Poll
Question:
The EDITED - Will you be voting Yes or No to the Lisbon Treaty (26 County only)
Option 1: Republic - Yes
votes: 20
Option 2: Republic - No
votes: 20
Option 3: Republic - Unsure
votes: 2
Option 4: Northern - Yes
votes: 2
Option 5: Northern- No
votes: 6
Option 6: Northern - Unsure
votes: 1
Hey folks. I was just wondering how the Poll would go if it where restricted to Residents of the 26 Counties only.
No insult to the 6 county lads but your views tend not to be very representative to the mood of the 26.
this will he hi-jacked so fairly pointless...once the No see it is close or the Yes side is ahead Zap will have the boys in...
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 12:27:41 AM
this will he hi-jacked so fairly pointless...once the No see it is close or the Yes side is ahead Zap will have the boys in...
Sure I will Tankie.
Even on GAAboard we have another poll cos the result of the first one isn't to the Yes side's liking. The irony!!!
Nice one Seanie. ;)
Looks like the Northern Lads are voting on this, I wonder if the Shinner Lads and the Unionists are united in this cause.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on September 30, 2009, 02:18:27 PM
Looks like the Northern Lads are voting on this, I wonder if the Shinner Lads and the Unionists are united in this cause.
Not so sure on that, the exit polls that are run here are broadly in line with what transpires...
Can you add another option to the poll for us nordies - so we can vote and then see how the voting is going?
I vote no.
Vote Previous to Reset,
No 20
Yes 19
Unsure 3
As per Lazers request I reset the poll and hopefully improved this vote to allow the lads from the North to express their views without skewing the vote of the Republic.
I hope I won't be accused of gerrymandering :D
wont make a difference SF and his SF mates are well know for trying to rig an election...we should just wait until Saturday when we see the result
Mmmmm Interesting only 2 Northern lads have bothered to vote yet ;)
Ye are worse than Cowen. He said today that there won't be a third vote when Lisbon gets rejected again this weekend.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 10:56:58 PM
Ye are worse than Cowen. He said today that there won't be a third vote when Lisbon gets rejected again this weekend.
WHEN :D ha ha glad to see the NO side is getting complacent.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 10:56:58 PM
Ye are worse than Cowen. He said today that there won't be a third vote when Lisbon gets rejected again this weekend.
sure he is just telling lies like SF and Ganley have done for two campaigns ;)
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 11:11:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 10:56:58 PM
Ye are worse than Cowen. He said today that there won't be a third vote when Lisbon gets rejected again this weekend.
sure he is just telling lies like SF and Ganley have done for two campaigns ;)
What lies?
I'm not sure either way but I certainly don't think the result will be reflective of the latest opinion polls. I expect it to be much tighter.
What lies has Ganley been telling? He actually knows his stuff and is one of the few who can speak with authority on the actual treaty and not introduce misty eyed, misleading rhetoric. Didn't vote for him in the Euro's cos some of his politics doesn't sit well with me but to me he has been the star turn of the campaign.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 30, 2009, 11:14:00 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 11:11:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 10:56:58 PM
Ye are worse than Cowen. He said today that there won't be a third vote when Lisbon gets rejected again this weekend.
sure he is just telling lies like SF and Ganley have done for two campaigns ;)
What lies?
just look back at the last campaign and the crap they went on about like abortion, taxes etc......all from a guy who wont tell us who funds him...
Quote from: hardstation on September 30, 2009, 11:18:54 PM
Don't follow this crap at all but why are they having another vote?
Is it a case of "We didn't like the result of the last vote, we'll have another"?
Democracy is alive and well.
Sure is, much the same way we keep voting on Abortion and used to about Divorce (Personaly against abortion and believe int the right to a divorce).
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 11:22:51 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 30, 2009, 11:14:00 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 11:11:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 10:56:58 PM
Ye are worse than Cowen. He said today that there won't be a third vote when Lisbon gets rejected again this weekend.
sure he is just telling lies like SF and Ganley have done for two campaigns ;)
What lies?
just look back at the last campaign and the crap they went on about like abortion, taxes etc......all from a guy who wont tell us who funds him...
The British Right Wing & the United States Military DOH! I reckon he is a CIA spy.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on September 30, 2009, 11:27:19 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 11:22:51 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 30, 2009, 11:14:00 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 11:11:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 10:56:58 PM
Ye are worse than Cowen. He said today that there won't be a third vote when Lisbon gets rejected again this weekend.
sure he is just telling lies like SF and Ganley have done for two campaigns ;)
What lies?
just look back at the last campaign and the crap they went on about like abortion, taxes etc......all from a guy who wont tell us who funds him...
The British Right Wing & the United States Military DOH! I reckon he is a CIA spy.
That's fairly weak guys and I think you know it. Play the ball not the man! Trouble is - Ganley is so good and well versed on the Treaty the only way to eat him is to play the man and hope to muddy the waters. Hopefully the Irish people won't be scared enough to fall for it.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 11:15:51 PM
I'm not sure either way but I certainly don't think the result will be reflective of the latest opinion polls. I expect it to be much tighter.
What lies has Ganley been telling? He actually knows his stuff and is one of the few who can speak with authority on the actual treaty and not introduce misty eyed, misleading rhetoric. Didn't vote for him in the Euro's cos some of his politics doesn't sit well with me but to me he has been the star turn of the campaign.
Ganley represents the facts to suit his own agenda. Why is the treaty supported by all the main opposition parties? Why is it supported by the Small Firms Association? Because it does nothing to impinge our tax status, neutrality or otherwise. It can only be a good thing in my view.
Whats the reasoning for voting no? Thats what the no side can't tell anyone it seems. Long-term this is a good deal. Can't keep pissing off people we export most of our goods to all the time.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 11:33:11 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on September 30, 2009, 11:27:19 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 11:22:51 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 30, 2009, 11:14:00 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 11:11:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 10:56:58 PM
Ye are worse than Cowen. He said today that there won't be a third vote when Lisbon gets rejected again this weekend.
sure he is just telling lies like SF and Ganley have done for two campaigns ;)
What lies?
just look back at the last campaign and the crap they went on about like abortion, taxes etc......all from a guy who wont tell us who funds him...
The British Right Wing & the United States Military DOH! I reckon he is a CIA spy.
That's fairly weak guys and I think you know it. Play the ball not the man! Trouble is - Ganley is so good and well versed on the Treaty the only way to eat him is to play the man and hope to muddy the waters. Hopefully the Irish people won't be scared enough to fall for it.
My issue with Ganley is that he interprets the treaty to suit himself and plays it that the treaty is out to get Ireland and nations in general but when history shows that the EU has always been about its members and developing the EU for the to better its citizens....but Ganleys business would benefit from a No vote
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 11:39:30 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 11:33:11 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on September 30, 2009, 11:27:19 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 11:22:51 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 30, 2009, 11:14:00 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 30, 2009, 11:11:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 10:56:58 PM
Ye are worse than Cowen. He said today that there won't be a third vote when Lisbon gets rejected again this weekend.
sure he is just telling lies like SF and Ganley have done for two campaigns ;)
What lies?
just look back at the last campaign and the crap they went on about like abortion, taxes etc......all from a guy who wont tell us who funds him...
The British Right Wing & the United States Military DOH! I reckon he is a CIA spy.
That's fairly weak guys and I think you know it. Play the ball not the man! Trouble is - Ganley is so good and well versed on the Treaty the only way to eat him is to play the man and hope to muddy the waters. Hopefully the Irish people won't be scared enough to fall for it.
My issue with Ganley is that he interprets the treaty to suit himself and plays it that the treaty is out to get Ireland and nations in general but when history shows that the EU has always been about its members and developing the EU for the to better its citizens....but Ganleys business would benefit from a No vote
Ganley is only campaigning in Ireland so as to stop the Treaty on behalf of the United Kingdom & not Ireland, he can't go one sentance without saying Ireland and the UK this Ireland and the UK that. He is in this for the UK not Ireland. I firmly believe he is in the pocket of the Americans.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 11:15:51 PM
I'm not sure either way but I certainly don't think the result will be reflective of the latest opinion polls. I expect it to be much tighter.
What lies has Ganley been telling? He actually knows his stuff and is one of the few who can speak with authority on the actual treaty and not introduce misty eyed, misleading rhetoric. Didn't vote for him in the Euro's cos some of his politics doesn't sit well with me but to me he has been the star turn of the campaign.
Speaking of misty eyed and misleading, have you seen Ganley's adverts with the young children who look close to tears?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 01, 2009, 12:11:44 AM
Ganley is only campaigning in Ireland so as to stop the Treaty on behalf of the United Kingdom & not Ireland, he can't go one sentance without saying Ireland and the UK this Ireland and the UK that. He is in this for the UK not Ireland. I firmly believe he is in the pocket of the Americans.
You lost it at the end.
Quote from: hardstation on September 30, 2009, 11:18:54 PM
Don't follow this crap at all but why are they having another vote?
Is it a case of "We didn't like the result of the last vote, we'll have another"?
Democracy is alive and well.
Ireland is probably the most democratic country of the all. The French and Dutch were bypassed, the others didn't get to vote yet we get to vote twice :P
Quote from: INDIANA on September 30, 2009, 11:33:33 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 11:15:51 PM
I'm not sure either way but I certainly don't think the result will be reflective of the latest opinion polls. I expect it to be much tighter.
What lies has Ganley been telling? He actually knows his stuff and is one of the few who can speak with authority on the actual treaty and not introduce misty eyed, misleading rhetoric. Didn't vote for him in the Euro's cos some of his politics doesn't sit well with me but to me he has been the star turn of the campaign.
Ganley represents the facts to suit his own agenda. Why is the treaty supported by all the main opposition parties? Why is it supported by the Small Firms Association? Because it does nothing to impinge our tax status, neutrality or otherwise. It can only be a good thing in my view.
Whats the reasoning for voting no? Thats what the no side can't tell anyone it seems. Long-term this is a good deal. Can't keep pissing off people we export most of our goods to all the time.
This crap is one of the main reasons I am voting no. The "yes" side is not campaigning on the content of the treaty at all at the moment but is instead warning us not to "upset" the rest of europe or we'll be punished. Is that what democracy is coming to in Ireland now? Sickening to see labour spouting the same crap as FF & FG, clearly all of the Yes parties sat down and agreed that this was the way to campaign. I will not be bullied by anyone.
The 2nd reason I will vote no is because we have already voted and I think a re vote is a disgrace while not one word of the treaty has changed.
The 3rd reason I will vote no (and this is one that very few bring up) a yes vote means there will never be a referendum on any european issue ever again as the terms of this treaty are so broad. All the referendums he have had on europe were decided by the supreme court as being neccessary some time ago as the resulted in a significant change to what we had agreed to previously. With a treaty so far reaching and vague it will be argued that future decisions will not need the people to vote.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 01, 2009, 08:43:13 AM
This crap is one of the main reasons I am voting no. The "yes" side is not campaigning on the content of the treaty at all at the moment but is instead warning us not to "upset" the rest of europe or we'll be punished. Is that what democracy is coming to in Ireland now? Sickening to see labour spouting the same crap as FF & FG, clearly all of the Yes parties sat down and agreed that this was the way to campaign. I will not be bullied by anyone.
The 2nd reason I will vote no is because we have already voted and I think a re vote is a disgrace while not one word of the treaty has changed.
The 3rd reason I will vote no (and this is one that very few bring up) a yes vote means there will never be a referendum on any european issue ever again as the terms of this treaty are so broad. All the referendums he have had on europe were decided by the supreme court as being neccessary some time ago as the resulted in a significant change to what we had agreed to previously. With a treaty so far reaching and vague it will be argued that future decisions will not need the people to vote.
Fair play for addressing your reasons/concerns. I'll give my opinion on them, if I may:
1. I think you'd want to be very soft skinned or biased to think you are being bullied into voting one way or the other. Both campaigns are trying to persuade voters as best they can, and both sides could be accused of going "below the belt" in certain aspects of their campaign. But nobody is forcing you to vote one way or another.
2. Its not exactly true to say we're voting on the same thing. The substance has been clarified/changed due to the guarantees given.
All the main polictical parties think Lisbon is good for Ireland, so a company called Millward Brown was commissioned to do a study/survey to find out why people voted no. 1600 No voters were surveyed as to why they voted No. That gives a margin of error of less than 3% in terms of our electorate.
42% of no voters said they didn't understand the treaty. 26% voted no for reasons such as abortion, conscription etc. So on the basis of that, there's a huge chunk of the No vote that could potentially be swayed if they were better informed or the treaty tightened up.
So the government re-ran the referendum, in the hope of explaining it better. They also received legally binding guarantees from the European Council that nothing in the Lisbon Treaty affects :
- Right to Life, family and education
- Taxation
- Security and defence
So in many people's eyes, we are not voting on the same thing again.
3. Not quite true as I understand it.
Lisbon does introduce a new simpler method of amending the treaties in areas of the functioning of EU institutions (internal EU policy). This allows for individual amendments to be passed separately without the need to draft an entire new international treaty, which is very time consuming and expensive. The new procedure still requires the amendments to be ratified by each nation in accordance with their own laws. Because it does not need a new treaty, a referendum will not be required every time something changes - it will just need to be passed like almost every other law in Ireland, i.e. by the Dail.
However, (also like any other national law change), if the proposal is not compatible with our constitution then a referendum will be required.
A benefit of this is that rather than us voting on a huge plethora of changes at once, like in this and previous treaties, it will enable us to vote on individual treaty amendments.
The simplified revision procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the EU - this would still require a entire new treaty (and a referendum).
Quote from: Hound on October 01, 2009, 09:29:23 AM
All the main polictical parties think Lisbon is good for Ireland, so a company called Millward Brown was commissioned to do a study/survey to find out why people voted no. 1600 No voters were surveyed as to why they voted No. That gives a margin of error of less than 3% in terms of our electorate.
It was a multiple choice survey. It didn't ask, did you vote No as you are against the perceived direction the EU is heading in? Or Did you vote No against the Government? Or many of the other issues. It asked about neutrality and conscription but not about futher militarisation. The survey was was given terms of reference.
I agree on the 2nd vote issue but not on the others because again I don't see any real reasons there. You have to remember the No campaign started out saying it would harm our corp tax rate, neutrality etc. When you actually read the extracts of the Treaty you realise this is all bullshit.
Personally as a voter I'm interested in substantive issues- not the parliamentary clap trap. Because from I've read any change in our position on this is literally semantics rather than anything substantive.
I'd also like to point out I've never voted FF before and generally I vote the opposite to whatever they do.
Quote from: Hound on October 01, 2009, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 01, 2009, 08:43:13 AM
This crap is one of the main reasons I am voting no. The "yes" side is not campaigning on the content of the treaty at all at the moment but is instead warning us not to "upset" the rest of europe or we'll be punished. Is that what democracy is coming to in Ireland now? Sickening to see labour spouting the same crap as FF & FG, clearly all of the Yes parties sat down and agreed that this was the way to campaign. I will not be bullied by anyone.
The 2nd reason I will vote no is because we have already voted and I think a re vote is a disgrace while not one word of the treaty has changed.
The 3rd reason I will vote no (and this is one that very few bring up) a yes vote means there will never be a referendum on any european issue ever again as the terms of this treaty are so broad. All the referendums he have had on europe were decided by the supreme court as being neccessary some time ago as the resulted in a significant change to what we had agreed to previously. With a treaty so far reaching and vague it will be argued that future decisions will not need the people to vote.
Fair play for addressing your reasons/concerns. I'll give my opinion on them, if I may:
1. I think you'd want to be very soft skinned or biased to think you are being bullied into voting one way or the other. Both campaigns are trying to persuade voters as best they can, and both sides could be accused of going "below the belt" in certain aspects of their campaign. But nobody is forcing you to vote one way or another.Don;t agree there. Was listening to the radio the other day and the amount of people that voted no last time that were now voting yes due to the economic situation. I believe this is a direct result of people been threatened with the consequences of not playing ball with the bigwigs in europe
2. Its not exactly true to say we're voting on the same thing. The substance has been clarified/changed due to the guarantees given. Not 1 word of the treaty has been changed. We are not voting on the so called legally binding guaruntees but instead on an unchanged treaty
All the main polictical parties think Lisbon is good for Ireland, so a company called Millward Brown was commissioned to do a study/survey to find out why people voted no. 1600 No voters were surveyed as to why they voted No. who commissioned the survey, did they have a vested interest in the result?That gives a margin of error of less than 3% in terms of our electorate.
42% of no voters said they didn't understand the treaty. 26% voted no for reasons such as abortion, conscription etc. So on the basis of that, there's a huge chunk of the No vote that could potentially be swayed if they were better informed or the treaty tightened up.
So the government re-ran the referendum, in the hope of explaining it better. They also received legally binding guarantees from the European Council that nothing in the Lisbon Treaty affects :
- Right to Life, family and education
- Taxation
- Security and defence
So in many people's eyes, we are not voting on the same thing again.
3. Not quite true as I understand it.
Lisbon does introduce a new simpler method of amending the treaties in areas of the functioning of EU institutions (internal EU policy). This allows for individual amendments to be passed separately without the need to draft an entire new international treaty, which is very time consuming and expensive. The new procedure still requires the amendments to be ratified by each nation in accordance with their own laws. Because it does not need a new treaty, a referendum will not be required every time something changes - it will just need to be passed like almost every other law in Ireland, i.e. by the Dail.
However, (also like any other national law change), if the proposal is not compatible with our constitution then a referendum will be required.
A benefit of this is that rather than us voting on a huge plethora of changes at once, like in this and previous treaties, it will enable us to vote on individual treaty amendments.
The simplified revision procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the EU - this would still require a entire new treaty (and a referendum).
To my knowledge this is not correct. Our supreme court was challenge a while ago on whether we needed a referendum on Nice I think. The precedent was set as yes as we were moving outside the bounds of previous agreements. However, since Lisbon is so far reaching and vague it will be almost impossible to argue that you are outside of the bounds of this agreement so basically we will not vote in a european referendum again. Instead we will have to rely on our politicians in the Dail to make these decisions. I'm not happy with that, especially since our voting powers in europe will be less than 1% + we'll have no veto and so uniquely Irish concerns will be steamrolled whatever way the big nations want
Myles - I think your interpretation is correct and at the very least its prudent to read it that way considering the potential consequenes. When this issue is mentioned by the Referendum Commission notice how many times they say "may" and "could" and "possibly".
Quote from: Hound on October 01, 2009, 08:17:01 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 11:15:51 PM
I'm not sure either way but I certainly don't think the result will be reflective of the latest opinion polls. I expect it to be much tighter.
What lies has Ganley been telling? He actually knows his stuff and is one of the few who can speak with authority on the actual treaty and not introduce misty eyed, misleading rhetoric. Didn't vote for him in the Euro's cos some of his politics doesn't sit well with me but to me he has been the star turn of the campaign.
Speaking of misty eyed and misleading, have you seen Ganley's adverts with the young children who look close to tears?
I saw a poster alright and with all the hoo-haa about it I thought it was a picture of Maddie McCann but obviously its not. I don't think there is too much wrong with it but maybe I'm not PC enough. The ones I found most offensive were Pat the Cope Gallagher's. As if a picture of himself wasn't bad enough he has the following in big letters on it - "Y€S". For some reason that makes my blood boil. Wrong on so many levels.
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 01, 2009, 03:22:39 PM
Quote from: Hound on October 01, 2009, 08:17:01 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 30, 2009, 11:15:51 PM
I'm not sure either way but I certainly don't think the result will be reflective of the latest opinion polls. I expect it to be much tighter.
What lies has Ganley been telling? He actually knows his stuff and is one of the few who can speak with authority on the actual treaty and not introduce misty eyed, misleading rhetoric. Didn't vote for him in the Euro's cos some of his politics doesn't sit well with me but to me he has been the star turn of the campaign.
Speaking of misty eyed and misleading, have you seen Ganley's adverts with the young children who look close to tears?
I saw a poster alright and with all the hoo-haa about it I thought it was a picture of Maddie McCann but obviously its not. I don't think there is too much wrong with it but maybe I'm not PC enough. The ones I found most offensive were Pat the Cope Gallagher's. As if a picture of himself wasn't bad enough he has the following in big letters on it - "Y€S". For some reason that makes my blood boil. Wrong on so many levels.
They clearly tried to obtain Maddie lookalikes. Either way, I'm surprised you think they are perfectly fine.
Sorry Hound, perhaps we have crossed wires. Now that you've explained that it seemed to you that they went for a Maddie McCann lookalike deliberately I can see why folk would be upset. I saw the likeness initially but thought nothing more of it when I got closer and saw it wasn't. On reflection you are probably right to be upset.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 01, 2009, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Hound on October 01, 2009, 09:29:23 AM
1. I think you'd want to be very soft skinned or biased to think you are being bullied into voting one way or the other. Both campaigns are trying to persuade voters as best they can, and both sides could be accused of going "below the belt" in certain aspects of their campaign. But nobody is forcing you to vote one way or another.Don;t agree there. Was listening to the radio the other day and the amount of people that voted no last time that were now voting yes due to the economic situation. I believe this is a direct result of people been threatened with the consequences of not playing ball with the bigwigs in europe
Fecks sake, its hardly a threat. People look at Iceland and say thank feck we're in the EU. Though I think that impact has lessened with time. Now one of the questions people look at is whether or not a Yes to Lisbon will help us get out of recession. Even ignoring all the stuff the politicians say, a very large majority of entreprenuers / job creators in the country think Yes to that. As do a majority of trade unions.
Quote2. Its not exactly true to say we're voting on the same thing. The substance has been clarified/changed due to the guarantees given. Not 1 word of the treaty has been changed. We are not voting on the so called legally binding guaruntees but instead on an unchanged treaty
That's either missing the point or being disengenious. Regardless of the exact number, nobody can deny that a lot of people voted No the last time because they were very worried about particular perceived aspects, for example Right to Life, family and education, Taxation, Security and defence. We now have a legally binding guarantee that these will not be affected. Many people thought they were voting on these things in Lisbon I, now they know they are not for Lisbon II. Therefore the treaty has changed in perception for these people.
QuoteTo my knowledge this is not correct. Our supreme court was challenge a while ago on whether we needed a referendum on Nice I think. The precedent was set as yes as we were moving outside the bounds of previous agreements. However, since Lisbon is so far reaching and vague it will be almost impossible to argue that you are outside of the bounds of this agreement so basically we will not vote in a european referendum again. Instead we will have to rely on our politicians in the Dail to make these decisions.
I can only repeat what I said earlier. We will have referendums for any new treaties in the future. However, there will be less treaties in the future due to Lisbon. From after Lisbon, new treaties will only be required when it is decided to increase the powers of the EU, and there will be a referedum in Ireland in such an event.
We rely on the politicians in the Dail to make almost all our legislation. That will now be the case with most amendments to EU law. However, if there is anything in such changes that does not fit in with our constitution then we are obliged to hold a referedum on that specific point. A fair better system in my view.
Quote from: Hound on October 01, 2009, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 01, 2009, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Hound on October 01, 2009, 09:29:23 AM
1. I think you'd want to be very soft skinned or biased to think you are being bullied into voting one way or the other. Both campaigns are trying to persuade voters as best they can, and both sides could be accused of going "below the belt" in certain aspects of their campaign. But nobody is forcing you to vote one way or another.Don;t agree there. Was listening to the radio the other day and the amount of people that voted no last time that were now voting yes due to the economic situation. I believe this is a direct result of people been threatened with the consequences of not playing ball with the bigwigs in europe
Fecks sake, its hardly a threat. People look at Iceland and say thank feck we're in the EU. Though I think that impact has lessened with time. Now one of the questions people look at is whether or not a Yes to Lisbon will help us get out of recession. Even ignoring all the stuff the politicians say, a very large majority of entreprenuers / job creators in the country think Yes to that. As do a majority of trade unions.
Quote2. Its not exactly true to say we're voting on the same thing. The substance has been clarified/changed due to the guarantees given. Not 1 word of the treaty has been changed. We are not voting on the so called legally binding guaruntees but instead on an unchanged treaty
That's either missing the point or being disengenious. Regardless of the exact number, nobody can deny that a lot of people voted No the last time because they were very worried about particular perceived aspects, for example Right to Life, family and education, Taxation, Security and defence. We now have a legally binding guarantee that these will not be affected. Many people thought they were voting on these things in Lisbon I, now they know they are not for Lisbon II. Therefore the treaty has changed in perception for these people.
QuoteTo my knowledge this is not correct. Our supreme court was challenge a while ago on whether we needed a referendum on Nice I think. The precedent was set as yes as we were moving outside the bounds of previous agreements. However, since Lisbon is so far reaching and vague it will be almost impossible to argue that you are outside of the bounds of this agreement so basically we will not vote in a european referendum again. Instead we will have to rely on our politicians in the Dail to make these decisions.
I can only repeat what I said earlier. We will have referendums for any new treaties in the future. However, there will be less treaties in the future due to Lisbon. From after Lisbon, new treaties will only be required when it is decided to increase the powers of the EU, and there will be a referedum in Ireland in such an event.
We rely on the politicians in the Dail to make almost all our legislation. That will now be the case with most amendments to EU law. However, if there is anything in such changes that does not fit in with our constitution then we are obliged to hold a referedum on that specific point. A fair better system in my view.
We'll have to agree to disagree on pts 1 & 2 but I can assure you that you are plain wrong on the last point. Find me a quote from anyone on the yes side that says otherwise.
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 01, 2009, 03:58:11 PM
Sorry Hound, perhaps we have crossed wires. Now that you've explained that it seemed to you that they went for a Maddie McCann lookalike deliberately I can see why folk would be upset. I saw the likeness initially but thought nothing more of it when I got closer and saw it wasn't. On reflection you are probably right to be upset.
I do personally fully believe they deliberately went for a Maddie lookalike.
But even if you accept that any resemblance is purely coincidental, putting up posters of a young child who looks close to tears, is way beyond the bounds of acceptable practice in my view. It might not impact too much on adults who are generally wise enough to see the ploy, but I know it does impact on some children.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 01, 2009, 04:07:03 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree on pts 1 & 2 but I can assure you that you are plain wrong on the last point. Find me a quote from anyone on the yes side that says otherwise.
This is from the extended guide to the Lisbon treaty as produced by the Referendum Commission:
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
(where is can be dowloaded)
"The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties, although this proposed power is quite limited. Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers (see page 27). In addition, any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council, meaning that any one member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present. "
My reading of this is that a referenudum will be required in the following events:
- Something is proposed that increases the competence/scope of the EU (because in such case you are not allowed to amend a treaty, you must bring in a new one).
- Any single amendment to the treaty is beyond the scope of our constitution, therefore a referednum is required for that aspect (presumably this will be the decision of the Attorney General, but subject to appeal by anyone to the Supreme Court).
Point taken Hound. As I said I didn't pay it much attention myself.
All Southerners and Nordies with a vote get down and vote, Yes or No its your democratic and moral obligation to vote. Vote YES or NO, I encourage Yes but lets vote folks.
Quote from: Hound on October 01, 2009, 04:32:30 PM
"The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties, although this proposed power is quite limited. Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers (see page 27). In addition, any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council, meaning that any one member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present. "
My reading of this is that a referenudum will be required in the following events:
- Something is proposed that increases the competence/scope of the EU (because in such case you are not allowed to amend a treaty, you must bring in a new one).
- Any single amendment to the treaty is beyond the scope of our constitution, therefore a referednum is required for that aspect (presumably this will be the decision of the Attorney General, but subject to appeal by anyone to the Supreme Court).
Both highlighted comments are different.
Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers This is brilliant. There would be no need for them to increase the 'scope of powers' as they will already have everything they need due to Lisbon. Lisbon allows the EU to act like a state so they would already have the power to do what they want. You can't increase the scope of something that can do whatever it wants to do,
Quote from: Zapatista on October 02, 2009, 07:11:59 AM
Quote from: Hound on October 01, 2009, 04:32:30 PM
"The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties, although this proposed power is quite limited. Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers (see page 27). In addition, any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council, meaning that any one member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present. "
My reading of this is that a referenudum will be required in the following events:
- Something is proposed that increases the competence/scope of the EU (because in such case you are not allowed to amend a treaty, you must bring in a new one).
- Any single amendment to the treaty is beyond the scope of our constitution, therefore a referednum is required for that aspect (presumably this will be the decision of the Attorney General, but subject to appeal by anyone to the Supreme Court).
Both highlighted comments are different.
Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers
This is brilliant. There would be no need for them to increase the 'scope of powers' as they will already have everything they need due to Lisbon. Lisbon allows the EU to act like a state so they would already have the power to do what they want. You can't increase the scope of something that can do whatever it wants to do,
100% correct and time will prove this. Say bye bye to a vote on any major european event, we'll be like every other country now that is making decisions in their parliment even though the majority of people in those countries are not in favour.
The Butcher of Baghdad is President elect!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6857807.ece
Nice to see he only needs the support of France and Germany.
So the Presidency will be with the Brits supported by the French and the Germans? What lunatic said the big countries would have more influence?
Quote from: Zapatista on October 02, 2009, 07:11:59 AM
Quote from: Hound on October 01, 2009, 04:32:30 PM
"The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties, although this proposed power is quite limited. Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers (see page 27). In addition, any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council, meaning that any one member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present. "
My reading of this is that a referenudum will be required in the following events:
- Something is proposed that increases the competence/scope of the EU (because in such case you are not allowed to amend a treaty, you must bring in a new one).
- Any single amendment to the treaty is beyond the scope of our constitution, therefore a referednum is required for that aspect (presumably this will be the decision of the Attorney General, but subject to appeal by anyone to the Supreme Court).
Both highlighted comments are different.
I know you are not thick Zap, so please stop pretending to be. The first comment states that referendums are required only in certain circumstances. The second details when a referendum will be required.
QuoteAny such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers
This is brilliant. There would be no need for them to increase the 'scope of powers' as they will already have everything they need due to Lisbon. Lisbon allows the EU to act like a state so they would already have the power to do what they want. You can't increase the scope of something that can do whatever it wants to do,
Nonsense.
There are areas where EU has exclusive competence, areas where EU has no competence (i.e. the national states have exclusive competence, and areas where there are joint competence. This is nothing new, we're all aware for instance that certain legal matters can be appealed to European courts, who's decision can over-rule Irish courts. This doesnt change with Lisbon. Lisbon details each of the 3 areas, as follows:
EU exclusive competence:
- Customs Union
- Establishment of competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market
- Monetary policy for member states which use the euro
- Conservation of the biological resources of the sea as part of the common fisheries policy
- Common commercial policy
- The conclusion of an international agreement when this is within the framework of EU legislation or when it is necessary to help the EU exercise an internal competence
or if there is a possibility of the common rules being affected or of their range being changed
Joint competence
- Internal market
- Social policy with regard to specific aspects defined in the Treaty
- Economic, social and territorial cohesion
- Agriculture and fisheries except for the conservation of the biological resources of the sea
- Environment (the Treaty includes specific reference to climate change)
- Consumer protection
- Transport
- Trans-European Networks
- Energy
- Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
- Common safety concerns with regard to aspects of public health
- Research, technological development
- Space
- Development co-operation and humanitarian aid
National state competence
- Protection and improvement of human healthcare
- Industry
- Culture
- Tourism
- Education, professional training, youth
- Sport
- Civil protection
- Administrative co-operationIf the EU want to increase their powers in either of the latter two lists, this can only be done by a new treaty and not by an amendment to an existing treaty, and such new treaty would require a referendum in Ireland.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 02, 2009, 07:54:47 AM
100% correct and time will prove this. Say bye bye to a vote on any major european event, we'll be like every other country now that is making decisions in their parliment even though the majority of people in those countries are not in favour.
Fair fecks to Sinn Fein and Libertas if they have fooled any voter into believing this rubbish. People obviously forget that Sinn Fein are totally anti-Europe and have voted No to every single referendum on Europe.
- The conclusion of an international agreement when this is within the framework of EU legislation or when it is necessary to help the EU exercise an internal competence or if there is a possibility of the common rules being affected or of their range being changedDoes this mean if they want to change something after an agreement they can change internal workings of the EU?
Quote from: Hound on October 02, 2009, 08:11:11 AM
Fair fecks to Sinn Fein and Libertas if they have fooled any voter into believing this rubbish. People obviously forget that Sinn Fein are totally anti-Europe and have voted No to every single referendum on Europe.
We have No men on one side and Yes men on the other. Both have been right on occasion.
Vote No for Democracy.
Vote No and demand an EU based on the needs of it's citizens.
Vote No and Demand an EU that will lead the way for a better world.
Vote No against further militarisation.
Vote No to protect workers rights.
Vote No against war monger Blair.
Vote No for those denied a vote.
Vote No against FF and corruption.
Vote No to NAMA.
Vote No again and again and again until they listen.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 02, 2009, 08:47:43 AM
Vote No for Democracy.
Vote No and demand an EU based on the needs of it's citizens.
Vote No and Demand an EU that will lead the way for a better world.
Vote No against further militarisation.
Vote No to protect workers rights.
Vote No against war monger Blair.
Vote No for those denied a vote.
Vote No against FF and corruption.
Vote No to NAMA.
Vote No again and again and again until they listen.
Wow, outdoing yourself now. Even some of your own comrades wouldnt believe that crap!!
;D
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 02, 2009, 07:54:47 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on October 02, 2009, 07:11:59 AM
Quote from: Hound on October 01, 2009, 04:32:30 PM
"The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties, although this proposed power is quite limited. Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers (see page 27). In addition, any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council, meaning that any one member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present. "
My reading of this is that a referenudum will be required in the following events:
- Something is proposed that increases the competence/scope of the EU (because in such case you are not allowed to amend a treaty, you must bring in a new one).
- Any single amendment to the treaty is beyond the scope of our constitution, therefore a referednum is required for that aspect (presumably this will be the decision of the Attorney General, but subject to appeal by anyone to the Supreme Court).
Both highlighted comments are different.
Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers
This is brilliant. There would be no need for them to increase the 'scope of powers' as they will already have everything they need due to Lisbon. Lisbon allows the EU to act like a state so they would already have the power to do what they want. You can't increase the scope of something that can do whatever it wants to do,
100% correct and time will prove this. Say bye bye to a vote on any major european event, we'll be like every other country now that is making decisions in their parliment even though the majority of people in those countries are not in favour.
Hound - I think time will prove you are mistaken on this item. All the competences are mentioned in the treaty as you have shown. A change in the decision making process over a competence will be merely an "administrative change" and I would doubt whether this would require a referendum in this country. When the Referendum Commission can only be vague about it then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the status quo. I have no faith in our politicians and frankly I'd be gobsmacked by anyone that does. If they get leaned on they will do exactly what Brussels says. McCreevy was the last one who stood up to them, it won't happen again. Europe must be fair and our voice must be heard. We are a nation, not merely 4 million inhabitants off the north west coast.
Tony Blair - President of Europe. My stomach turned.
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 02, 2009, 09:48:04 AM
Tony Blair - President of Europe. My stomach turned.
While I think the English media are very presumptious in that regard, it should be noted that the so called president of Europe will have no decision making powers. Just replaces the 6 month rotation of "president" between the member states. Blair already was "president" for at least one six month term, and the world didnt end.
Quote from: Hound on October 02, 2009, 08:11:11 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 02, 2009, 07:54:47 AM
100% correct and time will prove this. Say bye bye to a vote on any major european event, we'll be like every other country now that is making decisions in their parliment even though the majority of people in those countries are not in favour.
Fair fecks to Sinn Fein and Libertas if they have fooled any voter into believing this rubbish. People obviously forget that Sinn Fein are totally anti-Europe and have voted No to every single referendum on Europe.
Now Hound,
I never vote on a referendum based on anyones opinion but my own so it is a bit low claiming I have been brainwashed by either SF or libertas. On the need for future referendums I was listening to a debate on the radio on Today fm last word and when the No person brought this up the Yes person pretty much conceded it was true. When I read up on it I had to agree that there will be no more referendums on European issues as Lisbon is too broad for anything to be considered outside its remits - the requirement as defined by our supreme court for having a referendum.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 02, 2009, 10:42:47 AM
Quote from: Hound on October 02, 2009, 08:11:11 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 02, 2009, 07:54:47 AM
100% correct and time will prove this. Say bye bye to a vote on any major european event, we'll be like every other country now that is making decisions in their parliment even though the majority of people in those countries are not in favour.
Fair fecks to Sinn Fein and Libertas if they have fooled any voter into believing this rubbish. People obviously forget that Sinn Fein are totally anti-Europe and have voted No to every single referendum on Europe.
Now Hound,
I never vote on a referendum based on anyones opinion but my own so it is a bit low claiming I have been brainwashed by either SF or libertas. On the need for future referendums I was listening to a debate on the radio on Today fm last word and when the No person brought this up the Yes person pretty much conceded it was true. When I read up on it I had to agree that there will be no more referendums on European issues as Lisbon is too broad for anything to be considered outside its remits - the requirement as defined by our supreme court for having a referendum.
Correct. We wouldn't be having any of these Euro referendums if the politicians had there way. It is the result of a Supreme Court ruling in the 1980's that we have these referenda (and re-runs when we get the answer wrong). The broadness of Lisbon's terms will most likely end this pesky little difficulty for our ruling class.
As for being accused of being brainwashed - my character was called into question yesterday.
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 02, 2009, 12:14:59 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 02, 2009, 10:42:47 AM
Quote from: Hound on October 02, 2009, 08:11:11 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 02, 2009, 07:54:47 AM
100% correct and time will prove this. Say bye bye to a vote on any major european event, we'll be like every other country now that is making decisions in their parliment even though the majority of people in those countries are not in favour.
Fair fecks to Sinn Fein and Libertas if they have fooled any voter into believing this rubbish. People obviously forget that Sinn Fein are totally anti-Europe and have voted No to every single referendum on Europe.
Now Hound,
I never vote on a referendum based on anyones opinion but my own so it is a bit low claiming I have been brainwashed by either SF or libertas. On the need for future referendums I was listening to a debate on the radio on Today fm last word and when the No person brought this up the Yes person pretty much conceded it was true. When I read up on it I had to agree that there will be no more referendums on European issues as Lisbon is too broad for anything to be considered outside its remits - the requirement as defined by our supreme court for having a referendum.
Correct. We wouldn't be having any of these Euro referendums if the politicians had there way. It is the result of a Supreme Court ruling in the 1980's that we have these referenda (and re-runs when we get the answer wrong). The broadness of Lisbon's terms will most likely end this pesky little difficulty for our ruling class.
As for being accused of being brainwashed - my character was called into question yesterday.
Well if you choose to believe the No side regarding referedum's rather than the Independent Refereudum commission, then certainly I won't be able to change your mind.
I didnt mention brainwashed, but I do repeat that the No side do an amazing job in putting things into people's heads. Maybe that is brainwashed?
I presume you're not talking about the Libertas posters regarding the character thing. I thought we dealt with that and both concluded they were out of order.
Yes but the more I thought about it last night I was annoyed about you saying that you had obviously misjudged my character. Anyway - its off my chest now.
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 02, 2009, 12:45:43 PM
Yes but the more I thought about it last night I was annoyed about you saying that you had obviously misjudged my character. Anyway - its off my chest now.
Sorry for annoying you. I deleted it as soon as you clarified what you meant.
Fair play, I hadn't seen that.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 02, 2009, 08:47:43 AM
Vote No for Democracy.
Vote No and demand an EU based on the needs of it's citizens.
Vote No and Demand an EU that will lead the way for a better world.
Vote No against further militarisation.
Vote No to protect workers rights.
Vote No against war monger Blair.
Vote No for those denied a vote.
Vote No against FF and corruption.
Vote No to NAMA.
Vote No again and again and again until they listen.
I always find it funny when SF come out with those lines ;D
Not much from Zap today - he must be busy with his mates getting around the country and voting all day ;)
Quote from: Tankie on October 02, 2009, 07:25:51 PM
Not much from Zap today - he must be busy with his mates getting around the country and voting all day ;)
I always find you funny Tankie ;)
I've only voted twice tankie. Once last year and once again today 8)
When casting my vote today Brian Lenihan was lurking around the polling station looking for last minute waverers. I made my complaints known to the little lady in charge and Mr Lendahand made his exit :D
voted myself and even got one of the lads to vote who didnt vote last year so the Yes side is plus 1 vote from last year anyway.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 02, 2009, 07:34:36 PM
When casting my vote today Brian Lenihan was lurking around the polling station looking for last minute waverers. I made my complaints known to the little lady in charge and Mr Lendahand made his exit :D
i'm surprised you didnt start heckling him and call him names....
Quote from: Tankie on October 02, 2009, 07:36:49 PM
i'm surprised you didnt start heckling him and call him names....
That makes it even as Gnevin isn't voting.
Who said I didn't heckle him?
The treaty will be passed.
Thanks for the debate.
looking like 60%-40% in favour of yes. still early
Quote from: thejuice on October 03, 2009, 10:30:09 AM
looking like 60%-40% in favour of yes. still early
To much of a gap and it's country wide.
Looking like the Yes camp (heavily backed by "the man") have won. Only time will tell now if the country has made one huge almighty fcuk up! And the sad thing is that when that time comes the reprobate politicans that forced this on the Irish people will no longer be there to take responsibility. >:(
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 03, 2009, 10:47:32 AM
Only time will tell now if the country has made one huge almighty fcuk up!
If it has it will never be pinned on this.
We should have a third referendum. First to win it twice wins outright. ;) What ye think?
Best out of three surely now. If this was in the playground and the kid with the football said ive won, going home now, its my football na na na na na etc , most people wouldnt consider this fair.
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 01:04:35 PM
Best out of three surely now. If this was in the playground and the kid with the football said ive won, going home now, its my football na na na na na etc , most people wouldnt consider this fair.
This is a playground.
Where the bullies and the big boys make the rules. ;)
This is one of the saddest days in the history of Ireland if not THE saddest if the exit polls are are true reflection of the outcome. We have lost our sovereignty and our right to rule. All this through fear mongering. The EU is now an oligarchy just like the US. The people no longer have a say.
Ever ask why all the main political parties were for the yes vote with not one individual with a different opinion? The answer is obvious, it's a big pay day for them, the traitors. No need to send armies to conquer countries anymore when you can payoff the corrupt politicians and apply the finishing touches with a stroke of a pen.
Quote from: Seamus on October 03, 2009, 02:01:45 PM
This is one of the saddest days in the history of Ireland
It is sad yet it reflects our society.
The Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan said on RTE today "we never promised jobs in the result of a Yes vote".
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2535/3946820635_8284b6e18b.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fiannafail/3946820635/
It's for reasons like this that it is sad.
A great victory for scare tactics. I don't suppose we could now hire someone to find out all the reasons people voted yes and maybe find out the reasons that are false (i.e. that voting yes will help us out of recession) and maybe have another vote for the sake of democracy. No, you just keep voting until the "right" result is met. The only hope this gets binned now is the czechs stall it long enough for the tories to win in the UK and destroy the whole thing.
QuoteThis is one of the saddest days in the history of Ireland
You wouldn't be overstating things, by any chance. Nothing like a sore loser.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 03, 2009, 02:52:30 PM
A great victory for scare tactics. I don't suppose we could now hire someone to find out all the reasons people voted yes and maybe find out the reasons that are false (i.e. that voting yes will help us out of recession) and maybe have another vote for the sake of democracy. No, you just keep voting until the "right" result is met. The only hope this gets binned now is the czechs stall it long enough for the tories to win in the UK and destroy the whole thing.
i'm still waiting for one substantial issue as to why people should have voted no.
Im still waiting for one substantial reason why the people had to vote twice.
Look if the first result was wrong, The second one could be wrong too. Best have a third one to be totally sure.
Quote from: Seamus on October 03, 2009, 02:01:45 PMWe have lost our sovereignty and our right to rule. All this through fear mongering. The EU is now an oligarchy just like the US. The people no longer have a say.
Ever ask why all the main political parties were for the yes vote with not one individual with a different opinion? The answer is obvious, it's a big pay day for them, the traitors. No need to send armies to conquer countries anymore when you can payoff the corrupt politicians and apply the finishing touches with a stroke of a pen.
I am more comfortable with being ruled from brussels than from Dublin tbh, that said, i can't understand why almost all the local politicians were in favour of this, do they not see where this is heading?
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Im still waiting for one substantial reason why the people had to vote twice.
Look if the first result was wrong, The second one could be wrong too. Best have a third one to be totally sure.
Because many of the core issue from the first vote where addressed and as such the people where being asked to vote of a different set of issues
I'm just suprised that people still actually believe in democracy, at any level. I'm with Homer on this one.
Quote from: Gnevin on October 03, 2009, 07:12:19 PM
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Im still waiting for one substantial reason why the people had to vote twice.
Look if the first result was wrong, The second one could be wrong too. Best have a third one to be totally sure.
Because may of the core issue from the first vote where addressed and as such the people where being asked to vote of a different set of issues
But wan't it the exact same treaty we voted on?
Quote from: Gnevin on October 03, 2009, 07:12:19 PM
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Im still waiting for one substantial reason why the people had to vote twice.
Look if the first result was wrong, The second one could be wrong too. Best have a third one to be totally sure.
Because may of the core issue from the first vote where addressed and as such the people where being asked to vote of a different set of issues
So which are we ratifying? The treaty of the first referendum or the second. And what are the differences?
My ballot paper and official literature indicated that the chunks we were asked to chop out of our constitution this time are the exact ones specified last time.
Quote from: Gnevin on October 03, 2009, 07:12:19 PM
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Im still waiting for one substantial reason why the people had to vote twice.
Look if the first result was wrong, The second one could be wrong too. Best have a third one to be totally sure.
Because may of the core issue from the first vote where addressed and as such the people where being asked to vote of a different set of issues
How many people do you think had a clue what yesterday's vote was about? I heard a group of girls in work discussing how good europe's been for us etc and that'd we'd be mad to want vote no and leave the EU......
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 03, 2009, 07:18:29 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on October 03, 2009, 07:12:19 PM
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Im still waiting for one substantial reason why the people had to vote twice.
Look if the first result was wrong, The second one could be wrong too. Best have a third one to be totally sure.
Because may of the core issue from the first vote where addressed and as such the people where being asked to vote of a different set of issues
But wan't it the exact same treaty we voted on?
It depends on how you look at it . Yes the treaty didn't change but the guarantees changed the 1) people perceptions and 2) the application of some aspects of the treaty. To me and the high court the guarantees where substantial that the treaty was sufficiently changed to allow a second vote.
Quote from: Gnevin on October 03, 2009, 07:43:57 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 03, 2009, 07:18:29 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on October 03, 2009, 07:12:19 PM
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Im still waiting for one substantial reason why the people had to vote twice.
Look if the first result was wrong, The second one could be wrong too. Best have a third one to be totally sure.
Because may of the core issue from the first vote where addressed and as such the people where being asked to vote of a different set of issues
But wan't it the exact same treaty we voted on?
It depends on how you look at it . Yes the treaty didn't change but the guarantees changed the 1) people perceptions and 2) the application of some aspects of the treaty. To me and the high court the guarantees where substantial that the treaty was sufficiently changed to allow a second vote.
Let me ask a simple question. Do you not think that the recession and the fact that a huge amount of people are struggling to make ends meet had more to do with this passing than anything else? The fear tactics of the Yes side prayed on these issues and people changed their vote. I personally believe this is the main reason the big swing occurred and damn all to do with "legal assurances". The biggest irony of course is that if there was a yes vote in the original treaty we would still have had the exact same level of recession and voting yes now will not make one bit of difference to our ability to get out of it.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 03, 2009, 08:15:42 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on October 03, 2009, 07:43:57 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 03, 2009, 07:18:29 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on October 03, 2009, 07:12:19 PM
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Im still waiting for one substantial reason why the people had to vote twice.
Look if the first result was wrong, The second one could be wrong too. Best have a third one to be totally sure.
Because may of the core issue from the first vote where addressed and as such the people where being asked to vote of a different set of issues
But wan't it the exact same treaty we voted on?
It depends on how you look at it . Yes the treaty didn't change but the guarantees changed the 1) people perceptions and 2) the application of some aspects of the treaty. To me and the high court the guarantees where substantial that the treaty was sufficiently changed to allow a second vote.
Let me ask a simple question. Do you not think that the recession and the fact that a huge amount of people are struggling to make ends meet had more to do with this passing than anything else? The fear tactics of the Yes side prayed on these issues and people changed their vote. I personally believe this is the main reason the big swing occurred and damn all to do with "legal assurances". The biggest irony of course is that if there was a yes vote in the original treaty we would still have had the exact same level of recession and voting yes now will not make one bit of difference to our ability to get out of it.
The commissioner , taxation and neutrality where major issues the first time around . I can't see how people who voted no the first time because of these would not be swayed by the guarantees.
The treaty didnt change. The guarantees are meaningless because the are not written in to the treaty. Now theyve got the desired result expect a lot of excuses re the guarantees. changed economic circumstances........ different focus post lisbon,............. Changing world situation.............. Etc.
Ever buy something , anything, Microwave , car etc and listen to all the bull and spin the salesman gave you, handed over all your money and when the machine broke down , you found out how limited the guarantee was?
Ever promised a member of the opposite sex youd call Him/ her the following day , Respect Him/her, in order to get him/ her into bed, and then when youd got what you wanted these promises were forgotten?
See where this is going? And theres no going back.
Cute hoorism at its best :-\
the treaty didnt change, it just proves complex issues should not be put to referendum. people wanted to give politics in general a kick in the arse (and rightly so imo) but they used the lisbon treaty to do it the last time. this is the 3 rd time a referendum that has been defeated was subsequently passed (divorce, nice, and lisbon). its silly to keep doing this politicians are elected to govern so if possible referendums should be very few and far between.
i hope the chechs dont bolix around with this now and wait to see if the torys get in in britian and really finish lisbon. . .
Conditional ratification is all the result of this vote mandates. The government should temporarily ratify the treaty reserving the right to opt out if the stated guarantees arent set in stone in the next treaty as agreed. A 2 year time frame on this would be reasonable i think. Funny , I suspect that the whizz kids who draw up the next treaty will find that its "legally impossible" to include these guarantees. What then? New referendum? I doubt it.
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 08:44:09 PM
Conditional ratification is all the result of this vote mandates. The government should temporarily ratify the treaty reserving the right to opt out if the stated guarantees arent set in stone in the next treaty as agreed. A 2 year time frame on this would be reasonable i think. Funny , I suspect that the whizz kids who draw up the next treaty will find that its "legally impossible" to include these guarantees. What then? New referendum? I doubt it.
why should we have anymore guarantees then any other country? the treaty was drawn up by all the countries in europe. .
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 08:44:09 PM
Conditional ratification is all the result of this vote mandates. The government should temporarily ratify the treaty reserving the right to opt out if the stated guarantees arent set in stone in the next treaty as agreed. A 2 year time frame on this would be reasonable i think. Funny , I suspect that the whizz kids who draw up the next treaty will find that its "legally impossible" to include these guarantees. What then? New referendum? I doubt it.
I saw somewhere that there won't be anymore treaties (i.e. laws are made and no going back after Lisbon). Maybe I'm completely wrong but if this is the case where is this 'European project' heading?
PS, to all you who voted Yes. What is the 'European project'? Because to me it's handing over more and more power to Brussells. Maybe the govt want to do that cos they're scared shit of doing anything themselves.
Quote from: magickingdom on October 03, 2009, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 08:44:09 PM
Conditional ratification is all the result of this vote mandates. The government should temporarily ratify the treaty reserving the right to opt out if the stated guarantees arent set in stone in the next treaty as agreed. A 2 year time frame on this would be reasonable i think. Funny , I suspect that the whizz kids who draw up the next treaty will find that its "legally impossible" to include these guarantees. What then? New referendum? I doubt it.
why should we have anymore guarantees then any other country? the treaty was drawn up by all the countries in europe. .
Well it seemed we needed them! We asked for them and kinda got em. No other country was given a chance to ask. If the treaty was drawn up by all the countries it looks like our govt didnt do enough research!
Im off to practice bending over. I believe it will be a very important skill in the future.
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 09:45:59 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on October 03, 2009, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 08:44:09 PM
Conditional ratification is all the result of this vote mandates. The government should temporarily ratify the treaty reserving the right to opt out if the stated guarantees arent set in stone in the next treaty as agreed. A 2 year time frame on this would be reasonable i think. Funny , I suspect that the whizz kids who draw up the next treaty will find that its "legally impossible" to include these guarantees. What then? New referendum? I doubt it.
why should we have anymore guarantees then any other country? the treaty was drawn up by all the countries in europe. .
Well it seemed we needed them! We asked for them and kinda got em. No other country was given a chance to ask. If the treaty was drawn up by all the countries it looks like our govt didnt do enough research!
Im off to practice bending over. I believe it will be a very important skill in the future.
All this nonsense was trotted out after nice 2 . Yet as soon as it was passed no one even talked about it anymore .
Quote from: Gnevin on October 03, 2009, 08:19:00 PMIt
The commissioner , taxation and neutrality where major issues the first time around . I can't see how people who voted no the first time because of these would not be swayed by the guarantees.
tax harmonisation has to be a goal for a single currency union.
Did you see those eejits at Dublin castle chanting 'yes' 'yes' 'yes', ffs, it's hardly something to be getting that worked up about, an interesting point on the rte news was that the czech president may be trying to stall ratifying the treaty until the tories get elected in the UK, Cameron has promised a referendum there, so the treaty will never go through anyway, which of course brings us to the other issue, is it right to railroad through a treaty which would very probably be roundly defeated in a european wide referendum?
A BAD day for Democracy, and the future of the European project
Quote from: Bogball XV on October 03, 2009, 10:09:30 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on October 03, 2009, 08:19:00 PMIt
The commissioner , taxation and neutrality where major issues the first time around . I can't see how people who voted no the first time because of these would not be swayed by the guarantees.
tax harmonisation has to be a goal for a single currency union.
Did you see those eejits at Dublin castle chanting 'yes' 'yes' 'yes', ffs, it's hardly something to be getting that worked up about, an interesting point on the rte news was that the czech president may be trying to stall ratifying the treaty until the tories get elected in the UK, Cameron has promised a referendum there, so the treaty will never go through anyway, which of course brings us to the other issue, is it right to railroad through a treaty which would very probably be roundly defeated in a european wide referendum?
Of course its not right but since when did these bigwigs with their big plans care what the peasants think.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 03, 2009, 09:23:45 PM
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 08:44:09 PM
Conditional ratification is all the result of this vote mandates. The government should temporarily ratify the treaty reserving the right to opt out if the stated guarantees arent set in stone in the next treaty as agreed. A 2 year time frame on this would be reasonable i think. Funny , I suspect that the whizz kids who draw up the next treaty will find that its "legally impossible" to include these guarantees. What then? New referendum? I doubt it.
I saw somewhere that there won't be anymore treaties (i.e. laws are made and no going back after Lisbon). Maybe I'm completely wrong but if this is the case where is this 'European project' heading?
PS, to all you who voted Yes. What is the 'European project'? Because to me it's handing over more and more power to Brussells. Maybe the govt want to do that cos they're scared shit of doing anything themselves.
You are correct, there will be no more referendums for Ireland on european issues. Instead any changes to the EU will be ratified by our parliament just like in other countries. To me it looks like the EU is trying to be a big Superpower to compete with the US and China. What worries me is that we will eventually get involved in resource wars in the not to distant future. If that happens what can we do. There will be no Veto for us in any vote, we have less than 1% of voting power, we can protest all we like it won't make any difference and our useless politicians will spin it like we are somehow not part of it (just like when US war planes land in Shannon to refuel).
great stuff from ireland
What's the 'European project' to you anyway tankie? Just wondering, seen as none of the 'yes' side managed to answer my question yet.
does our standard of living since we joined the EU not tell you what Europe means to the yes side?
Is it all about money then?
Amazing the amount of voters who voted yes and cannot tell you what they voted for.
Quote from: ONeill on October 04, 2009, 12:15:21 PM
Amazing the amount of voters who voted yes and cannot tell you what they voted for.
The main parties told their voters how they wanted them to vote. Surely the government should remain neutral in such a vote?
I heard a fellow on the wireless yesterday who had phoned in to the BBC. He said he didn't really know why he had changed from No to Yes but said he, and those around them, felt bullied into voting yes simply because the economy was on its knees and they'd try anything to alter that.
I imagine theres ship loads of foreign direct investment en route right now and well be back to full employment by friday. Talks underway to cancel our national debt no doubt and the scientists from jurassic park are working on bringing the old celtic tiger back to life. By christmas my house will be worth 30% more than it was at its peak and itll be good to see an end to all these new levies. All we had to do was say yes!!!
I suppose its a bit lke heroin really. Just try it once. Itll be great, i promise. There'll be no consequences. Sure what could possibly go wrong?
Quote from: Cúig huaire on October 04, 2009, 12:20:21 PM
Quote from: ONeill on October 04, 2009, 12:15:21 PM
Amazing the amount of voters who voted yes and cannot tell you what they voted for.
The main parties told their voters how they wanted them to vote. Surely the government should remain neutral in such a vote?
why do they want to relinquish power though? That's what I don't understand, in all honesty I'm happy to see them not involved, decisions might be made in the interests of fairness and forward planning might be employed too. Will we get a decently funded health and education system like the swedes and the frogs now too?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 04, 2009, 09:05:16 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 03, 2009, 09:23:45 PM
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on October 03, 2009, 08:44:09 PM
Conditional ratification is all the result of this vote mandates. The government should temporarily ratify the treaty reserving the right to opt out if the stated guarantees arent set in stone in the next treaty as agreed. A 2 year time frame on this would be reasonable i think. Funny , I suspect that the whizz kids who draw up the next treaty will find that its "legally impossible" to include these guarantees. What then? New referendum? I doubt it.
I saw somewhere that there won't be anymore treaties (i.e. laws are made and no going back after Lisbon). Maybe I'm completely wrong but if this is the case where is this 'European project' heading?
PS, to all you who voted Yes. What is the 'European project'? Because to me it's handing over more and more power to Brussells. Maybe the govt want to do that cos they're scared shit of doing anything themselves.
You are correct, there will be no more referendums for Ireland on european issues. Instead any changes to the EU will be ratified by our parliament just like in other countries. To me it looks like the EU is trying to be a big Superpower to compete with the US and China. What worries me is that we will eventually get involved in resource wars in the not to distant future. If that happens what can we do. There will be no Veto for us in any vote, we have less than 1% of voting power, we can protest all we like it won't make any difference and our useless politicians will spin it like we are somehow not part of it (just like when US war planes land in Shannon to refuel).
Can we not just leave anytime we want anyway?
Quote from: ONeill on October 04, 2009, 12:25:40 PM
I heard a fellow on the wireless yesterday who had phoned in to the BBC. He said he didn't really know why he had changed from No to Yes but said he, and those around them, felt bullied into voting yes simply because the economy was on its knees and they'd try anything to alter that.
It seems a lot of voters felt the same. Anyone I spoke to voted no, for the simple reason that is how they voted last time.
Thats 1-1 now on aggregate, so we`ll need another vote to settle it.
Yesterday was a sad and depressing day for Ireland. I'm gutted. The only conclusion I can come to is we are a nation of cowardly idiots who deserve the poorly governed, wasteful country we have.
QuoteSure what could possibly go wrong?
What went wrong with the Nice referundum, since it passed?
Quote from: armaghniac on October 04, 2009, 02:56:02 PM
QuoteSure what could possibly go wrong?
What went wrong with the Nice referundum, since it passed?
Well for a start it led to this debacle.
Quote from: Cúig huaire on October 04, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
Quote from: ONeill on October 04, 2009, 12:25:40 PM
I heard a fellow on the wireless yesterday who had phoned in to the BBC. He said he didn't really know why he had changed from No to Yes but said he, and those around them, felt bullied into voting yes simply because the economy was on its knees and they'd try anything to alter that.
It seems a lot of voters felt the same. Anyone I spoke to voted no, for the simple reason that is how they voted last time.
Thats 1-1 now on aggregate, so we`ll need another vote to settle it.
The vast majority of people I know and spoke too voted Yes, none seemed to feel forced to vote Yes, in fact many changed their minds from No due to the lies and misrepresentations of the No side last time and again this time, indeed it seems that it was last time that people felt scared into voting No.
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 04, 2009, 02:17:58 PM
Yesterday was a sad and depressing day for Ireland. I'm gutted. The only conclusion I can come to is we are a nation of cowardly idiots who deserve the poorly governed, wasteful country we have.
67.1% of the electorate disagree.
Yesteday was an uplifting and cheerful day for Ireland. I'm delighted.
People who vote for Fianna Fail - The only conclusion I can come to is we are a nation of cowardly idiots who deserve the poorly governed, wasteful country we have.
We must respect the peoples right to be wrong. ;)
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 04, 2009, 10:45:46 AM
What's the 'European project' to you anyway tankie? Just wondering, seen as none of the 'yes' side managed to answer my question yet.
i cant speak for tankie but for me it means closer cooperation with our fellow europeans for the benefit of all. . i became a real big fan of the eec when maggie thatcher issued her 'out, out , out' response to the new ireland forum. the only reason the british governments allows the irish government any role in ni is because of the partnership brought about thru the eu imo
Magickingdom you can now watch the country's independence slowly go down the tube, sadly in 2-5-10 years when the truth/realisation hits home, it's to late to rectify the situation.
You idiots all took the party line, ffs you may hate SF but are you all that embarassed to be IRISH, cause see now, you have lost your nationality.
Sad.
We may not have changed the result, but at least Donegal voted NO, Life will never be the same. You idiots.
Quote from: magickingdom on October 04, 2009, 08:54:14 PM
i cant speak for tankie but for me it means closer cooperation with our fellow europeans for the benefit of all. . i became a real big fan of the eec when maggie thatcher issued her 'out, out , out' response .....
I have heard that it's a great relief when you finally do come out.
Unfortunately, money is the driving force here. The Dail, its politicians and the majority of those they govern have been so obsessed with feckin dough this last 15 years that it dictates to them their life.
At least up here we argue about important things like flags and gays.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:16:27 PM
Magickingdom you can now watch the country's independence slowly go down the tube, sadly in 2-5-10 years when the truth/realisation hits home, it's to late to rectify the situation.
You idiots all took the party line, ffs you may hate SF but are you all that embarassed to be IRISH, cause see now, you have lost your nationality.
Sad.
:D
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 03, 2009, 02:52:30 PM
The only hope this gets binned now is the czechs stall it long enough for the tories to win in the UK and destroy the whole thing.
That's not going to stop this. Nothing is going to stop Lisbon from being implemented. The people of France, Holland, Ireland and the rest of the EU are only a nuisance that have to be walked around or stepped over. Sometimes if you scare them they will move out of the way.
Quote from: stephenite on October 05, 2009, 02:00:37 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:16:27 PM
Magickingdom you can now watch the country's independence slowly go down the tube, sadly in 2-5-10 years when the truth/realisation hits home, it's to late to rectify the situation.
You idiots all took the party line, ffs you may hate SF but are you all that embarassed to be IRISH, cause see now, you have lost your nationality.
Sad.
:D
Seriously is a smiley the best you can muster?
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 05, 2009, 08:32:47 AM
Quote from: stephenite on October 05, 2009, 02:00:37 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:16:27 PM
Magickingdom you can now watch the country's independence slowly go down the tube, sadly in 2-5-10 years when the truth/realisation hits home, it's to late to rectify the situation.
You idiots all took the party line, ffs you may hate SF but are you all that embarassed to be IRISH, cause see now, you have lost your nationality.
Sad.
:D
Seriously is a smiley the best you can muster?
All it was worth
Quote from: stephenite on October 05, 2009, 08:33:39 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 05, 2009, 08:32:47 AM
Quote from: stephenite on October 05, 2009, 02:00:37 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:16:27 PM
Magickingdom you can now watch the country's independence slowly go down the tube, sadly in 2-5-10 years when the truth/realisation hits home, it's to late to rectify the situation.
You idiots all took the party line, ffs you may hate SF but are you all that embarassed to be IRISH, cause see now, you have lost your nationality.
Sad.
:D
Seriously is a smiley the best you can muster?
All it was worth
Your opinion, personally I dread to think what the future brings, Germany, France and England calling the shots on our lives.
Quote from: magickingdom on October 04, 2009, 08:54:14 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 04, 2009, 10:45:46 AM
What's the 'European project' to you anyway tankie? Just wondering, seen as none of the 'yes' side managed to answer my question yet.
i cant speak for tankie but for me it means closer cooperation with our fellow europeans for the benefit of all. . i became a real big fan of the eec when maggie thatcher issued her 'out, out , out' response to the new ireland forum. the only reason the british governments allows the irish government any role in ni is because of the partnership brought about thru the eu imo
I thought it was about the Good Friday Agreement which was nothing to do with the EU. Yes the European Union has been of great benefit to us, but I'm really worried where it is heading. And we would still be part of the EU if we voted no, the 2 tier Europe would have to come into effect with the full co-operation of all states would it not??? We were bullied into voting yes by a government who is scared to govern in my opinion.
A two tier Europe can happen anyway. Europe is two tier at the moment. Look at the shape of this Country, it's on it's knees. Spain is in a bad way too while others are coming out of recessoin we are going deeper into recession.
The main problem is that if the big countries want to do something with all the small countries in tow they can push it through the EU and drag us into it wether we like it or not.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:23:49 PM
We may not have changed the result, but at least Donegal voted NO, Life will never be the same. You idiots.
It's funny when I saw the results I thought how embarrassing it would be to be from Donegal. I also thought You idiots (Donegal).
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 05, 2009, 09:55:29 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:23:49 PM
We may not have changed the result, but at least Donegal voted NO, Life will never be the same. You idiots.
It's funny when I saw the results I thought how embarrassing it would be to be from Donegal. I also thought You idiots (Donegal).
Time will tell who the real idiots are.
Was at a wedding recently and got talking to a fisherman from Westport, he was a staunch FG'er but vehemently against Lisbon, he felt if the Treaty went ahead he was going to be out of a job within 2 years. This fella employs a number of men in a family business, so his loss will have repercussions!
But sure Michael O'Leary said vote yes so it must have been the right thing to do.
Well that was some resounding Yes vote.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 05, 2009, 12:08:56 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 05, 2009, 09:55:29 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:23:49 PM
We may not have changed the result, but at least Donegal voted NO, Life will never be the same. You idiots.
It's funny when I saw the results I thought how embarrassing it would be to be from Donegal. I also thought You idiots (Donegal).
Time will tell who the real idiots are.
Was at a wedding recently and got talking to a fisherman from Westport, he was a staunch FG'er but vehemently against Lisbon, he felt if the Treaty went ahead he was going to be out of a job within 2 years. This fella employs a number of men in a family business, so his loss will have reprecussions!
But sure Michael O'Leary said vote yes so it must have been the right thing to do.
And did he say what Lisbon had to do with fishing?
In my opinion, fisherman have been the biggest losers from our time in the EU, so I'd certainly have sympathy for them, and I'm sure plenty of them would like us to leave the EU altogether. But in my view Lisbon won't impact on them for the worse.
Quote from: Hound on October 05, 2009, 12:15:04 PM
Well that was some resounding Yes vote.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 05, 2009, 12:08:56 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 05, 2009, 09:55:29 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:23:49 PM
We may not have changed the result, but at least Donegal voted NO, Life will never be the same. You idiots.
It's funny when I saw the results I thought how embarrassing it would be to be from Donegal. I also thought You idiots (Donegal).
Time will tell who the real idiots are.
Was at a wedding recently and got talking to a fisherman from Westport, he was a staunch FG'er but vehemently against Lisbon, he felt if the Treaty went ahead he was going to be out of a job within 2 years. This fella employs a number of men in a family business, so his loss will have reprecussions!
But sure Michael O'Leary said vote yes so it must have been the right thing to do.
And did he say what Lisbon had to do with fishing?
In my opinion, fisherman have been the biggest losers from our time in the EU, so I'd certainly have sympathy for them, and I'm sure plenty of them would like us to leave the EU altogether. But in my view Lisbon won't impact on them for the worse.
Cutting further our quotas, and we now have no choice in it, majority vote.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 05, 2009, 12:08:56 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 05, 2009, 09:55:29 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:23:49 PM
We may not have changed the result, but at least Donegal voted NO, Life will never be the same. You idiots.
It's funny when I saw the results I thought how embarrassing it would be to be from Donegal. I also thought You idiots (Donegal).
Time will tell who the real idiots are.
Was at a wedding recently and got talking to a fisherman from Westport, he was a staunch FG'er but vehemently against Lisbon, he felt if the Treaty went ahead he was going to be out of a job within 2 years. This fella employs a number of men in a family business, so his loss will have repercussions!
But sure Michael O'Leary said vote yes so it must have been the right thing to do.
Fishing quotas are there for a very good reason
Quote from: haveaharp on October 05, 2009, 12:52:50 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 05, 2009, 12:08:56 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 05, 2009, 09:55:29 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:23:49 PM
We may not have changed the result, but at least Donegal voted NO, Life will never be the same. You idiots.
It's funny when I saw the results I thought how embarrassing it would be to be from Donegal. I also thought You idiots (Donegal).
Time will tell who the real idiots are.
Was at a wedding recently and got talking to a fisherman from Westport, he was a staunch FG'er but vehemently against Lisbon, he felt if the Treaty went ahead he was going to be out of a job within 2 years. This fella employs a number of men in a family business, so his loss will have repercussions!
But sure Michael O'Leary said vote yes so it must have been the right thing to do.
Fishing quotas are there for a very good reason
They are indeed, but isn't it a shame that Irelands (an island) fishing fleet has been decimated while the Spanish rape the waters around our shores.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 05, 2009, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on October 05, 2009, 12:52:50 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 05, 2009, 12:08:56 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 05, 2009, 09:55:29 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:23:49 PM
We may not have changed the result, but at least Donegal voted NO, Life will never be the same. You idiots.
It's funny when I saw the results I thought how embarrassing it would be to be from Donegal. I also thought You idiots (Donegal).
Time will tell who the real idiots are.
Was at a wedding recently and got talking to a fisherman from Westport, he was a staunch FG'er but vehemently against Lisbon, he felt if the Treaty went ahead he was going to be out of a job within 2 years. This fella employs a number of men in a family business, so his loss will have repercussions!
But sure Michael O'Leary said vote yes so it must have been the right thing to do.
Fishing quotas are there for a very good reason
They are indeed, but isn't it a shame that Irelands (an island) fishing fleet has been decimated while the Spanish rape the waters around our shores.
Ya but we got revenge along with the Brits & Germans, by ruining their entire Islands & Coast & sticking our flags out of every window & balcony.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 04, 2009, 04:47:56 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 04, 2009, 02:17:58 PM
Yesterday was a sad and depressing day for Ireland. I'm gutted. The only conclusion I can come to is we are a nation of cowardly idiots who deserve the poorly governed, wasteful country we have.
67.1% of the electorate disagree.
Yesteday was an uplifting and cheerful day for Ireland. I'm delighted.
People who vote for Fianna Fail - The only conclusion I can come to is we are a nation of cowardly idiots who deserve the poorly governed, wasteful country we have.
You're not big on originality are you? Did someone tell you how to post back the same way you got told how to vote?
Just waiting for the massive jobs announcements to roll in. Any minute now I'd say.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 05, 2009, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on October 05, 2009, 12:52:50 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 05, 2009, 12:08:56 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 05, 2009, 09:55:29 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 04, 2009, 11:23:49 PM
We may not have changed the result, but at least Donegal voted NO, Life will never be the same. You idiots.
It's funny when I saw the results I thought how embarrassing it would be to be from Donegal. I also thought You idiots (Donegal).
Time will tell who the real idiots are.
Was at a wedding recently and got talking to a fisherman from Westport, he was a staunch FG'er but vehemently against Lisbon, he felt if the Treaty went ahead he was going to be out of a job within 2 years. This fella employs a number of men in a family business, so his loss will have repercussions!
But sure Michael O'Leary said vote yes so it must have been the right thing to do.
Fishing quotas are there for a very good reason
They are indeed, but isn't it a shame that Irelands (an island) fishing fleet has been decimated while the Spanish rape the waters around our shores.
The Spanish have always taken more fish out of our waters than ourselves. While we lived on potatoes for hundreds of years the Spanish fished our waters more than us.
I voted against Lisbon.
But it was carried. That is democracy and the alternative to that is not an option. I think we will certainly have to keep a close eye on the direction Europe is moving but I think there is too much Nationalism around these days, especially in a recession, for the Beurocrats to get much further.
Also calling everyone who disagrees with you or voted the other way idiots is hardly going to achieve anything other than accusations of sour grapes.
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 05, 2009, 02:21:42 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 04, 2009, 04:47:56 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 04, 2009, 02:17:58 PM
Yesterday was a sad and depressing day for Ireland. I'm gutted. The only conclusion I can come to is we are a nation of cowardly idiots who deserve the poorly governed, wasteful country we have.
67.1% of the electorate disagree.
Yesteday was an uplifting and cheerful day for Ireland. I'm delighted.
People who vote for Fianna Fail - The only conclusion I can come to is we are a nation of cowardly idiots who deserve the poorly governed, wasteful country we have.
You're not big on originality are you? Did someone tell you how to post back the same way you got told how to vote?
Just waiting for the massive jobs announcements to roll in. Any minute now I'd say.
A Magpie sure won't there be plenty of job opportunities for all, we have the European Army we must join, or we could work in all those Abortion Clinics that will be mandatory in every parish, of course every employer will be able to hire 7 extra employees when all our wages are cut to €1.84 per hour. We can set up Arms manufacturing businesses to sell to our potential customers in the U.S., Russia, China, Darfur, Iraq, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. There will be plenty of opportunities for second hand car dealers to become second hand arms dealers, buying weapons from Martin McGuinness & Gerry Adams. Of course Sinn Fein could raise money for the next election by selling some of their weapons.
Look at all the opportunities Lisbon will bring us right away.
Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2009, 02:36:34 PM
I think there is too much Nationalism around these days, especially in a recession, for the Beurocrats to get much further.
Not when it's the beurocrats who define nationalism. Remember, Proud to be Irish and Proud to be European ;) wait untill we see how much this bull it repeated over the next few years. The Irish are proud Europeans! We may have just witnessed the birth of our new mother country and we should defend it with pride and courage! Nationalism is a load of bollix!
Quote from: Zapatista on October 05, 2009, 03:35:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2009, 02:36:34 PM
I think there is too much Nationalism around these days, especially in a recession, for the Beurocrats to get much further.
Not when it's the beurocrats who define nationalism. Remember, Proud to be Irish and Proud to be European ;) wait untill we see how much this bull it repeated over the next few years. The Irish are proud Europeans! We may have just witnessed the birth of our new mother country and we should defend it with pride and courage! Nationalism is a load of bollix!
Not in Germany, Britain, most of Eastern Eruope and a lot of other EU countries it isn't.
Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2009, 03:58:01 PM
Not in Germany, Britain, most of Eastern Eruope and a lot of other EU countries it isn't.
German and British Nationalism has been a stain on this planet for centuries not to mention Spanish and French. Most Eastern European were either German or Russian Nationals at one time and many of them struggle with nationalism yet. Some have been part of the USSR then part of a smaller nation then divided up again into smaller nations. Maybe they'll all join up again and become part of an EU nation.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 05, 2009, 04:23:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2009, 03:58:01 PM
Not in Germany, Britain, most of Eastern Eruope and a lot of other EU countries it isn't.
German and British Nationalism has been a stain on this planet for centuries not to mention Spanish and French. Most Eastern European were either German or Russian Nationals at one time and many of them struggle with nationalism yet. Some have been part of the USSR then part of a smaller nation then divided up again into smaller nations. Maybe they'll all join up again and become part of an EU nation.
This is a slight over-simplification of centuries of history.
mayogodhelpyou, why was the Yes vote such a delightful day for Ireland?
Would it be democratic to vote an end to democracy?
(http://i36.tinypic.com/29fxaox.jpg)
Quote from: armaghniac on October 05, 2009, 07:15:41 PM
(http://i36.tinypic.com/29fxaox.jpg)
Please tell me thats a joke Armaghniac, if yes its funny, if not its bloody hillarious.
The Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan said on RTE today "we never promised jobs in the result of a Yes vote".
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2535/3946820635_8284b6e18b.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fiannafail/3946820635/
Less than a week after Lisbon
Aer Lingus managers have briefed staff on details of the airline's cost-cutting plan that will see more than 670 workers losing their jobs.
O'Leary will be delighted.
130 jobs to be lost in Shannon region
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
The euro zone economy shrank in the second quarter by a greater margin than initially thought, revised official EU statistics show today.
I wonder if it is by chance that this was announced after Lisbon?
Quote from: Zapatista on October 08, 2009, 07:35:26 AM
The Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan said on RTE today "we never promised jobs in the result of a Yes vote".
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2535/3946820635_8284b6e18b.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fiannafail/3946820635/
Less than a week after Lisbon
Aer Lingus managers have briefed staff on details of the airline's cost-cutting plan that will see more than 670 workers losing their jobs.
O'Leary will be delighted.
130 jobs to be lost in Shannon region
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
The euro zone economy shrank in the second quarter by a greater margin than initially thought, revised official EU statistics show today.
I wonder if it is by chance that this was announced after Lisbon?
Also less than a week after lisbon
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-quake_08int.ART.State.Edition1.4c1b69e.html
Quote from: Gnevin on October 08, 2009, 09:47:01 AM
Also less than a week after lisbon
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-quake_08int.ART.State.Edition1.4c1b69e.html
I agree, Lisbon and jobs are as related as Lisbon and earthquakes. Pity you didn't make that point a week ago.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 05, 2009, 07:20:14 PM
Please tell me thats a joke Armaghniac, if yes its funny, if not its bloody hillarious.
:D
I saw a Vote Yes for Recovery sign up today. It probably was there all the time but my God, what lies.
Enterprise Ireland job goes to pro-Lisbon campaigner
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6869614.ece
Can someone please tell me i'm being cynical. I really can't but think there is something rotten going on. Are FF capable of appointing people to the gravy train to return a favour? Surely not!! Should I be thinking like this or am I a conspiracy nut? I am also thinking that O'Leary will get his hands on Aer Lingus due to a favour owed :o I'm turning into a nut jobs making links were it's all just innocent coincidence :-[
Seriously, my girlfriend is going to leave me and my family are going to have me locked up.
well who would you give the job to? maybe some socialist who is anti EU and business but just wont admit it
One of the almost 400,000 unemployed?
Quote from: Tankie on October 12, 2009, 08:28:53 PM
well who would you give the job to? maybe some socialist who is anti EU and business but just wont admit it
You answered a Q with a Q.
This is a cry for help tankie. Were the government involved in treason here? Am I just another nut job conspiracy theorist?
Quote from: Zapatista on October 12, 2009, 08:42:16 PM
Quote from: Tankie on October 12, 2009, 08:28:53 PM
well who would you give the job to? maybe some socialist who is anti EU and business but just wont admit it
You answered a Q with a Q.
This is a cry for help tankie. Were the government involved in treason here? Am I just another nut job conspiracy theorist?
I was on the Careers section of the Enterprise Ireland site yesterday (as I wouldn't mind working for the organisation that I feel will have to do a lot of good work to help try and get us out of the mess we are in).
The careers section hasn't been updated since April 2008 which I find a bit scandolous
http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/AboutUs/HumanResources/
Quote from: Caid on October 12, 2009, 09:29:15 PM
The careers section hasn't been updated since April 2008 which I find a bit scandolous
http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/AboutUs/HumanResources/
Exactly one year after the general election.
Two months later the EU Charges Intel With Monopoly Abuse
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700421.html
Enterprise Ireland is supposed to be about indigenous business yet this guy who knows nothing other than multi national business is the guy for the job.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 12, 2009, 11:39:23 PM
Quote from: Caid on October 12, 2009, 09:29:15 PM
The careers section hasn't been updated since April 2008 which I find a bit scandolous
http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/AboutUs/HumanResources/
Exactly one year after the general election.
Two months later the EU Charges Intel With Monopoly Abuse
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700421.html
Enterprise Ireland is supposed to be about indigenous business yet this guy who knows nothing other than multi national business is the guy for the job.
I expected to read the Guy's CV and prove you wrong by him having had positions at a large number of Irish and International companies - but that is not the case here:
O'Hara joined Intel in 1991 as part of the Fab 10 start up team. He became Plant Manager for Fab 10 in 1996 and subsequently managed both Fab 10 and Fab 14, now known as Ireland Fab Operations.
Prior to joining Intel Jim worked for Digital Equipment Corporation for the previous 17 years, the last five of which were based in their corporate headquarters in Massachusetts.
O'Hara is a member of both the management and governing boards for ICT Ireland and is also a director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland. In 2005 he joined the board of the Smurfit Business School at University College DublinHard to ay if he best placed for the job - but this is one of the msot important jobs in Ireland given the current predicament IMO
Quote from: Caid on October 12, 2009, 11:50:16 PM
Hard to ay if he best placed for the job - but this is one of the msot important jobs in Ireland given the current predicament IMO
I don't know if he is the best person for the job and I don't care. What I would like to know is - did his role in the Lisbon Campaign have anything to do with this appointment?
QuoteEnterprise Ireland is supposed to be about indigenous business.
In fairness folks, the number of smalll indigenous businesses that spring up around (and because of) large multinationals is very significant - Intel is a case in point.
QuoteIntel is a case in point
Now here's a question - if the next generation of chips from Silicone is due to come on stream within the next decade what will ahppen to the plant in Leixlip
I thought that they'd 'won' a new contract to produce next-generation chips in one of the 'old' Fabs in Leixlip - I could be wrong though.
Cam anyone answer my question? Is this of no concern to anyone?
We're trying to encourage you to resume your normal life Zap, by ignoring you. ;)
Quote from: Billys Boots on October 13, 2009, 12:50:40 PM
We're trying to encourage you to resume your normal life Zap, by ignoring you. ;)
Hope it works, I miss normality :(
When things go wrong and will not come right,
Though you do the best you can,
When life looks black as the hour of night -
A PINT OF PLAIN IS YOUR ONLY MAN.
When money's tight and hard to get
And your horse has also ran,
When all you have is a heap of debt -
A PINT OF PLAIN IS YOUR ONLY MAN.
When health is bad and your heart feels strange,
And your face is pale and wan,
When doctors say you need a change,
A PINT OF PLAIN IS YOUR ONLY MAN.
When food is scarce and your larder bare
And no rashers grease your pan,
When hunger grows as your meals are rare -
A PINT OF PLAIN IS YOUR ONLY MAN.
In time of trouble and lousey strife,
You have still got a darlint plan
You still can turn to a brighter life -
A PINT OF PLAIN IS YOUR ONLY MAN
Quote
O'Hara joined Intel in 1991 as part of the Fab 10 start up team. He became Plant Manager for Fab 10 in 1996 and subsequently managed both Fab 10 and Fab 14, now known as Ireland Fab Operations.
Could we not just have got Ringo?