Reasons to Vote No to Lisbon.

R0C0 · 22-05-2008 6:02pm #1

Reasons to Vote No to Lisbon.

1 The Lisbon Treaty initiated in November 2007 is almost identical
to the EU Constitution agreed upon by EU leaders in 2004. It is 95% the same.
The Constitution from 2004 was rejected democratically in referenda by the French and the Dutch.
This did not sit well in brussels so now the EU have returned with the same document repackaged, but this time it will not be
put to referendum anywhere in Europe, bar Ireland, where our court systems demand it. EU leaders openly admit
that they have taken the rejected EU constitution and renamed and repackaged it in an unreadable format.
There are 8500 more words in the new treaty, but 62 less pages.

2 Article 46 of the Lisbon Treaty states: “The Union shall have a legal personality.”
It makes the EU a legal entity in its own right. This means in the international arena the EU will act as a State..
not as a Union of States, it merely keeps the same name, the EU, to avoid controversy. Even our own Minister for Foreign
Affairs Dermot Ahern admits "The Treaty is not to make the E.U more effective, and make it easier for countries to do business. It is primarily designed to give the E.U Legal Authority to make International Agreements on behalf of all member states."

3 Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental
conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification. It's self amending and perpetually binding. If Lisbon passes,
there will be no need for future referenda in Ireland. We will do as we are told. EU leaders can pass just about any law they like and we may have no option but to accept.

4 Our Health System. You think its bad now? Lisbon will open the door to a huge influx of Privatisation within the Health
System (Article 188 and 188b), all other Countries who've allowed their Health systems to go this route have suffered for it.
Look at Britain, Australia, Canada, the more Health is privatised the more Insurance Premiums rise, Care Quality falls, and
public waiting lists get longer. Lisbon will remove the power to veto proposals for international trade in health, education
and social services that the EU makes on our behalf at the WTO. Article 188 would fast track all attempts at privatising
our health sytem, I am referring to the "progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct
investment" As it stands, we have some say (however minute) in how our Health service is run, if Lisbon goes through we have
no say. So as bad and all as our Health System is, through Lisbon, it has the potential to get a whole lot worse.

5 The Treaty completely and utterly fails to deal with Climate Change, despite what the Government propaganda campaign would
have you believe. It adds a total of SIX words on climate change to existing treaties, see Article 174.1. The Treaty included
the six words at the end of the existing provision "promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or
worldwide environmental problems"... and the six magical words to end Global Warming.. "and in particular combating climate
change”. There is no substance to this addition, it is purely symobolic, and it certainly does not grant the EU power to do
anything it could not currently do under existing provisions.

6 Ireland will be legally bound to promote and facilitate the growth of the Nuclear Power Industry. Protocol 12 of the Lisbon Treaty links the provisions of the EURATOM Treaty to Lisbon and applies the financial provisions of the Union to EURATOM, binding EU member states to “create the conditions necessary for the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries” while “facilitating investment to develop nuclear energy”. Whether or not the Irish people support nuclear power will be irrelevant, Ireland will support it.

7 Under Lisbon, Ireland would lose over 60 national vetoes and will give the EU power to make laws binding on us in areas
such as public services, civil and criminal law, immigration, justice and policing, energy, sport, culture, space, public
health and the EU budget. Lisbon would also take away from us the right to decide who the Irish Commissioner is. We'd lose
our right to propose an Irish name and insist on its acceptance by the other Member States. Irelands voting influence will drop from 2% to 0.8%.Is weakening Irelands voice to such an extent really in the best interest of the Irish people?

8 Article 28(c) mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Ireland will be obliged to increase our financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU. At a time when our Health System is falling apart and our public transport and education is in a shambles, is it really necessary for (neutral) Ireland to be increasing our military spending?

9 Raising the Irish corporate tax. Currently Ireland has a very low corporate tax when compared with the rest of Europe, Irelands is 12.5%, compare that to Britains 28% and Germanys 30%. Article 2.79 of the Lisbon Treaty would insert a six-word amendment -"and to avoid distorton of competition" - into the Article of the existing European Treaties dealing with harmonising taxes - Article 113. Irelands low rate of corporate tax would be seen as a serious distortion, and as such would most probably be raised.

10 Article 9 of the Treaty states the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution. This means that rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined, and could be determined by future laws which we'll have no say over.

11 Under Lisbon, Ireland could not have an independent foreign policy that was in conflict with the EU majority. This means that , even if a big majority of the Irish people vehemently opposed a particular EU military action outside of Europe, the Irish government would be obliged to support that action internationally

12 The much touted Charter of Fundamental rights gives us nothing that we already don't have, the Charter does not confer any new rights on the citizens of the European Union. The rights and principles mentioned are all derived from the Treaties and existing EU legislation, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other international documents. What the Yes campaigners will point out is that it now becomes legally binding in the European Court of Justice. What they fail to mention is that this Charter is already being used as a point of reference in the European Court of Justice, take the Laval case for example. Whats more, is that rulings from cases such as the Laval case, show us that this Charter will give precedence to Business' rights over workers rights. That should be very concerning to everybody. If you haven't read about the Laval case, I suggest you do.

Here's what some of the people who drafted the EU Constitution had to say on the Treaty of Lisbon:

"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 a new text [the Lisbon Treaty], but will be hidden and disguised in some way...What was [already] difficult to understand will become utterly incomprehensible, but the substance has been retained." - The drafter of the European Constitution Giscard D'Estaing

"There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France" - French president Nicholas Sarkozy

“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception" - Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution

“The substance of the [rejected European] constitution is preserved.That is a fact.”
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel

“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 Prodi, European Parliament

Personally, I find their arrogance astounding. The fact remains though, we are but weeks away from the referendum, and a huge percentage of Irish people still have no idea what this treaty is about. The governments mis-information campaign seems to be working a treat. I propose that you Vote No to this Treaty, that you don't let your opinion be led without knowing, to adopt proposals that these politicians DARE NOT present to you directly. READ THE TREATY. Know what it involves. Then decide. I find it highly improbable that any Irish person who reads and understands this document could see it as beneficial to Ireland.

Monotype · 22-05-2008 9:39pm

OK, when I read this it seems friendly and all:

Under Article 6.

2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Sounds ok?
Here it is laid out. Human rights. This sounds like great stuff!
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/005.htm

Now, take a look at this:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/114.htm

A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that law.

Excuse me? Death penalty? So does imminent threat of war include protesters?
Why include this if no one uses the death penalty? A nice, clear treaty would be nice. Not references to treaties with footnotes and ammendments!!!!!
Why do I keep digging up more and more shady stuff the more I look into it?

Here's the one that really worries me, as posted in the other thread. (Well nearly as much as point 3 above)

Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union
for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute
to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together
establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common
security and defence policy.
Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military
capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development,
research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European
Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote
measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where
appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and
technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European
capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the
improvement of military capabilities.

Scofflaw · 23-05-2008 3:02am

R0C0 wrote: »

Reasons to Vote No to Lisbon.

1 The Lisbon Treaty initiated in November 2007 is almost identical
to the EU Constitution agreed upon by EU leaders in 2004. It is 95% the same. The Constitution from 2004 was rejected democratically in referenda by the French and the Dutch. This did not sit well in brussels so now the EU have returned with the same document repackaged, but this time it will not be put to referendum anywhere in Europe, bar Ireland, where our court systems demand it. EU leaders openly admit that they have taken the rejected EU constitution and renamed and repackaged it in an unreadable format. There are 8500 more words in the new treaty, but 62 less pages.

A contract that is "95% the same" is not the same contract, depending on what terms have been changed.

R0C0 wrote: »

2 Article 46 of the Lisbon Treaty states: “The Union shall have a legal personality.”
It makes the EU a legal entity in its own right. This means in the international arena the EU will act as a State..not as a Union of States, it merely keeps the same name, the EU, to avoid controversy. Even our own Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern admits "The Treaty is not to make the E.U more effective, and make it easier for countries to do business. It is primarily designed to give the E.U Legal Authority to make International Agreements on behalf of all member states."

Which currently the EC has. Legal personality does indeed make it possible for the EU to sign legal agreements - but to pretend that this ability is somehow different simply because the EU will have it rather than the EC is nonsense. The EC is being abolished, and the legal personality has to go somewhere, otherwise any legal agreement signed by the EC will be void.

R0C0 wrote: »

3 Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental
conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification. It's self amending and perpetually binding. If Lisbon passes, there will be no need for future referenda in Ireland. We will do as we are told. EU leaders can pass just about any law they like and we may have no option but to accept.

I don't think it could be plainer that you're arguing from ignorance, since you're simply saying that there's no national ratification when the requirement for national ratification is explicitly stated in the Treaty. Read the Treaty:

Article 48.4 Lisbon (TEU) wrote:

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

R0C0 wrote: »

4 Our Health System. You think its bad now? Lisbon will open the door to a huge influx of Privatisation within the Health
System (Article 188 and 188b), all other Countries who've allowed their Health systems to go this route have suffered for it.
Look at Britain, Australia, Canada, the more Health is privatised the more Insurance Premiums rise, Care Quality falls, and public waiting lists get longer. Lisbon will remove the power to veto proposals for international trade in health, education and social services that the EU makes on our behalf at the WTO. Article 188 would fast track all attempts at privatising our health sytem, I am referring to the "progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment" As it stands, we have some say (however minute) in how our Health service is run, if Lisbon goes through we have no say. So as bad and all as our Health System is, through Lisbon, it has the potential to get a whole lot worse.

Article 188 doesn't cover "services of general economic interest" (aka public services), which are covered separately. The UK, France, Germany, will not be giving up their free health services - and the idea that any of those countries would negotiate a treaty that did so is ridiculous with even the smallest effort of thought.

R0C0 wrote: »

5 The Treaty completely and utterly fails to deal with Climate Change, despite what the Government propaganda campaign would have you believe. It adds a total of SIX words on climate change to existing treaties, see Article 174.1. The Treaty included the six words at the end of the existing provision "promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems"... and the six magical words to end Global Warming.. "and in particular combating climate change”. There is no substance to this addition, it is purely symobolic, and it certainly does not grant the EU power to do anything it could not currently do under existing provisions.

Since you have argued throughout that quite minor commitments in the Treaty have the legal power to abolish our health service, tax rates, neutrality, etc, it's absolutely bizarre to argue that a similar commitment to do something about climate change is somehow 'purely symbolic'.

Making combating climate change a major goal of the EU means that all member states are obliged to work towards that goal. It is an enormous, binding, and absolutely necessary commitment.

R0C0 wrote: »

6 Ireland will be legally bound to promote and facilitate the growth of the Nuclear Power Industry. Protocol 12 of the Lisbon Treaty links the provisions of the EURATOM Treaty to Lisbon and applies the financial provisions of the Union to EURATOM, binding EU member states to “create the conditions necessary for the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries” while “facilitating investment to develop nuclear energy”. Whether or not the Irish people support nuclear power will be irrelevant, Ireland will support it.

Basic reading available here - we are already signatories to Euratom. Somehow, despite your claims, it has done nothing to promote nuclear power here.

R0C0 wrote: »

7 Under Lisbon, Ireland would lose over 60 national vetoes and will give the EU power to make laws binding on us in areas
such as public services, civil and criminal law, immigration, justice and policing, energy, sport, culture, space, public health and the EU budget. Lisbon would also take away from us the right to decide who the Irish Commissioner is. We'd lose our right to propose an Irish name and insist on its acceptance by the other Member States. Irelands voting influence will drop from 2% to 0.8%.Is weakening Irelands voice to such an extent really in the best interest of the Irish people?

First off, the full list (available from the EU!) has only 50, several of which we have opted out of - in particular the justice and legal provisions. Once you've weeded those out, plus those where joining and leaving a group are separate areas, you're left with about 34.

Second, we don't lose the right to propose the Irish Commissioner. The process for appointment of Commissioners hasn't changed. One phrase has changed in the English version, from "in accordance with the proposals made by the Member States" to "on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States". One might claim the second is 'weaker' than the first, but the process is otherwise identical - we put names forward, they have to be accepted by the Council and the Parliament - true now, true after Lisbon.

Third, voting weights are far more complex than you suggest, QMV is only used a quarter of the time (the rest is consensus) and Ireland's influence doesn't depend to any great degree on its voting weight - if it did, we'd be screwed anyway.

R0C0 wrote: »

8 Article 28(c) mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Ireland will be obliged to increase our financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU. At a time when our Health System is falling apart and our public transport and education is in a shambles, is it really necessary for (neutral) Ireland to be increasing our military spending?

Read it again - there's no commitment in that to increasing expenditure. You assume that's what it means, but it's a lot vaguer than that. Funnily enough, the ECJ can't rule on what it means, either, because they're not allowed to rule on defence matters.

That leaves us with a rather vague aspirational commitment (and it's funny you think this one is so very binding, when the climate change one isn't...).

R0C0 wrote: »

9 Raising the Irish corporate tax. Currently Ireland has a very low corporate tax when compared with the rest of Europe, Irelands is 12.5%, compare that to Britains 28% and Germanys 30%. Article 2.79 of the Lisbon Treaty would insert a six-word amendment -"and to avoid distorton of competition" - into the Article of the existing European Treaties dealing with harmonising taxes - Article 113. Irelands low rate of corporate tax would be seen as a serious distortion, and as such would most probably be raised.

Again, a commitment is taken by you as tightly binding without any real reference to what it is binding on. The EU has no power over corporate taxes:

EU wrote:

Among those areas that remain the sole responsibility of the nation state are the syllabuses of schools, national citizenship, housing and the funding of public television (RTE, TG4 only), the welfare state, hospitals and the health service, corporate tax rates and any policy that requires large commitments of public money.

Source - EU Representation in Ireland.

R0C0 wrote: »

10 Article 9 of the Treaty states the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution. This means that rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined, and could be determined by future laws which we'll have no say over.

Hmm. And who will be on it? Why, the ministers of the member states. Will they put the interests of the EU above the interests of their own government? Will they feck. Still, at least it means they have to observe the Charter.

R0C0 wrote: »

11 Under Lisbon, Ireland could not have an independent foreign policy that was in conflict with the EU majority. This means that , even if a big majority of the Irish people vehemently opposed a particular EU military action outside of Europe, the Irish government would be obliged to support that action internationally

Ireland is not obliged to support any military action that conflicts with its foreign policy - which is, ffs, a unanimity area.

R0C0 wrote: »

12 The much touted Charter of Fundamental rights gives us nothing that we already don't have, the Charter does not confer any new rights on the citizens of the European Union. The rights and principles mentioned are all derived from the Treaties and existing EU legislation, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other international documents. What the Yes campaigners will point out is that it now becomes legally binding in the European Court of Justice. What they fail to mention is that this Charter is already being used as a point of reference in the European Court of Justice, take the Laval case for example. Whats more, is that rulings from cases such as the Laval case, show us that this Charter will give precedence to Business' rights over workers rights. That should be very concerning to everybody. If you haven't read about the Laval case, I suggest you do.

Of course - nothing good in the Treaties is binding or meaningful, anything bad is. Yes, the Charter currently has reference effect, but you cannot challenge an EU Directive on the strength of it. If it is legally binding, you will be able to do so.

The Laval judgment did indeed decide that companies' rights to provide services across the EU were superior in that case to the Swedish worker's rights to blockade the company. However, that judgment did not have to take into account a legally binding Charter.

R0C0 wrote: »

Personally, I find their arrogance astounding. The fact remains though, we are but weeks away from the referendum, and a huge percentage of Irish people still have no idea what this treaty is about. The governments mis-information campaign seems to be working a treat. I propose that you Vote No to this Treaty, that you don't let your opinion be led without knowing, to adopt proposals that these politicians DARE NOT present to you directly. READ THE TREATY. Know what it involves. Then decide. I find it highly improbable that any Irish person who reads and understands this document could see it as beneficial to Ireland.

I strongly recommend you take your own advice, and read the Treaty. No doubt you will consider me arrogant for suggesting it - but it appears all you've actually done is take words and phrases out of context. That's not reading - it's 'quote-mining' to support an existing position.

regards,
Scofflaw

turgon · 23-05-2008 3:18pm

Without going into a big long description as I have done countless times before, points 3 and 9 are completely wrong. Even though I am voting NO, I am appalled you would ignore basic facts.

R0C0 · 24-05-2008 12:30am

Ok, I'm short on time and theres a lot to get through here, so I'll just take this one point at a time yeah, but I will go through them all.

Scofflaw.. you said

"A contract that is "95% the same" is not the same contract"

Where in my piece do I say it is the same contract????.... I don't. I say its 95% the same. ie 95% of this document has been rejected in referenda in France and Holland. We don't know why they rejected it, so we can't say for certain that the new 5% would magically change their minds. Therefore, in my opinion, which is well shared, it is un-democratic and immoral for this treaty to be forced upon those who have rejected the bulk of it.

humanji · 24-05-2008 1:44am

You're implying that it's the same. It's a form of deceit. You purposefully point out specific pieces of info and hide others. It's a cheap trick. Either that or you simply don't understand how these things work.

Scofflaw · 24-05-2008 1:48am

R0C0 wrote: »

Ok, I'm short on time and theres a lot to get through here, so I'll just take this one point at a time yeah, but I will go through them all.

Scofflaw.. you said
Where in my piece do I say it is the same contract????.... I don't. I say its 95% the same. ie 95% of this document has been rejected in referenda in France and Holland. We don't know why they rejected it, so we can't say for certain that the new 5% would magically change their minds. Therefore, in my opinion, which is well shared, it is un-democratic and immoral for this treaty to be forced upon those who have rejected the bulk of it.

We can look, and say - well, if the 5% that was changed wasn't the 5% that produced the rejection, we would expect some protest that it is now being ratified. As far as I can tell, though, the No supporters in Ireland saying we should vote for the "disenfranchised" and "unhappy" French/Dutch outnumber by quite some way the number of protesting French and Dutch. Attached, for example, is a photo of the "vigil" at the Irish Embassy in Paris - does it look crowded to you? It doesn't even begin to qualify as "poorly attended". It looks, in fact, like student melodrama.

So it's quite a reasonable conclusion that the "right" 5% was changed. Much like Nice II. Take the concerns on board, modify the proposal - fairly standard. What makes you sure that the wrong 5% was changed? How can you (and I) be certain that you are not simply ascribing to the French what you object to yourself?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone · 24-05-2008 11:29am

R0C0 wrote: »

Reasons to Vote No to Lisbon.

1 The Lisbon Treaty initiated in November 2007 is almost identical
to the EU Constitution agreed upon by EU leaders in 2004. It is 95% the same.
The Constitution from 2004 was rejected democratically in referenda by the French and the Dutch.
This did not sit well in brussels so now the EU have returned with the same document repackaged, but this time it will not be
put to referendum anywhere in Europe, bar Ireland, where our court systems demand it. EU leaders openly admit
that they have taken the rejected EU constitution and renamed and repackaged it in an unreadable format.
There are 8500 more words in the new treaty, but 62 less pages.

2 Article 46 of the Lisbon Treaty states: “The Union shall have a legal personality.”
It makes the EU a legal entity in its own right. This means in the international arena the EU will act as a State..
not as a Union of States, it merely keeps the same name, the EU, to avoid controversy. Even our own Minister for Foreign
Affairs Dermot Ahern admits "The Treaty is not to make the E.U more effective, and make it easier for countries to do business. It is primarily designed to give the E.U Legal Authority to make International Agreements on behalf of all member states."

3 Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental
conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification. It's self amending and perpetually binding. If Lisbon passes,
there will be no need for future referenda in Ireland. We will do as we are told. EU leaders can pass just about any law they like and we may have no option but to accept.

4 Our Health System. You think its bad now? Lisbon will open the door to a huge influx of Privatisation within the Health
System (Article 188 and 188b), all other Countries who've allowed their Health systems to go this route have suffered for it.
Look at Britain, Australia, Canada, the more Health is privatised the more Insurance Premiums rise, Care Quality falls, and
public waiting lists get longer. Lisbon will remove the power to veto proposals for international trade in health, education
and social services that the EU makes on our behalf at the WTO. Article 188 would fast track all attempts at privatising
our health sytem, I am referring to the "progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct
investment" As it stands, we have some say (however minute) in how our Health service is run, if Lisbon goes through we have
no say. So as bad and all as our Health System is, through Lisbon, it has the potential to get a whole lot worse.

5 The Treaty completely and utterly fails to deal with Climate Change, despite what the Government propaganda campaign would
have you believe. It adds a total of SIX words on climate change to existing treaties, see Article 174.1. The Treaty included
the six words at the end of the existing provision "promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or
worldwide environmental problems"... and the six magical words to end Global Warming.. "and in particular combating climate
change”. There is no substance to this addition, it is purely symobolic, and it certainly does not grant the EU power to do
anything it could not currently do under existing provisions.

6 Ireland will be legally bound to promote and facilitate the growth of the Nuclear Power Industry. Protocol 12 of the Lisbon Treaty links the provisions of the EURATOM Treaty to Lisbon and applies the financial provisions of the Union to EURATOM, binding EU member states to “create the conditions necessary for the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries” while “facilitating investment to develop nuclear energy”. Whether or not the Irish people support nuclear power will be irrelevant, Ireland will support it.

7 Under Lisbon, Ireland would lose over 60 national vetoes and will give the EU power to make laws binding on us in areas
such as public services, civil and criminal law, immigration, justice and policing, energy, sport, culture, space, public
health and the EU budget. Lisbon would also take away from us the right to decide who the Irish Commissioner is. We'd lose
our right to propose an Irish name and insist on its acceptance by the other Member States. Irelands voting influence will drop from 2% to 0.8%.Is weakening Irelands voice to such an extent really in the best interest of the Irish people?

8 Article 28(c) mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Ireland will be obliged to increase our financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU. At a time when our Health System is falling apart and our public transport and education is in a shambles, is it really necessary for (neutral) Ireland to be increasing our military spending?

9 Raising the Irish corporate tax. Currently Ireland has a very low corporate tax when compared with the rest of Europe, Irelands is 12.5%, compare that to Britains 28% and Germanys 30%. Article 2.79 of the Lisbon Treaty would insert a six-word amendment -"and to avoid distorton of competition" - into the Article of the existing European Treaties dealing with harmonising taxes - Article 113. Irelands low rate of corporate tax would be seen as a serious distortion, and as such would most probably be raised.

10 Article 9 of the Treaty states the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution. This means that rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined, and could be determined by future laws which we'll have no say over.

11 Under Lisbon, Ireland could not have an independent foreign policy that was in conflict with the EU majority. This means that , even if a big majority of the Irish people vehemently opposed a particular EU military action outside of Europe, the Irish government would be obliged to support that action internationally

12 The much touted Charter of Fundamental rights gives us nothing that we already don't have, the Charter does not confer any new rights on the citizens of the European Union. The rights and principles mentioned are all derived from the Treaties and existing EU legislation, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other international documents. What the Yes campaigners will point out is that it now becomes legally binding in the European Court of Justice. What they fail to mention is that this Charter is already being used as a point of reference in the European Court of Justice, take the Laval case for example. Whats more, is that rulings from cases such as the Laval case, show us that this Charter will give precedence to Business' rights over workers rights. That should be very concerning to everybody. If you haven't read about the Laval case, I suggest you do.

Here's what some of the people who drafted the EU Constitution had to say on the Treaty of Lisbon:

"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 a new text [the Lisbon Treaty], but will be hidden and disguised in some way...What was [already] difficult to understand will become utterly incomprehensible, but the substance has been retained." - The drafter of the European Constitution Giscard D'Estaing

"There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France" - French president Nicholas Sarkozy

“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception" - Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution

“The substance of the [rejected European] constitution is preserved.That is a fact.”
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel

“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 Prodi, European Parliament

Personally, I find their arrogance astounding. The fact remains though, we are but weeks away from the referendum, and a huge percentage of Irish people still have no idea what this treaty is about. The governments mis-information campaign seems to be working a treat. I propose that you Vote No to this Treaty, that you don't let your opinion be led without knowing, to adopt proposals that these politicians DARE NOT present to you directly. READ THE TREATY. Know what it involves. Then decide. I find it highly improbable that any Irish person who reads and understands this document could see it as beneficial to Ireland.

Thank you for that copy and paste routine, I shan't be reading it.

R0C0 · 24-05-2008 4:48pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

We can look, and say - well, if the 5% that was changed wasn't the 5% that produced the rejection, we would expect some protest that it is now being ratified. As far as I can tell, though, the No supporters in Ireland saying we should vote for the "disenfranchised" and "unhappy" French/Dutch outnumber by quite some way the number of protesting French and Dutch. Attached, for example, is a photo of the "vigil" at the Irish Embassy in Paris - does it look crowded to you? It doesn't even begin to qualify as "poorly attended". It looks, in fact, like student melodrama.

So it's quite a reasonable conclusion that the "right" 5% was changed. Much like Nice II. Take the concerns on board, modify the proposal - fairly standard. What makes you sure that the wrong 5% was changed? How can you (and I) be certain that you are not simply ascribing to the French what you object to yourself?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm not suggesting that I know why it was rejected, or if that 5% was the deciding factor. But, it is a fact, you do not know either. In fact the only people who do know for certain, are the people who rejected, thus it should be put to them again.

Are you seriously suggesting that because there isn't a nationwide protest going on in France or Holland, that the French and Dutch must be happy with it????? Do you really think thats how a democracy works??

You're implying that it's the same. It's a form of deceit. You purposefully point out specific pieces of info and hide others. It's a cheap trick. Either that or you simply don't understand how these things work.

Where??? I explicitly state its 95% the same. Is that not a fact? What am I hiding?? Should we not tell people how similar it is??

Thank you for that copy and paste routine, I shan't be reading it.

Its not a copy and paste routine. And why bother, ironically, copying and pasting it in the Quote box, if you're not interested?? Do you really have nothing better to do than posting stupid arrogant comments on message boards?? It contributes nothing.

Ekancone · 24-05-2008 4:58pm

R0C0 wrote: »

Its not a copy and paste routine.

Yes it is, your language clearly changed after all the bullet points. Plus, you dont seem to understand some of the points you made, looking at your rebuttals since then. This clearly is a sign of you C&P from a anti-treaty website.

R0C0 wrote: »

And why bother, ironically, copying and pasting it in the Quote box, if you're not interested??

That is the default setting of boards.ie; dont hate the playa, hate the game.

R0C0 wrote: »

Do you really have nothing better to do than posting stupid arrogant comments on message boards?? It contributes nothing.

It contributes a lot more than people who borrow the arguments of others.

Young Catholic · 24-05-2008 6:12pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgRLs4_1KI0

R0C0 · 24-05-2008 7:38pm

daithifleming wrote: »

Yes it is, your language clearly changed after all the bullet points. Plus, you dont seem to understand some of the points you made, looking at your rebuttals since then. This clearly is a sign of you C&P from a anti-treaty website.

My language changed? Thats because I went from discussing references in the treaty to giving my personal opinion. I really have no reason to lie about not copying this, so think whatever you want.

What points do I not understand?? Judging from my "rebuttals"?? You mean my ONE rebuttal where I referred to the first point only? How do you gather from that that I don't understand some of my points??? Vague much??

It contributes a lot more than people who borrow the arguments of others.

Yes, because the arguments you have in favour of the treaty are entirely exclusive to you personally. No two people can have the same views.

How does being ignorant and insulting contribute?

ALSO... you're a liar. You said you "shant be reading it". And you did.

You know, people can completely disagree with one another yet still have a mature debate. That seems beyond you though. Good luck.

Scofflaw · 24-05-2008 7:54pm

R0C0 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that I know why it was rejected, or if that 5% was the deciding factor. But, it is a fact, you do not know either. In fact the only people who do know for certain, are the people who rejected, thus it should be put to them again.

Are you seriously suggesting that because there isn't a nationwide protest going on in France or Holland, that the French and Dutch must be happy with it????? Do you really think thats how a democracy works??

I'd agree that neither of us know for sure exactly why people voted No (and some of them may not know either). I've therefore only got what's currently happening to go on in terms of telling whether the French feel "disenfranchised" or not - and what is happening? Nothing at all. A couple of students outside the Irish embassy.

So, what there doesn't seem to be is a dissatisfaction with French democracy, by the French. Similarly, there must be less unhappiness with the ratification of Lisbon in France than there was here with the provisional driving licence change.

All of that, in turn, suggests to me that the French are happy - which, in turn, suggests that their concerns were addressed. The Dutch are equally quiet.

I appreciate you're going to say "but they should be having a referendum" - and the answer is "not particularly". They don't usually have referendums, and they're not having one this time. We usually do, and we are. Should we have voted for the French at Nice, and Amsterdam? Or the British, or the Germans - at every referendum?

The argument that we should vote No on behalf of the French is a convenient one for the No voter - but funnily, no-one suggests that we should vote Yes on behalf of those French that voted Yes. Unless someone is prepared to follow the idea to its logical conclusion - that we should simply adopt the result of the French referendum on a slightly different treaty - all I see is special pleading.

cordially,
Scofflaw

is_that_so · 24-05-2008 8:22pm

I genuinely attempted to read the initial post here but was struck by the minor handful of words out of the "8500 new words" that the OP has identified.

In my view it reflects a dubious form of argument which merely apes tabloid documentaries and produces just enough "evidence" on which to hang "the nightmare scenario".

Any more than a loose random quote from a religious book should be used to back the case for a war the NO case here,to me, is completely unproven and relies on the usual peddling of insidious scaremongering on health, neutrality, nuclear power and anything else that can be thrown in.

In truth I find it is part of an extremely condescending attitude that is emerging, whereby any argument in favour of NO is real debate and anything against is an unreasonable attack.

Finally I have to laugh at the "threat to democracy" that is strongly to the fore in all of this. Most people may be half-exercised by the putative "bad parts" but we'll do well to see over 50% voting on this. We simply don't vote on these things ever and if nothing else it suits the NO campaign to have a low turnout.

So whatever way people vote at least do so.

turgon · 24-05-2008 9:05pm

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=147481309

Scroll down to the comments. I suppose this could be your myspace anyway???

If it was you, or if it wasnt, ive some comment to make on the "No To Lisbon" profile. Whoever it is uses a crossed out version of the EU flag as their picture. With a simple wave of a mouse, whoever made it has suddenly alienated all the voters who think EU is good and Lisbon is bad. Now they want to vote YES cas they think they will lose the EU.

Of course they wont lose it, but a problem now occurring (and only aided by images like above) is that everyone voting NO is labeled a euroskeptic. Which is really cheap. Also what doesn't help the NO cause is posts like above which are a lot of complete crap, and just utter lies.

I dont know if anyone got Kathy Sinnots leaflet, but I did and id say it only lasted about 10 seconds in my house before it was binned. Actually no, recycled.

SeanW · 24-05-2008 9:49pm

Well, here's one that jumped out at me.

5 The Treaty completely and utterly fails to deal with Climate Change ...

6 Ireland will be legally bound to promote and facilitate the growth of the Nuclear Power Industry

Contradiction in terms my friend, and a big one at that! Anyone who knows anything about nuclear power knows that it solves a load of problems, energy security (if we had nukes we wouldn't have to depend on a 2000 mile pipeline from (sliding back to Stalinism) Russia for natural gas), air pollution (nuclear plants do not emit any carbon dioxide, or any air pollutants of any kind). If, for example, Ireland replaced our Peat-fired power stations, we would not only stop subsidising a financially unviable activity, stop emitting 1.2kg CO2 per kw/h, and we could also stop tearing up pristine boglands. Not only that but nuclear plants create shedloads of jobs too.

To solve a number of problems, chief among them helping to combat climate change, an efficient, well regulated nuclear electricity sector is one of the most potent tools you can use!

So which is it?
Does Lisbon: "fail to deal with climate change"
or does it make us: "legally bound to promote and facilitate the growth of the Nuclear Power Industry"

Because the two are mutually exclusive, in my book.

Irish and Proud · 24-05-2008 11:50pm

R0C0 wrote: »

Reasons to Vote No to Lisbon.

1 The Lisbon Treaty initiated in November 2007 is almost identical
to the EU Constitution agreed upon by EU leaders in 2004. It is 95% the same.
The Constitution from 2004 was rejected democratically in referenda by the French and the Dutch.
This did not sit well in brussels so now the EU have returned with the same document repackaged, but this time it will not be
put to referendum anywhere in Europe, bar Ireland, where our court systems demand it. EU leaders openly admit
that they have taken the rejected EU constitution and renamed and repackaged it in an unreadable format.
There are 8500 more words in the new treaty, but 62 less pages.

I went to the Libertas site and read through some of the quotes from top EU politicians and if the content is true, it is deeply shocking. I'm am still depressed after reading them. It looks like these people are trying to take over - if Ireland votes Yes to Lisbon, all obstacles in the path towards a super-power are cleared - how can we look back in history and criticise the German people for standing by while Hitler took over - a Yes vote on Ireland's part will do exactly likewise with the EU politicians - they seem to have total contempt for democracy and are thereby doing Hitler's work!

THEY HAVE TO BE STOPPED!!!

R0C0 wrote: »

2 Article 46 of the Lisbon Treaty states: “The Union shall have a legal personality.”
It makes the EU a legal entity in its own right. This means in the international arena the EU will act as a State..
not as a Union of States, it merely keeps the same name, the EU, to avoid controversy. Even our own Minister for Foreign
Affairs Dermot Ahern admits "The Treaty is not to make the E.U more effective, and make it easier for countries to do business. It is primarily designed to give the E.U Legal Authority to make International Agreements on behalf of all member states."

...basically a constitution by another method - a method which by-passes most of the ordinary EU citizens. We must save democracy for Europe - on the above point alone, we have no moral choice but to vote No!

R0C0 wrote: »

3 Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental
conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification. It's self amending and perpetually binding. If Lisbon passes,
there will be no need for future referenda in Ireland. We will do as we are told. EU leaders can pass just about any law they like and we may have no option but to accept.

I heard a lot of people speaking for and against Article 48. If the above is true, it just reinforces what I've said further above. In any case, if you don't know, the best thing is to vote No! If the people vote No on the grounds of confusion, the politicians haven't a leg to stand on - it is their job to make constitutional amendments clear to the people.

R0C0 wrote: »

4 Our Health System. You think its bad now? Lisbon will open the door to a huge influx of Privatisation within the Health
System (Article 188 and 188b), all other Countries who've allowed their Health systems to go this route have suffered for it.
Look at Britain, Australia, Canada, the more Health is privatised the more Insurance Premiums rise, Care Quality falls, and
public waiting lists get longer. Lisbon will remove the power to veto proposals for international trade in health, education
and social services that the EU makes on our behalf at the WTO. Article 188 would fast track all attempts at privatising
our health sytem, I am referring to the "progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct
investment" As it stands, we have some say (however minute) in how our Health service is run, if Lisbon goes through we have
no say. So as bad and all as our Health System is, through Lisbon, it has the potential to get a whole lot worse.

Well if the USA is anything to go by...

R0C0 wrote: »

5 The Treaty completely and utterly fails to deal with Climate Change, despite what the Government propaganda campaign would
have you believe. It adds a total of SIX words on climate change to existing treaties, see Article 174.1. The Treaty included
the six words at the end of the existing provision "promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or
worldwide environmental problems"... and the six magical words to end Global Warming.. "and in particular combating climate
change”. There is no substance to this addition, it is purely symobolic, and it certainly does not grant the EU power to do
anything it could not currently do under existing provisions.

...so basically, it's a total gimmick! :mad:

R0C0 wrote: »

6 Ireland will be legally bound to promote and facilitate the growth of the Nuclear Power Industry. Protocol 12 of the Lisbon Treaty links the provisions of the EURATOM Treaty to Lisbon and applies the financial provisions of the Union to EURATOM, binding EU member states to “create the conditions necessary for the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries” while “facilitating investment to develop nuclear energy”. Whether or not the Irish people support nuclear power will be irrelevant, Ireland will support it.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with nuclear power, it should be a matter for each country - if the above is true, then it's another example of draconian EU intervention if Lisbon is passed!

R0C0 wrote: »

7 Under Lisbon, Ireland would lose over 60 national vetoes and will give the EU power to make laws binding on us in areas
such as public services, civil and criminal law, immigration, justice and policing, energy, sport, culture, space, public
health and the EU budget. Lisbon would also take away from us the right to decide who the Irish Commissioner is. We'd lose
our right to propose an Irish name and insist on its acceptance by the other Member States. Irelands voting influence will drop from 2% to 0.8%.Is weakening Irelands voice to such an extent really in the best interest of the Irish people?

It looks to me like Lisbon will favour the bigger countries, and that Ireland will lose yet more power...

...IMO, if we vote Yes to Lisbon, it will be a complete disaster for Ireland - to be quite frank, I don't think the EU gives the slightest damn about Ireland - I'd say they see us as a complete nuisence. If we eventually ended up having to opt out of the EU to avoid losing Ireland's sovereignty, well so be it. I'm pretty certain it would be the lesser of two evils. Neither of such would be pretty, but we could pick ourselves up from the lesser evil!

R0C0 wrote: »

8 Article 28(c) mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Ireland will be obliged to increase our financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU. At a time when our Health System is falling apart and our public transport and education is in a shambles, is it really necessary for (neutral) Ireland to be increasing our military spending?

Sick!!! :mad:

R0C0 wrote: »

9 Raising the Irish corporate tax. Currently Ireland has a very low corporate tax when compared with the rest of Europe, Irelands is 12.5%, compare that to Britains 28% and Germanys 30%. Article 2.79 of the Lisbon Treaty would insert a six-word amendment -"and to avoid distorton of competition" - into the Article of the existing European Treaties dealing with harmonising taxes - Article 113. Irelands low rate of corporate tax would be seen as a serious distortion, and as such would most probably be raised.

I don't generally agree with multi-national companies getting off lightly, but that said, Ireland being a peripheral country has specific requirements. If we don't get special economic concessions, Ireland will become a backwater as we would lose our competitiveness to Central Europe etc. This would also be compounded by the increased red tape from Brussels etc.

R0C0 wrote: »

10 Article 9 of the Treaty states the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution. This means that rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined, and could be determined by future laws which we'll have no say over.

...there we go again - we have a constitution by another name:
The Lisbon Treaty!

...and yet another hallmark of a new super-state!

R0C0 wrote: »

11 Under Lisbon, Ireland could not have an independent foreign policy that was in conflict with the EU majority. This means that , even if a big majority of the Irish people vehemently opposed a particular EU military action outside of Europe, the Irish government would be obliged to support that action internationally

Oh great, isn't it - we'd be in with a chance of being made a target for military or terrorist attacks! :rolleyes:

R0C0 wrote: »

12 The much touted Charter of Fundamental rights gives us nothing that we already don't have, the Charter does not confer any new rights on the citizens of the European Union. The rights and principles mentioned are all derived from the Treaties and existing EU legislation, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other international documents. What the Yes campaigners will point out is that it now becomes legally binding in the European Court of Justice. What they fail to mention is that this Charter is already being used as a point of reference in the European Court of Justice, take the Laval case for example. Whats more, is that rulings from cases such as the Laval case, show us that this Charter will give precedence to Business' rights over workers rights. That should be very concerning to everybody. If you haven't read about the Laval case, I suggest you do.

Again, if the above it true, what a con job! - These politicians are really sick in the head! :mad:

R0C0 wrote: »

Here's what some of the people who drafted the EU Constitution had to say on the Treaty of Lisbon:

"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 a new text [the Lisbon Treaty], but will be hidden and disguised in some way...What was [already] difficult to understand will become utterly incomprehensible, but the substance has been retained." - The drafter of the European Constitution Giscard D'Estaing

"There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France" - French president Nicholas Sarkozy

“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception" - Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution

“The substance of the [rejected European] constitution is preserved.That is a fact.”
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel

“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 Prodi, European Parliament

Personally, I find their arrogance astounding. The fact remains though, we are but weeks away from the referendum, and a huge percentage of Irish people still have no idea what this treaty is about. The governments mis-information campaign seems to be working a treat. I propose that you Vote No to this Treaty, that you don't let your opinion be led without knowing, to adopt proposals that these politicians DARE NOT present to you directly. READ THE TREATY. Know what it involves. Then decide. I find it highly improbable that any Irish person who reads and understands this document could see it as beneficial to Ireland.

Some of these politicians really do sound like right wing dictators. It is absolutely frightening to say the least. These people have to be stopped - they're mad - actually, quite mad! They have such a lust for power!

The EEC was formed to stop this very thing from happening, but beware, Hitler is alive and well...

BTW, some top EU politicians were booted out of power in their own countries over corruption, so why are they now holding top positions in the EU. How could anyone trust the EU, especially when it looks like the records for MEP expenses have not been kept for the last 12 years - it has lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. If Ireland votes No and the EU falls into disarray, the EU politicians have no one but themselves to blame.

VOTE NO!

Scofflaw · 25-05-2008 12:00am

One born every minute.

sadly,
Scofflaw

sink · 25-05-2008 12:13am

It's funny that Irish and Prouds politics appear to be of the extreme left kind, and here he is buying bull**** from a libertarian organisation.

Irish and Proud · 25-05-2008 12:27am

sink wrote: »

It's funny that Irish and Prouds politics appear to be of the extreme left kind, and here he is buying bull**** from a libertarian organisation.

Well it's all relative mate - maybe in relation to you I'd seem extreme left. However, I don't know where supporting low corporate tax rates (in Ireland) comes into the equation. Also, Libertas was founded by a Galway business man who supports the EU in general, but who happens to be unhappy with the Lisbon Treaty.

Now, I would see myself as centre left, so where might that leave you???

Regards!

is_that_so · 25-05-2008 11:15am

Irish and Proud wrote: »

VOTE NO!

I think you might have a clearer picture what it does or does not do if you read it yourself and not leave it to AN OTHER to "interpret" it for you. It also affords you a much higher degree of credibility than is currently obvious from your posts.

Ekancone · 25-05-2008 11:24am

If you want a quick method of gauging how you should be voting, look at what the nationalist loons are doing, and then vote the opposite. Simple.

turgon · 25-05-2008 12:23pm

Well done previous poster. If you want to be a sheep then thats fine. Thankfully most other people wouldn't have the same shallow views as you do.

Ekancone · 25-05-2008 12:30pm

turgon wrote: »

Well done previous poster. If you want to be a sheep then thats fine. Thankfully most other people wouldn't have the same shallow views as you do.

Its a simple rule of thumb, for those who don't have the time to read such treaties.

Vinegar Hill · 25-05-2008 12:39pm

Here is an analysis of the treaty and how it effects us.

http://www.nationalplatform.org/wordpress/?page_id=66

is_that_so · 25-05-2008 12:43pm

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Here is an analysis of the treaty and how it effects us.

http://www.nationalplatform.org/wordpress/?page_id=66

Sigh Anthony Coughlan again. Even the courts in this country have deemed him a serial nuisance.

Chunky Monkey · 25-05-2008 12:45pm

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Also, Libertas was founded by a Galway business man who supports the EU in general, but who happens to be unhappy with the Lisbon Treaty.

Probably the best example was their [Libertas] poster attacking Fine Gael's Lucinda Creighton for her support of an EU army [27]. This poster attempted to play on Irish fears about EU militarisation and the desire to retain Irish military neutrality. The idea that either Ganley or McEvaddy are anti-militarists is simply laughable, given the fact that their companies exist as devoted suppliers of the US military and intelligence services.

From: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

Now, I wonder what the real reason is for their discontent with the treaty...

Irish and Proud · 25-05-2008 12:46pm

is_that_so wrote: »

I think you might have a clearer picture what it does or does not do if you read it yourself and not leave it to AN OTHER to "interpret" it for you. It also affords you a much higher degree of credibility than is currently obvious from your posts.

Actually, I'm gradually reading up on the Lisbon Treaty for your information. In any case, what is wrong with concurring with another poster, and what is wrong with reading other people's point of view (and that includes the Yes camp). Also, is the Yes camp not "interpreting" the Lisbon Treaty for us - and maybe giving it a little tint??? :rolleyes:

In light of the above, is there some reason that you don't like debates??? Of course, eliminating debates can be very effective, because some people are good at sourcing information, while others are good at joining the dots. Of course, if the two types can't interact, the flaws on any subject will get much less profile or publicity - maybe this is why you would rather people on the forum would just try and read the documents, put up and shut up.

Well, sorry mate!!!

Regards!

Chunky Monkey · 25-05-2008 12:46pm

turgon wrote: »

Well done previous poster. If you want to be a sheep then thats fine. Thankfully most other people wouldn't have the same shallow views as you do.

How about the fairly large amount of people who seem to think it's okay to vote no if you don't understand/can't be bothered to read the treaty?

is_that_so · 25-05-2008 12:51pm

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Actually, I'm gradually reading up on the Lisbon Treaty for your information. In any case, what is wrong with concurring with another poster, and what is wrong with reading other people's point of view (and that includes the Yes camp). Also, is the Yes camp not "interpreting" the Lisbon Treaty for us - and maybe giving it a little tint??? :rolleyes:

As we all should do.

In light of the above, is there some reason that you don't like debates??? Of course, eliminating debates can be very effective, because some people are good at sourcing information, while others are good at joining the dots. Of course, if the two types can't interact, the flaws on any subject will get much less profile or publicity - maybe this is why you would rather people on the forum would just try and read the documents, put up and shut up.

Well, sorry mate!!!

Regards!

I have no problem with debates whatsoever. In this case it is really imo incumbent on people to go and read it for themselves, otherwise we are just parroting someone else's view of it, be it yes or no. Read, then debate seems fairly reasonable to me.

Vinegar Hill · 25-05-2008 1:06pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Sigh Anthony Coughlan again. Even the courts in this country have deemed him a serial nuisance.

Does that make the points that he has made any less credible? Or do the quotes given by European leaders on the site have any less relevance?

Reasons to Vote No to Lisbon.

Comments