Cowen says vote Yes- Wanna get back at him- You know what to do

[Lamps]

Vote No for freedom

[Cliff Barnes]

Most of the people I know who voted No have changed their mind and are voting yes as the economy is in tatters.

I will vote yes.

They can put a Nuclear Power Plant in Limerick and missiles on top of Croaght Patrick for all I care.

Anything that the EU to stop this country going down the swanee and creating a few jobs is fine by me.

We need them more than they need us

[daithi81]

Lol

[POL]

Most of the people I know who voted No have changed their mind and are voting yes as the economy is in tatters.

I will vote yes.

They can put a Nuclear Power Plant in Limerick and missiles on top of Croaght Patrick for all I care.

Anything that the EU to stop this country going down the swanee and creating a few jobs is fine by me.

We need them more than they need uswhere are these jobs going to magically appear from?

[daithi81]

where are these jobs going to magically appear from?

Internet?

[POL]

The only jobs that will be created is cheap labour from Eastern Europe to build the Nuclear power plants and staff the abortion clinics

[Lamps]

If Cowen thinks its a good thing, then get on the other horse.

Thats about the only logic a sane person can follow.


Has Robbie Keane read the revised treaty?

[Cliff Barnes]

where are these jobs going to magically appear from?

The new pharmaceutical plant on top of the Hill of Tara ?

Windfarms in Stephens Green ?

Pointless Grants for ignorant Farmers ?

Who cares we will agree to anything now.

Shhhh we give them some barly edible fish that thay have to try and catch in massive weekly storms all year around and we get tons of subsidies and investment cash.


Anything that this freeloading country can scavange right now for voting yes to a few liberal laws can't do us any harm.

[Lamps]

We could be self sufficient if Cowen and his cohorts didn't give away all our fish and gas for nothin.

Vote NO.

Their plan to economic recovery is forced emigration

[jd26]

Has Robbie Keane read the revised treaty?

Have you read the treaty?

[Lamps]

Have you read the treaty?

No. I tried but couldn't get through the jargon.

Another reason to vote no

[POL]

did all the people who voted yes read the treaty? did they fuck, they do what the stooges in Fianna Fail and Fine Gael tell them what to do

[Matlock]

Vote No for freedom

What an idiotic reason to vote no...

[POL]

Vote No for Irish freedom, is this what James Connolly fought for, to bend the knee to Nazi Germany?

[Lamps]

What an idiotic reason to vote no...

Did you read the treaty?

DID YOU?

ANSWER THE QUESTION

[jd26]

No. I tried but couldn't get through the jargon.

Another reason to vote no

I read the first version of the treaty.

It's not that hard.

But why criticise Robbie Keane (assuming he hasn't read it), when you're opinionating on it without having read it?

[Matlock]

Did you read the treaty?

DID YOU?

ANSWER THE QUESTION

Yes.

Why are you shouting at me?

[POL]

its a load of incomprehensible gibberish designed to hoodwink the masses. If they wanted this thing passed, the should bring out a two page booklet with it condensed into it. Vote No for our freedom

[Matlock]

its a load of incomprehensible gibberish designed to hoodwink the masses. If they wanted this thing passed, the should bring out a two page booklet with it condensed into it. Vote No for our freedom

Nah it isnt.

There are explanatory guides available if you cant/wont read the original document.

[jd26]

They did bring out a synopsised version

http://www.lisbontreaty2008 .ie/lisbon_treaty_change s_gov.html
http://www.lisbontreaty2008 .ie/lisbon_treaty_change s_eu.html

Did you read that?

[Lamps]

I read the first version of the treaty.

It's not that hard.

But why criticise Robbie Keane (assuming he hasn't read it), when you're opinionating on it without having read it?

I tried to read it.

And i can guarantee you that you couldn't understand it, it was jargon of the highest order

[Lamps]

yes.

Why are you shouting at me?

answer the question

[Lamps]

They did bring out a synopsised version

http://www.lisbontreaty2008 .ie/lisbon_treaty_change s_gov.html
http://www.lisbontreaty2008 .ie/lisbon_treaty_change s_eu.html

Did you read that?

Synopsied by who?

The man.

Who wants to rob us of our freedom. The man, backed by Brian Cowen and Robbie Keane.

Fuck that.

VOTE NO

[Matlock]

answer the question

I did answer the question.

No wonder you had difficulty reading the treaty. Reading the posts on here seems to be beyond you...

;-)

[Lamps]

I did answer the question.

No wonder you had difficulty reading the treaty. Reading the posts on here seems to be beyond you...

;-)

Explain it to me in 100 words

[Cliff Barnes]

Synopsied by who?

The man.

Who wants to rob us of our freedom. The man, backed by Brian Cowen and Robbie Keane.

Fuck that.

VOTE NO

Are you Joe Higgins or Gerry Adams.

Which one ?

[Matlock]

Explain it to me in 100 words

http://www.lisbontreaty2008 .ie/lisbon_treaty_change s_gov.html

Slightly more than 100 words but it should cover the basics for you.

[Lamps]

http://www.lisbontreaty2008 .ie/lisbon_treaty_change s_gov.html

Slightly more than 100 words but it should cover the basics for you.

Exposed.

Just as I expected, you didn't read it.

[Matlock]

Exposed.

Just as I expected, you didn't read it.

I just couldnt be arsed writing a synopsis for you.

Why dont you read the link, and if you cant understand any bit of it ill explain it to you.

[Lamps]

I just couldnt be arsed writing a synopsis for you.

Why dont you read the link, and if you cant understand any bit of it ill explain it to you.

Did you or did you not read the original treaty?

Tell the truth here or I will expose you further

[Matlock]

Did you or did you not read the original treaty?

Tell the truth here or I will expose you further

Yes i did.

Would you like a copy to read?

"Tell the truth here or I will expose you further"

heh heh heh - methinks someone is taking the INTERNET too seriously ;-)

[Lamps]

AMENDMENTS TO THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND TO THE TREATY
ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
Article 1
The Treaty on European Union shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
PREAMBLE
1) The preamble shall be amended as follows:
(a) the following text shall be inserted as the second recital:
‘DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of
Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable
rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,’;
(b) In the seventh, which shall become the eighth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be
replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’;
(c) In the eleventh, which shall become the twelfth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be
replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
2) Article 1 shall be amended as follows:
(a) the following words shall be inserted at the end of the first paragraph:
‘on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in
common.’;
(b) the third paragraph shall be replaced by the following:
‘The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Treaties”). Those two Treaties shall
have the same legal value. The Union shall replace and succeed the European
Community.’.
3) The following Article 1a shall be inserted:
‘Article 1a
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy,
equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging
to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism,
non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men
prevail.’.
4) Article 2 shall be replaced by the following:
‘Article 2
1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.
2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without
internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with
appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the
prevention and combating of crime.
3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable
development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly
competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high
level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote
scientific and technological advance.
It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and
protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection
of the rights of the child.
It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among
Member States.
It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural
heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.
4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.
5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and
interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security,
the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free
and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the
rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law,
including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.
6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the
competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties.’.
17.12.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 306/11
5) Article 3 shall be repealed, and the following Article 3a shall be inserted:
‘Article 3a
1. In accordance with Article 3b, competences not conferred upon the Union in the
Treaties remain with the Member States.
2. The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their
national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional,
inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions,
including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and
safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of
each Member State.
3. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall,
in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.
The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure
fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the
institutions of the Union.
The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any
measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives.’.
6) The following Article 3b shall be inserted, replacing Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community:
‘Article 3b
1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of
Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the
competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set
out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the
Member States.
3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive
competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action
cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and
local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better
achieved at Union level.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the
Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National
Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the
procedure set out in that Protocol.
4. Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not
exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.
Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.’.
7) Articles 4 and 5 shall be repealed.
8) Article 6 shall be replaced by the following:
‘Article 6
1. The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on
12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.
The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as
defined in the Treaties.
The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the
general provisions in Title VII of the Charter governing its interpretation and application and
with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter, that set out the sources of those
provisions.
2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union's competences as defined
in the Treaties.
3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions
common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union's law.’
9) Article 7 shall be amended as follows:
(a) throughout the Article, the word ‘assent’ shall be replaced by ‘consent’, the reference to
breach ‘of principles mentioned in Article 6(1)’ shall be replaced by a reference to breach
‘of the values referred to in Article 1a’, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be replaced by ‘of
the Treaties’ and the word ‘Commission’ shall be replaced by ‘European Commission’;
(b) at the end of the first sentence of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, the words ‘and
address appropriate recommendations to that State’ shall be deleted; at the end of the last
sentence, the words ‘and, acting in accordance with the same procedure, may call on
independent persons to submit within a reasonable time limit a report on the situation in
the Member State in question’ shall be replaced by ‘and may address recommendations to
it, acting in accordance with the same procedure.’;
(c) in paragraph 2, the words ‘The Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State
or Government and acting by unanimity’ shall be replaced by ‘The European Council,
acting by unanimity’ and the words ‘the government of the Member State in question’
shall be replaced by ‘the Member State in question’;

[Lamps]

paragraphs 5 and 6 shall be replaced by the following:
‘5. The voting arrangements applying to the European Parliament, the European
Council and the Council for the purposes of this Article are laid down in Article 309 of
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.’
10) The following new Article 7a shall be inserted:
‘Article 7a
1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to
establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union
and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the
countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as
the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of
periodic consultation.’.
11) The provisions of Title II shall be incorporated into the Treaty establishing the European
Community, as amended elsewhere, which shall become the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union.
DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
12) Title II and Article 8 shall be replaced by the following new heading and new Articles 8 to 8 C:
‘TITLE II
PROVISIONS ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
Article 8
In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall
receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a
Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to
national citizenship and shall not replace it.
Article 8 A
1. The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy.
2. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament.
Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government
and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their
national Parliaments, or to their citizens.
C 306/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007
3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union.
Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.
4. Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness
and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.
Article 8 B
1. The institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative
associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas
of Union action.
2. The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with
representative associations and civil society.
3. The European Commission shall carry out broad consultations with parties concerned
in order to ensure that the Union's actions are coherent and transparent.
4. Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of
Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the
framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens
consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.
The procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' initiative shall be determined in
accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union.
Article 8 C
National Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union:
(a) through being informed by the institutions of the Union and having draft legislative acts of
the Union forwarded to them in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national
Parliaments in the European Union;
(b) by seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected in accordance with the
procedures provided for in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity
and proportionality;
(c) by taking part, within the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, in the
evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in that area, in
accordance with Article 61 C of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and
through being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of
Eurojust's activities in accordance with Articles 69 G and 69 D of that Treaty;
(d) by taking part in the revision procedures of the Treaties, in accordance with Article 48 of
this Treaty;
17.12.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 306/15
(e) by being notified of applications for accession to the Union, in accordance with Article 49
of this Treaty;
(f) by taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and
with the European Parliament, in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national
Parliaments in the European Union.’
INSTITUTIONS
13) The provisions of Title III shall be repealed. Title III shall be replaced by the following heading:
‘TITLE III
PROVISIONS ON THE INSTITUTIONS’.
14) Article 9 shall be replaced by the following:
‘Article 9
1. The Union shall have an institutional framework which shall aim to promote its values,
advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States,
and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.
The Union's institutions shall be:
— the European Parliament,
— the European Council,
— the Council,
— the European Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”),
— the Court of Justice of the European Union,
— the European Central Bank,
— the Court of Auditors.
2. Each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties,
and in conformity with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out in them. The
institutions shall practice mutual sincere cooperation.
3. The provisions relating to the European Central Bank and the Court of Auditors and
detailed provisions on the other institutions are set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union.
4. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall be assisted by an
Economic and Social Committee and a Committee of the Regions acting in an advisory
capacity.’.
C 306/16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007
15) An Article 9 A shall be inserted:
‘Article 9 A
1. The European Parliament shall, jointly with the Council, exercise legislative and
budgetary functions. It shall exercise functions of political control and consultation as laid
down in the Treaties. It shall elect the President of the Commission.
2. The European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union's citizens.
They shall not exceed seven hundred and fifty in number, plus the President. Representation of
citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per
Member State. No Member State shall be allocated more than ninety-six seats.
The European Council shall adopt by unanimity, on the initiative of the European Parliament
and with its consent, a decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament,
respecting the principles referred to in the first subparagraph.
3. The members of the European Parliament shall be elected for a term of five years by
direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot.
4. The European Parliament shall elect its President and its officers from among its
members.’.
16) An Article 9 B shall be inserted:
‘Article 9 B
1. The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its
development and shall define the general political directions and priorities thereof. It shall not
exercise legislative functions.
2. The European Council shall consist of the Heads of State or Government of the Member
States, together with its President and the President of the Commission. The High Representative
of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall take part in its work.
3. The European Council shall meet twice every six months, convened by its President.
When the agenda so requires, the members of the European Council may decide each to be
assisted by a minister and, in the case of the President of the Commission, by a member of the
Commission. When the situation so requires, the President shall convene a special meeting of
the European Council.
4. Except where the Treaties provide otherwise, decisions of the European Council shall be
taken by consensus.
5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of
two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the
European Co

[Lamps]

And there is a langer load more.

Its gibberish.

We are being sold a pup here and its name is the price of irish freedom.

Vote NO

[Matlock]

And there is a langer load more.

Its gibberish.

We are being sold a pup here and its name is the price of irish freedom.

Vote NO

It isnt gibberish. It requires a bit of time and care to read, thats all.

How, given that you admit that you havent read the thing, have you reached a conclusion that you disagree with the treaty?

[Matlock]

Matlock, the very fact that the same treaty is being put before the population is a reason to vote no.

The very fact the European elite are coercing this country into voting yes by essentially issuing an ultimatum of "vote yes or your out", is yet another reason to vote no.

Please provide me with 3 concise points outlining how this treaty will actually empower Ireland's position in Europe, as opposed to centralising the majour decision making to Brussels?

How exactly do you expect Europe to move on unless their treaties are on the basis of "agree or we will move on without you"?

Should all of the EU come to a standstill because Ireland vote no to a treaty? How is that fair to the other member states?

Or do you really believe that Ireland should be allowed to veto all of the EU?

You are also starting from a viewpoint that centralising decision making is a bad thing, which i dont neccessarily agree with.

[jd26]

Matlock, the very fact that the same treaty is being put before the population is a reason to vote no.

So we should never have had divorce introduced in Ireland?

Please provide me with 3 concise points outlining how this treaty will actually empower Ireland's position in Europe, as opposed to centralising the majour decision making to Brussels?

A lot of the treaty deals with empowering the citizens, not the member states. It tackles the so-called democratic deficit that Declan Ganley loved talking about so much.

As such, it provided the citizens with the following
- The directly elected parliament gets more say over the drafting of legislation
- The commission president must come from the largest party in the parliament
- The citizens initiative allows citizens to propose legislation by petition

Of course, the flipside to that is that transferring powers to the citizens directly reduces the powers of the member states. But you can't have it both ways, complaining of a democratic deficit and complaining of a dilution of national sovereignty.

As for Ireland, it increases our voting weight from 4% to 8%.

[Matlock]

So we should never have had divorce introduced in Ireland?

.

Excellent point my good man ;-)

[Matlock]

1: How is it fair that none of the other states even got to vote for this treaty?

2: Centralisation of power invariably results in the weakening of local democracy(obviously) and in many cases, totalitarianism.

1. So you want to vote no because other countries didnt get a chance to vote?

2. Scaremongering. Pure and simple. What about the fact that the treaty will make the charter of fundemental rights legally binding. That will surely give more rights to irish citizans?

[jd26]

1: How is it fair that none of the other states even got to vote for this treaty?

Other states have their own rules.

In Germany you can't have a national referendum.

Here's a question for you, how many changes to the US constitution have been made by referendum?

And another one, would it be right if people outside those states told them how they should carry out their ratification processes?

2: Centralisation of power invariably results in the weakening of local democracy(obviously) and in many cases, totalitarianism.

Not necessarily. Once there's a clear line between areas of responsibility, it can strengthen local democracy. The USA and Germany are both examples of countries that have highly centralised decision making in certain defined areas, while maintaining healthy local democracy.

[Lamps]

It isnt gibberish. It requires a bit of time and care to read, thats all.

How, given that you admit that you havent read the thing, have you reached a conclusion that you disagree with the treaty?

Why on earth would i sign my name to something a bunch in indecipherable gibberish that going on the laws of probability signs away irish freedom

[Matlock]

I have no problems with a referendum being rerun, however, the timescale in this instance is outrageous. Additionally, if Lisbon 2 passes, are you suggesting the population will be asked again? Are you that naive?

Plus, to suggest the EU will become more democratic when they haven't even held referendums in all EU nations is just idiotic.

This treaty will not be the end of the European project, this is just a further step to the United States of Europe.

Then again, that's probably what you want.

Are you suggesting that Ireland should get to tell the rest of Europe how to implement the treaty? Why should we have the power to do that?

[Lamps]

Marriage should be for life.

Why else would you get married. Divorcee if for weak people

[jd26]

I have no problems with a referendum being rerun, however, the timescale in this instance is outrageous. Additionally, if Lisbon 2 passes, are you suggesting the population will be asked again? Are you that naive?

If you recall, the largest No voice was Sinn Fein who said we should renegotiate the treaty. That's what has been done.

And No, I don't think there would be another vote on Lisbon. I doubt there could legally as we would have made an agreement with 26 other countries and we would need them to change back as well. If we accepted Lisbon, we'd have a choice of leaving the EU or staying in. But that's no different from the position today. The only question is whether an EU run under Lisbon rules is better than one run under Nice rules. Any suggestion that it's anything else is obfuscation.

Plus, to suggest the EU will become more democratic when they haven't even held referendums in all EU nations is just idiotic.

That's not the EU's decision. How ratification is carried out is a decision of the member states. You complain about the centralisation of power and the bogey-phrase United States of Europe, yet you want the EU to dictate to member states what they do.

If the citizens of those countries have a problem with the actions of their government, they have ample opportunity in general elections to remove them.

[Matlock]

Why on earth would i sign my name to something a bunch in indecipherable gibberish that going on the laws of probability signs away irish freedom

If you cant be arsed to educate yourself on what you are voting on then you really arent worth arguing with.

[thread_killer]

I don't like this. "Vote yes or no and that will be the end of it". "You voted incorrectly". "Vote again please and do it right".

Just seems to stink a little. Unless, the second one comes back yes, we then go at it a third time? Of course not. Fucking stinks.

And to think people of the PROC complain about the centralised government in Dublin ... then why would you want more centralisation of power and responsibility offshore?

We're all doing just fine right now without more legally binding charters fucking everything up.

[Cliff Barnes]

I don't like this. "Vote yes or no and that will be the end of it". "You voted incorrectly". "Vote again please and do it right".

Just seems to stink a little. Unless, the second one comes back yes, we then go at it a third time? Of course not. Fucking stinks.

And to think people of the PROC complain about the centralised government in Dublin ... then why would you want more centralisation of power and responsibility offshore?

We're all doing just fine right now without more legally binding charters fucking everything up.

When was the last time you read a newspaper or saw the news.

Ireland is a mis-managed corrupt economic failure right now.

The jury is still out as to whether it can even run itself successfully.

[Matlock]

So you don't think the other countries in Europe deserved a vote? Are you actually serious?:rolleyes:

I dont think we have the right to tell other countries how in implement EU treaties. You do understand, i take it, that it wasnt the EU who decided that other member states wouldnt have a referendum.

The funny thing is, if we were told by France or Germany that we couldnt have a referendum then i can imagine you being up in arms about it. Yet, you see nothing wrong with us dictating how other countries implement treaties.

[jd26]

1: Look at Germany's history, were they not the initiators of 2 world wars?

I don't know where to start with this one.

I'm refering to the model of local democracy that was used in the Federal Republic of Germany after 1949. Strangely enough, neither the Kaiser nor Hitler was a big fan of democracy at all, never mind local democracy.

2: George Bush was elected president, why? Despite Al Gore winning the public vote, the electoral college in fact determines who is elected to office.

You're being inconsistent here. You can't claim you want to strengthen local powers at the same time as complaining about a system that gives more power to smaller communities.

Would you also complain that the European Parliament gives Ireland a stronger weighting than deserved, while complaining about Ireland not having enough of a say?

And I don't think you can use one bad leader to condemn an entire country. After all, it is a country where there are different rules in different localities. That's how places like California and Massachusetts were able to pursue their own policies during the Bush years.

[daithi81]

I don't like this. "Vote yes or no and that will be the end of it". "You voted incorrectly". "Vote again please and do it right".

Just seems to stink a little. Unless, the second one comes back yes, we then go at it a third time? Of course not. Fucking stinks.

And to think people of the PROC complain about the centralised government in Dublin ... then why would you want more centralisation of power and responsibility offshore?

We're all doing just fine right now without more legally binding charters fucking everything up.

Nonsense alert.

[jd26]

So you don't think the other countries in Europe deserved a vote? Are you actually serious?:rolleyes:

Out of interest, why do you think there should be a referendum in Ireland on this?

If similar changes were being made to systems on a national level, it wouldn't require a referendum. Also, the legal advice was that the changes in the Lisbon Treaty were small enough that it didn't require a referendum.

As a lawyer, Matlock can probably give a better interpretation of this, but my understanding is that under the terms of Crotty v. An Taoiseach only our EEC accession and the Single European Act required a referendum.

We negotiate international treaties all the time without putting them to referendum. Should we go off to the people every time one of these is changed? Does this not massively handicap our politicians, diplomats and civil servants who have to negotiate something without knowing whether it will be accepted?

[Taste]

When was the last time you read a newspaper or saw the news.

Ireland is a mis-managed corrupt economic failure right now.

The jury is still out as to whether it can even run itself successfully.

What has a Global economic crisis got to do with Lisbon?

Lets give Obama a buzz there and let him know that he can sort out his countrys ecnomic woes by passing Lisbon...

Or even Spain, they can sort out their 15% unemployment by passing Lisbon, oh wait they did...

[thread_killer]

Nonsense alert.

Explain why it's nonsense.

It was supposed to be the end of it, that no vote. Remember?

[Lostmeringtopaddypower]

Lamps,

if you disagree with the view that Ireland should ratify the Lisbon treaty, then it is your democratic right to vote no - based on your understanding of the treaty.

You seem to imply that you don't understand it - fair enough.
If you are voting no because you do not understand what you are voting for - it's a valid point you make.

If you are canvassing the people of Cork to vote No to "get back at FF", you are being a bit deluded, in fairness.

There is no logic in this - Cowen will be drawing his big state pension when he finally bows out of government, in any case.

With or without a ratifrication of Lisbon II.

Cowen didn't vote himself into the government - the people of Ireland did.
So if you want to "get back" at anybody - you'll have to get back at your fellow Irishman.

You seem to have the view that a 2-tier Europe is the way forward.

The first tier, containing all of the countries which ratify the treaty and then a second tier of countries who do not.

Why don't we just pull out of the Euro altogether and re-introduce the punt and trade tariffs with Europe - our biggest trading partner.

By all means argue your point that Lisbon II is bad for Europe. Although, if you don't understand it - your argumentation may be compromised.

But don't be making yourself look silly by asking people to vote no to get back at Cowen.


You've a bigger brain on you than this.

[Cliff Barnes]

What has a Global economic crisis got to do with Lisbon?

Lets give Obama a buzz there and let him know that he can sort out his countrys ecnomic woes by passing Lisbon...

Or even Spain, they can sort out their 15% unemployment by passing Lisbon, oh wait they did...

So you spout the Brian Cowen Government line "Global economic circumstances are to blame for Irelands woes going forward" ?

Ireland needs Europe more than Europe needs Ireland.

Its THAT simple.

[thread_killer]

When was the last time you read a newspaper or saw the news.

Ireland is a mis-managed corrupt economic failure right now.

The jury is still out as to whether it can even run itself successfully.

I don't read dead-tree print media shite.

We should fix it ourselves. Not outsource it with a vote. That's a fucking disgusting idea. Wake the fuck up.

[Cliff Barnes]

Lamps,

if you disagree with the view that Ireland should ratify the Lisbon treaty, then it is your democratic right to vote no - based on your understanding of the treaty.

You seem to imply that you don't understand it - fair enough.
If you are voting no because you do not understand what you are voting for - it's a valid point you make.

If you are canvassing the people of Cork to vote No to "get back at FF", you are being a bit deluded, in fairness.

There is no logic in this - Cowen will be drawing his big state pension when he finally bows out of government, in any case.

With or without a ratifrication of Lisbon II.

Cowen didn't vote himself into the government - the people of Ireland did.
So if you want to "get back" at anybody - you'll have to get back at your fellow Irishman.

You seem to have the view that a 2-tier Europe is the way forward.

The first tier, containing all of the countries which ratify the treaty and then a second tier of countries who do not.

Why don't we just pull out of the Euro altogether and re-introduce the punt and trade tariffs with Europe - our biggest trading partner.

By all means argue your point that Lisbon II is bad for Europe. Although, if you don't understand it - your argumentation may be compromised.

But don't be making yourself look silly by asking people to vote no to get back at Cowen.


You've a bigger brain on you than this.

People got back at Cowen at the Local & European elections + they will be destroyed at the next general election.

We need to get Lisbon off our backs and passed this time.

[Matlock]

These are the major countries which make up Europe, and they didn't even give their respective populations a chance to vote on this important matter. It really doesn't look good for the future.

I am shocked at your ignorance.

So, you are voting no becase you are cross with the governments of other EU countries not giving their citizans the right to vote? That seems rather silly to me.

As JD asked you, why do you feel it is so important that we vote on this treaty? What in this treaty is so fundemental, in your opinion, that you think every person in every country should have the right to vote on it?

Why dont you have a problem with our government passing legislation without a public vote but have a problem with the EU doing it?

[Taste]

So you spout the Brian Cowen Government line "Global economic circumstances are to blame for Irelands woes going forward" ?

Ireland needs Europe more than Europe needs Ireland.

Its THAT simple.

It wasn't Anglo that brought down the world banking system.

Not that the Irish Government has managed the economy prudently, not that I suggested that anyway...


How will ratifying Lisbon be in the interest of the Irish economy?

An open Eueropean trading bloc?, sure I can see the upside of that?
Single Currency?, we're feeling the pinch of not being able too devalue the currency right now, but on the whole, I support the single currency system as it stands.

[Cliff Barnes]

I don't read dead-tree print media shite.

We should fix it ourselves. Not outsource it with a vote. That's a fucking disgusting idea. Wake the fuck up.

What big ideas do you have for this little island of 4.5 million with its currency and economy tied to the EU ?

Ireland has only been an economic success 1960 1980 & 1996 - 2007.

A lot of EU money went in to make to help it happen.

Europe is our main trading partner and as a major exporting nation in an even more globalised market place we neither have the means as a tiny island on the western fringes of Europe.

Enough Little Irelander waffle for one day.

[jd26]

My point is definitely valid: using such examples is most certainly fundamentally flawed. You could have used an excellent example of a country with a tremendous local democracy: Switzerland. But oh wait, they aren't in the EU.

A country with such strong local democracy that there are areas where women are denied the vote? Hmm...

Also, the US isn't in the EU.

All I was doing was giving examples of countries with robust local democracies where certain policy areas were highly centralised, which was the criticism you initially raised.

Are you suggesting the USA's electoral college system is highly democratic?:roll:

The US is a system built on providing a compromise between the various states. If they don't have that system, a small number of very large states can get together (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan together have a majority of the population) and bully the others into doing what they want.

While the system used in the US may have produced a bad President, it doesn't necessarily make the system wrong. Besides, how many Irish Taoisigh have had the backing of a majority of the population?

[Lamps]

what about the fish,

what about the fish, where are they?

[Matlock]

what about the fish,

what about the fish, where are they?

Do the fish have chips?

[Cliff Barnes]

It wasn't Anglo that brought down the world banking system.

Not that the Irish Government has managed the economy prudently, not that I suggested that anyway...


How will ratifying Lisbon be in the interest of the Irish economy?

An open Eueropean trading bloc?, sure I can see the upside of that?
Single Currency?, we're feeling the pinch of not being able too devalue the currency right now, but on the whole, I support the single currency system as it stands.

Anglo brought down the Irish banking system and almost the economy.

Gawd.


Look, Iceland are tripping over themselves to get into the EU.

That tells me something.

get with the programme.

[Matlock]

It depends entirely on the nature of the treaty. For this one in particular it is important to ask the people, no question.

Look how far Europe has progressed, are you suggesting none of the preceding treaties should have been put before the population, just because many less important treaties are negotiated in parliament?

I am pro-Europe on many levels, but the European project will get out of hand--maybe not with this time, but certainly in the future.

Why?

[Taste]

So, you are voting no becase you are cross with the governments of other EU countries not giving their citizans the right to vote? That seems rather silly to me.

As JD asked you, why do you feel it is so important that we vote on this treaty? What in this treaty is so fundemental, in your opinion, that you think every person in every country should have the right to vote on it?

Why dont you have a problem with our government passing legislation without a public vote but have a problem with the EU doing it?

Perhaps he and his community elected members of his community too make decisions for him, decisions that are in his best interests.

Well that's the idea at least...

And please don't mention MEP's or the increased powers they will get under Lisbon, they are still far too powerless, the power still rests with the commission.

Now if the EU was moving towards a state in which the Commission was selected from elected MEP's, that would be a positive, and hopefully it will go in that direction, but Lisbon is not going to precipitate a move such as that.

[jd26]

Look how far Europe has progressed, are you suggesting none of the preceding treaties should have been put before the population, just because many less important treaties are negotiated in parliament?

Only the EEC accession treaty and Single European Act actually ceded any powers to the EU. The others deal with the organisation of how those powers should be exercised.

So,as Matlock says, why?

[Taste]

]Anglo brought down the Irish banking system and almost the economy[/B].

Gawd.


Look, Iceland are tripping over themselves to get into the EU.

That tells me something.

get with the programme.


Try reading what I said.

Okay Iceland, now why would Iceland want in?, the big reason I could see would be access too the Single Currency, as their currency has crashed.

Any other reasons?

[jd26]

And please don't mention MEP's or the increased powers they will get under Lisbon, they are still far too powerless, the power still rests with the commission.

The commission have the same sort of powers as the Irish Civil Service.

Yes, they initiate legislation, but you'd be surprised how much legislation is started by the civil service here.

The power at the moment lies with the Council of Ministers; that is, it lies with the member states.

Now, you can transfer powers to the parliament if you like, but in doing so, you're weakening the nation-state and moving towards the United States of Europe that so many seem to oppose.

[Matlock]

I really shouldn't have to explain this.

The way in which Europe will be governed will be altered quite significantly. Is it not a good idea to ask the various populations if they are satisfied with the proposed alterations to something of such high importance?

If this is such an unimportant treaty, why did Britain negotiate so many concessions on this legislation? Why would they do so unless they were fundamental constitutional changes?

Maybe not, but please do.

I am interested in what you think this treaty actually does.

[thread_killer]

What big ideas do you have for this little island of 4.5 million with its currency and economy tied to the EU ?

I have no ideas. But I'm still not willing to outsource the decision making process to someone to make a decision for me, like you seem to be willing to do.


Ireland has only been an economic success 1960 1980 & 1996 - 2007.

A lot of EU money went in to make to help it happen.

We did that. All without Lisbon. What's your point? And wasn't it pretty much German money?


Europe is our main trading partner and as a major exporting nation in an even more globalised market place we neither have the means as a tiny island on the western fringes of Europe.

Enough Little Irelander waffle for one day.
You're not selling it very well. Try harder, new guy.

[Taste]

Only the EEC accession treaty and Single European Act actually ceded any powers to the EU. The others deal with the organisation of how those powers should be exercised.

So,as Matlock says, why?

Do you really think that most of us were round too vote on the Accession Treaty.

We can only look at what is before us, the EU as it stands is not the EU that most people want or one that most people are comfortable with, (In this posters opinion)

I doubt that the concept of the EU as a Government is what people want,

A trading bloc, yes.
Free movement of people, goods and services, yes.
The Euro, Yes.

Not involvement in a common defense force no matter the capacity.
Not an undemocratic Commission.
Not the hundreds of directives that are passed under our noses.

The list goes on...

[Matlock]

The clue is to read the entire post.8-)

Your entire post didnt answer my question.

You say "The way in which Europe will be governed will be altered quite significantly" , but you dont say how you think it will be altered.

Oh, a Britian doesnt have a constitution so im not sure where you are going with the argument that Britian wouldnt have required changes unless the treaty altered the constitution?

[Cliff Barnes]

I have no ideas. But I'm still not willing to outsource the decision making process to someone to make a decision for me, like you seem to be willing to do.

You do it allready Dublin & Brussels

We did that. All without Lisbon. What's your point? And wasn't it pretty much German money?

Through The EU.

You're not selling it very well. Try harder, new guy.

Sounds pretty good to me.

[Matlock]

Do you really think that most of us were round too vote on the Accession Treaty.

We can only look at what is before us, the EU as it stands is not the EU that most people want or one that most people are comfortable with, (In this posters opinion)

I doubt that the concept of the EU as a Government is what people want,

A trading bloc, yes.
Free movement of people, goods and services, yes.
The Euro, Yes.

Not involvement in a common defense force no matter the capacity.
Not an undemocratic Commission.
Not the hundreds of directives that are passed under our noses.

The list goes on...

The "hundreds of directives" refer mainly to the free movement of people, goods and services and to trade. :rolleyes:

[jd26]

Do you really think that most of us were round too vote on the Accession Treaty.

We can only look at what is before us, the EU as it stands is not the EU that most people want or one that most people are comfortable with, (In this posters opinion)

I doubt that the concept of the EU as a Government is what people want

But there has been no transfer of power since the Single European Act. It hasn't evolved to become something different from then.

Not involvement in a common defense force no matter the capacity.

This depends on the person and the reason.

However, it seems the majority of the Irish people have no issue with participating in EU forces when used for peacekeeping or humanitarian work. We have no obligation on us to be a part of a common defence or aggression pact and that doesn't change in this treaty.

Not an undemocratic Commission.

The commission is appointed by the national parliaments. This is as democratic as how the Taoiseach gets appointed and far more democratic than any other system I've ever seen for appointing senior civil servants.

After the commissioners are nominated by the national parliaments, the entire commission is approved by the European Parliament, which consists of elected MEPs.

Not the hundreds of directives that are passed under our noses.

This is a particular bugbear of mine as it comes from the Fianna Fail tendency to blame the EU for unpopular legislation, even though they had the power to block it at council of ministers level.

But can you give an example of a bad directive?

Remember that the directives are necessary if you're to have a common trade area. Generally, they provide a minimum standard that means you can sell throughout the area. It is possible to allow lower standards in any given member state, but in general we've applied the EU minimum as our own minimum.

[thread_killer]

Sounds pretty good to me.

We do it already, Dublin and Brussels. And look where that got us:


Ireland is a mis-managed corrupt economic failure right now.


Your own words. Try harder.

And you want more of the same? Jesus.

The EU money was in order to build up infrastructure and the economy, so that the EU would benefit in the long run, as we would need to import and export to the greater European economy. That's all good.

But it's going beyond just economic shit now. Military, etc. Thing is, it becomes easier to pass that shit down the road, if you just babystep everything.

Please, wake the fuck up.

[Taste]

The commission have the same sort of powers as the Irish Civil Service.

Yes, they initiate legislation, but you'd be surprised how much legislation is started by the civil service here.

The power at the moment lies with the Council of Ministers; that is, it lies with the member states.

Now, you can transfer powers to the parliament if you like, but in doing so, you're weakening the nation-state and moving towards the United States of Europe that so many seem to oppose.

Come on now, there is a massive difference between the Irish Civil Service made up of people living and working and perhaps being from Ireland, working through legislation on behalf of an Irish Minister, elected by the Irish people, to act on their behalf, a Minister that we have real access too, through our T.D's that we can meet with week in week out if we wish,

As for the notion of a 'United States of Europe', I would have much less a problem with a situation where, the power is held in the hands of those elected directly by the people of Europe. Now I would still be opposed too that, but it would be better than the current situation.

[thread_killer]

The commission is appointed by the national parliaments. This is as democratic as how the Taoiseach gets appointed and far more democratic than any other system I've ever seen for appointing senior civil servants.


You mean the guy who had to resign, so his buddy stepped up. The current guy, you know, the guy who wasn't voted in to that particular office by the people who are supposed to vote on that kind of stuff.

Seems like a good plan, and I want more of it.

[jd26]

Come on now, there is a massive difference between the Irish Civil Service made up of people living and working and perhaps being from Ireland, working through legislation on behalf of an Irish Minister, elected by the Irish people, to act on their behalf, a Minister that we have real access too, through our T.D's that we can meet with week in week out if we wish,

The commission and their junior civil servants also have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

And remember that the minister that we have real access to has a say in any legislation in the council of ministers.

[jd26]

You mean the guy who had to resign, so his buddy stepped up. The current guy, you know, the guy who wasn't voted in to that particular office by the people who are supposed to vote on that kind of stuff.

Seems like a good plan, and I want more of it.

Every single Irish commissioner was approved by the Dail. How much more democratic do you want?

And which commissioner who had to step down? The only one I recall was Buttiglione. He was made step down by the democratically elected parliament. And this was supposed to be an undemocratic system?

[Matlock]

Every single Irish commissioner was approved by the Dail. How much more democratic do you want?

And which commissioner who had to step down? The only one I recall was Buttiglione. He was made step down by the democratically elected parliament. And this was supposed to be an undemocratic system?

I think he was referring to Bertie and Cowan. Though why he thinks the public should vote on who gets to be leader of FF is beyond me.

Though tbh, i may have lost his point entirely!!

[daithi81]

The "hundreds of directives" refer mainly to the free movement of people, goods and services and to trade. :rolleyes:

Sweet pwnage.

[jd26]

Does anyone who doesn't like the way the commission is put in place want to propose an alternative?

[The Zurich Connection]

Vote No for freedom


Retarded title... retarded post... retarded logic... retarded thread.

[Lamps]

Retarded title... retarded post... retarded logic... retarded thread.

Nice wumming toney, you truly are the master

[The Zurich Connection]

Nice wumming toney, you truly are the master


I ain't wumming sunny boy... encouraging people to vote against a politician out of personal vendetta at a point where Ireland badly needs Europe and will need it... seeing as Ireland is incapable of managing itself is idiotic at very best.

If the moron no vote succeeds again foreign investment will pour out of Ireland and the country will be left behind in a second tier Europe.

Only a complete retard couldn't see how important the EU is to Ireland and it's future.

[Taste]

But there has been no transfer of power since the Single European Act. It hasn't evolved to become something different from then.

I didn't say there was, what I said was that the EU as we know it is not what it was sold as 'a common trading block'.

This depends on the person and the reason.

However, it seems the majority of the Irish people have no issue with participating in EU forces when used for peacekeeping or humanitarian work. We have no obligation on us to be a part of a common defence or aggression pact and that doesn't change in this treaty.

I disagree with that, UN Missions are one thing, quite another is the situation in we are in not with Chad/Shannon etc ( tho that's a bit off the EU topic . It is quite clear that our present government has little respect for Dev style neutrality. Again off topic in many ways.

The commission is appointed by the national parliaments. This is as democratic as how the Taoiseach gets appointed and far more democratic than any other system I've ever seen for appointing senior civil servants.

No, when a person becomes a Commissioner they don't become the Irish Commissioner, the French Commissioner whatever they are EU commissioners, representing the interests of the EU. That can't be compared to the election of Taoiseach.

After the commissioners are nominated by the national parliaments, the entire commission is approved by the European Parliament, which consists of elected MEPs.

And so what?, the commission is not directly elected, they are EU representatives nothing more nothing less.



This is a particular bugbear of mine as it comes from the Fianna Fail tendency to blame the EU for unpopular legislation, even though they had the power to block it at council of ministers level.

You're right.

QUOTE=jd26;2737936]But can you give an example of a bad directive?

Remember that the directives are necessary if you're to have a common trade area. Generally, they provide a minimum standard that means you can sell throughout the area. It is possible to allow lower standards in any given member state, but in general we've applied the EU minimum as our own minimum.

The overriding problem with the directive system is that;s its one size fits all nature, now we can all talk about bandy bananas, as a bad example of an EU directive gone wrong, personally speaking the recycling directive, i'm Greenish but i'm a firm believer in Landfilling (done right) as the best solution too waste management, but due too an EU directive we must recycle X % of waste, which would be much more cheapley disposed of in landfill with no ill effect on the environment. But that's just me, the fact that I can't buy unpasteurized milk..., personal but important...

Now the minimum standards that you talk about, could you tell more about that and the need for the EU as we know it too set such standards after all in terms of Goods we
import things from all over the world without the need too have a Body like the EU. "setting standards".

[Matlock]

You really haven't been following this very well, have you? Let me educate you:

Britain negotiated many opt outs to the current version of the treaty. You suggested there was not sufficient need to put the Lisbon treaty before the population of Europe. My argument is, if Britain has opted to opt out(nice ring to that:D) of many areas of this treaty, surely this is an indication that there are substantial changes being made, and hence it is indeed necessary to hold referenda.
I take it you now agree?

I never suggested that there was not sufficient need to put the treaty to the population of Europe. What I said was that i believe that each nation has the soverign right to decide how to implement treaties and that i did not believe that ireland had to right to force other EU counties to hold a referendum if they did not wish to. Whether the changes made are substantial or not surely it is a matter for each country to decide how to implement the treaty.

Rather than base your objections on the fact that the UK has sought opt outs, why would you not just read the thing for yourself and figure out what is being changed and whether or not it is important?

It is clear from your posts that you havent a fecking clue what the treaty is actually about.

[Taste]

The commission and their junior civil servants also have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

And remember that the minister that we have real access to has a say in any legislation in the council of ministers.

Well we're not going too agree on this,

Centralized Government is bad news, we need to end it domestically, and we sure as hell don't want too further it internationally, that's the point.

We could go on all night, but I'm off too dinner.

All the best

Taste.

[jd26]

I didn't say there was, what I said was that the EU as we know it is not what it was sold as 'a common trading block'.

That was the original EU entry treaty.

That was amended by the Single European Act. People knew what they were voting on at the time. I remember the campaign and the issues were well-discussed, much better than in the Lisbon or Nice campaigns, maybe because there was actually a significant change rather than just an administrative tidy-up.

There was also the Crotty v an Taoiseach judgement, which helped focus minds on the substance of the act.

Believe me, people knew what they were voting for in that referendum and anyone who has tried to convince you that people only ever voted for a trading bloc was conveniently rewriting history.

The overriding problem with the directive system is that;s its one size fits all nature, now we can all talk about bandy bananas, as a bad example of an EU directive gone wrong, personally speaking the recycling directive, i'm Greenish but i'm a firm believer in Landfilling (done right) as the best solution too waste management, but due too an EU directive we must recycle % of waste, which would be much more cheapley disposed of in landfill with no ill effect on the environment. But that's just me, the fact that I can't buy unpasteurized milk..., personal but important...

Now the minimum standards that you talk about, could you tell more about that and the need for the EU as we know it too set such standards after all in terms of Goods we
import things from all over the world without the need too have a Body like the EU. "setting standards".

The minimum standards say that if you pasteurise your milk, you can sell throughout the EU. There's actually nothing preventing the Irish government allowing the sale of unpasteurised milk in Ireland, but they chose to make the EU standard the Irish standard.

As regards the products from round the world, they have to meet EU standards. As a market of 500 million people and the largest trading zone in the world, it's in the interest of any party to do so.

The difference is that unlike Ireland, they don't get a say in making the rules. So what you end up with is countries like Norway just adopting them anyway.

It's a simple sensible system, otherwise you get a situation where Germany or any other country sets impossible standards for producers from other countries when they know that their firms produce above a certain standard.

[jd26]

Well we're not going too agree on this,

Centralized Government is bad news, we need to end it domestically, and we sure as hell don't want too further it internationally, that's the point.

We could go on all night, but I'm off too dinner.

All the best

Taste.

The Lisbon Treaty doesn't centralize decision making. For the most part it deals with how decisions are made.

And legislation should be at the most appropriate level. Legislation relating to trading within a free-trade bloc has to be made at that level. Legislation about environmental issues that cross borders are better made by a supra-national body.

Enjoy dinner :-)

[POL]

This referendum is a complete waste of time and money anyway, this will be railroaded through in any case whether we like it or not. It is clear than neither the European mandarins or our own political class will accept any No from the electorate of any country be it Ireland, Holland or France. Just let them get on with building the bureaucratic superstate we are going to have whether we like it or not

[jd26]

You know what would be fun

A POL slogan builder

Like the Daily Mail (http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/) one.

There's only a few phrases, it can't be that hard.

[jd26]

"Is the human rights act turning the royal family gay?"

[jd26]

"Could new labour destroy the memory of diana?"

[daithi81]

Could rip-off britain make your children impotent?

[Lamps]

So are we going to hear why we should vote yes from anyone?

I think the stock answer is that we'll be fucked out of Europe so we'd better do as we are told. In that case, just don't bother with em. I'd be well up for the brits and ourselves going it alone.

Europe will never bowl us out as we give them more than they give us. We are worth too much in fish dollars plus they know that there is a langer load of untapped energy on our vast sea territory.

Bring it on Fritz. Lets be aving ya.


ps Matlock is lying through her hole about reading the treaty in its orginal form, not that I'm surprised given her profession.

[Matlock]

So are we going to hear why we should vote yes from anyone?

I think the stock answer is that we'll be fucked out of Europe so we'd better do as we are told. In that case, just don't bother with em. I'd be well up for the brits and ourselves going it alone.

Europe will never bowl us out as we give them more than they give us. We are worth too much in fish dollars plus they know that there is a langer load of untapped energy on our vast sea territory.

Bring it on Fritz. Lets be aving ya.


ps Matlock is lying through her hole about reading the treaty in its orginal form, not that I'm surprised given her profession.

Matlock is not!

I thought you were going to rattle me or expose me or something? Is "ps, you are lying" and a little lawyer jibe really the best you can come up with :rolleyes:

Why should we vote yes? Enshrinement of the charter of fundemental humam rights for a start.

The fact that it will ease the day to day running of the EU for another.

[Lamps]

pps And give Cowen a bloody nose for good measure.

Finish him

http://bigeastmeadow.files. wordpress.com/2009/04/karate-kid-sensei-finish-him.jpg?w=291&h=297

[Lamps]

Matlock is not!

I thought you were going to rattle me or expose me or something? Is "ps, you are lying" and a little lawyer jibe really the best you can come up with :rolleyes:

Why should we vote yes? Enshrinement of the charter of fundemental humam rights for a start.

The fact that it will ease the day to day running of the EU for another.

Do you swear on your mothers life, on the INTERNET, that you read that treaty, all 50 odd articles in its original form and understood it?

Cos I have it on good authority that even the best lawyers can't make head nor tail of it after several readings.

[Matlock]

Do you swear on your mothers life, on the INTERNET, that you read that treaty, all 50 odd articles in its original form and understood it?

Cos I have it on good authority that even the best lawyers can't make head nor tail of it after several readings.

My arse they cant.

They may look for clarification on certain things or be unsure as to the application of certain parts of it but they can read and understand it.

I dont like the idea of swearing on my mothers life. Ill swear on yours though ;-)

[Matlock]

Er, where did I say I hadn't read the treaty? I can assure you I have far greater knowledge on this issue than you do. It is you who has contradicted yourself several times in this argument. First you suggested it wasn't necessary to put the election before the people, then you flipflopped and suggested it was, albeit each government should decide how to implement the legislation in their respective nations.

My point, and I shall put it in bold, is that the premise of ratifying this treaty through parliament as opposed to democratically held referenda, illustrates the fundamental problem with the European system. The people of Europe would reject this treaty, a la France and Holland.(yes, there isn't significant differentiations between the Lisbon treaty and the European constitution).

I find it dispicable that you agree there has been an abuse of democracy, yet fail to see this as an EU problem and merely denote it as an individual nations choice on how they conduct their political events. This was a pan-European decision to implement the treaty via parliament, as the political elite realised it wouldn't be passed by popular vote.

I am glad you now understand.

Lesson over.:D

You didnt say that you hadnt read it, it is just apparent from your inabiliy to answer any questions on it that you havent read it.

Im not sure what you mean by election? I presume you mean treaty? In that case, i havent changed my position at all. It is up to each member state to decide how they vote on the implementation of EU treaties. IN Ireland, we do so by referendum, some counties do so by act of parliment. I believe that we, as a country, do not have the right to force other countries to hold a referendum. It is up to each country to decide this for themselves.

This treaty is not the same thing as the European Constitution and to claim that it is just shows up your ignorance on the subject.

Now, you might do me the courtasy of answering my questions?

1. Why or on what basis do you believe that Ireland has the right to dictate to other European states how they implement this or any other treaty?

2. Would you accept it if France or Germany insisted that the Lisbon Treaty or any future EU treaty be voted on by parliment rather than by referendum? ( presumably, if you feel that we have the right to interfere with their soverign right to decide on issues of implementation then you wuld have to accept that they would have the right to do the same to us)

3. What effect do you understand the passing of the Lisbon treaty to have? ( A question that you have been dodging all afternoon. Because, i imagine, you dont kjnow the answer)

[Matlock]

I thought I clearly outlined how this process will not only streamline EU decision making( IE move more power to central Europe), but merely imbue the bigger EU countries with far greater powers. This means the smaller countries such as Ireland will have to accept certain EU policies without power to veto such proposals.
You fail to understand the true ramifications that such a measure will have on Europe. This only one small step in the European project.

I suggest you invest in a decent German dictionary.

That is just a lie, plain and simple. Show me where and how within the treaty that will occur???

You obviously have your own agenda on this issue, but it isnt one based on fact.

It seems to be based on little more than scaremongering and anti German rethoric to be honest...

[jd26]

Ireland only got the chance due to there being a clause in its constitution.

This is wrong for a start.

The reason there are referendums in Ireland was because of the judgement in the case of Crotty v. An Taoiseach at the time of the Single European Act. The judgement was based on the foreseeability of legislation. The decision said that a referendum was necessary because extending the remit of the EU into foreign policy was unforseeable.

It's easily arguable that the changes in the Lisbon Treaty are foreseeable and that a referendum is not necessary; after all, we're only changing the decision making process, not the areas in which the EU has powers. We're having a referendum because the government chose to have one and not because of some constitutional clause.

I thought I clearly outlined how this process will not only streamline EU decision making( IE move more power to central Europe), but merely imbue the bigger EU countries with far greater powers. This means the smaller countries such as Ireland will have to accept certain EU policies without power to veto such proposals.

Can you expand on this please.

Under Nice, Ireland has 9 votes of 345 or put another way, 9 of the 173 votes required to block legislation i.e. 4% of a blocking vote. Under Lisbon, 45% of countries can block a piece of legislation. That is 13 countries. So Ireland has 8% of a blocking vote. That appears to extend Ireland's influence.

QMV is being extended to a very small number of areas - energy cooperation, asylum and immigration cooperation, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, cooperation in sport. All of these relate to activities between countries and not internal policies. That's it.

Overall, I'd say Ireland gains pull in the treaty.

[Matlock]

"What is Qualified Majority Voting (QMV)?

This is a system of voting used by the Council where the vote of each Member State is given a weighting which is related but not proportional to its population. When this voting system is used, no one country has a veto over the issue in question."

How does this type of system benefit a small country? They will have to accept the policies as decided by the majority of Europe in terms of population size. Ie, the bigger the population, the bigger the weight of the vote.

Maybe in your warped opinion this is more democratic?:rolleyes :

This will inevitably lead to the larger countries having the greater say in both policy creation and implementation.

How is your luxury suite in hotel de fail?
:lol!:

What areas does that apply to?

Also, i note you completely ignored the fact that you are completely wrong in stating the the need for a referendum is a requirement of the constitution.

[langerdan69]

I'll read the Treaty shortly and come back with a verdict. I'll make my mind up having made an effort to understand. At least I won't sound like a fuckwit and make grandiose claims regarding something that I don't understand.

I've worked closely with various parts of the EU institutions over the years so I've a bit of an understanding as to what goes on, some good some bad, more good than bad. Some of the bad is terrible to be fair!

At least if you're going to start a thread try and have something intelligent to say instead of sounding like a fuckwit.

I should add that I detest Cowen and all that he stands for but anyway.

[Matlock]

LOL For someone who has supposedly read this treaty you are desperately bereft of knowledge.:p

PS The answer is even in my last post.8-)

Your last post does not state what areas it applies to pet. JDs last post does, but yours doesnt.

I was questioning your ability to answer. I still dont believe you have read the thing, or that you know what you are talking about. You are obviously anti treaty but without any clear reasons for being so, apart from xenophobia. You are obviously googling furiously to come up with answers as you cant answer anything i ask you straight off, but come back an hour later with an answer.

You sir, are a sham, and i claim my €10.

[jd26]

QMV is being replaced as part of Lisbon, so is that an acknowledgement that Lisbon is doing something you approve of?

As for how does not having vetoes benefit a small country...

Actually, it's of huge benefit. If you have vetoes in every area, who do you think is important? It's not a case of every country getting equal rights, the real power lies with those countries that contribute most to the budget. If they get stroppy about providing funds, you'd be amazed how fast a veto can disappear.

QMV was an attempt to create a system where small countries were listened to, but which acknowledged the bigger populations of larger countries.

And by and large it was a success.

But it had one bad flaw, which was it needed to be renegotiated every time a country entered or left the EU.

And that's what double-majority is designed to deal with. It automatically scales for the number of members and creates a formula, avoiding all those renegotiations.

The added benefit is that Ireland's power increases from 4% of a blocking vote to 8% of one.

So, like I said, I'm sure you'll be rejoicing that Lisbon gets rid of the system you so disapprove of.

Interesting that you claim to have read the treaty and didn't pick up on that (it's even in the synopsis!). Be careful before accusing people of failing :lol!:

[langerdan69]

Either you're a liar, or this thread has inspired you into reviewing your decision.

Did me crushing the pro-Lisbon propagandists help you change your mind?

Suppose I'm a liar then, I had read the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice Treaties in the past and intend to vote yes, then again I figure I should read the Lisbon Treaty.

I'll vote yes anyway as I'd rather be part of an imperfect organisation who has saved our ass and would prefer to have strength in numbers than be out on our own again, run by priests and paedophiles.

[jd26]

What on earth are you blabbing on about? I have made a concise, cogent, and coherent argument outlining why this treaty would be deleterious to a small nation such as Ireland. All you have done is ask me mundane questions, which I refuse to answer as they are condescending.

I have given you a lesson today, hopefully you will revise your decision as a consequence.

You claimed it was bad because of QMV, completely unaware that it actually scrapped QMV for a system that gave Ireland more voice.

If that's a lesson, then I'm a lobster.

[langerdan69]

What on earth are you blabbing on about? I have made a concise, cogent, and coherent argument outlining why this treaty would be deleterious to a small nation such as Ireland. All you have done is ask me mundane questions, which I refuse to answer as they are condescending.

I have given you a lesson today, hopefully you will revise your decision as a consequence.

Well, having read your earlier post, the QMV system is of benefit to smaller countries because it gives us a weight disproportionate to our actual population. If Lisbon is passed there's also a double majority that needs to be secured (I'm trying to recall this precisely) in that it needs x% of the population and x% of the member states so there are safeguards built in all over the shop.

The reason that I'd vote yes is that so much of our enlightened legislation passed in Ireland since 1973 is as a result of the EU. Look at areas such as the environment, equal opportunities, competition, freedom of movement, ERASMUS student exchanges, cheaper mobile phone bills, the fact that we can travel and experience other countries with an open mind instead of this backward shithole of a country where FF keeps getting voted back in no matter how crooked they prove themselves to be time and time again.

That's why I'll be voting yes.

Enough for you?

[Matlock]

What on earth are you blabbing on about? I have made a concise, cogent, and coherent argument outlining why this treaty would be deleterious to a small nation such as Ireland. All you have done is ask me mundane questions, which I refuse to answer as they are condescending.

I have given you a lesson today, hopefully you will revise your decision as a consequence.

You have not made a concise, cogent or coherent argument on why this treaty would be delererious to Ireland. You have misquoted, mislead and lied - thats about it.

You are not answering my questions because you dont know the answers, not because you find them mundane or condesending.

Are you Declan Ganley by any chance ;-)

[langerdan69]

You have not made a concise, cogent or coherent argument on why this treaty would be delererious to Ireland. You have misquoted, mislead and lied - thats about it.

You are not answering my questions because you dont know the answers, not because you find them mundane or condesending.

Are you Declan Ganley by any chance ;-)

I love you ;)

[Professor Piehead]

How exactly do you expect Europe to move on unless their treaties are on the basis of "agree or we will move on without you"?

Should all of the EU come to a standstill because Ireland vote no to a treaty? How is that fair to the other member states?

Or do you really believe that Ireland should be allowed to veto all of the EU?
You are also starting from a viewpoint that centralising decision making is a bad thing, which i dont neccessarily agree with.

Obviously, because those are the rules.


Holland and France voted NO to the same thing, has europe ground to a halt.

This will be the last ever European referendum, enjoy this moment in history.

[Professor Piehead]

If you read a few comments up, I informed this was an anomalous pasting incident.( the Lisbon treaty website is rubbish)

Under the proposed system the larger countries will certainly have an advantage when it comes to policy creation and/or implementation. Do you wish to dispute this?

Why do you think Germany and France in particularm are so eager to push this through?

And Quisling Brown. Look how Cowen had to grovel to that gimp, if there's a yes vote, he won't even be able to do that.

Not as the so called 'protocol' is worth the paper it's writen on anyway.

[Matlock]

What a simplistic view on Europe you have. I concur that Europe has introduced many decent laws, but also many immensely poor ones aswell.(I'm sure you realise this?)

Just because Europe has benefited Ireland in the past does not mean you shouldn't be wary of the EU's future agenda.

Plus you simply cannot ignore the appalling conducted of the fellow EU states after Ireland utilised its democratic voice.

Oh the hypocrisy!

What EU laws do you object to?

What do you believe the "EU future agenda" is?

What appalling conduct?

[Matlock]

And Quisling Brown. Look how Cowen had to grovel to that gimp, if there's a yes vote, he won't even be able to do that.

Not as the so called 'protocol' is worth the paper it's writen on anyway.

What is a protocol?

gwan, as you are convinced that it is worthless - explain to me what it is and how it functions?

[jd26]

If you read a few comments up, I informed this was an anomalous pasting incident.( the Lisbon treaty website is rubbish)

You'll also notice that I was entering mine at almost the same time.

But, to be quite frank, I don't believe you.

Fundamentally, you're saying that Lisbon is bad because it doesn't provide a veto that we don't have anyway.

Your argument is actually just anti-EU rather than anti-Lisbon and your anti-Lisbon position is based on damaging our standing in the EU.

Under the proposed system the larger countries will certainly have an advantage when it comes to policy creation and/or implementation. Do you wish to dispute this?

Yes, I dispute that. I've clearly shown that Ireland has 8% of a block under the new voting system, but only 4% under the old one.

Again you're comparing to your ideal veto situation, which is not available as an option in the vote. It's also a system that is blatantly unfair to larger countries. It implies that the average German is only 1/20 as important as the average Irishman, even though they pay the bills. Do you fancy selling that in Germany? The whole system is a compromise that all countries can live with and you demand one that explicitly benefits Ireland.

Even introducing the comparison between double-majority and vetoes is aa blatant attempt to confuse the issue. Vetoes are not on offer whether there's a Yes or a No vote.

Why do you think Germany and France in particularm are so eager to push this through?

Why are Malta so keen to see it through? They were the only country to suggest we consider leaving the EU after the first Lisbon vote

[Professor Piehead]

What is a protocol?

gwan, as you are convinced that it is worthless - explain to me what it is and how it functions?

Flim-flam for Cowen to hoodwink the electorate. It works by fooling people that there are 'legal guarantees' over issues of concern. This is a con, all he's got is political promises that the treaty will take precedence over.

If they were actually worth anything, they would be put into a revised treaty and ratified by every EU government. This hasn't and will not happen, why do you think that is?

[Matlock]

Fuck me you're dim! I have explained my displeasure on these matters at least 3 times now. Either go back and read my earlier posts, or fuck off!

You have the memory of a dying goldfish with the aids virus.:rolleyes::lol !:

Rattled methinks ;-)

You have not answered any of my questions. I would imagine this is because you dont have the answers.

You say the EU has a future agenda. Tell me what it is?

You say that the EU has introducted "bad" laws. Give me an example of one.



Oh, and goldfish cant contract the AIDS virus.

[Matlock]

Flim-flam for Cowen to hoodwink the electorate. It works by fooling people that there are 'legal guarantees' over issues of concern. This is a con, all he's got is political promises that the treaty will take precedence over.

If they were actually worth anything, they would be put into a revised treaty and ratified by every EU government. This hasn't and will not happen, why do you think that is?

So basically you dont know what a protocol is...

[jd26]

Under the new treaty there is a clause which allows for further constitutional alteration without need of ratification.

You know these 'protocols' are merely a flagrant attempt to appease voters- not actually provide any guarantees.:rolleyes :

It only applies to the extension of double-majority voting and ratification would be required.

It would be up to the government whether it would be by referendum as is the situation at present (see the discussion on Crotty v An Taoiseach earlier in the thread).

[Professor Piehead]

You'll also notice that I was entering mine at almost the same time.

But, to be quite frank, I don't believe you.

Fundamentally, you're saying that Lisbon is bad because it doesn't provide a veto that we don't have anyway.

Your argument is actually just anti-EU rather than anti-Lisbon and your anti-Lisbon position is based on damaging our standing in the EU.



Yes, I dispute that. I've clearly shown that Ireland has 8% of a block under the new voting system, but only 4% under the old one.

Again you're comparing to your ideal veto situation, which is not available as an option in the vote. It's also a system that is blatantly unfair to larger countries. It implies that the average German is only 1/20 as important as the average Irishman, even though they pay the bills. Do you fancy selling that in Germany? The whole system is a compromise that all countries can live with and you demand one that explicitly benefits Ireland.

Even introducing the comparison between double-majority and vetoes is aa blatant attempt to confuse the issue. Vetoes are not on offer whether there's a Yes or a No vote.



Why are Malta so keen to see it through? They were the only country to suggest we consider leaving the EU after the first Lisbon vote

Aren't 60 vetos being removed by the treaty?

Tell us about article 48 of the Lisbon treaty.

[jd26]

What depresses me about this thread is the clear evidence that the new referendum will be countering the lies about the treaty rather than discussing its content.

Why do the No side want this kind of debate?

[jd26]

Aren't 60 vetos being removed by the treaty?

Edit: Wrong quote there, it should refer to Article 48.

See post 147

Aren't 60 vetos being removed by the treaty?

It's in about 5 areas. There may technically be 60 named vetos, but only in the smalle number of areas named earlier.

[Professor Piehead]

So basically you dont know what a protocol is...

No, no idea.

Tell us about article 48.

[jd26]

What about EU Fishing laws?

Should we just fish out all the oceans?

What about EU subsidies which keep many 3rd world farmers in poverty?

And have provided Europe with a half a century of food security. There are two sides to that discussion

What about convicted terrorists being awarded damages in the UK by the EU court of 'justice'?

So you're of the opinion that prisoners have no rights?

[Matlock]

Aren't 60 vetos being removed by the treaty?

Tell us about article 48 of the Lisbon treaty.


The one that states that treaty revisions must be approved "by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" is it?

Put that together with the Crotty Judgment, which stated that we can't transfer sovereignty in any area to the EU without a referendum.

Now, what is it about article 48 that frightens you so?

[Matlock]

No, no idea.

Tell us about article 48.

So, you dismiss the protocol as useless without understanding what it is.

Why does this not surprise me.

[Matlock]

Sorry, but I'm not rattled, it's just perplexing engaging in a discussion with someone whose mental capacity is that of a rather dim child.

You'll find the answer to question one in the early stages of this thread.

As for bad EU laws(wow you really are devoid of knowledge):

What about EU Fishing laws?

What about EU subsidies which keep many 3rd world farmers in poverty?

What about convicted terrorists being awarded damages in the UK by the EU court of 'justice'?

ETC ETC ETC

You know, i have managed to get through pages and pages of this thread without insulting you. Do you think you could manage the same level of courtesy?

If you are so certain that you are right, why are you so slow to give examples? Why do you resort to insults rather than answer questions?

JD pretty much nailed the rest of your post!

[Professor Piehead]

So, you dismiss the protocol as useless without understanding what it is.

Why does this not surprise me.

:rolleyes:

[Matlock]

:rolleyes:

Sorry now, but what is the point of dismissing something as useless without bothering to understand what it is or how it works?

[Professor Piehead]

Sorry now, but what is the point of dismissing something as useless without bothering to understand what it is or how it works?

Ya, I really don't know what a protocol is :rolleyes:

Here la, tell me what part of this you don't understand, and I'll help you out...






The central point to grasp about the current EU Summit proceedings on the Lisbon Treaty is that Messrs Brian Cowen's and Micheál Martin's "legally binding guarantees" to meet Irish voters' concerns do not change a jot or tittle of that Treaty.


If they changed even a comma, the Lisbon Treaty would become a different Treaty and would have to be ratified again from scratch by the National Parliaments of the 27 EU Member States.


EU politicians cannot change the treaties, or their effects, just by signing a new agreement: the Court of Justice will always say that the provisions of a fully ratified European Treaty trump any attempt to modify the operation of the Treaty through an unratified agreement.


EU treaties cannot be amended in any way unless the document embodying the amendments has been both signed by EU leaders, and then ratified by all EU Member States "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". That is not happening here.

Thus the Lisbon Treaty which the Irish people will be voting on in the autumn will be exactly the same Treaty as the one which the majority of voters rejected in last year's referendum by 53% to 47% on a 53% turnout.

If the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, it would be the EU Court of Justice which would interpret it, as the EU Court is the only body authorised under the European Treaties to interpret them and decide how they should be applied.


The "decision" or agreement of the European Council that certain provisions of the Lisbon Treaty mean such and such is just that - an agreement between the 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents. It is legally binding on them as individuals, but it is not an international Treaty between States which would require ratification by the 27 EU States putting it before their National Parliaments for approval, as is the normal mode of ratification of treaties.


The text of the introduction to the Summit "decision" states that it is made by the Heads of State or Government "desiring to address those (Irish) concerns in conformity with that Treaty", viz the Lisbon Treaty.


Being in conformity with the Lisbon Treaty, the "decision" or agreement cannot add to or substract from Lisbon in the slightest, and it would be for the EU Court, and the Court alone, to decide what Lisbon and its manifold provisions would mean if Lisbon should come into force.


So far as one can ascertain, the Summit "decision" or "agreement" is not actually being signed by the 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents who agree it, as would be normal with an international Treaty pending its formal ratification. Note that it is not being called a Treaty, but rather a "decision" or "agreement".


Formally registering this decision at the United Nations as a political agreement between the Prime Ministers and Presidents concerned, is intended to make it look more significant to the Irish public. This would confer on it a minor status in international law, but not in EU law. It would not and could not override EU law.


Some future meeting of the European Council of EU Prime Ministers and Presidents could make some other decision or agreement, possibly even in contradiction to this agreement, and that would be equally valuable or valueless, for it would not add to or take away from the Treaties one iota.


The whole process is meant to give the Irish media and public the impression that some real change is being made to the Lisbon Treaty, when nothing like that is happening.


Nor is the Summit "decision" or "agreement" a legally binding Protocol attached to Lisbon, which would form part of that Treaty and which would be binding in European law and on the EU Court of Justice in interpreting and applying European law. For that would require opening the Lisbon Treaty and ratifiying the new Protocol anew as part of it.


Promise of a special Irish Protocol or "clarificatory declaration" to be attached to some future EU Treaty, possibly years away, would be just that - a promise. It would not affect the Lisbon Treaty coming into force, with all its legal obligations. It would not prevent the constitutionally new European Union which Lisbon would create being established.


In no way could a promised Protocol to some future EU Treaty resile or pull back from the obligations entailed by the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty once Lisbon had come into force.


What could such a promised future Protocol do in any case, for Ireland is not seeking any opt-outs from the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty?


In 1992 when the Danish people voted No to the Maastricht Treaty, its Government sought and secured legally binding opt-outs from the central provisions of Maastricht - the euro-currency, EU military and security commitments, and Maastricht's provisions on EU citizenship. These provisions of Maastricht were never applied to Denmark and that position was formally recognised by a Protocol in the EU Treaties at the time of the 1998 Amsterdam Treaty, and these Danish opt-outs still apply.


Nothing like that is being sought by Ireland, whose Government has signed up to and accepted the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and the EU Constitution which it embodies in their entirety.


That is just as true now as it was last year.

[Matlock]

JD26, you have certainly meticulously analysed and evaluated this treaty, perhaps even more than I. I have read your posts objectively, and considered them on a number of levels. The simple fact is- whilst you appear comfortable with the idea of a quasi-Soviet Union mark 2 style of governance, many intelligent individuals such as myself are abhorred by this possibility.

You suggest many of my disputes are with Europe as a concept as opposed to this treaty- this bears verisimilitude, as naturally this is a further step to almost total centralisation of power to Brussels(75% is more than high enough in my opinion.)

I feel the right to veto certain policy proposals(certainly social policy), is essential, yet you are happy for a country to forgo this right.

I just don't understand this type of extreme socialistic/communistic attitude. This treaty will, as you say, almost certainly come down to peoples' views on the prospect of European governance instead of the fundamental issues of the treaty.

Sad but true.


More xenophobic rubbish.

What in the lisbon treaty cedes social policy to the EU?

[Matlock]

Ya, I really don't know what a protocol is :rolleyes:

Here la, tell me what part of this you don't understand, and I'll help you out...

The central point to grasp about the current EU Summit proceedings on the Lisbon Treaty is that Messrs Brian Cowen's and Micheál Martin's "legally binding guarantees" to meet Irish voters' concerns do not change a jot or tittle of that Treaty.


If they changed even a comma, the Lisbon Treaty would become a different Treaty and would have to be ratified again from scratch by the National Parliaments of the 27 EU Member States.


EU politicians cannot change the treaties, or their effects, just by signing a new agreement: the Court of Justice will always say that the provisions of a fully ratified European Treaty trump any attempt to modify the operation of the Treaty through an unratified agreement.


EU treaties cannot be amended in any way unless the document embodying the amendments has been both signed by EU leaders, and then ratified by all EU Member States "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". That is not happening here.

Thus the Lisbon Treaty which the Irish people will be voting on in the autumn will be exactly the same Treaty as the one which the majority of voters rejected in last year's referendum by 53% to 47% on a 53% turnout.

If the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, it would be the EU Court of Justice which would interpret it, as the EU Court is the only body authorised under the European Treaties to interpret them and decide how they should be applied.


The "decision" or agreement of the European Council that certain provisions of the Lisbon Treaty mean such and such is just that - an agreement between the 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents. It is legally binding on them as individuals, but it is not an international Treaty between States which would require ratification by the 27 EU States putting it before their National Parliaments for approval, as is the normal mode of ratification of treaties.


The text of the introduction to the Summit "decision" states that it is made by the Heads of State or Government "desiring to address those (Irish) concerns in conformity with that Treaty", viz the Lisbon Treaty.


Being in conformity with the Lisbon Treaty, the "decision" or agreement cannot add to or substract from Lisbon in the slightest, and it would be for the EU Court, and the Court alone, to decide what Lisbon and its manifold provisions would mean if Lisbon should come into force.


So far as one can ascertain, the Summit "decision" or "agreement" is not actually being signed by the 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents who agree it, as would be normal with an international Treaty pending its formal ratification. Note that it is not being called a Treaty, but rather a "decision" or "agreement".


Formally registering this decision at the United Nations as a political agreement between the Prime Ministers and Presidents concerned, is intended to make it look more significant to the Irish public. This would confer on it a minor status in international law, but not in EU law. It would not and could not override EU law.


Some future meeting of the European Council of EU Prime Ministers and Presidents could make some other decision or agreement, possibly even in contradiction to this agreement, and that would be equally valuable or valueless, for it would not add to or take away from the Treaties one iota.


The whole process is meant to give the Irish media and public the impression that some real change is being made to the Lisbon Treaty, when nothing like that is happening.


Nor is the Summit "decision" or "agreement" a legally binding Protocol attached to Lisbon, which would form part of that Treaty and which would be binding in European law and on the EU Court of Justice in interpreting and applying European law. For that would require opening the Lisbon Treaty and ratifiying the new Protocol anew as part of it.


Promise of a special Irish Protocol or "clarificatory declaration" to be attached to some future EU Treaty, possibly years away, would be just that - a promise. It would not affect the Lisbon Treaty coming into force, with all its legal obligations. It would not prevent the constitutionally new European Union which Lisbon would create being established.


In no way could a promised Protocol to some future EU Treaty resile or pull back from the obligations entailed by the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty once Lisbon had come into force.


What could such a promised future Protocol do in any case, for Ireland is not seeking any opt-outs from the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty?


In 1992 when the Danish people voted No to the Maastricht Treaty, its Government sought and secured legally binding opt-outs from the central provisions of Maastricht - the euro-currency, EU military and security commitments, and Maastricht's provisions on EU citizenship. These provisions of Maastricht were never applied to Denmark and that position was formally recognised by a Protocol in the EU Treaties at the time of the 1998 Amsterdam Treaty, and these Danish opt-outs still apply.


Nothing like that is being sought by Ireland, whose Government has signed up to and accepted the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and the EU Constitution which it embodies in their entirety.


That is just as true now as it was last year.

If you do know what it is then why not just answer my question?

I dont believe that anyone is under the impression that the Lisbon treaty itself is going to be amended. I dont believe that the Government has stated anymore than that the protocols will be added to a future treaty. You seem to be seeing a conspiricy where none exists.

[Matlock]

You really don't know what that means, do you?:lol:

Don't be a cheapskate, invest in a good dictionary.:grin:

A dislike or fear of that which is different.

Considering all of your posts seem to revolve around the idea that change is bad, i think it is pretty much perfect as a description.

[Professor Piehead]

If you do know what it is then why not just answer my question?

I dont believe that anyone is under the impression that the Lisbon treaty itself is going to be amended. I dont believe that the Government has stated anymore than that the protocols will be added to a future treaty. You seem to be seeing a conspiricy where none exists.

There, you have it, at last.

No changes, none.

[Matlock]

There, you have it, at last.

No changes, none.

Oh for the love of jesus, when did i ever say that the treaty was going to be amended?

Where did anyone say that the treaty was going to be amended??

[Matlock]

LOL Have you no idea what living in the Soviet bloc was like?

Anyway, I deem it wise to be cautious on such matters. Unlike you, who blindly accepts further EU expansion without comprehending the possible implications.

By the way, how is your German?:D

I dont blindly accept anything.

I educate myself and i make my own decisions.

Your insults and jibes are unneccessary.

[Matlock]

It does mean we will be voting on exactly the same treaty. The government are trying to suggest it is different due to these guarantees.

I have tried to make this as simple as possible.

Those are clarifications, not amendments.

The main reason why these clarifications are neccessary is the campaign of misinformation and lies perpetrated by some involved in the no campaign.

[Matlock]

Balderdash! The yes campaign are suggesting they are appended to the treaty, when you know full well they are not.


PS: I know it's intimating debating with men, it must be hard being a women in situations like this. In future, I'll do my best to go easy on you. Just to be fair.:D


Show me where the yes campaign have suggested that the treaty will be amended?

Cmon, link? if you have one.

Your sexist jibes reallly arent even worth engaging with. Poor show, in fairness.

[Matlock]

By suggesting they are legal 'guarantees', this says it all. How are they guaranteed when they will only be brought in if there is another treaty. Is that guaranteed? (hopefully not). These so called guarantees do not appertain to this treaty, not in any way in the slightest.

How were my remarks sexist? You were berating me for being too supposedly boisterous. If you're not strong enough--like I said, I shall go easy on you.

Or you can always leave! * hold door open for Matlock in a chivalric manner, whilst simultaneously removing hat.*

They will only become legally binding if added to a future treaty. Everyone is aware of that. I asked you to show me where the yes campaign has disputed this?

All that is being given at the moment is a political promise.

I cannot see the EU renaging on that sort of political promise like that though, it would make any future treaties impossible to negotiate.

When did i berate you for being boisterous? I asked you to stop insulting me, and questioned why you were unable to have a debate without resorting to said insults, but thats a very different thing to being boisterous.

Your response was to post some sexist jibes about "going easy on me" because im a woman.

It is fairly pathetic, in fairness.

[Professor Piehead]

They will only become legally binding if added to a future treaty. Everyone is aware of that. I asked you to show me where the yes campaign has disputed this?

All that is being given at the moment is a political promise.

I cannot see the EU renaging on that sort of political promise like that though, it would make any future treaties impossible to negotiate.

When did i berate you for being boisterous? I asked you to stop insulting me, and questioned why you were unable to have a debate without resorting to said insults, but thats a very different thing to being boisterous.

Your response was to post some sexist jibes about "going easy on me" because im a woman.

It is fairly pathetic, in fairness.


:lol!:

[Matlock]

:lol!:
From a purely political pov, it would make any future negotiations a nightmare.

The EU dont have any history of renaging on such things, not sure why you are so distrustful .

[Matlock]

How would it be difficult? There won't be any future referenda.:rolleyes:

Do you actually understand the crotty Judgement?

Do you understand that we cannot transfer soverignty in any area to the EU without a referendum?

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about if you think that article 48, or any other article in the lisbon treaty, means that there will be no future referenda.

Typical scaremongering.

[Matlock]

It means the government has the choice to hold a referendum. Considering how problematic they are for the government, I cannot see them holding another one.

Wow, I'm really raking up the frequent pwnage points.:lol!:

No it doesnt.

Article 48 gives a choice to the government to hold a referendum or not.

Crotty gives no such choice.

Seriously, you are embarassing yourself with your lack of knowledge on this one.

It is clear that you havent read, or havent understood, the Crotty judgment.

[Matlock]

On the contrary! I know for a fact this current treaty technically could have been passed through the Dail, albeit it would have been a legal headache and unpopular politically.

So why would it be any different for any future treaty? If people accept this treaty unanimously, they probably could pass it in the house as opposed to by referendum.

You're not really a lawyer, are you? :-?

I have already gone through the crotty judgment with you,but as you seem to not understand the implications of same i will try again for you.

We can't transfer sovereignty in any area to the EU without a referendum. That is not something that the government has a choice about. Ok, can you understand that?

Now, can you please explain to me how the EU is going to take control of all our decision making etc etc without a treaty being passed ceding the power to do so to them? It cant, can you understand that?

So, such a treaty would have to be put to a referendum in Ireland. can you understand that?

So it is bollix for you to say that there will be no further referenda. The only situation in which there will be no further referenda is if there are no further changes to the EU.

Clear for you?

And with that, im off to bed.

[Professor Piehead]

I have already gone through the crotty judgment with you,but as you seem to not understand the implications of same i will try again for you.

We can't transfer sovereignty in any area to the EU without a referendum. That is not something that the government has a choice about. Ok, can you understand that?

Now, can you please explain to me how the EU is going to take control of all our decision making etc etc without a treaty being passed ceding the power to do so to them? It cant, can you understand that?

So, such a treaty would have to be put to a referendum in Ireland. can you understand that?

So it is bollix for you to say that there will be no further referenda. The only situation in which there will be no further referenda is if there are no further changes to the EU.

Clear for you?

And with that, im off to bed.

'Self-amending' is the key to article 48. If the treaty is self-amending, why would there be a need for another. You can just continually amend the existing treaty.

Can you understand that.

Clear for you?

[Closer80]

I could go into Article 48, or any of the other parts of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and the Lisbon Treaty which get my goat.

But

I don't need to.

We said no, they think the solution is to ram it down our throats.

Brian Cowen has negotiated these "guarantees".

I wouldn't trust that man to guarantee my washing machine.

Thus NO.

Also, really even reading threads where people are vehemently YES voting (and i suppose the same is true for the opposite side) there is such a degree of pomposity. Seriously, it really brings the asshole out in people. Anyone that votes No is a "moron", anyone that votes yes is a "retard".
Just shut the fuck up and make your own decisions you judgmental fucks. Either way it won't make a difference, voting no didn't cause the recession, or make us hated in the EU, similarly voting Yes will not kill all sovereignty unless WE want it to.The EU may be corrupt, but it is certainly no more corrupt than the system we already have.
Power corrupts.

[daithi81]

What depresses me about this thread is the clear evidence that the new referendum will be countering the lies about the treaty rather than discussing its content.

Why do the No side want this kind of debate?

They use the same tactics as Creationists.

Hmm, I wonder why?

[Lamps]

What about all our fish?

Voting Yes cedes even more of our international waters, one of our greatest natural resources

[Lamps]

This guy says Vote Yes. Thats all i need to know
http://www.independent.ie/multimedia/archive/00187/cowen_187229t.jpg

[Matlock]

'Self-amending' is the key to article 48. If the treaty is self-amending, why would there be a need for another. You can just continually amend the existing treaty.

Can you understand that.

Clear for you?

Only on the areas contained therein, new areas cannot be brought in.

Also, the self amending clause does not take account of the governments obligation to hold referanda as per the Crotty Judgment.

Clear for you?

[Matlock]

Also, really even reading threads where people are vehemently YES voting (and i suppose the same is true for the opposite side) there is such a degree of pomposity. Seriously, it really brings the asshole out in people. Anyone that votes No is a "moron", anyone that votes yes is a "retard".
Just shut the fuck up and make your own decisions you judgmental fucks. Either way it won't make a difference, voting no didn't cause the recession, or make us hated in the EU, similarly voting Yes will not kill all sovereignty unless WE want it to.The EU may be corrupt, but it is certainly no more corrupt than the system we already have.
Power corrupts.

Well said.

[jd26]

I have been very polite thus far(for me:p) but you do ask the most pointless, irritating and vacuous questions.

BTW, JD far from "nailed" my post: according to him: Brussels has the right to dictate to local fishermen how they fish, he ignored blatant and disgusting EU subsidisition which has impoverished millions, and suggested terrorists, who disgustingly murdered innocent beings, should have the same rights as ordinary citizens. Frankly he didn't deserve a response.:D

I didn't have time to flesh out my answers last night as the battery on my laptop was about to go, however, you seem to be under the impression that those were three good points, so we'll have to go into them in more depth.

Fishing
The world's oceans are being depleted of fish. It's a particular problem in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean i.e. this part of the world.

Now, we have two choices, we can implement fish conservation measures or we can fish them to extinction. I'm going to assume that it's pretty obvious that the second one is a bad idea, although you'd probably call it dictating to local fishermen.

So how are fish conservation measures put in place? On a country by country basis. Which country is voluntarily going to give up its own catch if other countries are not going to follow suit. So, it's best dealt with by an agreement between countries.

While the system may seem to give certain countries a disproportionate share, the proportions between countries were simply set on the amount of fish they were landing before the restrictions were put in place. The fact is the Spanish were always catching and eating more fish than us, so they just got scaled back from a higher level.

And if the fisheries policy looks bad to you, maybe you should be glad you don't live in Canada, where the Grand Banks fisheries were just shut. No scaling back, just closed down.

It's the problem with international environmental problems - everyone wants someone else to take the burden. We should be glad that there's an organisation that can deal with them while maintaining between all involved.

Agricultural Subsidies
It's a bit simplistic to look at them as something that impoverishes the Third World. As mentioned previously, they've guaranteed Western Europe a half century of unbroken food supply. They've also provided support for millions of farming families across the EU and kept them out of poverty.

The fact is that the major beneficiaries of subsidy removal wouldn't be small third world farmers at all. They have no means of getting their produce to market and are often living on a subsistence basis anyway. The major beneficiaries would be the giant plantation owners like Dole, Chiquita and Del Monte. Other significant beneficiaries would be the ranchers who are chopping down the Amazon to raise cattle and the white Kenyan farmers who hog the land and fly their produce to the First World. The idea that removing subsidies would raise the wealth of small Third World farmers is fanciful. In fact, it would probably raise food prices in the Third World, making life tougher for people living in urban areas there.

That's not to say the system doesn't need reform. Too much money goes to large farmers in Europe and there needs to be a system where smaller third world producers (particularly those living nearby in places like North Africa) get decent access to European markets. But it certainly isn't a reason to vote No to Lisbon. In fact, voting No to Lisbon would probably make reform of the system harder.

Terrorist Rights
I'm not certain which case you're refering to here. Possibly the case in the UK where British judges ruled that detention without trial was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. Well, you know what, I agree, detention without trial is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. I don't agree with it in Guantanamo and I sure as hell don't agree with it in Europe.

Regardless of that though, the European Convention of Human Rights is associated with the Council of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe) and not the European Union. So, I guess this will have to go down as another attempt to mislead people.

Incidentally, detention without trial, which you apparently now support was very popular in the Soviet Union. So why was it that you thought Europe was like the Soviet Union?

[Actin The Sham]

And there is a langer load more.

Its gibberish.

We are being sold a pup here and its name is the price of irish freedom.

Vote NO

Vote NO to the unelected Bureaucrats in Dublin. Vote NO to the political elite in Dublin who bought buy to let properties in the UK. Vote NO to the chattering classes in Dublin who appointed themselves to banks and then lent money to the unlected bureacucrats and political elite who drink in the Horseshoe Bar in the Shelbourne Hotel. Vote NO to the people who got us into this mess.


Vote YES to the most stable currency in the world right now, the Euro. Vote YES to the long term stable growth policies which see Germany and France investing in infrastructure rather than property bubbles. Vote YES to a system which turns it's back on failed Anglo-Saxon financial markets which value a quick buck more than a workers pension. Vote YES to a freer, safer, fairer Europe for all it's citizens. Vote YES to show that Cork is not as parochial as Dublin. Vote YES to demonstrate to our fellow Europeans that we see our future as part of this wider European Union, and not as the captive bastard child of some failed colonial outpost in Dublin which produces nothing except child abusers and cheap Oirish versions of UK eurosceptic tabloid trash.


In short Vote YES to the Lisbon Treaty. For you, for Europe, for your children, and for Cork.


http://www.barcro.com/photos/cork%20coat%20of%20a rms.gifhttp://www.timeanddate.com/gfx/stock/european-union-flag.jpg

[daithi81]

Well said...

[Actin The Sham]

Matlock, the very fact that the same treaty is being put before the population is a reason to vote no.

The very fact the European elite are coercing this country into voting yes by essentially issuing an ultimatum of "vote yes or your out", is yet another reason to vote no.

Please provide me with 3 concise points outlining how this treaty will actually empower Ireland's position in Europe, as opposed to centralising the majour decision making to Brussels?


I love this horseshit.

What decisions affecting our daily lives are currently made in Cork? We haven't got the authority to buy paper clips, because all that is done by the unelected bureaucrats in Dublin. The very fact that the Dublin elite have tried to coerce this once proud city into the ground is another reason to vote YES in the hope that their power will be limited.

Vote YES for a stronger Cork within a stronger European Union.

[Actin The Sham]

1: How is it fair that none of the other states even got to vote for this treaty?

2: Centralisation of power invariably results in the weakening of local democracy(obviously) and in many cases, totalitarianism.

This country is the most centralised in Europe. The village I spend a lot of time in, in France has a mayor directly elected by the citizens. He or she is then empowered to raise small taxes for local works in consultation with the citizens.

Here, the national parties from Dublin get together in city hall in Cork and form "mayoral pacts" so that the figurehead of the city can be shared around between them.

If you want to talk about weakening local democracy go talk to the unelected bureacucrats in Dublin, and their political elite in Leinster House.

[Lamps]

I'd have a tiny bit of influence in Dublin than none in Frankfurter.

Vote No for Irish independence

[Matlock]

I'd have a tiny bit of influence in Dublin than none in Frankfurter.

Vote No for Irish independence

Why would we want influence in a sausage? :confused:

[Cliff Barnes]

I'd have a tiny bit of influence in Dublin than none in Frankfurter.

Vote No for Irish independence

What are you on about ?

Did you not vote in the European elections ?

Have you heard about the Irish Constitution ?

Where is Irish independence threatened by Lisbon exactly ?

[Lamps]

Why would we want influence in a sausage? :confused:

Oh dear

[Actin The Sham]

Now the minimum standards that you talk about, could you tell more about that and the need for the EU as we know it too set such standards after all in terms of Goods we
import things from all over the world without the need too have a Body like the EU. "setting standards".

Are you saying that we should accept Chinese "Safety" Standards?

nzoRdDssL1w


:shock:

[Lamps]

Its a well established fact that Fritz wants our fish and gas. We've got nothing to worry about.

Vote No for the good of Europe, lets return to democracy. Lets stand up for the rights of small nations

[Actin The Sham]

Its a well established fact that Fritz wants our fish and gas. We've got nothing to worry about.

Vote No for the good of Europe, lets return to democracy. Lets stand up for the rights of small nations

Fair play to you Lamps, you never lost it.

:lol:

[Lostmeringtopaddypower]

I'd have a tiny bit of influence in Dublin than none in Frankfurter.

Vote No for Irish independence

The place that paid for the roads you drive to work on every morning, Lamps.
Well, Berlin actually - but lets not split hairs.

Earra, don't mind all that, though.

Go ahead and form your alliances with your Eurosceptic BNP-Voting buddies across the water.
Pull out of Europe and be loyal to the Queen.

Nobody will stop you, big promise.

Heh heh heh.

[Lostmeringtopaddypower]

Fair play to you Lamps, you never lost it.

:lol:

And he has people responding "all indignant" and everything......

Fair play to him.

Heh heh heh......

[POL]

The place that paid for the roads you drive to work on every morning, Lamps.
Well, Berlin actually - but lets not split hairs.

Earra, don't mind all that, though.

Go ahead and form your alliances with your Eurosceptic BNP-Voting buddies across the water.
Pull out of Europe and be loyal to the Queen.

Nobody will stop you, big promise.

Heh heh heh.who paid for the Gas Chambers in Auschwitz? Should we be thankful for that aswell? Only for Brave Britain and her allies, we'd be straining under Nazi rule

[Lostmeringtopaddypower]

who paid for the Gas Chambers in Auschwitz? Should we be thankful for that aswell? Only for Brave Britain and her allies, we'd be straining under Nazi rule

Rattled.

[Cliff Barnes]

who paid for the Gas Chambers in Auschwitz? Should we be thankful for that aswell? Only for Brave Britain and her allies, we'd be straining under Nazi rule

Be thankful for anything we get from Europe at this stage :lol!:

[jd26]

Lamps has unearthed a major scandal.

John Hurley has been flying to Frankfurt on expenses every two weeks on the pretext of attending governing council meetings, yet as we have no influence in the European Central Bank, it's clear that all he's been doing is collecting airmiles :rolleyes:

[POL]

Be thankful for anything we get from Europe at this stage :lol!:
I'll take their money, but they won't take our freedom

[Actin The Sham]

who paid for the Gas Chambers in Auschwitz? Should we be thankful for that aswell? Only for Brave Britain and her allies, we'd be straining under Nazi rule

Who invented concentration camps? Who ran the biggest slave markets in Europe? Who caused the famine in Cork and Ireland?

That's right, the Brits.

But then again that was all before TV and newsreels so it didn't really happen eh? Like on planet POL soccer didn't start until 1992.

So back in the day we had the Brits, The Germans, The Italians The French, The Dutch, The Spanish and The Portugeuse all running amok all over Africa, South America, the Carribbean, and the far east, murdering enslaving, colonising and generally causing mayhem. Then along came the EU and guess what? The longest period of peace between the major European powers in history. The EU is a factor for good: it keeps the Germans, and the Brits locked together.




Fair play to you for the fishing though POL. You are an INTERNET legend.


:lol:

[Cliff Barnes]

I'll take their money, but they won't take our freedom

They don't want our freedom.


Just a few fish that we do not eat anyway.

[POL]

sure everyone thought Hitler was a great lad at the start

[Lostmeringtopaddypower]

sure everyone thought Hitler was a great lad at the start

FFS Pole,

you always end up spoiling Lamps' wums.

I said it before and I have to say it again:
Lamps is being dragged down by the rest of ye.

You ruined this thread, Pole.

Shame on you.

[Cliff Barnes]

sure everyone thought Hitler was a great lad at the start

0/10

Must try harder as he has squandered his potential with tired old material.

[POL]

0/10

Must try harder as he has squandered his potential with tired old material.how many aliases is it now? 15/16?

crfGXmxJ1vM

[Cliff Barnes]

how many aliases is it now? 15/16?

crfGXmxJ1vM

Looks like I have touched a nerve. :lol!:

[Lamps]

who paid for the Gas Chambers in Auschwitz? Should we be thankful for that aswell? Only for Brave Britain and her allies, we'd be straining under Nazi rule

Bottom line my friend.

Bottom line.

[Lamps]

Lamps has unearthed a major scandal.

John Hurley has been flying to Frankfurt on expenses every two weeks on the pretext of attending governing council meetings, yet as we have no influence in the European Central Bank, it's clear that all he's been doing is collecting airmiles :rolleyes:

Agreed.

Its all a massive charade.

They probably lock him in a room and give him some toys to play with while they get on with things. Heard him on the radio last week, he didn't have a clue what he was on about, Claire Byrne was even scoring points off him.

I doubt he has an inter cert

[Lamps]

They don't want our freedom.


Just a few fish that we do not eat anyway.

a few fish

Didn't JD say our fish, IRISH FISH, are being wiped out by the EU and its greed.

Pull out I say, ourselves and the Brits can go it alone with our massive marine resources and energy reserves

[Cliff Barnes]

a few fish

Didn't JD say our fish, IRISH FISH, are being wiped out by the EU and its greed.

Pull out I say, ourselves and the Brits can go it alone with our massive marine resources and energy reserves

Turf ?

The former UK Coalfields ?

The end of the North Sea Oil & Gas ?

A bit of gas off the west and south Coasts of Ireland ?

My new car battery ?


Hilarious wumming in fairness.

[jd26]

I think we should build a big wall to keep Irish fish in Irish waters.

[Lamps]

I think we should build a big wall to keep Irish fish in Irish waters.

Agreed and rogue Spanish Fishermen out.

I know a fisherman from Kerry who got rammed by these langers and you have the likes of matlock and cliff barnes saying to invite them on board for a spot of grub.

Ross Kemp didn't have to go to Nigeria we could have shown him real pirates in Baltimore

[Funky Munky]

Agreed and rogue Spanish Fishermen out.

I know a fisherman from Kerry who got rammed by these langers and you have the likes of matlock and cliff barnes saying to invite them on board for a spot of grub.

Ross Kemp didn't have to go to Nigeria we could have shown him real pirates in Baltimore


:lol::lol::lol:

[Closer80]

I think we should build a big wall to keep Irish fish in Irish waters.

:>

[Matlock]

I think we should build a big wall to keep Irish fish in Irish waters.

The salmon would be a problem though, what with the leaping an all.

Maybe we could pay irish fishermen to shoot rogue salmon on sight?

[Actin The Sham]

Agreed and rogue Spanish Fishermen out.

I know a fisherman from Kerry who got rammed by these langers and you have the likes of matlock and cliff barnes saying to invite them on board for a spot of grub.

Ross Kemp didn't have to go to Nigeria we could have shown him real pirates in Baltimore

I know a pilot for an Irish airline, Ryanair, who flies his Irish registered Boeing 737-800 into Gerona, collects passengers, and flies them on to the Canaries. It's a fucking disgrace, Irish businesses going into Spain and competing with Iberia. There should be a law against it.

And to make it worse, the company he works for pays all its taxes in Dublin, because of the EU.

[Lamps]

I know a pilot for an Irish airline, Ryanair, who flies his Irish registered Boeing 737-800 into Gerona, collects passengers, and flies them on to the Canaries. It's a fucking disgrace, Irish businesses going into Spain and competing with Iberia. There should be a law against it.

And to make it worse, the company he works for pays all its taxes in Dublin, because of the EU.

Do Irish planes try to ram Spanish planes out of the sky?

We should demand of Fritz that Irish planes get to rule the airways of Europe, ceding passengers of father and motherlands alike or we take the fish back.

[Edmund Blackwater]

How exactly do you expect Europe to move on unless their treaties are on the basis of "agree or we will move on without you"?

Should all of the EU come to a standstill because Ireland vote no to a treaty? How is that fair to the other member states?

Or do you really believe that Ireland should be allowed to veto all of the EU?

You are also starting from a viewpoint that centralising decision making is a bad thing, which i dont neccessarily agree with.

The people of Europe have voted no.
Government for the people, not vice-versa.

[Matlock]

The people of Europe have voted no.
Government for the people, not vice-versa.

The "people of Europe" havent voted at all...

[Edmund Blackwater]

The "people of Europe" havent voted at all...

really?
looks like someone's been found out here.

[Matlock]

really?
looks like someone's been found out here.

The people of Ireland have voted, but the "people of Europe" ( by which i presume you mean the citizans of each member state) havent all been asked to vote on this treaty.

[Edmund Blackwater]

The people of Ireland have voted, but the "people of Europe" ( by which i presume you mean the citizans of each member state) havent all been asked to vote on this treaty.

really?

[Matlock]

really?

I honestly have no idea where you are going with this one. Do you think that all EU member states held or will hold referenda on the Lisbon Treaty?

[Edmund Blackwater]

I honestly have no idea where you are going with this one. Do you think that all EU member states held or will hold referenda on the Lisbon Treaty?

No, I dodn't. I know that you changed your tune after I questioned you.
All of a sudden the use of the word 'all' strated making an appearance.

I have a question for you.
Can you name all the countries in the EU where the citizrns voted FOR the Lisbon treaty?

[jd26]

Are you trying to reopen the argument about how we should force our ratification methods on other countries?

[thread_killer]

Clinging to the past, eeh. Paper, pencil mark, and human counting machines.

You would think, or at least I would have thought, that this being the communication age and all, that this would be done in a much more modern way. And faster.

Giving the peoples more power and control over their elected political representatives. Career politicians, eeh?

If people really do have the power, let them vote on everything. We have the technology. We do. Let's crack open a new model!

[Professor Piehead]

Vote NO to the unelected Bureaucrats in Dublin. Vote NO to the political elite in Dublin who bought buy to let properties in the UK. Vote NO to the chattering classes in Dublin who appointed themselves to banks and then lent money to the unlected bureacucrats and political elite who drink in the Horseshoe Bar in the Shelbourne Hotel. Vote NO to the people who got us into this mess.


Vote YES to the most stable currency in the world right now, the Euro. Vote YES to the long term stable growth policies which see Germany and France investing in infrastructure rather than property bubbles. Vote YES to a system which turns it's back on failed Anglo-Saxon financial markets which value a quick buck more than a workers pension. Vote YES to a freer, safer, fairer Europe for all it's citizens. Vote YES to show that Cork is not as parochial as Dublin. Vote YES to demonstrate to our fellow Europeans that we see our future as part of this wider European Union, and not as the captive bastard child of some failed colonial outpost in Dublin which produces nothing except child abusers and cheap Oirish versions of UK eurosceptic tabloid trash.



:lol!:


I voted FF

[Edmund Blackwater]

Are you trying to reopen the argument about how we should force our ratification methods on other countries?

No.
Tell me where there were votes on whether to ratify Lisbon or not and the results of these votes.

[jd26]

Ireland was the only country to vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

Although the comparison with the EU constitution don't hold as the document was substantially changed, if you want to look at the constitution, four countries voted on it - France, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Spain.

After it was watered down, the changes in it were organisational rather than constitutional in nature and didn't require referenda.

[thread_killer]

Bookies taking bets on it being renamed back to 'constitution' once ratified, I wonder?

[Edmund Blackwater]

four countries voted on it - France, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Spain..
how did that go?

[Professor Piehead]

I didn't have time to flesh out my answers last night as the battery on my laptop was about to go, however, you seem to be under the impression that those were three good points, so we'll have to go into them in more depth.

Fishing
The world's oceans are being depleted of fish. It's a particular problem in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean i.e. this part of the world.

Now, we have two choices, we can implement fish conservation measures or we can fish them to extinction. I'm going to assume that it's pretty obvious that the second one is a bad idea, although you'd probably call it dictating to local fishermen.

So how are fish conservation measures put in place? On a country by country basis. Which country is voluntarily going to give up its own catch if other countries are not going to follow suit. So, it's best dealt with by an agreement between countries.

While the system may seem to give certain countries a disproportionate share, the proportions between countries were simply set on the amount of fish they were landing before the restrictions were put in place. The fact is the Spanish were always catching and eating more fish than us, so they just got scaled back from a higher level.

And if the fisheries policy looks bad to you, maybe you should be glad you don't live in Canada, where the Grand Banks fisheries were just shut. No scaling back, just closed down.

It's the problem with international environmental problems - everyone wants someone else to take the burden. We should be glad that there's an organisation that can deal with them while maintaining between all involved.

Agricultural Subsidies
It's a bit simplistic to look at them as something that impoverishes the Third World. As mentioned previously, they've guaranteed Western Europe a half century of unbroken food supply. They've also provided support for millions of farming families across the EU and kept them out of poverty.

The fact is that the major beneficiaries of subsidy removal wouldn't be small third world farmers at all. They have no means of getting their produce to market and are often living on a subsistence basis anyway. The major beneficiaries would be the giant plantation owners like Dole, Chiquita and Del Monte. Other significant beneficiaries would be the ranchers who are chopping down the Amazon to raise cattle and the white Kenyan farmers who hog the land and fly their produce to the First World. The idea that removing subsidies would raise the wealth of small Third World farmers is fanciful. In fact, it would probably raise food prices in the Third World, making life tougher for people living in urban areas there.

That's not to say the system doesn't need reform. Too much money goes to large farmers in Europe and there needs to be a system where smaller third world producers (particularly those living nearby in places like North Africa) get decent access to European markets. But it certainly isn't a reason to vote No to Lisbon. In fact, voting No to Lisbon would probably make reform of the system harder.

Terrorist Rights
I'm not certain which case you're refering to here. Possibly the case in the UK where British judges ruled that detention without trial was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. Well, you know what, I agree, detention without trial is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. I don't agree with it in Guantanamo and I sure as hell don't agree with it in Europe.

Regardless of that though, the European Convention of Human Rights is associated with the Council of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe) and not the European Union. So, I guess this will have to go down as another attempt to mislead people.

Incidentally, detention without trial, which you apparently now support was very popular in the Soviet Union. So why was it that you thought Europe was like the Soviet Union?

80% of fish caught in Irish waters are caught by non-Irish vessels. In fact, since 1973, the amount of money lost to other European fishermen far exceeds the amount of pot-hole filling money gained from the glorious Franco-German axis.

[jd26]

how did that go?

Far more Yes votes than No votes...

But the comparison is unfair anyway as they aren't the same treaty. Only the organisational parts were left in the text. They were changes that were identified as necessary. All the constitutional stuff about establishing entities was taken out.

80% of fish caught in Irish waters are caught by non-Irish vessels. In fact, since 1973, the amount of money lost to other European fishermen far exceeds the amount of pot-hole filling money gained from the glorious Franco-German axis.

You assume that there are no costs involved in catching the fish :rolleyes:

You also ignore the CAP money received by Ireland :rolleyes:

[Edmund Blackwater]

Far more Yes votes than No votes...

But the comparison is unfair anyway as they aren't the same treaty. Only the organisational parts were left in the text. They were changes that were identified as necessary. All the constitutional stuff about establishing entities was taken out.
:
this, in my opinion, is why there are so many no votes. Subterfuge all the way from people campaigning for a yes vote.
Just answer the question without the bullshite.

[Professor Piehead]

Who invented concentration camps? Who ran the biggest slave markets in Europe? Who caused the famine in Cork and Ireland?

That's right, the Brits.

But then again that was all before TV and newsreels so it didn't really happen eh? Like on planet POL soccer didn't start until 1992.

So back in the day we had the Brits, The Germans, The Italians The French, The Dutch, The Spanish and The Portugeuse all running amok all over Africa, South America, the Carribbean, and the far east, murdering enslaving, colonising and generally causing mayhem. Then along came the EU and guess what? The longest period of peace between the major European powers in history. The EU is a factor for good: it keeps the Germans, and the Brits locked together.




Fair play to you for the fishing though POL. You are an INTERNET legend.


:lol:


The American/British military presence in the Fatherland prevented any further war, Germany was virtually castrated, that's what's kept the peace.

[Professor Piehead]

Ireland was the only country to vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

Although the comparison with the EU constitution don't hold as the document was substantially changed, if you want to look at the constitution, four countries voted on it - France, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Spain.

After it was watered down, the changes in it were organisational rather than constitutional in nature and didn't require referenda.

”The Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the rejected constitution. Only the format has been changed to avoid referendums.”

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing,
former French President and President
of the Constitutional Convention in several
European newspapers, 27 October 2007

[Closer80]

You also ignore the CAP money received by Ireland :rolleyes:

I'm not going to jump headfirst into this, BUT, CAP has done more damage than good to our agriculture. No doubt there.

[Matlock]

No, I dodn't. I know that you changed your tune after I questioned you.
All of a sudden the use of the word 'all' strated making an appearance.

I have a question for you.
Can you name all the countries in the EU where the citizrns voted FOR the Lisbon treaty?

I didnt change my tune at all. You said that the people of Europe have voted no.

That isnt the case. The "people of Europe" as an inclusive group havent voted at all. Some people in Europe have voted. Some of those who have voted voted no.

That is not the same thing at all as "The people of Europe have voted no".

[Matlock]

”The Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the rejected constitution. Only the format has been changed to avoid referendums.”

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing,
former French President and President
of the Constitutional Convention in several
European newspapers, 27 October 2007


Oh well, if someone said it then it must be true :rolleyes:

[Professor Piehead]

I didnt change my tune at all. You said that the people of Europe have voted no.

That isnt the case. The "people of Europe" as an inclusive group havent voted at all. Some people in Europe have voted. Some of those who have voted voted no.

That is not the same thing at all as "The people of Europe have voted no".

Care to take a guess at why that is?

[Matlock]

Care to take a guess at why that is?

Because each country has a soverign the right to decide how it implements EU treaties.

That is the actual answer, but as that doesnt suit you im sure you will come up with some conspiricy that does suit you...

[Closer80]

:lol!:

Quality

Because each country has a soverign the right to decide how it implements EU treaties.

not being a conspiracy person or whatever, but if this is so, then why do we need these guarantees?

[Professor Piehead]

Oh well, if someone said it then it must be true :rolleyes:

Ya, the President of the Constitutional Convention. :rolleyes:

[jd26]

this, in my opinion, is why there are so many no votes. Subterfuge all the way from people campaigning for a yes vote.
Just answer the question without the bullshite.

Actually, I was just trying to answer the question quickly before I left the office.

Full details were:-
Spain 76%
Luxembourg 57%
France 45%
Netherlands 39%

After the failures in the French and Dutch referenda, a group was established to work out which parts of the treaty had been unpopular and changes were made accordingly. As mentioned previously, all the changes which would have established the EU as a state-like structure were removed and it remained a confederacy of nations (addressing the Dutch concerns). References in the treaty to "undistorted competition" were removed to address French concerns.

The fact is that what emerged was a substantially different document. As the referenda in The Netherlands and France were just consultative referenda anyway, if they'd really wanted to go for subterfuge, they could have pushed the original treaty through parliament, ignoring the popular votes. But they didn't, they went back and addressed concerns.

In the meantime, both countries have had general elections. In France, Sarkozy ran on a platform promising to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by parliamentary means (there were plenty of candidates who thought otherwise) and comfortably won.

In the Netherlands, the feeling was that with the removal of the parts of the constitution that created a state-like structure a referendum was no longer necessary. Parties that backed this position achieved over 70% of the vote. Again, there were parties on both the left (Socialists) and right (PVV) that voters could have chosen if they wished to reject this viewpoint.

So fundamentally, the treaty has changed substantially and any reference to the Dutch or French referenda is as valid as one to the fact that more people voted for the EU Constitution as voted against it. i.e. neither has any relevance whatsoever.

[Professor Piehead]

Because each country has a soverign the right to decide how it implements EU treaties.

That is the actual answer, but as that doesnt suit you im sure you will come up with some conspiricy that does suit you...

Because every other country knew that if they had a referendum on it, there was a fair chance of it being defeated. Holland and France had already said no, there were even rumblings of a no in Germany, but that may have been the Frankfurters.

[Professor Piehead]

Actually, I was just trying to answer the question quickly before I left the office.

Full details were:-
Spain 76%
Luxembourg 57%
France 45%
Netherlands 39%

After the failures in the French and Dutch referenda, a group was established to work out which parts of the treaty had been unpopular and changes were made accordingly. As mentioned previously, all the changes which would have established the EU as a state-like structure were removed and it remained a confederacy of nations (addressing the Dutch concerns). References in the treaty to "undistorted competition" were removed to address French concerns.

The fact is that what emerged was a substantially different document. As the referenda in The Netherlands and France were just consultative referenda anyway, if they'd really wanted to go for subterfuge, they could have pushed the original treaty through parliament, ignoring the popular votes. But they didn't, they went back and addressed concerns.

In the meantime, both countries have had general elections. In France, Sarkozy ran on a platform promising to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by parliamentary means (there were plenty of candidates who thought otherwise) and comfortably won.

In the Netherlands, the feeling was that with the removal of the parts of the constitution that created a state-like structure a referendum was no longer necessary. Parties that backed this position achieved over 70% of the vote. Again, there were parties on both the left (Socialists) and right (PVV) that voters could have chosen if they wished to reject this viewpoint.

So fundamentally, the treaty has changed substantially and any reference to the Dutch or French referenda is as valid as one to the fact that more people voted for the EU Constitution as voted against it. i.e. neither has any relevance whatsoever.


Cloud-cuckoo-land.

[Professor Piehead]

Quality



not being a conspiracy person or whatever, but if this is so, then why do we need these guarantees?

http://www.hotink.com/wacky/pitstop/hclaw.gif

[jd26]

Cloud-cuckoo-land.

So that means you can't counter any of my points?

[Professor Piehead]

So that means you can't counter any of my points?

Nope, it means that you think you know more than The President of the Constitutional Convention.

Dream on.

[jd26]

I fundamentally agree with you! And thank you for substantiating my point that centralisation of power is detrimental to any political system. You seem to think that ceding more power to Brussels will somehow overcome Dublin's dominance in Irish politics? Surely you cannot be serious?:rolleyes:

Dublin will unfortunately, always be the major city in Ireland.

The important thing is to define what is the job of the various tiers of government. That is done well in the Lisbon Treaty.

It's not done at all well in Ireland where the local authorities have no real power and the county managers are effectively answerable to the Minister for the Environment.

Decisions should be made at the appropriate level. That isn't necessarily at local level. It's at the most local level that provides a voice to all stakeholders.

[jd26]

Nope, it means that you think you know more than The President of the Constitutional Convention.

Dream on.

Just imagine that you wrote the constitution and then people decided it was no good. So it got given to somebody else with the instruction to rewrite it leaving out the bad parts. Do you think you'd be going round claiming it was substantially your work?

Even if you argued that there were other issues in a General Election, do you not think the recent European elections might have provided an opportunity for the French and Dutch to vote for Eurosceptic parties as a response? They didn't

[Professor Piehead]

Just imagine that you wrote the constitution and then people decided it was no good. So it got given to somebody else with the instruction to rewrite it leaving out the bad parts. Do you think you'd be going round claiming it was substantially your work?

Even if you argued that there were other issues in a General Election, do you not think the recent European elections might have provided an opportunity for the French and Dutch to vote for Eurosceptic parties as a response? They didn't

Well, Eurosceptic parties only got a third of Dutch seats. Not much of a response really.

[jd26]

Seriously JD, the majority of your points don't merit a reply. You are the epitome of a misguided, totally deluded, socialistic fool. You have made your case for why you believe this treaty will enhance Europe, and you have ultimately failed.

I have no problem with a pro European perspective, but you have not once highlighted any negative aspects of Europe, maybe in your little head there aren't any?

It will be people like you who paradoxically, help the no campaign.

Is that really the best you can come up with?

Throw a few insults and pretend my points are so stupid that they don't require response.

Pretty much the same line you spun about Matlock and langerdan69 earlier in the thread.

You've been treated couteously by everyone who has been in discussion with you and I think you should try to do the same.

As for socialist, why do you regard that as an insult? I'm not a socialist. Most people on here are familiar with my views and know that they lie somewhere betwen social democacy and liberalism. That does mean that I think that government has some right to influence society, but what's the alternative, no government involvement in health, education etc.? All that said, this isn't the US where calling someone a socialist is enough to dismiss their opinion. I may as well just call you a PD or FFer as the individual is so clearly at the heart of your political philosophy.

The other irony of calling me socialist is that I was accused of being anti-worker on another forum by someone from the left-leaning No side earlier!

I am aware that there are parts of European policy that don't suit Ireland. However, the whole of European politics is about making workable compromises. If we made all European policy in our favour, why would any other country want to do business with us?

Now, do you want to discuss the contents of the treaty or just throw insults when you run out of ideas?

[Closer80]

Is that really the best you can come up with?

Throw a few insults and pretend my points are so stupid that they don't require response.

Pretty much the same line you spun about Matlock and langerdan69 earlier in the thread.

You've been treated couteously by everyone who has been in discussion with you and I think you should try to do the same.

As for socialist, why do you regard that as an insult? I'm not a socialist. Most people on here are familiar with my views and know that they lie somewhere betwen social democacy and liberalism. That does mean that I think that government has some right to influence society, but what's the alternative, no government involvement in health, education etc.? All that said, this isn't the US where calling someone a socialist is enough to dismiss their opinion. I may as well just call you a PD or FFer as the individual is so clearly at the heart of your political philosophy.

The other irony of calling me socialist is that I was accused of being anti-worker on another forum by someone from the left-leaning No side earlier!

I am aware that there are parts of European policy that don't suit Ireland. However, the whole of European politics is about making workable compromises. If we made all European policy in our favour, why would any other country want to do business with us?

Now, do you want to discuss the contents of the treaty or just throw insults when you run out of ideas?

Rep'd. I'm still voting no, but rep'd :)

[Professor Piehead]

Rep'd. I'm still voting no, but rep'd :)

Yeah, he's a good poster, wrong, but good never the less.

[Matlock]

He meticulously researches, I'll give him that. But I do honestly feel he has a one dimensional outlook, especially on this matter.


Nah, he is just better than you. He knows more on the topic and he can reference his points.

Speaking of which, werent you going to provide some magic link for me today to prove my argument on the Crotty judgment wrong?

[Matlock]

Well, considering you're always wrong, I am pleased you are on his side.:lol!:

It turns out much of the Lisbon treaty can in fact be put through the Dail.

Here is an excerpt from the website listed below:

"Another idea being continually floated is that the Dail should simply ignore the sovereign will of the Irish people and vote it, or parts of it through regardless of the consequences."

http://www.pana.ie/idn/20081129.html

You always seem to fail Matty, why is that?

The Pana site? Thats really the best you can come up with?

What the hell does "another idea being constantly floated" mean? Floated by whom? Floated where?

How is it proposed that the Dail will ignore not only the soverign will of the people but also the Crotty Judgment?

That quote and link prove feck all.

[Matlock]

Just to put the nail in the proverbial coffin: here in an quote from a blatantly pro Lisbon Article in the Irish Times:

"If a referendum cannot be won, the only solution is for the Dáil to find a way to ratify the essential nuts and bolts of the treaty"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0802/1217368880440.html


I like winning debates:smile:
"If a referendum cannot be won, the only solution is for the Dáil to find a way to ratify the essential nuts and bolts of the treaty, while allowing the electorate to vote again on the issues that caused such anxiety in the campaign." - why do you insist on only posting part of sentences?

What he is suggesting is another ( 3rd) vote, if the referendum is not passed this time. Incidently, i dont think that it could be done in that way, but that i guess is a seperate issue.

Not that you would get that from your selective posting :rolleyes:

[starchaser]

AH-HA I am vindicated! Even in an unashamedly pro-Lisobon article, they suggest it is possible for fundamental aspects of the treaty to be passed without a referendum. This is the point that I made that you vehemently denied. Why can't you even admit defeat on this matter? Be a man and just admit it! Or at least be a women who is graceful in defeat.:rolleyes:

You are out of your league debating with me.:-)

3zGl49gwC8U

[Matlock]

AH-HA I am vindicated! Even in an unashamedly pro-Lisobon article, they suggest it is possible for fundamental aspects of the treaty to be passed without a referendum. This is the point that I made that you vehemently denied. Why can't you even admit defeat on this matter? Be a man and just admit it! Or at least be a women who is graceful in defeat.:rolleyes:

You are out of your league debating with me.:-)

Any chance of you answering my questions as opposed to just throwing insults??

[Matlock]

Matty, I have always diligently replied and debunked your questions/arguments throughout this entire thread. You seem to be playing the 'insult card' as a means to defend yourself from failure. This must be a trick you picked up in court, but sadly for you it won't work here; I transcend that kind of nonsense.:p

Any question posed to me will be expertly dismantled: by this stage you know that full well.8-)

Post 276. Go and have a look at it.

I asked you a number of questions and you ignored them all. As usual.

[Matlock]

REPLY TO POST 276

This argument was "floated" by the political elite of this country, and only abonded due to its political infeasibility.

The fact is, the core components of this Lisbon treaty could indeed be passed through the Dail(as outlined in the pro-Lisbon, Irish times article), with only the so called disputed aspects of the legislation being put to the people in a referendum. This is what's known as a legal loophole, which is a flagrant attempt to bypass the rules on sovereignty.

What is actually happening now, is that precisely the same treaty is being put before the people, albeit with a few meaningless guarantees being appended. None of the so called legal guarantees even actually relate to the issues within the treaty.

How pointless is that???

You may enjoy being treated as a fool-I however, don't!:rolleyes:

You keep saying that this treaty is the same as the previous one - as if anyone is disagreeing with you. Nobody in this thread has suggested that the treaty has been amended. I asked you before to post a link to anyone in the government stating that the treaty had been amended and you couldnt. You are talking bollix.

This phrase "the political elite" is meaningless. If you have any basis for your claim ( which you dont) then name names. If you cant or wont, then you are talking bollix.

It isnt "political infeasibility" that made the government hold a referendum rather than ratify it themselves.

Guess what, once again, you are talking bollix!

[Matlock]

But surely putting the same treaty before the population is noting short of insulting to the electorate? Regardless whether you voted yes or no in the first treaty; surely you can comprehend why it is preposterous that the peoples' opinion is being arrogantly dismissed in such an ignoble fashion.

How are people supposed to have confidence in a process with chooses to override their opinions and concerns?

Once again you fail to answer any of my questions.

I dont find the second referendum any more insulting that i found the second divorce referendum.

On that note, im for bed.

[starchaser]

Here's something to ponder...

post Lisbon, the first EU president might be that disfunctional weirdo Gordon Brown after he has been thrown out of office by the UK electorate

http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2009/06/food-for-thought-gordon-brown-as-the-eus-first-full-time-president/

thats enough to make me vote No.

[babybliss]

Here's something to ponder...

post Lisbon, the first EU president might be that disfunctional weirdo Gordon Brown after he has been thrown out of office by the UK electorate

http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2009/06/food-for-thought-gordon-brown-as-the-eus-first-full-time-president/

thats enough to make me vote No.

Was'nt Tony Blair's name being thrown around last week as a potential President?

[Professor Piehead]

Was'nt Tony Blair's name being thrown around last week as a potential President?

Brown, Cowen, Bertie, Tony or even that crook Barroso for the first president, speaks volumes.

[babybliss]

Brown, Cowen, Bertie, Tony or even that crook Barroso for the first president, speaks volumes.

Repped.

[daithi81]

Vote YES, our your kidneys will be robbed and sold to tinkers.

[Closer80]

Brown, Cowen, Bertie, Tony or even that crook Barroso for the first president, speaks volumes.

:|

Brian Cowen, President of Europe...

They just...couldn't...

[babybliss]

:|

Brian Cowen, President of Europe...

They just...couldn't...
http://www.jazzbiscuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/brian_cowen_fat_boy_ slim.jpg

[starchaser]

Was'nt Tony Blair's name being thrown around last week as a potential President?

read the link i posted - makes a lot of sense. Blair wont get in cos of the Iraq War.

Sarko and Merkel arent interested.

Berlusconi - not a chance, with his sex scandals

Bertie Ahern - nah.. financial scandal stuff. Germans dont like the Irish right now anyway cos of our No vote.

That leaves the weirdo - Gordon Brown.

Speaks volumes.

[Closer80]

http://www.jazzbiscuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/brian_cowen_fat_boy_ slim.jpg

I love that, it's such a perfect fit :D

[starchaser]

:|

Brian Cowen, President of Europe...

They just...couldn't...

i wouldnt put it past them to be honest.

vote out FF crooks, only to wake up in the morning, with a hangover, to find out that the FF crooks are now EU President.

[POL]

Don't insult yourself by voting in any more referendums on Europe.
Part of Lisbon is that referendums will no longer be required. End this nonsense of supposing we have a say and stop wasting our time. Its all about Money and the gravy train, I see Robbie Keane is supporting this, I wonder what his opinion is on the legal guarantees? :lol!:

[Cliff Barnes]

Vote YES for better quality French cuisine,Belgian Beer and German Sausage.

Vote NO for backward gombeen men and inward looking scaremongers.

You know it makes sense.