Lisbon II

[rubbish mouth breath]

Don't give Cowen something to brag about. Bring him down. Bring Lisbon down.
are u on politics.ie too?

[Langer Dan]

Don't give Cowen something to brag about. Bring him down. Bring Lisbon down.

This referendum has bugger all to do with the sitting government,

It's this sort of halfbaked thinking that got us in this mess in the first place.
Insularity, scaremongering and party politics have sod all to do with the Lisbon treaty.

Anyone with even an ounce of concern for the future of the Irish economy should be voting yes with bells on, FACT.

[Langer Dan]

:lol!: Is it not obvious from the post?



Memorise the following phrase: "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

It applies to so much of the shit you spout on here.

You are really too dense for words.

I ask again, what has my being out of the country got to do with the Lisbon treaty?

Nothing, it's bad timing sure but you laughing about it is bizarre.

Your mealy mouthed fence sitting doesn't wash by the way, it's quite clear the quasi-socialist, legalise the herb crew vote will be voting no as 'the Germans are trying to take over europe or something'.

Stick to the pointless protests, this is a real issue.

[Closer80]

You are really too dense for words.

I ask again, what has my being out of the country got to do with the Lisbon treaty?

Nothing, it's bad timing sure but you laughing about it is bizarre.

Your mealy mouthed fence sitting doesn't wash by the way, it's quite clear the quasi-socialist, legalise the herb crew vote will be voting no as 'the Germans are trying to take over europe or something'.

Stick to the pointless protests, this is a real issue.

You're just too "dense" to think of any, beyond the same rubbish you use every time.

:D Now it's a "quasi socialist"?

i thought I was a socialist hating socialist/anarchist?

It must suck having to make shit up on the fly because you have no arguments.

Anyway to answer your question:

I find it HILARIOUS that you're even talking about an issue you aren't even going to be here to vote on, because you're too busy pretending to be on vacation.

And your view on this "real issue" comes down to

Vote Yes unless you're a fuckwit, simple as.

What a tool :lol!:

Anyone that thinks ANY political issue comes down to such a base mongo stance is obviously oblivious.

Oh well done on getting "mealy mouthed" in there that's a favourite, isn't it? You use that one alot.

:lol!:

[kh1152]

FF & FG told Europe "we know what the irish want, we just look in to our own hearts" - but they didn't and couldn't.

Remember what Cowen said was his main prority when he became taoiseach? Was it the economy? Jobs? Tackling Fitzy and Fingers in the greasy till? No! It was the feckin' treaty.

Thank you Brian for keeping your eye on the country for us! Do we still trust you? As any Cork person would say - "I do ya!"

As for the Late Late interview - sure a skinny RTE civil servant on 700 grand a year was never going to take on a taoiseach on 350 grand. What was he going to ask "how will you tackle the high wage bill of senior civil servants?"

[diar2me]

Don't give Cowen something to brag about. Bring him down. Bring Lisbon down.

When are morons like you going to seperate that neanderthal Cowen from Lisbon. That's right, have a protest vote :rolleyes: It's attitudes like that that will fuck up this country more than anything that buffoon from Offaly could ever do.

1. They died for our freedom :rolleyes:
2. €1.84 minimum wage after Lisbon:sleeping:
3. Conscription? :confused:

I mean cop yourself on. 1.The Torys 2.Sinn Fein 3.Coir 4.Libertas - 1.conservative muppets 2.murdering fuckers 3.brainwashing religious nuts and 4.outright ridciulous. They really add up to a nice group of anti Lisbon contenders. God I don't know why I am not voting no with such intellectuals as those against it!

[POL]

The simple question is:

Do you want to live in a democracy or do you want to live in a autocracy?

[FutureTaoiseach]

When are morons like you going to seperate that neanderthal Cowen from Lisbon. That's right, have a protest vote :rolleyes: It's attitudes like that that will fuck up this country more than anything that buffoon from Offaly could ever do.

1. They died for our freedom :rolleyes:
2. €1.84 minimum wage after Lisbon:sleeping:
3. Conscription? :confused:

I mean cop yourself on. 1.The Torys 2.Sinn Fein 3.Coir 4.Libertas - 1.conservative muppets 2.murdering fuckers 3.brainwashing religious nuts and 4.outright ridciulous. They really add up to a nice group of anti Lisbon contenders. God I don't know why I am not voting no with such intellectuals as those against it!

Since Spain voted yes unemployment has doubled (http://rankingamerica.files .wordpress.com/2009/05/chart-on-unemployment-dec-08-mar-09-xls.jpg) to 18%, so that would suggest you are wrong if you think a yes vote is some kind of fairy-godmother that will be the answer to all the nation's economic ills. They are in a far worse situation than us despite sucking up to the bureaucrats in Brussels. Our exports (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0625/breaking43.htm) have risen 5% in the year up to April, compared to a 29% drop in Germany (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8091119.stm). Likewise, Irish industrial output (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8197368.stm) rose 9.3% compared to a drop of 0.6% in the Eurozone. The ISEQ is back to where it was last November. Economists are reducing their forecasts for unemployment to 15% rather than 18%. All the signs are that we are beginning to turn the corner.

We don't need to surrender sovereignty that so many have died for over 700 years. McCreevy was right: 95% of Europeans would vote no if given the chance. The French and Dutch voted no. The Irish voted no. The elites in Brussels need to learn to take no for an answer and to respect public opinion. Their budget hasn't been signed off on for 14 years. They should clean up their act before demanding more power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Corcaigh32]

What is Ireland getting (gaining) from voting yes? Answer nothing.

Will we be good Europeans by voting yes? Possibly.
Will Europe like us more for voting yes? Possibly.
Will we get loads of euro to bail us out? Probably not.
Will we still be in a Europe of equals? No we won't.
Do we have to vote yes to stay in Europe? No we don't.
Can the other 26 countries plough on without us if we vote No? Yea but not in the EU.

So I would love for someone to tell me what Ireland gets from voting yes, seriously I would, because at the moment I can't find a thing in it that is better for us.

[dreamweaver]

More democracy. An EU that is flexible in responding to the threat from China and India. A certain future.

[Professor Piehead]

More democracy. An EU that is flexible in responding to the threat from China and India. A certain future.

:lol!:

If the EU applied to join itself, it would fail the demcratic tests for entry.

The Lisbon treaty would not alter that fact.

[doppellanger]

More democracy. An EU that is flexible in responding to the threat from China and India. A certain future.

There is no such thing. Typical lies, threats and bullying...

[elephantman]

That's just showing us that Europe doesn't behave any longer as a democracy. I haven't read the second version of this, but I don't need to. My vote is just NO.
So, some *smart* people decided not to take into account everyone so they just went on with Lisbon but.. uh, oh, they have to ask us in here... big deal. So are they asking us until we say yes? What kind of democracy is that?

They have decided to do it. EU Constitution. If people say "no", they go with plan B, Lisbon. As they know what people will say, they give us a f***, and they are going to make us vote until we give the *right* answer for them...

That's sort of "OK, you can vote, but vote what I tell you to vote" So, at the end, we have to do what they want. Democracy? Where? They have already decided, they give a fu** about *real* europeans, they make the rules, they don't care about millions of people, this is a Europe without Europeans...

Democracy? C'mon, now tell me another joke. No matter how many times they ask, my vote is NO.


In a democracy people are allowed change their minds.

It would be very undemocratic for their not to be a second vote when it was obvious that such a large majority of the population were mis informed and voted No due to this.

You should not vote as your vote will not be based on facts about the treaty but scepticism about europe. When has europe ever given any indication since 73 that they were screw us over or out to get us. Dont vote because you dont like fianna fail or the fact you have to vote again, vote on the treaty and be democratic.

[elephantman]

are u on politics.ie too?

he is also on boards.ie



i think the mods should take a look at futuretaoiseach's account as i believe his only purpose here is to throw out buzz words and is possibly paid by the no campaign.

[POL]

its a race to the bottom lads

[kh1152]

With all these "Groups" For Europe, anyone know which one claims to represent the interests of the 9 to 5 PAYE private sector workers like me?

[kh1152]

I can see a large group of people who are going to use this vote to kick Bishop Cowen up the arse. Now a lot of posters have come on here saying Cowen and Lisbon are seperate matters and they have some merit. However let's remember that when Cowen took over as the boss his number one priority wasn't the economy or jobs or regulate the "bwankers" it was Lisbon.

So I'm starting a new group, being sick of all the "interests for europe" groups. It's the "Election For Lisbon" group.

In exchange for calling a general election I'll vote yes to Lisbon. I know, I know, I know, some of you will say I'm selling out, but politics is the art of the possible after all.

So, anyone with me?

[diar2me]

With all these "Groups" For Europe, anyone know which one claims to represent the interests of the 9 to 5 PAYE private sector workers like me?
I am a 9-5 PAYE private sector employee like you. Why the need to join a group? Just make up your own mind! And by that I mean vote Yes!

There is starting to be a serious trend in no campaigners and no voters, all angry backward loopers. Just look at Sinn Fein, Coir and Libertas, then look at the comments coming from the No-ers on here. I am seeing a serious trend. Everything is a conspiracy bla bla bla :rolleyes:

[Professor Piehead]

With all these "Groups" For Europe, anyone know which one claims to represent the interests of the 9 to 5 PAYE private sector workers like me?

Not the one that has Peter Sutherland among it's members, that's for sure.

[Professor Piehead]

I am a 9-5 PAYE private sector employee like you. Why the need to join a group? Just make up your own mind! And by that I mean vote Yes!

There is starting to be a serious trend in no campaigners and no voters, all angry backward loopers. Just look at Sinn Fein, Coir and Libertas, then look at the comments coming from the No-ers on here. I am seeing a serious trend. Everything is a conspiracy bla bla bla :rolleyes:

Ya, because those have really fucked this country.

[elephantman]

Voting Yes to the treaty is a vote for progression, both for Ireland, the EU and society as a whole. Article 151 refers to the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers.

This basically consolidates Workers' rights to safer conditions of work, it gives Unions far greater swing with employers, improves Social Services and Welfare rights to those out of work, provides women with a firmer base for employment equality, it eases restrictions on non-EU nationals gaining employment within the EU and their subsequent rights etc. etc. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

The three main stumbling blocks to the yes vote are completely irrelevant to the treaty itself (abortion, conscription, loss of commissioner). It's embarrassing that elected officials from Ireland had to get guarantees for issues that are not even addressed within the treaty and can't even be meddled with even if the yes vote goes through!

The council does gain greater power to legislate, but it's worth noting that the council consists entirely of elected cabinet members of each state, at least 15 member states must agree on any legislature and the minimum of 15 states must also represent over 65% of the whole population of the Union and anything passed that affects our own constitution must yet again go to a public referendum.

That seems pretty democratic to me anyway, especially considering that it will mainly concern matters of trivial interest to you or me Ciaran. A friend pointed out to me over the weekend that a No vote isn't necessarily a vote for the left, a vote No fits in quite comfortably with say, the BNP or the UKIP, or Sinn Fein, or that ultra right wing Catholic group that has a lot of people shitting over abortion. It's a vote for regression. Can you honestly tell me that Ireland (as a whole) was a better place before it entered the EU? I mean economically, psychologically, socially? Not a fucking hope.

Today we are backward enough, but if we never joined the EU we'd be ruined. Church and State? Access to the arts, literature, music the internet? Equality for people entering the country? Free exchange of ideas and forums for the exchange? Equality for women? Equality for Homosexuals? Contraception? Fuck, we'd be broke and emigrating on a ridiculous scale, persecuted by a Church caught in the 13th century, wishing we had it as good as our enemies on the continent.

It's a good thing the EU and it's a far cry from the shitstorm our government weaved around us after independence.

Why vote No? Enlighten me.

[POL]

Voting Yes to the treaty is a vote for progression, both for Ireland, the EU and society as a whole. Article 151 refers to the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers.

This basically consolidates Workers' rights to safer conditions of work, it gives Unions far greater swing with employers, improves Social Services and Welfare rights to those out of work, provides women with a firmer base for employment equality, it eases restrictions on non-EU nationals gaining employment within the EU and their subsequent rights etc. etc. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

The three main stumbling blocks to the yes vote are completely irrelevant to the treaty itself (abortion, conscription, loss of commissioner). It's embarrassing that elected officials from Ireland had to get guarantees for issues that are not even addressed within the treaty and can't even be meddled with even if the yes vote goes through!

The council does gain greater power to legislate, but it's worth noting that the council consists entirely of elected cabinet members of each state, at least 15 member states must agree on any legislature and the minimum of 15 states must also represent over 65% of the whole population of the Union and anything passed that affects our own constitution must yet again go to a public referendum.

That seems pretty democratic to me anyway, especially considering that it will mainly concern matters of trivial interest to you or me Ciaran. A friend pointed out to me over the weekend that a No vote isn't necessarily a vote for the left, a vote No fits in quite comfortably with say, the BNP or the UKIP, or Sinn Fein, or that ultra right wing Catholic group that has a lot of people shitting over abortion. It's a vote for regression. Can you honestly tell me that Ireland (as a whole) was a better place before it entered the EU? I mean economically, psychologically, socially? Not a fucking hope.

Today we are backward enough, but if we never joined the EU we'd be ruined. Church and State? Access to the arts, literature, music the internet? Equality for people entering the country? Free exchange of ideas and forums for the exchange? Equality for women? Equality for Homosexuals? Contraception? Fuck, we'd be broke and emigrating on a ridiculous scale, persecuted by a Church caught in the 13th century, wishing we had it as good as our enemies on the continent.

It's a good thing the EU and it's a far cry from the shitstorm our government weaved around us after independence.

Why vote No? Enlighten me.

Thanks to Vincent Browne for this rebuttal, stick Lisbon up yer arse:-

The deceivers and manipulators are out again. ‘Ireland Needs Europe,’ a Fianna Fail poster proclaims. ‘Yes to Jobs, Yes to Europe,’ a Fine Gael one declares. ‘It’s simple, I want a strong voice in Europe,’ another poster proclaims.

Taoiseach Brian Cowen was on radio last Wednesday talking about the other EU member states going ahead without us by inaugurating a ‘‘two-speed Europe’’ if we voted No again. ‘‘It’s in Ireland’s interests to be at the core of Europe,” he said.

They rage about the disinformation on the No side, the posters from the last time about conscription, abortion and corporation tax. Those messages may have been bogus, but so are the messages this time from the Yes side. What has the Lisbon Treaty to do with whether Ireland needs Europe or not? The phony implication is that, if we vote No again, we will be rejecting not just the treaty, but the European Union. What has the Fine Gael poster ‘Yes to Jobs, Yes to Europe’ to do with the Lisbon Treaty? Again, it is a sham message suggesting that, if we vote No, we will be voting against jobs and against Europe. As for the ‘‘strong voice’’ stuff, surely the exercise of a strong voice would be to voice our opposition to a treaty that is bad for Europe and, therefore, bad for Ireland, too?

On the two-speed threat, it is impossible for the EU to change the rules and opt for an inner core to proceed towards further integration, while leaving an outer core in a slow lane. It cannot be done, not without us voting Yes to a treaty approving it - and would we be daft enough to do that? Let me repeat: it cannot be done. The main point of the Lisbon Treaty was to streamline decision-making in the EU at a time when it was becoming so large that the old decision-making mechanisms were too cumbersome to work effectively - or so it was thought.

There was also a concession to concerns about the democratic nature of the EU. National parliaments were given a role on EU legislation, and the European Parliament was to be given more competence. But we now find, after five years of working with the old rules, that the EU works just fine and those earlier apprehensions were misplaced. As for the democratic issue, the main problem remains. The Council of Ministers, the main decision-making body, remains unaccountable, as all inter-governmental bodies are (which seems to be the point of them).

The changes also proposed the end of the circus of the rotating presidency, whereby every member state gets to hold the EU presidency for six months. There are 27 member states. The system means that every state has to wait 13-and-a-half years to get its six months of power.

There are obvious logistical problems with this, and some states are better at hosting the presidency than others. Also, there was the ‘problem’ of member states attempting to run their own agendas while they held the presidency. It seemed sensible enough to end that and have just a single presidency - a single president of the European Council, who would hold the position for five years. Allied to that was the idea of having just one person representing Europe on foreign affairs.

That seemed like a good idea too, better than having three people - a commissioner. the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (that’s the job Javier Solana holds at present). and the foreign minister of the country that holds the presidency. But these ‘sensible’ ideas have dangers. The rotating presidency, while messy, did decentralise power in the EU from Brussels, and that was a good idea. Any subversion of the ‘official’ agenda is also no bad thing. A five-year president, by definition, would have to be the creature of the large powers (certainly Germany and France) and he or she would pursue their agenda. As for a single foreign minister, expressing a single voice on foreign policy on behalf of the EU - no way, Jose.

If we’d had that at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, you can bet your bottom euro w e would all have been embroiled up to our necks in that criminal enterprise - not necessarily militarily, but politically. So where is the case for the treaty? It boils down to us not annoying our partners in the EU at a time when we need their forbearance to ensure the European Central Bank continues to give us credit. Not a great case, is it? Is it really true that the ECB would withhold funds from us as a penalty for voting No again? And doesn’t it say something about the case for voting Yes that it degenerates into blackmail and damn all else? I think there are strong reasons to vote No. Among them are the following.

First: this Lisbon Treaty is a con job, deliberately constructed to deprive electorates in other member states from having a say on the changes it proposes. The treaty is essentially a redraft of the EU constitution that was rejected by the people of France and the Netherlands. It was then reformulated in unintelligible mumbo-jumbo to allow governments in these and other member states to argue that there was no need to have the electorates decide. parliamentary endorsement would suffice. Now the Irish electorate is being asked again to vote for a treaty that is unintelligible. On that basis alone, we should vote No.

Secondly: for the first time, the treaty incorporates into the institutional structure of the European Union the European Defence Agency, whose primary role is to assist the European armaments industry to prosper - in other words, to assist in the refinement of the instruments of killing. We are often told by EU fans how the organisation ensured peace in Europe for 50 years. How, then, can the incorporation of the dogs of war into its institutional structure be justified?

Thirdly: the treaty seeks to centralise power in the EU. We should not have that.

[diar2me]

Ya, because those have really fucked this country.

Sinn Fein??? The political wing of the IRA. They haven't done any damage have they?:confused: Coir are a bunch of conservative neanderthals, their whole campaign is based on in-factual scaremongering:

1. €1.84 minimum wages?
2. People dying for our freedom and now we are "throwing it away"?
3. Conscription and Abortion?

And Libertas are like a bunch of children, Poor ole Ganley throws a hissy fit cause he doesn't get elected as an MEP.

Prof, as corrupt as some of our politicians are, I would not trust any of the above with a childs pocket money, never mind with something as serious as this.

As usual with Sinn Fein and now Coir they appeal to the uninformed section of the public trying to blind them with their bullshit! They are a joke!

[Sound]

Thanks to Vincent Browne for this rebuttal, stick Lisbon up yer arse:-

The deceivers and manipulators are out again. ‘Ireland Needs Europe,’ a Fianna Fail poster proclaims. ‘Yes to Jobs, Yes to Europe,’ a Fine Gael one declares. ‘It’s simple, I want a strong voice in Europe,’ another poster proclaims.

Taoiseach Brian Cowen was on radio last Wednesday talking about the other EU member states going ahead without us by inaugurating a ‘‘two-speed Europe’’ if we voted No again. ‘‘It’s in Ireland’s interests to be at the core of Europe,” he said.

They rage about the disinformation on the No side, the posters from the last time about conscription, abortion and corporation tax. Those messages may have been bogus, but so are the messages this time from the Yes side. What has the Lisbon Treaty to do with whether Ireland needs Europe or not? The phony implication is that, if we vote No again, we will be rejecting not just the treaty, but the European Union. What has the Fine Gael poster ‘Yes to Jobs, Yes to Europe’ to do with the Lisbon Treaty? Again, it is a sham message suggesting that, if we vote No, we will be voting against jobs and against Europe. As for the ‘‘strong voice’’ stuff, surely the exercise of a strong voice would be to voice our opposition to a treaty that is bad for Europe and, therefore, bad for Ireland, too?

On the two-speed threat, it is impossible for the EU to change the rules and opt for an inner core to proceed towards further integration, while leaving an outer core in a slow lane. It cannot be done, not without us voting Yes to a treaty approving it - and would we be daft enough to do that? Let me repeat: it cannot be done. The main point of the Lisbon Treaty was to streamline decision-making in the EU at a time when it was becoming so large that the old decision-making mechanisms were too cumbersome to work effectively - or so it was thought.

There was also a concession to concerns about the democratic nature of the EU. National parliaments were given a role on EU legislation, and the European Parliament was to be given more competence. But we now find, after five years of working with the old rules, that the EU works just fine and those earlier apprehensions were misplaced. As for the democratic issue, the main problem remains. The Council of Ministers, the main decision-making body, remains unaccountable, as all inter-governmental bodies are (which seems to be the point of them).

The changes also proposed the end of the circus of the rotating presidency, whereby every member state gets to hold the EU presidency for six months. There are 27 member states. The system means that every state has to wait 13-and-a-half years to get its six months of power.

There are obvious logistical problems with this, and some states are better at hosting the presidency than others. Also, there was the ‘problem’ of member states attempting to run their own agendas while they held the presidency. It seemed sensible enough to end that and have just a single presidency - a single president of the European Council, who would hold the position for five years. Allied to that was the idea of having just one person representing Europe on foreign affairs.

That seemed like a good idea too, better than having three people - a commissioner. the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (that’s the job Javier Solana holds at present). and the foreign minister of the country that holds the presidency. But these ‘sensible’ ideas have dangers. The rotating presidency, while messy, did decentralise power in the EU from Brussels, and that was a good idea. Any subversion of the ‘official’ agenda is also no bad thing. A five-year president, by definition, would have to be the creature of the large powers (certainly Germany and France) and he or she would pursue their agenda. As for a single foreign minister, expressing a single voice on foreign policy on behalf of the EU - no way, Jose.

If we’d had that at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, you can bet your bottom euro w e would all have been embroiled up to our necks in that criminal enterprise - not necessarily militarily, but politically. So where is the case for the treaty? It boils down to us not annoying our partners in the EU at a time when we need their forbearance to ensure the European Central Bank continues to give us credit. Not a great case, is it? Is it really true that the ECB would withhold funds from us as a penalty for voting No again? And doesn’t it say something about the case for voting Yes that it degenerates into blackmail and damn all else? I think there are strong reasons to vote No. Among them are the following.

First: this Lisbon Treaty is a con job, deliberately constructed to deprive electorates in other member states from having a say on the changes it proposes. The treaty is essentially a redraft of the EU constitution that was rejected by the people of France and the Netherlands. It was then reformulated in unintelligible mumbo-jumbo to allow governments in these and other member states to argue that there was no need to have the electorates decide. parliamentary endorsement would suffice. Now the Irish electorate is being asked again to vote for a treaty that is unintelligible. On that basis alone, we should vote No.

Secondly: for the first time, the treaty incorporates into the institutional structure of the European Union the European Defence Agency, whose primary role is to assist the European armaments industry to prosper - in other words, to assist in the refinement of the instruments of killing. We are often told by EU fans how the organisation ensured peace in Europe for 50 years. How, then, can the incorporation of the dogs of war into its institutional structure be justified?

Thirdly: the treaty seeks to centralise power in the EU. We should not have that.

At last, some intelligent debate on behalf of the No campaign.

[Professor Piehead]

Sinn Fein??? The political wing of the IRA. They haven't done any damage have they?:confused: Coir are a bunch of conservative neanderthals, their whole campaign is based on in-factual scaremongering:

1. €1.84 minimum wages?
2. People dying for our freedom and now we are "throwing it away"?
3. Conscription and Abortion?

And Libertas are like a bunch of children, Poor ole Ganley throws a hissy fit cause he doesn't get elected as an MEP.

Prof, as corrupt as some of our politicians are, I would not trust any of the above with a childs pocket money, never mind with something as serious as this.

As usual with Sinn Fein and now Coir they appeal to the uninformed section of the public trying to blind them with their bullshit! They are a joke!

Point taken.

But I still don't think they've ruined the country as much as FF have.

[The Magnificent Specimen]

Why vote No? Enlighten me.

Because it protects our right to self governance,something that has already been compromised enough through EEC/EC/EU membership.Because we have a constitution and our sovereignty we have the capability to create and enact laws specific to our nation and it's people exclusively.If we use this power to make laws that are undesirable to the national majority then we have only ourselves to blame.That's called responsibility.
By voting yes we are electing to allow millions of other people who live on a separate land mass to create legistlation that we are bound to.That's called outsourcing or shirking reponsibility.It is saying to the world," We are incapable of running our own society,please just tell us what to do so we don't even have to waste our precious time thinking about it.
The EU can make as many concessions as they want to us on Lisbon.There placatory manouevres are irrelevant because of what is truly at stake here is something so much bigger than the curvature of bananas,or the length of working week,or neutrality,or taxes.It is our freedom of choice,our right to self governance and above all our right to say NO and have that will respected.We have said NO,and our verdict has been rubbished.
Go and check the history of every empire there has ever been in Europe.It always leads to misery,slavery and death.What is being put into place here is an empire.

em·pire (mpr)
n.
1.
a. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
b. The territory included in such a unit.

[donpoblok]

Because it protects our right to self governance,something that has already been compromised enough through EEC/EC/EU membership.Because we have a constitution and our sovereignty we have the capability to create and enact laws specific to our nation and it's people exclusively.If we use this power to make laws that are undesirable to the national majority then we have only ourselves to blame.That's called responsibility.
By voting yes we are electing to allow millions of other people who live on a separate land mass to create legistlation that we are bound to.That's called outsourcing or shirking reponsibility.It is saying to the world," We are incapable of running our own society,please just tell us what to do so we don't even have to waste our precious time thinking about it.
The EU can make as many concessions as they want to us on Lisbon.There placatory manouevres are irrelevant because of what is truly at stake here is something so much bigger than the curvature of bananas,or the length of working week,or neutrality,or taxes.It is our freedom of choice,our right to self governance and above all our right to say NO and have that will respected.We have said NO,and our verdict has been rubbished.
Go and check the history of every empire there has ever been in Europe.It always leads to misery,slavery and death.What is being put into place here is an empire.

em·pire (mpr)
n.
1.
a. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
b. The territory included in such a unit.

My feelings exactly. Why on earth do we have to vote Yes when we can devise and enact our own legislation. For example, why do we need EU directives on worker's rights? Are we incapapble of or reluctant to put our own into place? Or, why should we have ANYTHING to do with a european army? A real assertion of our neutrality would be to use a No vote to block the development and progress of this force (as the poster above states, it isn't much use to abstain on votes when this merely facilitates, through a lack of opposition, to the develoment of this army and its strategies)?

[Professor Piehead]

Because it protects our right to self governance,something that has already been compromised enough through EEC/EC/EU membership.Because we have a constitution and our sovereignty we have the capability to create and enact laws specific to our nation and it's people exclusively.If we use this power to make laws that are undesirable to the national majority then we have only ourselves to blame.That's called responsibility.
By voting yes we are electing to allow millions of other people who live on a separate land mass to create legistlation that we are bound to.That's called outsourcing or shirking reponsibility.It is saying to the world," We are incapable of running our own society,please just tell us what to do so we don't even have to waste our precious time thinking about it.
The EU can make as many concessions as they want to us on Lisbon.There placatory manouevres are irrelevant because of what is truly at stake here is something so much bigger than the curvature of bananas,or the length of working week,or neutrality,or taxes.It is our freedom of choice,our right to self governance and above all our right to say NO and have that will respected.We have said NO,and our verdict has been rubbished.
Go and check the history of every empire there has ever been in Europe.It always leads to misery,slavery and death.What is being put into place here is an empire.

em·pire (mpr)
n.
1.
a. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
b. The territory included in such a unit.

'Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires. We have the dimension of Empire but there is a great difference. Empires were usually made with force with a centre imposing diktat, a will on the others. Now what we have is the first non-Imperial empire. We have 27 countries that fully decided to work together and to pool their sovereignty. I believe it is a great construction and we should be proud of it. At least, we in the Commission are proud of it'

José Manuel Barroso.

:lol!:

[The Magnificent Specimen]

'Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires. We have the dimension of Empire but there is a great difference. Empires were usually made with force with a centre imposing diktat, a will on the others. Now what we have is the first non-Imperial empire. We have 27 countries that fully decided to work together and to pool their sovereignty. I believe it is a great construction and we should be proud of it. At least, we in the Commission are proud of it'

José Manuel Barroso.

:lol!:

Jose should fuck off back to Brazil and worry about the state of his birthplace than trying to tell people on the other side of the planet how to run things.

Wiki - In 2005 the German newspaper Die Welt reported that Barroso had spent a week on the yacht of the Greek shipping billionaire Spiro Latsis. It emerged soon afterwards that this had occurred only a month before the Commission approved 10 million euro of Greek state aid for Latsis' shipping company - though the state aid decision had been taken by the previous European Commission before Barroso took up his post.

[Professor Piehead]

Jose should fuck off back to Brazil and worry about the state of his birthplace than trying to tell people on the other side of the planet how to run things.

Wiki - In 2005 the German newspaper Die Welt reported that Barroso had spent a week on the yacht of the Greek shipping billionaire Spiro Latsis. It emerged soon afterwards that this had occurred only a month before the Commission approved 10 million euro of Greek state aid for Latsis' shipping company - though the state aid decision had been taken by the previous European Commission before Barroso took up his post.


Latsis is a trustee of Friends of Europe, an EU-wide lobbying organisation for greater political integration.

Here's an interesting piece...

http://eureferendum.blogspo t.com/2005/04/barroso-sleaze-we-spill-beans.html

[The Magnificent Specimen]

My feelings exactly. Why on earth do we have to vote Yes when we can devise and enact our own legislation. For example, why do we need EU directives on worker's rights? Are we incapapble of or reluctant to put our own into place? Or, why should we have ANYTHING to do with a european army? A real assertion of our neutrality would be to use a No vote to block the development and progress of this force (as the poster above states, it isn't much use to abstain on votes when this merely facilitates, through a lack of opposition, to the develoment of this army and its strategies)?

Legal systems take a long time to develop to a point where a free and just society can exist under them.Our constitution and legal system while far from perfect,is the result of hundreds of years of subordination, rebellion, bloodshed and trial and error.
And now we're supposed to just flush all that away and start afresh with a brand new constitution that presides over 500 million people speaking over 20 different languages not to mention their separate and distinctly different cultures.And this will all go smoothly......... right?Me hole............. there'll be riots and civil wars and before you know it we'll be having the yanks or the U.N. in to sort it out.And we've seen what happens when they try to fix things.
Not being tied to any other nations or empires served us very well in WW2. We sufferred far fewer casualties then than in WW1,and said casualties were under no duress whatsoever to fight other than maybe financial ones.Hopefully their loved ones got a handsome cheque and war-widows pensions.It is estimated they numbered about 5000 - 10,000.WW1 claimed 49,000 Irish lives.

[The Magnificent Specimen]

Latsis is a trustee of Friends of Europe, an EU-wide lobbying organisation for greater political integration.

Here's an interesting piece...

http://eureferendum.blogspo t.com/2005/04/barroso-sleaze-we-spill-beans.html

Disconcerting would be a more accurate description.I have to paste this so the Yes-hedz can reinterpret it into a sweet rosy picture for me.Here is Part 1

Our starting point was the week before the details of Barroso's holiday leaked out. Then – by all accounts – there was a tense meeting of all 25 EU commissioners, under the chairmanship of Barroso, to discuss a "collegiate" response to a series of questions put to the commissioners in the name of Nigel Farage MEP, asking whether they had received any free hospitality.

Under unprecedented security, with all officials excluded, first Barroso and then Mandelson revealed to their colleagues that they had indeed benefited from free hospitality but, at the insistence of the president, all the commissioners agreed that Barroso's holiday and Mandelson's sojourn posed "no conflict of interest". They did not, therefore, have to be declared.

In agreeing that the details could be kept secret, it is possible that all the commissioners did not know the full details of the nature of the Latsis group of companies, comprising shipping, banking, petroleum, engineering and construction interests, and the fact that the group had considerable involvement in EU-funded schemes.

But what excited our interest most was the controversial project involving the design, construction and operation of Athens International Airport, at £1.6 billion the most expensive airport project in Europe. This was constructed by a German company Hochtief, with the aid of nearly £900 million-worth of funding from EU taxpayers and the EU's European Investment Bank (EIB).

It would only have taken a few hours on the internet, though, to have established that Hochtief and the Latsis group are partners in this enterprise and in a series of vast, part-EU funded construction projects in Greece. Yet, at the time the story broke, Françoise le Bail, the commission senior spokesman stated that she was "not aware that the group had benefited from EU funding".

Le Bail may have been speaking the truth, but the fact remains that she could have found out very easily that the Latsis group did (and continues) to benefit from EU funding, and none can be more controversial that the EU funding of the airport at Spata, near Athens, on which Booker reported as long ago as March 2004.

What makes the scheme especially controversial – and a potential minefield for Barroso – is that, for three years, up to the highest level, the EU commission has been refusing to answer a stream of questions from MEPs and journalists on how the contract to build and run the Spata airport was given to Hochtief.

From the start, there were suspicions about how the contract was awarded for, although the German company contributed only €133 million to the €2.28 billion project, it now has the right to manage the airport for 30 years, through a company of which, although it holds only a 45 percent stake (the remaining 55 percent held by the Greek government), Hochtief can nominate a majority of board members and appoint the chief executive.

Exhaustive investigation by Basil Coronakis, editor and owner of the Athens and Brussels-based journal New Europe, showed that the sub-contractors who carried out the actual construction work on the airport did not receive more than €320 million. This is way below the €2.28 billion (£1.6 billion) stated by Hochtief in April 2003 to be its total cost.

Among the questions raised by Coronakis since 2003, and which the commission has persistently failed to answer, are:



1. how, to qualify to administer a contract including over €2 billion of public money, did a private, profit-making company set up by Hochtief come to be designated by the Commission as an "authority" in 1996, apparently at the stroke of a pen, when EU rules make clear that an "authority", responsible for monitoring that the money has been spent correctly, must be state-owned or at least non-profit making? How could a recipient private company itself be that "authority"?

2. how did the EIB come to lend €997 million (£700 million) to the project, at a time when its total cost was still being shown as only €950 million, and when EIB rules allow loans of only 50 percent of a project's infrastructure cost?

3. why in costings accepted by the commission was a sum of €416 million (£290 million), shown as interest, added into the total twice?

4. what happened to the nearly €2 billion discrepancy between the estimated actual construction cost and the final costs claimed?
In March 2003 three MEPs, a German, a Dane and a British Conservative Bashir Kanbhai, asked the commission president Romano Prodi for an itemised cost analysis and sight of the invoices. In April Prodi replied that the European Court of Auditors was investigating the project.

Then, in July 2003 a senior commission official of the directorate-general in charge of the Cohesion Fund (DG-Regio) assured the MEPs that the project was now under investigation by three directorates, the commission's secretary-general and its legal services department. Nothing has subsequently been heard of any outcome to these investigations.

At the end of July 2004, according to a Greek version of the airport authority’s annual report, Prodi attempted to close the "Spata dossier", before handing over to the new commission under Barroso, by calling a top-level meeting of three directors-general. They proposed that the Greek government should pay a penalty of €12.7 million, under two technical headings, although Cohesion Fund rules say that such a penalty must be paid by the "authority", not by a government.

No more has been heard of this proposal. But when, last autumn, a new Greek government was set to investigate the Spata contract, the commission sent a list of every EU-funded Greek project other than Spata, with a hint that, if all these were investigated, the government might have to return to Brussels billions of euros. Nevertheless the contract is now under investigation by Greece's public prosecutor.

A further twist to the tale has been provided by Yannis Terezakis, a commission official working in DG-Tren, the directorate-general dealing with energy and transport. As someone who must travel between Athens and Brussels up to 45 times a year, often with his family, Mr Terezakis became angered by Spata's exorbitant airport charges, which cost him nearly £7000 a year.

In November 2003, writing from home and emphasising that he was doing so as a private citizen, not as an official, Mr Terezakis lodged a dossier on the airport saga with Olaf, the commission's anti-fraud unit. In particular he asked why there was no record of any VAT payments being made on the construction cost, which should have amounted to €270 million.

In April 2004 Mr Terezakis was summoned to Olaf's offices in his official capacity to answer questions. He refused, on the grounds that his was a private complaint and that, as an official, Olaf could order him to keep quiet.

After further exchanges with Dr Bruener, the head of Olaf, who accused him of being a "whistleblower", in September 2004 Mr Terezakis applied to the European Court of Justice for his right under EU law to see key documents on the airport project which the Commission was withholding. This month he was summoned by the commission's administration (DG-Admin) to attend a disciplinary tribunal. Again he has refused to attend, on the grounds that he is not conducting his case as a commission employee who can be silenced for breach of disciplinary rules.

All this shows how, under the Barroso commission, Spata is still a highly sensitive issue – which makes it relevant to question the wisdom or otherwise of Barroso's original refusal to declare as an interest his holiday last August with Spiros Latsis, whom Barroso explains is an old friend. They met 30 years ago as students in Geneva, when they imbibed the virtues of "European Federalism" from that revered guru of federalism, Denis de Rougemont (Latsis is a trustee of Friends of Europe, an EU-wide lobbying organisation for greater political integration).

[The Magnificent Specimen]

Part 2

The Latsis commercial empire has been closely involved with Hochtief in both constructing and managing Spata airport. Through Hellenic Petroleum, one of Greece's largest oil companies – in which another partner is the Russian oil giant LUKoil – it holds the contract for all fuel supplies to the airport, through an EU-funded pipeline built by a Latsis engineering company. Hellenic Petroleum, according to its own accounts, in 2000, paid $612 million to acquire a 34 percent interest in the Athens Airport Fuel Pipeline Company.

A Latsis company also has a 50 percent stake in the huge contract for running most of the airport's "ground-handling" services – almost everything except control of the aircraft themselves.

Latsis's development arm, Lamda, is a partner with Hochtief in a series of vast, part-EU funded motorway projects across Greece, as part of the "Trans European Network". And between 1999 and 2004, during the time when Spata airport was completed, the commission last week revealed that the giant EFG Eurobank Ergasias banking group, controlled by Latsis family interests, held an exclusive contract to handle all EU structural funds coming to Greece, totalling €28 billion.

All this evidence might have given Barroso pause to reflect when he was first asked last February in the name of Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party MEPs in Brussels, whether he had taken any holidays which might raise a possible conflict of interest. We may also question whether his fellow commissioners were fully briefed when this month they endorsed his decision that he had nothing to declare, on the grounds, as Françoise le Bail put it, that, as far as she knew, his host had no "business ties with the EU".

Clearly, there is much more to this whole affair than has yet been revealed by the commission and, on the basis of what we know and have published here, there are no grounds whatsoever by which Barroso could claim that his accepting lavish hospitality from Dr Latsis could not be construed as representing a "conflict of interest".

Yet, the ultimate irony is that, last Wednesday, just after the story broke, in a speech in Geneva, Barroso was reaffirming his belief that the EU should be more "transparent" in its dealings with the public. He was giving the speech as a guest of the Latsis Foundation.

[POL]

The nodding dogs of the yes side are getting badly exposed here

[Cliff Barnes]

FF hits new poll low but Lisbon looks like a 'Yes'



Sunday September 13 2009

THE popularity of the Taoiseach has shown a marginal upswing to 23 per cent in the latest Sunday Independent /Quantum Research poll, carried out on Friday, but Fianna Fail continues to slide and now sits at an historically low 14 per cent.

A number of television and newspaper interviews in recent weeks may have contributed to Mr Cowen's slightly improved position.

Crucial issues facing the Government also offer some comfort, with those polled divided 50/50 on Nama and those who say they would vote 'Yes' in the Lisbon Treaty referendum rising to 63 per cent compared with 54 per cent in April, 55 per cent last January and 39 per cent last December.

The proportion of those polled who say they will vote 'No' amounts to 15 per cent, with 22 per cent in the 'Don't Know' category. The result shows a steady decline in opposition to the treaty.

The figures for the 'No' camp have been falling steadily over the past nine months -- 37 per cent in December last, 30 per cent in January and 24 per cent in April.

On the treaty, one woman said: "Last time I voted 'No' but that's because I thought we could afford to do so. Now I have changed my mind because I know we can't."

And a male respondent remarked: "We have to vote 'Yes' -- it would be suicide if we don't. Who wants to go back to the Ireland of the Fifties?"

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ff-hits-new-poll-low-but-lisbon-looks-like-a-yes-1885305.html

[POL]

And a male respondent remarked: "We have to vote 'Yes' -- it would be suicide if we don't. Who wants to go back to the Ireland of the Fifties?"

:lol!:

[Cliff Barnes]

Martin warns against complacency on Lisbon
Sunday, 13 September 2009 07:24
The Minister for Foreign Affairs has warned against complacency following the results of the latest opinion poll on the Lisbon Treaty.

Micheál Martin welcomed the results of the Red C poll in today's Sunday Business Post but said the Yes campaign must not become complacent.

The poll shows that 52% of those surveyed said they will vote for the Treaty, with 25% saying no and 23% undecided.


AdvertisementWith just under three weeks to polling day, anti-Lisbon groups are stepping up their campaigns.

Libertas founder Declan Ganley is due to hold a press conference in Dublin this morning to outline why he is getting involved again.

Following his failure to get elected as an MEP during the European elections in June, Mr Ganley had said he would not get involved in any second referendum campaign.

Meanwhile, the Red C poll also shows support for Fianna Fáil has increased by three points to 24% since the last Red C poll at the end of May. Fine Gael is down one to 33%; Labour gains one at 19%, while the Greens are up one to 5%.

Sinn Féin drop two points to 8% and Independents and others are also down two to 11%.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0913/eulisbon.html

[corcadorca]

Because it protects our right to self governance,something that has already been compromised enough through EEC/EC/EU membership.Because we have a constitution and our sovereignty we have the capability to create and enact laws specific to our nation and it's people exclusively.If we use this power to make laws that are undesirable to the national majority then we have only ourselves to blame.That's called responsibility.
By voting yes we are electing to allow millions of other people who live on a separate land mass to create legistlation that we are bound to.That's called outsourcing or shirking reponsibility.It is saying to the world," We are incapable of running our own society,please just tell us what to do so we don't even have to waste our precious time thinking about it. The EU can make as many concessions as they want to us on Lisbon.There placatory manouevres are irrelevant because of what is truly at stake here is something so much bigger than the curvature of bananas,or the length of working week,or neutrality,or taxes.It is our freedom of choice,our right to self governance and above all our right to say NO and have that will respected.We have said NO,and our verdict has been rubbished.
Go and check the history of every empire there has ever been in Europe.It always leads to misery,slavery and death.What is being put into place here is an empire.

em·pire (mpr)
n.
1.
a. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
b. The territory included in such a unit.


http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegroundupload s/pope_350.jpg


http://www.meadowbrookparis h.ie/images/Misc/dmartin.jpg


http://attendingtheworld.fi les.wordpress.com/2006/10/puppeteer.jpg

Selfgovernance sounds like a good idea, I hope we achieve it some day

[Andreas]

God`s wish is liberty, is freedom.
He wants free people all over europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rY0FQH2aQU&feature=player_embed ded

[Cliff Barnes]

Kraftwerk say Vote Yes

[Professor Piehead]

Adolf would have voted yes....

http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/hitler-480.jpg

Long live the fourth reich.

[Cliff Barnes]

Bridgette Bardot says Oui :-)

[vanla sighs]

Because the rules currently in place to run the EU are really strained now that there are 27 members.

Some reform is necessary.

If this fails, the need to reform won't go away.

Hmmmm, just a crazy idea but might it not have been a better idea to make sure new arrangements were in place before allowing all those "new" countries to join the EU? :rolleyes: If I can see that then why the f*ck couldn't the EU see that........

[jehearhaar]

Hmmmm, just a crazy idea but might it not have been a better idea to make sure new arrangements were in place before allowing all those "new" countries to join the EU? :rolleyes: If I can see that then why the f*ck couldn't the EU see that........

Poor jd26. Cannot see the wood for the trees - that's the way they like it.

Vanla - sssshhhh.... don't rattle the cage and wake a sleeping nation. :rolleyes:

I'm off to Canada.

[Professor Piehead]

Hmmmm, just a crazy idea but might it not have been a better idea to make sure new arrangements were in place before allowing all those "new" countries to join the EU? :rolleyes: If I can see that then why the f*ck couldn't the EU see that........

Do you really expect an organisation that has policies like the disgusting CAP and CFP to employ any form of logic. As long as those at the top can feed at the trough and keep their pals in well paid jobs, common sense need never come into it.

[CHANCE]

Dermot ahern getting fierce wound up on RTE radio one there.

[Andreas]

“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable … The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007

[Professor Piehead]

YaY.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8281098.stm

[Mossybanks]

Well if the Czechs delay ratification, and then the Brits vote against it, that is all the more reason for us to vote "YES" on Friday.

Even if you are against the eventual ratification of the treaty, vote "YES" and leave the Brits be the ones to block it.

Why should we do their dirty work?


If they are so much against it, let them block it themselves. We are a sovereign independent state: let the Czechs and the Brits holld up the treaty.

The Brits were always on the slow track anyway, so we can move on with the other 25 and let the Brits and the Czechs take the flak.

Vote YES on friday, and declare your independence from the Eurosceptics and little Englander bigots in the UK.

Now you really have nothing to lose.

[Mossybanks]

“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable … The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007



“This treaty does not seek to infringe on the autonomy of individual nations to legislate for their own people. But it does enhance a vision, one of peaceful co-habitation of this planet in which the health, wealth and wellbeing of people are paramount.”

-The Sunday Tribune Editorial Sunday 27th September 2009.

[POL]

-‘‘It seems that only in the European Union, Ireland and Zimbabwe you are forced to vote twice,” O’Leary said on a visit to Brussels last week. ‘‘The vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do.”

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/...story36862.asp



"I think the Lisbon Treaty is dead. The Lisbon Treaty to be ratified requires 27 Member States to ratify it. The Irish people have now decided in a Referendum that they do not wish to have it ratified therefore Ireland cannot ratify the Lisbon Treaty and therefore the Lisbon Treaty falls" - Eamon Gilmore the day after the June 2008 referendum on RTE SixOne News, 13/6/08
RTÉ.ie Media Player: Lisbon result poses question for EU


“I don't think there's any question of this Treaty being put a second time to the people” - Eamon Gilmore, RTE SixOne News on 13/6/08 RTÉ.ie Media Player: Lisbon result poses question for EU


“People have made a decision. The Lisbon Treaty cannot now be ratified. And I think that the decision that has been made by the Irish people has got to be respected by everybody. Got to be respected by the Taoiseach, by the Government, by the other Member States, by the political leadership in Brussels” - Eamon Gilmore (RTE SixOne News on 13/6/08)
RTÉ.ie Media Player: Lisbon result poses question for EU


''Ireland has had one serious attempt at committing suicide on this issue… "Happily, we survived... and we are back for another go. If we do it again, we probable deserve everything bad that ever happens to us." - Scaremongering from Fine Gael’s director of organisation, Frank Flannery on the 22nd of July 2009 -

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/rejec...ert-97112.html



'..impossible for members of the public to read/understand the Lisbon Treaty' - EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy 2008
RTÉ News: McCreevy stands by Lisbon comments


"The only way to read the Lisbon Treaty is the way I read it". - Dick Roche, Kenny Show RTE Radio One 17/6/09


EU Affairs Minister Dick Roche TD states that there will only be one referendum held in Ireland on the provisions of the EU Reform Treaty.

http://www.dickroche.com/article.php...faaa61 31192337



" On the other hand, I think all of the politicians of Europe would have known quite well that if a similar question had been put to their electorate in a referendum the answer in 95 per cent of countries would have been 'No' as well." - EU's Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy admits on June 26th 2009 that if it was put to other nations to vote on Lisbon, it would be rejected.
Most Europeans anti-Lisbon - McCreevy - The Irish Times - Fri, Jun 26, 2009


''Nothing in the declarations materially affects the treaty text. If there was a material difference, then the Treaty would have to be re-ratified in all the other member states”. - Patrick Smyth, Brussels Correspondent for the Irish Times, a strong advocate of the Lisbon Treaty, told an Open Europe meeting on the 18th of June. Open Europe - independent think tank calling for radical reform of the EU


'We are not asking anybody to vote yes or no'. - Campaign Director Micheál Martin, launching DFA publications on the 08/07/09
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking37.htm


''... one view is that the way will have been opened for an end to our membership of the European Union, probably resulting in membership of the European Economic Area, to which Norway and Iceland belong" - Some scaremongering from Brendan Halligan, Campaign Co-ordinator Director of Ireland for Europe and former MEP from 1983/1984 09/07/2009
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...250386451.html



“Our partners understand, I believe, that we cannot and will not put the same package to our people later this year.” - Dick Roche Lisbon poll to be held in autumn, says Roche - The Irish Times - Tue, May 05, 2009


"We will not be asking people to vote on the same proposition." - Micheál Martin
Opting out of EU defence policy 'on the table' - The Irish Times - Fri, Jan 09, 2009


But what is happening?? ... it's exactly the same rejected treaty being put before us again.


"...this referendum is unique to Ireland and to the Irish people, and that’s a constitutional requirement,” he said. “And my script writer has kindly said that I should not see this as a negative and potentially embarrassing process. I have to say I’m on the record on this as saying it is a negative and embarrassing process. I don’t actually agree with it." - Minister Brian Lenihan takes issue with his script, while speaking to Irish lawyers at a conference in Budapest before Lisbon 1.


"The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'Constitution'." - Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007.
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...ty-742940.html
Quotes Lisbon Treaty News Updates


Saving the best until last :

"The Treaty is fundamental to what Fianna Fáil believes, how it thinks and where it is going as a party" - Taoiseach Brian Cowen launches the Fianna Fáil campaign for a Yes vote RTÉ News: Quote of The Day
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/...story33239.asp

____________________ ____________________ __________ ____________________ ____________________ __________ __________

European Quotes & Others :

"Whilst the original Constitutional Treaty was technical, and correct, people didn’t read the Lisbon Treaty, they didn’t understand the first word about it. No real debate about the Lisbon Treaty could happen. This was a deliberate decision of the European Council".
- Karel du Gucht, Incoming Development Commissioner

http://conservativehome.blo gs.com/ce...-decision.html


"I believe the first victim of an eventual no would be the Irish. They have benefitted more than others," – French Politician, Bernard Kouchner

http://euobserver.com/9/26299/?rk=1

''..they're not happy because maybe nobody told them that Europe is confronting the rest of the world and that to have advantages for themselves, for the Irish...well, Europe has to develop, has to go in the direction of the Treaty of Lisbon," - French Politician, Bernard Kouchner

http://euobserver.com/9/26299/?rk=1


"It would be very, very, very troubling...that we could not count on the Irish, who themselves have counted a lot on Europe's money, - French Politician, Bernard Kouchner

http://euobserver.com/9/26299/?rk=1


"Ireland will be in the ''dog house'' if it says no for a second time.'' - Viscount Etienne Davignon, chairman of the Bilderberg group issuing a nice little veiled threat to the Irish. Ireland set for Lisbon 'dog house'


''Trust us. You have trusted in the past and not done so badly so why not trust in the future? We are not going to do you any harm. Trust us." - Viscount Etienne Davignon, chairman of the Bilderberg group.
Ireland set for Lisbon 'dog house'


"The EU must organise itself to prevent a minority of voters in one or two countries - big or small - from stopping a project of agreement approved by their own government and 26 others." - Charles-Ferdinand Nothomb, President European Movement (Cox's crowd), in reply to an article explaining the Irish No vote. (Document is on page 4 of this thread)

[POL]

"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments... There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France.''
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at meeting of senior MEPs, 14 November 2007. Quotes Lisbon Treaty News Updates
http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies...he_green_ light


"The Irish will have to vote again" - Emperor Sarkozy July 2008
[http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking39.html


“Mrs Merkel and I will do everything we can to help the Irish make the choice for Lisbon … if it is of use, I would even be ready to travel to Ireland to support them”- (French President Nicolas Sarkozy speaking at a News Conference in Paris on 11th June 2009)
Sarkozy pledges support for Irish referendum - The Irish Times - Thu, Jun 11, 2009


" ... France voted No in 2005. I said before the elections that I would not hold a Referendum in France ... I profoundly believe that institutional issues - the rules on the functioning of Europe, are something for members of parliament rather than for Referenda" - (President Sarkozy speaking at the European Parliament on 10th July 2008 following the prior No vote in Ireland on 12th June 2008



"They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not Constitutional, that was the sort of perception... Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new." - Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007 Quotes Lisbon Treaty News Updates
http://euobserver.com/9/24481/?rk=1


''The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable...The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.'' - Karel De Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flanders Info, 23 June 2007 http://www.brusselsjournal. com/node/2759
http://www.erc2.org/37.0.html?&L=3%20



“ The EU Constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe." - Hans Martin Bury, Former German Minister for European Affairs. Source : Die Welt, 25-2-2005 http://www.free-europe.org/english/2...eu-federation/
http://www.democracymovemen t.org.uk/...on_quotes.html



" It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. " - Former German President Roman Herzog and former president of the German Constitutional Court, article on the EU Constitution, Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007 Quotes Lisbon Treaty News Updates
http://www.brusselsjournal. com/node/2759



"The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State."- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004 Quotes Lisbon Treaty News Updates
http://www.pana.ie/idn/100907.html
http://www.wiseupjournal.co m/?p=860


"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."- V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007
http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies...he_green_ light
Quotes Lisbon Treaty News Updates


''When men and women with sweeping ambitions for Europe decide to make use of this treaty, they will be able to rekindle from the ashes of today the flame of a United Europe.'' - The writer, a former French President (1974-81), was president of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which drafted a new constitution, 2002-03

http://www.independent.co.u k/opinion...on-398286.html


"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it" - Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention that drew up the EU Constitution, 21 February 2007.
Quotes Lisbon Treaty News Updates
http://www.brusselswatch.or g/constitution.htm



"If it looks like a constitution, if it smells like a constitution, if it reads like a constitution, so far as I'm concerned it's a constitution." - Austin Mitchell, Labour MP for Great Grimsby BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | In quotes: EU treaty debate



"I think we're too defensive in Europe, in the Commission, amongst the member states - we are a bit defeatist. We seem to think that if people are asking questions about Europe, it's because they are hostile - it may be just because they're asking questions." - European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson RTÉ News: Quote of The Day


"Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc, but a political entity." Commission President Romano Pradi, European Parliament, 13 february 2001. Quotes Lisbon Treaty News Updates
http://www.clubi.ie/cind/quotat.html



"The protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon" - Gordon Brown

Morre prove that the guarantees mean nothing


In a speech in Poland this week to Polish Ambassadors, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said "Without the Lisbon Treaty... we cannot speak about the future of Europe, about European defence, about the enlargement of Europe, about perfecting Europe. With 27 countries, it's not possible." He continues: "With this we will be the most politically significant entity in the world with a responsibility for our destiny, which goes well beyond our borders." He says, "There are no more issues anymore which can be decided in one country, they must all be considered in the Europe of 27." He said, "We must bear in mind, the necessity of supporting our diplomatic efforts with a common defence, a European defence, as we showed in Georgia and Kosovo. Without this European defence, our diplomacy lacks strength. One way of strengthening this, making it less fragmented - and which will be one of the tasks of your Presidency - is to build a European diplomacy, through the European external action service, provided for in the Lisbon Treaty. The external action will be a European diplomacy which will not only be a diplomacy of bureaucrats. It is absolutely necessary that our diplomacies meet each other, unite and take their rightful place in this external action service, alongside the Commission." He concludes saying, "In Europe, I have learned something - I should say that with President Sarkozy it is quite easy to see - you have to be determined, solid, a little bit demanding, so as not to get lost in the complexities of sometimes interminable meetings." - French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner 20th of July 2009

https://pastel.diplomatie.go uv.fr/ed...=9&submit.y=10



''In some countries they rig votes, in the European Union they repeat votes to get the desired result.After Ireland last year rejected the EU's Lisbon Treaty -- itself a rehashed carbon-copy of the EU Constitution that Dutch and French voters rebuffed in 2005 -- the Irish are being asked to reconsider. There will be another referendum in early October, Prime Minister Brian Cowen said Wednesday, and this time the Irish are expected to get it right. In Europe, they don't take "no" for an answer.'' - The Wall Street Journal, June 26th 2009 The EU's Latest Power Grab - WSJ.com

[jd26]

At least we know who Andreas really is now.

[Cliff Barnes]

At least we know who Andreas really is now.

I was convinced it was piehead but there you go.

[Mossybanks]

-‘‘It seems that only in the European Union, Ireland and Zimbabwe you are forced to vote twice,” O’Leary said on a visit to Brussels last week. ‘

Hello Andreas/Daniele/Vaclav/Stanislaus/Pierre/Luigi/Paolo/Cecil/Hans/Sebastian/Jose......



(Poor Polly)


:lol:

[POL]

Hello Andreas/Daniele/Vaclav/Stanislaus/Pierre/Luigi/Paolo/Cecil/Hans/Sebastian/Jose......



(Poor Polly)


:lol:Withdraw that allegation, I post under one user name only

[Mossybanks]

Withdraw that allegation, I post under one user name only

Poor Andreas.


:lol:

[Cliff Barnes]

Hello Andreas/Daniele/Vaclav/Stanislaus/Pierre/Luigi/Paolo/Cecil/Hans/Sebastian/Jose......



(Poor Polly)


:lol:

Sinn Coir ?

Coir Fein ?

LIEbertas ?

Either way just very wrong and badly exposed.

[POL]

Poor Andreas.


:lol:

Is this what you are reduced to? spreading lies about me?

[Cliff Barnes]

is this what you are reduced to? Spreading lies about me?

Pot Kettle & Black alert level 3

[Cos]

I don't know how u can be so jovial, i for one am deeply disapointed in the people of Ireland for allowing themselves to be bullied and blackmailed into a second go. Also i am very depresed as to what might come next, a pre emptive war against Iran?, urged on by the UN and instigated by the Europeon Army. : (

[rebelicecreamman]

I don't know how u can be so jovial, i for one am deeply disapointed in the people of Ireland for allowing themselves to be bullied and blackmailed into a second go. Also i am very depresed as to what might come next, a pre emptive war against Iran?, urged on by the UN and instigated by the Europeon Army. : (

Are you Jim Corr?

[an liathroid beag]

Are you Jim Corr?

No, he sounds like Sinn Fein----experts on military matters--those with the tank on the posters--and not very happy with the overwhelming democratic choice of the Irish people.

[hemlock666]

So I take it the numerous quotes are being ignored?

[an liathroid beag]

So I take it the numerous quotes are being ignored?

Assembling all those quotes took a lot of time and resources--obviously done by people/groups with an anti EU agenda. I dont know the context of most of the quotes--but I do know that the quote attributed to V Destaing (French president) is taken completely out of context. If you read the entire statement from Le Monde it is to the effect, that if the treaty is unintelligbe and is drafted in such a way to fool people into accepting the unacceptable, that they would reject it.

[Cos]

Lets just back tfu. No one in there right mind would be anti Europe. It's just the way it's been done. Democratic voice, don't make me laugh. It was ignored when they didn't like our democratic decision. Time will tell. So 800 years of struggle warfar bloodshed and all, for Independence, to give it away to an organisation almost identicle to the Glory years of Hitler. Wake up sheeple.
Tony Blair for European President?, One of the most anti democats out there.

[Mossybanks]

Lets just back tfu. No one in there right mind would be anti Europe. It's just the way it's been done. Democratic voice, don't make me laugh. It was ignored when they didn't like our democratic decision. Time will tell. So 800 years of struggle warfar bloodshed and all, for Independence, to give it away to an organisation almost identicle to the Glory years of Hitler. Wake up sheeple.
Tony Blair for European President?, One of the most anti democats out there.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Professor Piehead]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8307267.stm

:lol!:

[diar2me]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8307267.stm

:lol!:

Is this from the same news organisation that spread 11 seperate lies about the Great Michael O Leary and Ryanair resulting in 1.1 million free flights from Ryanair - 100,000 for every lie in the Panorama Documentary? Come on now Prof!

[Andreas]

All dictators would have voted yes, so Berlusconi ...

[hemlock666]

Assembling all those quotes took a lot of time and resources--obviously done by people/groups with an anti EU agenda. I dont know the context of most of the quotes--but I do know that the quote attributed to V Destaing (French president) is taken completely out of context. If you read the entire statement from Le Monde it is to the effect, that if the treaty is unintelligbe and is drafted in such a way to fool people into accepting the unacceptable, that they would reject it.

So because they dont reflect your particular viewpoint then they are of no relevance?