The Official Lisbon Treaty Thread

[Tankie]

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!

[Zapatista]

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.

[Zapatista]

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.

[Tankie]

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.

[stevo-08]

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.

[Zapatista]

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.

[Tankie]

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.

[Zapatista]

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.

[Tankie]

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.

[winsamsoon]

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.

[muppet]

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.  

[magpie seanie]

D - 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.

[magickingdom]

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

[muppet]

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. 

[magickingdom]

No, they were told there was no plan B. 

ha ha well said!