum provides anti-European groups with a platform to campaign repeatedly against the European Union, even though these groups have less than 10 per cent of the seats in the Dáil and can currently call on the support of no more than six TDs.

While in a democracy one should never discount minority views, the outcome of the Lisbon referendum does raise questions about Ireland's constitutional status as a representative democracy. In addition, some interest groups have taken advantage of referendum campaigns to lever concessions from the Government on EU policy to their advantage. Éamon de Valera, the prime architect of our Constitution, had a healthy scepticism of special interests and was a strong believer in representative democracy. The Constitution he designed limits the use of referendums. It is hard to envisage that the Supreme Court intended through its judgments to transform Ireland into a plebiscitory democracy on the model of Switzerland.

The use of the referendum, even where the reason for it is not clear, gives the impression that our European partners can be persuaded to move as slowly or as quickly as public opinion in Ireland. We were assured by the No campaigners, for example, that rejection of the treaty would lead to its renegotiation. As a small country with 1 per cent of the EU population that has achieved remarkable results through skilful diplomacy and negotiation, we should be wary of issuing ultimatums or of derailing the hard-won consensus of our 26 partners.

Another consequence of the use of the referendum in situations where it is not clear why people are voting is a growing perception across Europe that the Irish are disengaging from the European Union, despite the ongoing support of the Irish public for the EU as measured by opinion polls over many years. This perception undermines what has been a vital national interest of Ireland for a generation, namely to remain at the heart of the European enterprise.

Ireland has over the last decade become increasingly marginalised within the EU. In addition to our difficulties with a common defence, we have sought a partial opt-out of the justice areas of the EU, we are non-members of the Schengen Agreement and it appears that we will be opting out of some of the provisions of the proposed common policy on migration. We are perceived to be ever more closely aligned to the UK on economic and social issues within the EU.

It is regrettable that Ireland's membership of the EU, so long a vital national interest, is becoming increasingly governed by legal concerns rather than being treated as a central political objective of the country. We are now facing the steepest economic downturn since the 1980s at the same time Ireland faces great uncertainty over its role in Europe and internationally. This uncertainty is likely to make this recession more difficult to manage. Those who represent Ireland's interest in the EU - politicians, diplomats and public servants - are working hard to preserve Ireland's position within the EU. The Lisbon referendum result puts them in an unenviable position. Not only have they to deal with the fallout from a negative poll result, but they cannot explain why the poll was required in the first place.

Many commentators have suggested that a second referendum is unavoidable. If the Government decides on this course, it would seem sensible to clarify the reasons why a referendum is necessary. The Oireachtas could enact a Bill ratifying the Lisbon Treaty on the understanding that the President might use her discretion to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court under Article 26 for a test of its constitutionality. This would establish what exactly in the Lisbon Treaty requires a constitutional amendment. Any referral would have to be on the basis that, were the Supreme Court to find that the Lisbon Treaty did not require a constitutional amendment, a second referendum would be held. We would at least be clearer about why we are voting.

Ruth Barrington is co-editor with Jim Dooge of A Vital National Interest: Ireland in Europe 1973-1998 (IPA). She is a member of The Irish Times Trust and the board of The Irish Times Limited.

© 2008 The Irish Times

Quote
Dr Ruth Barrington has been the Chief Executive of the Health Research Board (HRB) since 1998. The HRB is the chief funding agency for competitive, peer reviewed health research in Ireland and is a major provider of research and information services to the health system.

Dr Barrington is a graduate of University College Dublin, the College of Europe in Belgium and was awarded a Ph.D from the London School of Economics. She was awarded an honorary degree in laws by the National University of Ireland, Maynooth in May 2005 and is a Trustee of the Irish Times.


Other
Author of Health, Medicine and Politics in Ireland, 1900-1970 and other publications on health and research policy.
Member of the interim Board of the Health Information and Quality Authority.
HRB representative on the Ireland/Northern Ireland/National Cancer Institute Cancer Consortium since its foundation in 1999.
Chair of the Monitoring Group on the Implementation on 'A Vision for Change', the Government's mental health strategy.
Irish representative to the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructure (ESFRI) and chair of the Working Group that prepared proposals on research infrastructure for biology and medical science that were included in the European Roadmap for Research Infrastructure (2006).

http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/news.php?headerID=638&vs_date=2007-5-1 (http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/news.php?headerID=638&vs_date=2007-5-1)

A real constitutional expert, no doubt, who appears to have spent some of her career in various European bodies.

Is anyone seriously suggesting that the government held a referendum they knew had a good chance of being defeated, instead of ratifying purely by the Dail? They obviously were advised by the AG that there was a good chance it wold be struck down by the Supreme Court in light of the Crotty case.

Quote from: magickingdom on July 11, 2008, 10:06:13 PM
i know everyone is sick of this thread and that includes me but one important point that was made a few times was that the referundam was not neccessary.  todays irish times spells it out and i leave it at that..

Was holding referendum on Lisbon Treaty really necessary?


ONE QUESTION that has not been answered in the discussion following the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is why was a referendum necessary in the first place. Or more precisely, what aspects of the Lisbon Treaty conflicted with the provisions of the Constitution to the extent that a referendum was necessary?

In its judgment on the challenge made by Raymond Crotty to the Single European Act, the Supreme Count found that one element of that treaty was not covered by the terms of constitutional amendment governing Ireland's membership of the EU. That element was the agreement to develop a common foreign policy. So at least people knew when voting in the referendum on the Single European Act why a referendum was necessary. In that same judgment, the Supreme Court set down a marker as to whether or not a new treaty required a referendum. The test is whether there is a change to the purpose and objectives of the European Union.

Does the Lisbon Treaty represent a change to the purpose and objectives of the European Union?

The Danes, the most scrupulous watchdogs of national sovereignty, found after careful examination that the treaty did not involve any additional transfer of sovereignty to the union and therefore no referendum was necessary. A number of other member states came to the same conclusion.

What analysis did the Government make?

If it did receive advice on the constitutionality of the treaty, it was not shared with the

Irish people. Instead, it seems to have followed the "safe" option of holding a referendum, even though no one was clear why a referendum was necessary in the first place.

Although the conventional wisdom holds that a referendum is required to ratify all EU treaties in Ireland, this is not the case. The treaties enlarging the EU, with the exception of our own in 1972, have been ratified through the Oireachtas. It is ironic that radical treaties that have expanded democracy to formerly totalitarian states can be ratified by the Oireachtas but rules of procedure treaties, such as Nice and Lisbon, which update and regulate our relationships within the union, are ratified by referendum.

We now know the dangers for Ireland and our partners in Europe of being the only country to hold a referendum on a highly technical treaty such as Lisbon.

The assumption that the treaty requires a referendum because of the Crotty judgment, coupled with the constraints of McKenna judgment on support for both sides of the argument, has led to unforeseen consequences for representative democracy and how we protect our vital national interests.

A referendum provides anti-European groups with a platform to campaign repeatedly against the European Union, even though these groups have less than 10 per cent of the seats in the Dáil and can currently call on the support of no more than six TDs.

While in a democracy one should never discount minority views, the outcome of the Lisbon referendum does raise questions about Ireland's constitutional status as a representative democracy. In addition, some interest groups have taken advantage of referendum campaigns to lever concessions from the Government on EU policy to their advantage. Éamon de Valera, the prime architect of our Constitution, had a healthy scepticism of special interests and was a strong believer in representative democracy. The Constitution he designed limits the use of referendums. It is hard to envisage that the Supreme Court intended through its judgments to transform Ireland into a plebiscitory democracy on the model of Switzerland.

The use of the referendum, even where the reason for it is not clear, gives the impression that our European partners can be persuaded to move as slowly or as quickly as public opinion in Ireland. We were assured by the No campaigners, for example, that rejection of the treaty would lead to its renegotiation. As a small country with 1 per cent of the EU population that has achieved remarkable results through skilful diplomacy and negotiation, we should be wary of issuing ultimatums or of derailing the hard-won consensus of our 26 partners.

Another consequence of the use of the referendum in situations where it is not clear why people are voting is a growing perception across Europe that the Irish are disengaging from the European Union, despite the ongoing support of the Irish public for the EU as measured by opinion polls over many years. This perception undermines what has been a vital national interest of Ireland for a generation, namely to remain at the heart of the European enterprise.

Ireland has over the last decade become increasingly marginalised within the EU. In addition to our difficulties with a common defence, we have sought a partial opt-out of the justice areas of the EU, we are non-members of the Schengen Agreement and it appears that we will be opting out of some of the provisions of the proposed common policy on migration. We are perceived to be ever more closely aligned to the UK on economic and social issues within the EU.

It is regrettable that Ireland's membership of the EU, so long a vital national interest, is becoming increasingly governed by legal concerns rather than being treated as a central political objective of the country. We are now facing the steepest economic downturn since the 1980s at the same time Ireland faces great uncertainty over its role in Europe and internationally. This uncertainty is likely to make this recession more difficult to manage. Those who represent Ireland's interest in the EU - politicians, diplomats and public servants - are working hard to preserve Ireland's position within the EU. The Lisbon referendum result puts them in an unenviable position. Not only have they to deal with the fallout from a negative poll result, but they cannot explain why the poll was required in the first place.

Many commentators have suggested that a second referendum is unavoidable. If the Government decides on this course, it would seem sensible to clarify the reasons why a referendum is necessary. The Oireachtas could enact a Bill ratifying the Lisbon Treaty on the understanding that the President might use her discretion to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court under Article 26 for a test of its constitutionality. This would establish what exactly in the Lisbon Treaty requires a constitutional amendment. Any referral would have to be on the basis that, were the Supreme Court to find that the Lisbon Treaty did not require a constitutional amendment, a second referendum would be held. We would at least be clearer about why we are voting.

Ruth Barrington is co-editor with Jim Dooge of A Vital National Interest: Ireland in Europe 1973-1998 (IPA). She is a member of The Irish Times Trust and the board of The Irish Times Limited.

© 2008 The Irish Times

Why the need for a referendum?

That is a stupid question! To little to late. If she had a problem then she should have addressed it before hand or was she (like the others) to arrogant to contemplate a possible No vote. It is merely a diversion and once again a way of saying we give the wrong answer, that we are not capable of making a decision. The real question is when are people like Ruth going to wake up and accept that we do not want the Lisbon treaty. The treaty is dead and no amount of ifs or buts will change that. Get off you knees and stop apologising.

She is also trying to place the recession at the hands of the No side in Lisbon >:( >:( She points out that the No side made up 10% of the Dail yet she connects them with the Global recession >:( >:( Stop with the crap Ruth. The Lisbon treaty is a minor issue, it is not even a problem. How about you put Irelands uncertainty at the hands of the Irish leadership and the people as a whole instead of misdirection and cherrypicked statistics.

Are you ever gonna tell us what you propose in place of the Lisbon treaty? You hardly think Nice is a better deal?

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 09:39:25 AM
Are you ever gonna tell us what you propose in place of the Lisbon treaty? You hardly think Nice is a better deal?

That has been established during the debate before the vote. The No side have said what they think is wrong with Lisbon many times. Have you still not accepted that Tankie? I'm not going to go over the same arguements again.
Are you going to say what you think should replace it? We were offered Lisbon and we said No. We also said why we would say No. This information is out there. How many times do you need to be told it.

If the Government and the main oposition still haven't clue with what needs addressed in Lisbon and are leaving it upto the No side, they are No longer Repersentatives of Ireland in Europe but Repersentatives of Europe in Ireland.

I think that article is another case of paper not refusing ink.

QuoteShe is also trying to place the recession at the hands of the No side in Lisbon

I didn't read that.

QuoteAs a small country with 1 per cent of the EU population that has achieved remarkable results through skilful diplomacy and negotiation, we should be wary of issuing ultimatums or of derailing the hard-won consensus of our 26 partners.

I'd agree with the first part of that.

Quote from: Zapatista on July 14, 2008, 11:25:09 AM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 09:39:25 AM
Are you ever gonna tell us what you propose in place of the Lisbon treaty? You hardly think Nice is a better deal?

That has been established during the debate before the vote. The No side have said what they think is wrong with Lisbon many times. Have you still not accepted that Tankie? I'm not going to go over the same arguements again.
Are you going to say what you think should replace it? We were offered Lisbon and we said No. We also said why we would say No. This information is out there. How many times do you need to be told it.

If the Government and the main oposition still haven't clue with what needs addressed in Lisbon and are leaving it upto the No side, they are No longer Repersentatives of Ireland in Europe but Repersentatives of Europe in Ireland.

And if you look at why people voted NO was due to alot of wrong information put out by the NO side and thats before you to the idiots who voted no because they didnt understand it. 26 others countries say that the treaty is not dead so what do you propose? leave the EU?

Quote from: Billys Boots on July 14, 2008, 11:50:52 AM

QuoteShe is also trying to place the recession at the hands of the No side in Lisbon

I didn't read that.

QuoteIreland faces great uncertainty over its role in Europe and internationally. This uncertainty is likely to make this recession more difficult to manage

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 11:52:07 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on July 14, 2008, 11:25:09 AM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 09:39:25 AM
Are you ever gonna tell us what you propose in place of the Lisbon treaty? You hardly think Nice is a better deal?

That has been established during the debate before the vote. The No side have said what they think is wrong with Lisbon many times. Have you still not accepted that Tankie? I'm not going to go over the same arguements again.
Are you going to say what you think should replace it? We were offered Lisbon and we said No. We also said why we would say No. This information is out there. How many times do you need to be told it.

If the Government and the main oposition still haven't clue with what needs addressed in Lisbon and are leaving it upto the No side, they are No longer Repersentatives of Ireland in Europe but Repersentatives of Europe in Ireland.

And if you look at why people voted NO was due to alot of wrong information put out by the NO side and thats before you to the idiots who voted no because they didnt understand it. 26 others countries say that the treaty is not dead so what do you propose? leave the EU?

Idiots? Refusing to change the constitution because you weren't convinced on balance by those asking for the change is a responsible position to take. What was the alternative? Trust people who hadn't even read a document they were trying to get others to endorse? Please...

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 11:52:07 AM

And if you look at why people voted NO was due to alot of wrong information put out by the NO side and thats before you to the idiots who voted no because they didnt understand it. 26 others countries say that the treaty is not dead so what do you propose? leave the EU?

Give it a break Tankie. Your doom gloom crap is getting old. The game is over. Now you need to accept that and get on side with getting it right for whats next or you can continue fighting the Yes campagin on your own even after the fight is over. You can pretend we should leave the EU to justify you getting it wrong in the referendum and blacking the No side but I'm not going to listen to it. You can pretend whatever you want but I will face the truth that the people of the EU do not want the Lisbon treaty and it cannot proceed.

Quote from: Mentalman on July 14, 2008, 12:08:57 PM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 11:52:07 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on July 14, 2008, 11:25:09 AM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 09:39:25 AM
Are you ever gonna tell us what you propose in place of the Lisbon treaty? You hardly think Nice is a better deal?

That has been established during the debate before the vote. The No side have said what they think is wrong with Lisbon many times. Have you still not accepted that Tankie? I'm not going to go over the same arguements again.
Are you going to say what you think should replace it? We were offered Lisbon and we said No. We also said why we would say No. This information is out there. How many times do you need to be told it.

If the Government and the main oposition still haven't clue with what needs addressed in Lisbon and are leaving it upto the No side, they are No longer Repersentatives of Ireland in Europe but Repersentatives of Europe in Ireland.

And if you look at why people voted NO was due to alot of wrong information put out by the NO side and thats before you to the idiots who voted no because they didnt understand it. 26 others countries say that the treaty is not dead so what do you propose? leave the EU?

Idiots? Refusing to change the constitution because you weren't convinced on balance by those asking for the change is a responsible position to take. What was the alternative? Trust people who hadn't even read a document they were trying to get others to endorse? Please...

So you trusted a guy who was last seen celebrating with the UK Torries that Ireland have voted NO and Sinn Fein the party which only 8 months ago campaigned to have corporation tax raised but then fought for a NO vote based on lies about Ireland tax affairs? I think i would be happy enough to stay with the YES side if i didnt read about it because i was too lazy!

Is there going to be another 22 pages of this same old failed arguement? I'd appreciate it if you could let me know now to save me the bother reading it all again.

Cheers.

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 12:17:31 PM

Quote from: Mentalman on July 14, 2008, 12:08:57 PM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 11:52:07 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on July 14, 2008, 11:25:09 AM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 09:39:25 AM
Are you ever gonna tell us what you propose in place of the Lisbon treaty? You hardly think Nice is a better deal?

That has been established during the debate before the vote. The No side have said what they think is wrong with Lisbon many times. Have you still not accepted that Tankie? I'm not going to go over the same arguements again.
Are you going to say what you think should replace it? We were offered Lisbon and we said No. We also said why we would say No. This information is out there. How many times do you need to be told it.

If the Government and the main oposition still haven't clue with what needs addressed in Lisbon and are leaving it upto the No side, they are No longer Repersentatives of Ireland in Europe but Repersentatives of Europe in Ireland.

And if you look at why people voted NO was due to alot of wrong information put out by the NO side and thats before you to the idiots who voted no because they didnt understand it. 26 others countries say that the treaty is not dead so what do you propose? leave the EU?

Idiots? Refusing to change the constitution because you weren't convinced on balance by those asking for the change is a responsible position to take. What was the alternative? Trust people who hadn't even read a document they were trying to get others to endorse? Please...

So you trusted a guy who was last seen celebrating with the UK Torries that Ireland have voted NO and Sinn Fein the party which only 8 months ago campaigned to have corporation tax raised but then fought for a NO vote based on lies about Ireland tax affairs? I think i would be happy enough to stay with the YES side if i didnt read about it because i was too lazy!

As I said before, countless time, Sinn Féin/Libertas/UKIP had nothing to do with my decision, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning them. You're telling me if you firmly believe something, but Sinn Féin believed it too, you would vote the other way on general principles? But you would vote against your conscience because your political betters ask you to trust them, even though they haven't even read what they are backing? I think there would only be one idiot in that scenario....

QuoteIreland faces great uncertainty over its role in Europe and internationally. This uncertainty is likely to make this recession more difficult to manage

I don't see how this places the recession at the hands of the 'No' campaign, unless you're paranoid, of course. 

If you had said that she thought that the 'No' vote had made managing our way out of the recession more difficult, then I'd agree with you.

Quote from: Billys Boots on July 14, 2008, 12:29:33 PM

QuoteIreland faces great . This uncertainty is likely to make this recession more difficult to manage

I don't see how this places the recession at the hands of the 'No' campaign, unless you're paranoid, of course. 

If you had said that she thought that the 'No' vote had made managing our way out of the recession more difficult, then I'd agree with you.

It is clear she connects the No vote to Irelands uncertainty over its role in Europe and internationally. She then says This uncertainty is likely to make this recession more difficult to manage.

Therefore the recession is made more difficult to manage due to the No vote . If the recession continues the No side are responsilbe according to Ruths truth. Of course, maybe I am being paranoid. How has the no vote made this more difficult?

I happen to think Irelands the only country with certainty in it's role in Europe.

Quote from: Mentalman on July 14, 2008, 12:27:03 PM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 12:17:31 PM

Quote from: Mentalman on July 14, 2008, 12:08:57 PM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 11:52:07 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on July 14, 2008, 11:25:09 AM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 09:39:25 AM
Are you ever gonna tell us what you propose in place of the Lisbon treaty? You hardly think Nice is a better deal?

That has been established during the debate before the vote. The No side have said what they think is wrong with Lisbon many times. Have you still not accepted that Tankie? I'm not going to go over the same arguements again.
Are you going to say what you think should replace it? We were offered Lisbon and we said No. We also said why we would say No. This information is out there. How many times do you need to be told it.

If the Government and the main oposition still haven't clue with what needs addressed in Lisbon and are leaving it upto the No side, they are No longer Repersentatives of Ireland in Europe but Repersentatives of Europe in Ireland.

And if you look at why people voted NO was due to alot of wrong information put out by the NO side and thats before you to the idiots who voted no because they didnt understand it. 26 others countries say that the treaty is not dead so what do you propose? leave the EU?

Idiots? Refusing to change the constitution because you weren't convinced on balance by those asking for the change is a responsible position to take. What was the alternative? Trust people who hadn't even read a document they were trying to get others to endorse? Please...

So you trusted a guy who was last seen celebrating with the UK Torries that Ireland have voted NO and Sinn Fein the party which only 8 months ago campaigned to have corporation tax raised but then fought for a NO vote based on lies about Ireland tax affairs? I think i would be happy enough to stay with the YES side if i didnt read about it because i was too lazy!

As I said before, countless time, Sinn Féin/Libertas/UKIP had nothing to do with my decision, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning them. You're telling me if you firmly believe something, but Sinn Féin believed it too, you would vote the other way on general principles? But you would vote against your conscience because your political betters ask you to trust them, even though they haven't even read what they are backing? I think there would only be one idiot in that scenario....

No of course i would back my own decision, my point is not about you personally as youhave obviously took the time to read up on the treaty but i do question the guys who voted NO because they didnt understand it or believed the other lies on tax and military and went with SF and some guy nobody has seen since.

QuoteIf the recession continues the No side are responsilbe according to Ruths truth.

You're grasping now Zapatista, maybe it's guilt.  ;)

Why is it only 'No' voters who are assumed to have voted as they did for questionable reasons? There's nobody questioning the legitimacy of 'Yes' votes cast for reasons ranging from antipathy to SF/Libertas/People's Front of Judea to assuming that if Cowen/Kenny etc. tell me it'll be OK, it'll be OK.

Quote from: Billys Boots on July 14, 2008, 01:00:59 PM

QuoteIf the recession continues the No side are responsilbe according to Ruths truth.

You're grasping now Zapatista, maybe it's guilt.  ;)

I don't worry about guilt. A good catholic like me can alwas go to confession ;)


It's simple Hardy. During the campaign the media had to play a balanced role. Now that is over the only people we hear from are the main political players in the country and the EU who are still trying to say we give the wrong answer. No one wants to hear from Ganley or M McDonald anymore.

Quote from: Mentalman on July 14, 2008, 12:08:57 PM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 11:52:07 AM

Quote from: Zapatista on July 14, 2008, 11:25:09 AM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 09:39:25 AM
Are you ever gonna tell us what you propose in place of the Lisbon treaty? You hardly think Nice is a better deal?

That has been established during the debate before the vote. The No side have said what they think is wrong with Lisbon many times. Have you still not accepted that Tankie? I'm not going to go over the same arguements again.
Are you going to say what you think should replace it? We were offered Lisbon and we said No. We also said why we would say No. This information is out there. How many times do you need to be told it.

If the Government and the main oposition still haven't clue with what needs addressed in Lisbon and are leaving it upto the No side, they are No longer Repersentatives of Ireland in Europe but Repersentatives of Europe in Ireland.

And if you look at why people voted NO was due to alot of wrong information put out by the NO side and thats before you to the idiots who voted no because they didnt understand it. 26 others countries say that the treaty is not dead so what do you propose? leave the EU?

Idiots? Refusing to change the constitution because you weren't convinced on balance by those asking for the change is a responsible position to take. What was the alternative? Trust people who hadn't even read a document they were trying to get others to endorse? Please...

Anyone who votes "no" (or "yes") in any referendum because they don't understand it is an idiot. People should either make an informed choice or abstain.

Quote from: Zapatista on July 14, 2008, 11:25:09 AM

Quote from: Tankie on July 14, 2008, 09:39:25 AM
Are you ever gonna tell us what you propose in place of the Lisbon treaty? You hardly think Nice is a better deal?

The No side have said what they think is wrong with Lisbon many times. Have you still not accepted that Tankie? I'm not going to go over the same arguements again.
If the Government and the main oposition still haven't clue with what needs addressed in Lisbon and are leaving it upto the No side, they are No longer Repersentatives of Ireland in Europe but Repersentatives of Europe in Ireland.

there were many reasons why people voted no, including 'vote no to keep roscommon hospital' (nutters) and 'save our commissioner' (sinn fein lies) and save our neutrality (imagine neutrality is considered a virtue by some even in the face of evil) so dont pretend there is a list and if its satisfied/caved into these guys will vote yes. what the eu will do is continue to ratify and then let us deal with our own decision as we see fit...

And there were "Yes" votes to "stay at the heart of Europe" or "stay in Europe", as if it were a referendum on membership, "Yes" votes "because Europe has been good to us", "Yes" votes to "show our gratitude" (!!!), "Yes" votes because it was seen as what Europe wanted, when it's quite clear the people of Europe, as opposed to the politicians of Europe don't want it at all, as has been shown by any of the people of Europe who were actually asked. There were "Yes" votes because we were threatened that "Europe" would do awful things to is if we had the temerity to say no and as many "Yes" votes from people who didn't understand and decided to do what they were told as from people who didn't understand and decided they hadn't been give a valid reason to mess about with the constitution.

Quote from: Hardy on July 14, 2008, 09:52:49 PM
"Yes" votes because it was seen as what Europe wanted, when it's quite clear the people of Europe, as opposed to the politicians of Europe don't want it at all, as has been shown by any of the people of Europe who were actually asked.

Bit of a circular argument there, seeing as we were the only people who were asked.

Quote from: deiseach on July 14, 2008, 09:58:41 PM

Quote from: Hardy on July 14, 2008, 09:52:49 PM
"Yes" votes because it was seen as what Europe wanted, when it's quite clear the people of Europe, as opposed to the politicians of Europe don't want it at all, as has been shown by any of the people of Europe who were actually asked.

Bit of a circular argument there, seeing as we were the only people who were asked.

I'm including the French and The Dutch on the basis that they rejected this Treaty when it was dressed as  the European Constitution.

I think Hardy means the previous incarnation of the Lisbon treaty, under guise of the Constitution, when a couple of countries voted it down. Holland and France maybe?

Perhaps they should call it the Galway treaty, or the Cork treaty. Shure we couldn't vote against our own could we?

Edit: Sorry Hardy, you're big enough to explain your own posts.

Quote from: Hardy on July 14, 2008, 10:00:36 PM
I'm including the French and The Dutch on the basis that they rejected this Treaty when it was dressed as  the European Constitution.

There are differences between the two. You may not think they are substantially different but the argument that the only difference is changing the name is self-evidently incorrect.

Quote from: deiseach on July 14, 2008, 10:41:22 PM

Quote from: Hardy on July 14, 2008, 10:00:36 PM
I'm including the French and The Dutch on the basis that they rejected this Treaty when it was dressed as  the European Constitution.

There are differences between the two. You may not think they are substantially different but the argument that the only difference is changing the name is self-evidently incorrect.

Well there was obviously enough difference between them to enable both governments proceed without returning to their citizens for another referendum.

Yes men say that the treaty was to make Europe more democratic. Why didn't all of Europe get to vote on it then? Could any yesman tell me that? Biteen of a paradox I think! :D

Quote from: Mentalman on July 14, 2008, 11:31:24 PM

Quote from: deiseach on July 14, 2008, 10:41:22 PM

Quote from: Hardy on July 14, 2008, 10:00:36 PM
I'm including the French and The Dutch on the basis that they rejected this Treaty when it was dressed as  the European Constitution.

There are differences between the two. You may not think they are substantially different but the argument that the only difference is changing the name is self-evidently incorrect.

Well there was obviously enough difference between them to enable both governments proceed without returning to their citizens for another referendum.

Sure that's the nub of the argument - whether they are sufficiently different (a) to fool the people of Europe into believing that the objections of the French and Dutch have been respected and (b) to fool the French and Dutch people into accepting that not only have their objections been respected, but that they have been so fully respected that there's not even a need to ask them if they accept that they've been respected.

Quote from: Hardy on July 15, 2008, 12:04:00 AM
Sure that's the nub of the argument - whether they are sufficiently different (a) to fool the people of Europe into believing that the objections of the French and Dutch have been respected and (b) to fool the French and Dutch people into accepting that not only have their objections been respected, but that they have been so fully respected that there's not even a need to ask them if they accept that they've been respected.

Thankfully we have you to tell us what the French and Dutch people think.

Look, I'm not saying that the French, the Dutch, or any / every other country in Europe would have supported Lisbon. In fact I'm sure a lot of them them wouldn't if they had a referendum on it. But the argument that people were right to vote against Lisbon because the French, the Dutch, or any / every country were in some manner deprived of a direct vote on the matter is lame. What if every country bar, say, Greece had a vote on it and it was passed in the other 25 countries? Would you be arguing that we should vote No because the Greeks were not being given the chance?

Quote from: Farrandeelin on July 15, 2008, 12:00:29 AM
Yes men say that the treaty was to make Europe more democratic. Why didn't all of Europe get to vote on it then? Could any yesman tell me that? Biteen of a paradox I think! :D

So our system of having our parliament pass laws isn't democratic then?

Quote from: magickingdom on July 14, 2008, 07:46:20 PM

there were many reasons why people voted no, including 'vote no to keep roscommon hospital' (nutters)

Of course there where many reasons people voted No. It was quite a big treaty covering quite a lot of areas.

The people were right to vote No to save the hospital if this was their priority. The Lisbon treaty would make the implementation of the privatisation of health care much easier and faster. If Lisbon had been passed Mary Harney would have been able to close public hospitals across the country and replace them with private hospitals and blame Europe for it.

Quote from: magickingdom on July 14, 2008, 07:46:20 PM
and 'save our commissioner' (sinn fein lies)

Lies? Our Comissioner was under threat. Can you explain how this was lies?

Quote from: magickingdom on July 14, 2008, 07:46:20 PM
and save our neutrality (imagine neutrality is considered a virtue by some even in the face of evil)

Your definition and use for neutrality is very different than mine I'd say. I don't want to be neutral but I certainly don't want the EU to have any part in Irish foreign policy, in particular in relation to the military.

Quote from: magickingdom on July 14, 2008, 07:46:20 PM
so dont pretend there is a list and if its satisfied/caved into these guys will vote yes. what the eu will do is continue to ratify and then let us deal with our own decision as we see fit...

I won't pretend this. Don't you pretend that the Lisbon treaty is a list that should satisfy the people of Europe. I do believe that if some of the issues are addressed enough people will change their mind and pass the Treaty at another referendum. Infact I think this is logical. If the rest of the EU implement the Lisbon treaty they are acting illegally. They are breaking their own rules. The EU would be showing its true colours. How can we trust the EU if they will do what they want when they want irrespective of those they repersent and their own rules. It is not a democracy and those in power are intent on a power grab and the creation of a super state.

Quote from: deiseach on July 15, 2008, 12:23:53 AM

Quote from: Hardy on July 15, 2008, 12:04:00 AM
Sure that's the nub of the argument - whether they are sufficiently different (a) to fool the people of Europe into believing that the objections of the French and Dutch have been respected and (b) to fool the French and Dutch people into accepting that not only have their objections been respected, but that they have been so fully respected that there's not even a need to ask them if they accept that they've been respected.

Thankfully we have you to tell us what the French and Dutch people think.

Look, I'm not saying that the French, the Dutch, or any / every other country in Europe would have supported Lisbon. In fact I'm sure a lot of them them wouldn't if they had a referendum on it. But the argument that people were right to vote against Lisbon because the French, the Dutch, or any / every country were in some manner deprived of a direct vote on the matter is lame. What if every country bar, say, Greece had a vote on it and it was passed in the other 25 countries? Would you be arguing that we should vote No because the Greeks were not being given the chance?

First I'm not telling you what the French and Dutch think and I fail to see how you could have construed from my posts that that was what I was doing. The French and the Dutch (in as far as a referendum with a low turnout can do so) told us themselves what they thought.

Your second paragraph  may all be true, but if it's meant as a rebuttal of anything I said, it misses the mark because it rebuts an argument which would indeed be lame, but which I didn't make.

Quote from: Zapatista on July 15, 2008, 08:23:59 AM
for it.

Quote from: magickingdom on July 14, 2008, 07:46:20 PM
and 'save our commissioner' (sinn fein lies)

Lies? Our Comissioner was under threat. Can you explain how this was lies?

sinn fein canvessed 'vote yes to save our commissioner' knowing full well that if lisbon was not passed the rules governing commissioners were the ones under the nice treaty. under the nice treaty we can lose our commissioner in the next few years

Quote from: magickingdom on July 15, 2008, 08:33:43 PM

sinn fein canvessed 'vote yes to save our commissioner' knowing full well that if lisbon was not passed the rules governing commissioners were the ones under the nice treaty. under the nice treaty we can lose our commissioner in the next few years

I think you will find SF were canvassing for a better deal and not to maintain the Neice treaty. It turns out the retention of a comissioner is being considered. If this turns out to be the case then SF were right about that.

Today-   Paragraph 9
http://www.france24.com/en/20080715-sarkozy-france-eu-ireland-referendum-lisbon

Quote from: Zapatista on July 16, 2008, 07:47:15 AM

Quote from: magickingdom on July 15, 2008, 08:33:43 PM

sinn fein canvessed 'vote yes to save our commissioner' knowing full well that if lisbon was not passed the rules governing commissioners were the ones under the nice treaty. under the nice treaty we can lose our commissioner in the next few years

I think you will find SF were canvassing for a better deal and not to maintain the Neice treaty. It turns out the retention of a comissioner is being considered. If this turns out to be the case then SF were right about that.

Today-   Paragraph 9
http://www.france24.com/en/20080715-sarkozy-france-eu-ireland-referendum-lisbon

Ah sure nothing to worry about there Zap, Dick Roche says Mr. Sarkozy has no preconcieved ideas as to how Ireland should proceed.

"Hold on Dick, what are you doing? Pissing down my back!?!?!? What's that Dick? Oh it's only raining? Sure that's alright then."

And John Bruton reckons it's only natural Mr. Sarkozy would make such pronouncements, with France holding the presidency of the EU and all.

It must just be me, I must the one fcuked in the head, to think there is something fundamentally wrong with the President of one state making pronouncements on the demorcatic decisions of another, and how they should proceed following that decision. Someone should tell him Ireland is not Algeria or Vietnam - and btw they got shot of the French too.

When he comes over next week, if I was Brian Cowen, the very least I would be saying, very diplomatically of course, was that his pronouncements are most unhelpful, and in fact detrimental, to having Lisbon passed at some future date - i.e. keep 'er zipped big fella.

Quotei.e. keep 'er zipped big fella

Or "shut up you little fart".

Quote from: magpie seanie on July 16, 2008, 10:47:38 AM

Quotei.e. keep 'er zipped big fella

Or "shut up you little fart".

Mind our French seanie.

Stupid comment - even if he is right on the money!

I think the idea of a second referendum is a non runner unless it's on a VERY different proposition to the one we just rejected. I base this on the surprisingly large proportion of people who express an objection to being asked the same question again on the basis that the powers that be (foreign powers, at that) didn't like our first answer. Many of these are people who voted Yes. Sarkozy's gaffe can only strengthen that resolve among the electorate.

If the government's research project doesn't read that mood, then FF is more out of touch than we thought. And this is the FF that was so out of touch that they (of all people) put a proposition to the Irish electorate (of all people) that contained no visible, tangible or immediate benefits but was full of (at least perceived) visible, tangible and immediate detriments. How can the people who have made a political philosophy out of buying elections have forgotten that voters vote for their narrow interests more than anything else. I can't believe FF will make the same mistake again.

No question about that Hardy - I'd say it'll be repackaged and re-written with some minor concession from Brussels being presented at a major win and it'll pass. They can't do it any other way.

I can't get my head around those that are railing against a federal Europe or Ireland being left out of one - this is a long term nightmare scenario that needs to be avoided in my view. In todays world a small nation like Ireland won't be long being left behind by those with the collective barganning power to survive on a planet with rapidly declining natural resources required to run a modern economy.

Quote from: stephenite on July 16, 2008, 11:42:29 AM
No question about that Hardy - I'd say it'll be repackaged and re-written with some minor concession from Brussels being presented at a major win and it'll pass. They can't do it any other way.

I agree but I did think it would pass first time round too.

Quote from: stephenite on July 16, 2008, 11:42:29 AM
I can't get my head around those that are railing against a federal Europe or Ireland being left out of one - this is a long term nightmare scenario that needs to be avoided in my view. In todays world a small nation like Ireland won't be long being left behind by those with the collective barganning power to survive on a planet with rapidly declining natural resources required to run a modern economy.

This can all be achieved without the Lisbon Treaty. We do not need to write an EU treaty into our constitution to achieve common strategy. We do not need a federal Europe to monopolise as much of the worlds natural fuel as we can. We can achieve this all through agreements made at the EU Council or some variation of it while member states are still accountable to their people.

It is the huge Federal states that are destroying our Natural resources. It is the small independent states like Switzerland, Finland and even Ireland that are closer to the balance. The Lisbon treaty only puts another big player in the world of global problems. Any constitutional treaty which sets about in detail, a way of competing in the race for natural energy while dedicating 6 words to climate change is a bad treaty. The Eu should and could put forward a treaty leading the way in change for the rest of the world instead of becoming another big part in a big problem.

Quote from: stephenite on July 16, 2008, 11:42:29 AM
No question about that Hardy - I'd say it'll be repackaged and re-written with some minor concession from Brussels being presented at a major win and it'll pass. They can't do it any other way.

I can't get my head around those that are railing against a federal Europe or Ireland being left out of one - this is a long term nightmare scenario that needs to be avoided in my view. In todays world a small nation like Ireland won't be long being left behind by those with the collective barganning power to survive on a planet with rapidly declining natural resources required to run a modern economy.

Undertstand you point Stephenite, but I think we can achieve all we need as a union of soverign nation states in co-operation, not as a federal history. Trying to avoid references to our own history I just don't think a United States of Europe is possible with our disparate national histories, languages and cultures. It would be less like a USA or Australia, more like a USSR. What I mean by that is not necessarily an autocracy, but disparate gorups and countries striving for their own national determination.

I agree with you - it sounds great. But I think I've said it earlier on this thread - globalisation has happened and there is nothing that can be done to reverse that process now. Huge superpowers are in place in the US, Russia & China. India are coming. The notion that smaller nations like Ireland and Switzerland are going to be able to challenge this is now ludicrous, Old Europe as it has existed for the last number of centuries is dead and the only way forward is for a major federal state. The others will have no truck dealing with a rabble of countries cobbled together.

Might sound alarmist - but I believe it.

Not to mention what happens if we vote it down again - we leave Europe then by deafult, I assume that means we also opt out of the Euro - the economic implications are so frightening they really do not bear thinking about.

Quote from: Mentalman on July 16, 2008, 12:26:28 PM
Undertstand you point Stephenite, but I think we can achieve all we need as a union of soverign nation states in co-operation, not as a federal history. Trying to avoid references to our own history I just don't think a United States of Europe is possible with our disparate national histories, languages and cultures. It would be less like a USA or Australia, more like a USSR. What I mean by that is not necessarily an autocracy, but disparate gorups and countries striving for their own national determination.

Again, I agree with most of your points - particularly regarding the disparate identities - however I still think that the ultimate goal of those that weild the real power (and I don't mean the people!) is for a federal entity, and I don't think the arguments for a European council will wash 15 or 30 years down the line.

I don't like the idea much - but I think we'd be absolutley crazy to opt out of it.

Quote from: stephenite on July 16, 2008, 12:33:22 PM

Again, I agree with most of your points - particularly regarding the disparate identities - however I still think that the ultimate goal of those that weild the real power (and I don't mean the people!) is for a federal entity, and I don't think the arguments for a European council will wash 15 or 30 years down the line.

I don't like the idea much - but I think we'd be absolutley crazy to opt out of it.

It might be crazy in the short term.
The buck must stop somewhere. I think it needs to stop now with an EU treaty designed to solve the problems rather than compete with those causing the problems.

Either we sort this mess out now while we still have time or, we establish a federal Europe. Any Federal Europe will be set on a collision course with the other super powers down the line. The market for Capitalist super powers is already full and the ordinary day to day billions of people in Russia, China, India and the USA will suffer for the race to be in control. We need a new approach and an EU treaty is the best chance we have to that new approach. Europe are well able to lead the way in this and when the rest are crumbling with the loss of natural fuel Europe will already be 100 years ahead of them in progress.

Lads this treaty has nothing to do with a federal europe and i don't think that we are going down that route. Yes we are becoming more integrated and the EU is doing its best to work for all its members but it is a long way off a federal Europe and the Lisbon treaty should not be rejected on such speculation.

Any one here who Voted Yes considering a No vote if the treaty is marked return to sender with none or very little changes?

Quote from: Zapatista on July 16, 2008, 12:14:07 PM
We do not need a federal Europe to monopolise as much of the worlds natural fuel as we can. We can achieve this all through agreements made at the EU Council or some variation of it while member states are still accountable to their people.

It is the huge Federal states that are destroying our Natural resources. It is the small independent states like Switzerland, Finland and even Ireland that are closer to the balance. The Lisbon treaty only puts another big player in the world of global problems. Any constitutional treaty which sets about in detail, a way of competing in the race for natural energy while dedicating 6 words to climate change is a bad treaty. The Eu should and could put forward a treaty leading the way in change for the rest of the world instead of becoming another big part in a big problem.

i dont think thats the plan, i think the idea is that we all work together for the common good.

Is it possible for someone to set up a 'The Official Lisbon Treaty Synopsis Thread', offering a feel for the key issues contained herein, without me having to trawl through all 400-odd posts?

Hardy said.....If the government's research project doesn't read that mood, then FF is more out of touch than we thought. And this is the FF that was so out of touch that they (of all people) put a proposition to the Irish electorate (of all people) that contained no visible, tangible or immediate benefits but was full of (at least perceived) visible, tangible and immediate detriments. How can the people who have made a political philosophy out of buying elections have forgotten that voters vote for their narrow interests more than anything else. I can't believe FF will make the same mistake again.
Surely Hardy you should acknowledge that FF have built their party and highly successful power base, by recognising and capitalising on the the stupidity of the Irish people. There will be another referendum, the question is whether it will be held before or after the European elections. President Sarkozy, who lacked the courage to give his own people a referendum, now insists that we vote again or risk being relegated to a second tier, as the rest of Europe move on without us. In saying so he has let the real Cat out of the Bag. If they can ignore our vote, and break their own rules, what worth can be placed on our so called opt out or vetos. If we are to have a federal Europe, it should at least have a semblance of democracy. We all have our own reasons for opposing this Treaty or supporting it.

Quote from: Niall Quinn on July 16, 2008, 08:02:39 PM
Is it possible for someone to set up a 'The Official Lisbon Treaty Synopsis Thread', offering a feel for the key issues contained herein, without me having to trawl through all 400-odd posts?

If you want to start it go ahead. It might be a better idea. If you get a few posters concentrating on it I will lock this thread and we can start again.

RSF applaud no vote - Irish people say no to EU power grab
Statement by Republican Sinn Féin Vice President Des Dalton
The Irish people have clearly and unequivocally said no to a power grab by the EU political elite by their rejection of the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution. The clear message given by the Irish people is that they reject the construction of an undemocratic EU superstate. The people have spoken and must not be ignored unlike the first Nice referendum in the 26 Counties or the French and Dutch referenda in 2005 which rejected the EU Constitution – the Lisbon Treaty and the EU Constitution are 96% the same document.

A clear marker has been laid down to the Dublin and Brussels political establishments. The Irish people are not prepared to give over more power to an institution which they do not elect and which is not accountable to them. Three times in three years the people of three states have now said no to a militarised and unaccountable EU superstate.

What also emerges from the referendum result is that a gulf has grown between the Dublin political establishment and the mass of the people. The line taken by the main 26-County political parties throughout the referendum campaign was that people need not understand the Lisbon Treaty or its implications but merely trust them in recommending its acceptance. The resounding rejection of Lisbon shows the people do not trust them.




CONTACT Republican Sinn Féin, 223 Parnell Street, Dublin 1
Telephone: 872 9747 Fax: 872 9757
e-mail: saoirse@iol.ie

229 Falls Road, Belfast, BT12 6FB
Telephone 9031 9004 Fax: 9031 9863

FLYING OF BUTCHER'S APRON SIGN OF THINGS TO COME – RSF





A spokesperson for Republican Sinn Féin said that the flying of the British flag in towns throughout the 26-Counties could be a sign of things to come, in light of recent French comments about shared Commissioners within the EU.




Director of Publicity, Richard Walsh said: “We have received a number of complaints about the flying of the Union flag throughout the 26-Counties on the event of the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing. Although we have no problem with the flying of the flags of other countries, we do not currently enjoy friendly relations with Britain as they continue to occupy part of our country. Consequently the flying of the flag of a hostile state is a deeply offensive act.




“Incidentally, it could be asked of M. Sarkozy whether this is a sign of things to come, as he appears to suggest that all of Ireland should be represented by the 'Butcher's Apron'. We have long suffered under British subjugation, and certainly do not need to be subjected to increased control from both London and Brussels simultaneously”, he said.

What towns in the Republic are flying the Union Jack?? This can only lead to one thing.The British are back and ready to take over once again.Lucky Republican Sinn Fein is around to warn us.

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

Quote from: smcafee on August 10, 2008, 11:36:58 AM
FLYING OF BUTCHER'S APRON SIGN OF THINGS TO COME – RSF





A spokesperson for Republican Sinn Féin said that the flying of the British flag in towns throughout the 26-Counties could be a sign of things to come, in light of recent French comments about shared Commissioners within the EU.




Director of Publicity, Richard Walsh said: "We have received a number of complaints about the flying of the Union flag throughout the 26-Counties on the event of the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing. Although we have no problem with the flying of the flags of other countries, we do not currently enjoy friendly relations with Britain as they continue to occupy part of our country. Consequently the flying of the flag of a hostile state is a deeply offensive act.




"Incidentally, it could be asked of M. Sarkozy whether this is a sign of things to come, as he appears to suggest that all of Ireland should be represented by the 'Butcher's Apron'. We have long suffered under British subjugation, and certainly do not need to be subjected to increased control from both London and Brussels simultaneously", he said.

Who do RSF actually represent? are these just a shower of a few hundred yobs?

Quote from: Tankie on August 11, 2008, 10:02:21 AM

Quote from: smcafee on August 10, 2008, 11:36:58 AM
FLYING OF BUTCHER'S APRON SIGN OF THINGS TO COME – RSF





A spokesperson for Republican Sinn Féin said that the flying of the British flag in towns throughout the 26-Counties could be a sign of things to come, in light of recent French comments about shared Commissioners within the EU.




Director of Publicity, Richard Walsh said: "We have received a number of complaints about the flying of the Union flag throughout the 26-Counties on the event of the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing. Although we have no problem with the flying of the flags of other countries, we do not currently enjoy friendly relations with Britain as they continue to occupy part of our country. Consequently the flying of the flag of a hostile state is a deeply offensive act.




"Incidentally, it could be asked of M. Sarkozy whether this is a sign of things to come, as he appears to suggest that all of Ireland should be represented by the 'Butcher's Apron'. We have long suffered under British subjugation, and certainly do not need to be subjected to increased control from both London and Brussels simultaneously", he said.

Who do RSF actually represent? are these just a shower of a few hundred yobs?

Something similar to IBEC i guess.

Quote from: Zapatista on August 11, 2008, 10:06:01 AM

Quote from: Tankie on August 11, 2008, 10:02:21 AM

Quote from: smcafee on August 10, 2008, 11:36:58 AM
FLYING OF BUTCHER'S APRON SIGN OF THINGS TO COME – RSF





A spokesperson for Republican Sinn Féin said that the flying of the British flag in towns throughout the 26-Counties could be a sign of things to come, in light of recent French comments about shared Commissioners within the EU.




Director of Publicity, Richard Walsh said: "We have received a number of complaints about the flying of the Union flag throughout the 26-Counties on the event of the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing. Although we have no problem with the flying of the flags of other countries, we do not currently enjoy friendly relations with Britain as they continue to occupy part of our country. Consequently the flying of the flag of a hostile state is a deeply offensive act.




"Incidentally, it could be asked of M. Sarkozy whether this is a sign of things to come, as he appears to suggest that all of Ireland should be represented by the 'Butcher's Apron'. We have long suffered under British subjugation, and certainly do not need to be subjected to increased control from both London and Brussels simultaneously", he said.

Who do RSF actually represent? are these just a shower of a few hundred yobs?

Something similar to IBEC i guess.

You mean the Irish Business and Employers Confederation - how did i miss the similarities  ::)

If we had ratified the treaty, would the current crisis be any worse?  I see that along with us, Germany and Greece are backing deposits.  This after a meeting of heads of state the day before saying that they would do antthing percipitious.

I suppose it would all be a matter of trust?!

Quote from: Denn Forever on October 08, 2008, 02:29:00 PM
If we had ratified the treaty, would the current crisis be any worse?  I see that along with us, Germany and Greece are backing deposits.  This after a meeting of heads of state the day before saying that they would do antthing percipitious.

I suppose it would all be a matter of trust?!

Wouldn't make a difference. Besides, if the treaty had have been accepted it wouldn't have been implemented until after the next EU elections.

Quote from: Zapatista on October 08, 2008, 02:35:35 PM

Quote from: Denn Forever on October 08, 2008, 02:29:00 PM
If we had ratified the treaty, would the current crisis be any worse?  I see that along with us, Germany and Greece are backing deposits.  This after a meeting of heads of state the day before saying that they would do antthing percipitious.

I suppose it would all be a matter of trust?!

Wouldn't make a difference. Besides, if the treaty had have been accepted it wouldn't have been implemented until after the next EU elections.

This crisis has damaged the EU significantly. Some Dutch Nellie whinging about Ireland saving its banking industry damaging competition while the EU did nothing and at the same time the Itialian government continue to pump money into the dead duck that is Alitalia while she remains silent.

What drives me mad is that I will never get the chance to democratically cast a vote against Nellie, her party or anyone associated with her. Barroso, the EU President, supported the war in Iraq and we have no opportunity to cast a vote either for or against him.

When the EU becomes a democracy I might vote with its decision makers, but not until then.