Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Options
1…2223252728…35

Comments

  • Options
    #722
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    sub-x: Attribute pieces if you're going to copy and paste something. Each of those points has also shown to be untrue/misleading earlier in this thread. Have a look at this post and the ones following it where someone copy and pasted the Sinn Fein anti-Lisbon manifesto.


  • Options
    #723
    sub-x
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭sub-x


    Moriarty wrote: »
    sub-x: Attribute pieces if you're going to copy and paste something. Each of those points has also shown to be untrue/misleading earlier in this thread. Have a look at this post and the ones following it where someone copy and pasted the Sinn Fein anti-Lisbon manifesto.

    Thank's for the link Moriarty ;)


  • Options
    #724
    Mark2701
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭Mark2701


    Read the white paper twice http://www.reformtreaty.ie/eutreaty/pDF08-White-paper_6.pdf and heres the main points i have come up with that have appealed to me and what are the points of contention.

    The Good points as far as i can see -

    +If a state causes a security breach it can be dealt with by other states (Like britain marching off to war with the US)
    +We can leave the union at any time.
    +We will have adeqet representaion in europe.
    +constructive abstention whereby it can choose to allow the rest of the Union to proceed with a given decision with which it may disagree in these cases a decision shall not apply to the Member State concerned.
    +in the development of security and defence policy have been that all Union decisions with military or defence implications be taken unanimously, and each Member State has a sovereign right
    to determine whether and to what extent it should take part in any given action.
    +Double Majority voting. 55% of countries in EU Representing 65% of the EU population. To defeat a vote : Any 4 countries against it + not acheivning the above percentages.
    +Changes to EU Treaty has to be made in in conjuntion with States constitutions. Any changes can be vetoed.
    +Human Rights

    Bad ones as far as im concerned :

    -Exclusive competence. EU can legislate for competion rules, fisheries conservation and monetary policy + others
    -Shared competence. Where we havent legislated on the EU can on security and justice, Energy and Internal markets + others. And we must obey it then.

    I just dont like the fact that the EU can legislate for us. I think its a bad idea and they are just asking to much to put faith in them to do right by us. Also, and i am open to be corrected on this, to control a nation all you need do is control its money. To me thats what the Exclusive competence part seems to be doing. Like i said prove me wrong or correct my misconception. In the white paper the government is fine with this and is happy to trust the EU. However i am not. If these 2 points where removed i would vote yes.

    Now on a larger view what direction are we going ? With the newly formed American Union (Canada, USA, Mexico) which was formed without the knowlege or the blessing of the people (much like this treaty ratified in parliment with out a vote across the EU) are we heading towards a global government ? Or at least a Union with the North American continent ? Now i half trust the EU but i definatly dont trust the americans. What kind of voice will Ireland have then ? Is this Treaty a stepping stone to achieve such an objective ? I find the thought frightening. But like i said i half trust the EU maybe they wont hop into bed with the Americans just an extra thought maybe people should think about at the ballot box.

    So in all im going for a NO vote unless the 2 afformentioned articles are removed from this treaty. Which i cant see happening.


  • Options
    #725
    agentorange
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭agentorange


    sub-x wrote: »
    Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty which would open the way to harmonising Ireland’s company taxes: Lisbon inserts a new Article 48 into the “Treaty on European Union”, the “simplified revision procedure”, which permits the Prime Ministers and Presidents by unanimity to shift most areas of the treaties where unanimity now exists to qualified majority voting without the need for new treaties or referendums. This is called the “escalator clause”, which former French President Giscard d’Estaing said was “a central innovation” of the EU Constitution he helped draft.

    Is this what previous posters meant by saying it was not a static treaty, and opens the way to transfer further powers away from individual states to the EU, without the need for a referendum in any member state? Does this mean that, once Ireland has voted yes to the Lisbon treaty, that powers can be transferred at any stage in the future, to the EU? Does that mean that, if Ireland votes no to the Lisbon treaty, powers can not be transferred in the future without further referenda in Ireland and, possibly, in other countries?


  • Options
    #726
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    agentorange wrote: »
    Is this what previous posters meant by saying it was not a static treaty, and opens the way to transfer further powers away from individual states to the EU, without the need for a referendum in any member state? Does this mean that, once Ireland has voted yes to the Lisbon treaty, that powers can be transferred at any stage in the future, to the EU? Does that mean that, if Ireland votes no to the Lisbon treaty, powers can not be transferred in the future without further referenda in Ireland and, possibly, in other countries?

    The "self-amending" article does not mean that any powers can be transferred without ratification by all the member states. Indeed, no amendment can be made to the Treaty without ratification by all member states - calling it "self-amending" is easily misunderstood. It means only that the Treaty does not require another Treaty to make an amendment - so our Constitution is also "self-amending".

    This may not always involve a referendum, depending on the proposed amendment - it may involve Dáil ratification instead. However, if it involved a transfer of powers (and none are expected), it would automatically require a referendum here by way of ratification.

    Personally, I think this is an improvement, since we will be able to see individual amendments either being ratified by the Dáil, or being put to us as referendums, without having to pass/fail a whole lot of changes as a parcel.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #727
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Mark2701 wrote: »
    Read the white paper twice http://www.reformtreaty.ie/eutreaty/pDF08-White-paper_6.pdf and heres the main points i have come up with that have appealed to me and what are the points of contention.

    The Good points as far as i can see -

    +If a state causes a security breach it can be dealt with by other states (Like britain marching off to war with the US)
    +We can leave the union at any time.
    +We will have adeqet representaion in europe.
    +constructive abstention whereby it can choose to allow the rest of the Union to proceed with a given decision with which it may disagree in these cases a decision shall not apply to the Member State concerned.
    +in the development of security and defence policy have been that all Union decisions with military or defence implications be taken unanimously, and each Member State has a sovereign right to determine whether and to what extent it should take part in any given action.
    +Double Majority voting. 55% of countries in EU Representing 65% of the EU population. To defeat a vote : Any 4 countries against it + not acheivning the above percentages.
    +Changes to EU Treaty has to be made in in conjuntion with States constitutions. Any changes can be vetoed.
    +Human Rights

    I'd add the extension of co-decision, the ability of the Treaty to be amended one amendment at a time, the possibilities for single action when unanimously agreed.
    Mark2701 wrote: »
    Bad ones as far as im concerned :

    -Exclusive competence. EU can legislate for competion rules, fisheries conservation and monetary policy + others
    -Shared competence. Where we havent legislated on the EU can on security and justice, Energy and Internal markets + others. And we must obey it then.

    I just dont like the fact that the EU can legislate for us. I think its a bad idea and they are just asking to much to put faith in them to do right by us. Also, and i am open to be corrected on this, to control a nation all you need do is control its money. To me thats what the Exclusive competence part seems to be doing. Like i said prove me wrong or correct my misconception. In the white paper the government is fine with this and is happy to trust the EU. However i am not. If these 2 points where removed i would vote yes.

    Hmm...OK, but what you've pointed to there is not part of the Treaty, but part of the EU. There are no exclusive competences being granted by the Treaty - the exclusive competences you refer to have already been granted to the EU. Lisbon clarifies what that means, but the clarification is based on existing practice, and the exclusive competences it refers to are already exclusive competences.

    Some of the shared competences you refer to are in the Treaty, but some aren't (internal market), and if you have specific difficulty with those areas becoming EU competences, even shared (and with opt-outs in the case of justice), then you have an issue with the Treaty that cannot be simply resolved. However, again, the idea of shared competences is only being clarified by the Treaty, not introduced.

    More generally, it's not really correct to see Ireland (or any other member state) allowing the EU to decide for them. the EU is the member states. What happens when the EU is given exclusive competence is effectively an agreement that Ireland will only enact those things that can be agreed by all 27 nations. The "EU" doesn't decide "for" Ireland. Ireland decides as part of the EU.
    Mark2701 wrote: »
    Now on a larger view what direction are we going ? With the newly formed American Union (Canada, USA, Mexico) which was formed without the knowlege or the blessing of the people (much like this treaty ratified in parliment with out a vote across the EU) are we heading towards a global government ? Or at least a Union with the North American continent ? Now i half trust the EU but i definatly dont trust the americans. What kind of voice will Ireland have then ? Is this Treaty a stepping stone to achieve such an objective ? I find the thought frightening. But like i said i half trust the EU maybe they wont hop into bed with the Americans just an extra thought maybe people should think about at the ballot box.

    Er, no. I think one can safely say that's not on the cards in ny way shape or form - and the only people likely to say it is will be equally prepared to tell you it's all being done by Raelian aliens. Most of the EU nations are much less US-friendly than we are, and would like to see the EU as a counterweight to US dominance.
    Mark2701 wrote: »
    So in all im going for a NO vote unless the 2 afformentioned articles are removed from this treaty. Which i cant see happening.

    You're right. They won't be removed from the Treaty, because they aren't in the Treaty, in the sense you mean them. If you'd like the clarification of what competences mean removed from the Treaty, that might be different, but this Treaty has taken a total of five or six years to negotiate, and it definitely won't be re-negotiated between now and June.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #728
    agentorange
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭agentorange


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Indeed, no amendment can be made to the Treaty without ratification by all member states - calling it "self-amending" is easily misunderstood. It means only that the Treaty does not require another Treaty to make an amendment - so our Constitution is also "self-amending".
    There seems to be common agreement on this point, that after we have all ratified the Lisbon treaty, then changes can me made after ratification which do not require us all, or Ireland, to have a referendum.
    mark2701 wrote: »
    I just dont like the fact that the EU can legislate for us. I think its a bad idea and they are just asking to much to put faith in them to do right by us. Also, and i am open to be corrected on this, to control a nation all you need do is control its money. To me thats what the Exclusive competence part seems to be doing. Like i said prove me wrong or correct my misconception. In the white paper the government is fine with this and is happy to trust the EU. However i am not. If these 2 points where removed i would vote yes.
    We may not like it, but when we all signed the treaty of Rome it specifically said we were aiming for "Political and economic" union. While it might have been sold to the electorates of the UK and Ireland at the time as the "Common Market" and the Political element played down and hardly discussed, this is nonetheless what we all voted for when we voted for the treaty of Rome. The lesson which should have been learned from this is not to ratify a treaty when we don't understand the full consequences. Thats why, this time, it is important to know what is in the treaty of Lisbon and to understand it, as once ratified we can't go back if we find out it contains something we don't like. Personally, I can't understand it and find it is impossible to understand, and find the full consequences impossible to understand. That's why I find it impossible to vote for something which I can't understand.


  • Options
    #729
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    agentorange wrote: »
    There seems to be common agreement on this point, that after we have all ratified the Lisbon treaty, then changes can me made after ratification which do not require us all, or Ireland, to have a referendum.

    That is exactly what I said. However, you seem to have left out that this will only be true for some changes, will not be true for any changes that impact our sovereignty. Ireland will have to ratify all amendments, but, depending on the amendment in question, and the opinion of Irish constitutional lawyers, the ratification may in some cases be carried out by the Dáil.

    That would also be the case for an EU Treaty that involved no changes in our sovereignty.
    agentorange wrote: »
    We may not like it, but when we all signed the treaty of Rome it specifically said we were aiming for "Political and economic" union. While it might have been sold to the electorates of the UK and Ireland at the time as the "Common Market" and the Political element played down and hardly discussed, this is nonetheless what we all voted for when we voted for the treaty of Rome. The lesson which should have been learned from this is not to ratify a treaty when we don't understand the full consequences. Thats why, this time, it is important to know what is in the treaty of Lisbon and to understand it, as once ratified we can't go back if we find out it contains something we don't like. Personally, I can't understand it and find it is impossible to understand, and find the full consequences impossible to understand. That's why I find it impossible to vote for something which I can't understand.

    Since what you're objecting to there is the EU, I don't think your claim to be objecting to the Treaty carries much weight.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #730
    Kev_ps3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,604 ✭✭✭Kev_ps3


    Sub-X, good info. Just more reasons if any were needed to vote No.


  • Options
    #731
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kev_ps3 wrote: »
    Sub-X, good info. Just more reasons if any were needed to vote No.

    I don't get it. I really don't.

    Sub-X posts some stuff.
    Moriarty posts a response to the effect that :

    a) None of the points are new to this thread
    and
    b) They're inaccurate to boot.

    Your response is to completely ignore Moriarty's response, and hail them as more reasons (implying they're new) and good info (implying that they're accurate).

    Out of curiosity....do you just mentally filter out posts like Moriarty's, or have you some other reason for ignoring them?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #732
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Ireland will have to ratify all amendments, but, depending on the amendment in question, and the opinion of Irish constitutional lawyers, the ratification may in some cases be carried out by the Dáil.

    That would also be the case for an EU Treaty that involved no changes in our sovereignty.

    Isn't it also currently the case - that certain changes can be made to the treaties that we've accepted via referendum, without those changes automatically requiring re-ratification?


  • Options
    #733
    agentorange
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭agentorange


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Since what you're objecting to there is the EU, I don't think your claim to be objecting to the Treaty carries much weight.
    You misunderstand if you think I am objecting to the EU. In any case, an argument is as good as it is and carries the same "weight" whatever its proponent's views might be.
    kev_ps3 wrote: »
    Sub-X, good info. Just more reasons if any were needed to vote No.
    Quite simply, we have to differentiate between opinion and the fact. It is a fact that this the treaty of Lisbon is not understandable to many people. (That's not to say some may think they understand the thrust of individual clauses or parts). For me, not understanding it, and not understanding the consequences of voting for it, is enough to vote no.


  • Options
    #734
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    agentorange wrote: »
    There seems to be common agreement on this point, that after we have all ratified the Lisbon treaty, then changes can me made after ratification which do not require us all, or Ireland, to have a referendum. We may not like it, but when we all signed the treaty of Rome it specifically said we were aiming for "Political and economic" union.

    When we signed the treaty of Rome, thats what were were aiming for.

    Since then, what is being aimed for has changed (and changed more than once), and this change has been reflected in the need for subsequent referenda in Ireland, where we once again had to choose...whether we wished to follow the new course, or not.

    The lesson which should have been learned from this is not to ratify a treaty when we don't understand the full consequences.
    With respect, its impossible to ever know the full consequences of any action.

    I would point out that you cannot predict the full consequences of a no vote. So, if not knowing the consequences of voting yes means you cannot vote yes, not knowing the consequences of voting no means you cannot vote no. So it would appear that you will have to abstain from voting. Unfortunately, you also don't know the full consequences of that...which leaves you in somewhat of an impossible position....you insist that you shouldn't do something without being able to understand the full consequences, but no matter what you do, you will end up in that position.

    I would suggest that the only way to resolve this is to accept that full knowledge of consequences cannot be a prerequisite to taking an action.

    The alternative is to accept that you are selectively applying this logic to justify a decision that you are making for other reasons.


  • Options
    #735
    Kev_ps3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,604 ✭✭✭Kev_ps3


    Maby we could add a poll to this thread to find out what way boards members will be voting? It would be interesting to find out..


  • Options
    #736
    agentorange
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭agentorange


    bonkey wrote: »
    I would point out that you cannot predict the full consequences of a no vote. So, if not knowing the consequences of voting yes means you cannot vote yes, not knowing the consequences of voting no means you cannot vote no.
    The consequences of voting "no" means there is no change. The consequence of voting "yes" means there will be changes. If we knew what those changes are going to be, we could each decide and vote for change, or not. It seems rash to vote for change when we don't know what is the change for which we are voting.

    In fact, the more I think about this, the sillier it is. How can anyone vote for something when they have no idea what it is?

    I wish I was in the lucky position, which you seem to be, to be certain what it is I am asked to vote for. Although spare a thought for those others who find the treaty confusing and impossible to understand. I'd hazard a guess that the majority are in the latter position.
    Kev_ps3 wrote: »
    Maby we could add a poll to this thread to find out what way boards members will be voting? It would be interesting to find out..
    What a cool idea. How do you do that?


  • Options
    #737
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    agentorange wrote: »
    The consequences of voting "no" means there is no change.

    That's not entirely accurate. You're mixing up the effect of a vote on the changes to the treaties and the consequences of a vote on the Treaty. While it's true that a No vote will mean status quo for the Treaties it does not necessarily mean status quo for the EU.

    Vote | Change to the Treaties | Consequences
    Yes | Well defined | Impossible to know precisely but the general gist can be taken from the Lisbon Treaty
    No | None | Impossible to know precisely. We what the EU has for "Plan B"


    Both a yes and a no vote will cause change in the EU.


  • Options
    #738
    agentorange
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭agentorange


    IRLConor wrote: »
    That's not entirely accurate. You're mixing up the effect of a vote on the changes to the treaties and the consequences of a vote on the Treaty. While it's true that a No vote will mean status quo for the Treaties it does not necessarily mean status quo for the EU.

    Vote | Change to the Treaties | Consequences
    Yes | Well defined | Impossible to know precisely but the general gist can be taken from the Lisbon Treaty
    No | None | Impossible to know precisely. We what the EU has for "Plan B"


    Both a yes and a no vote will cause change in the EU.

    I agree that voting "no" is unlikely to mean no future changes in the EU. To think otherwise would be naive and undesirable.

    However, that bridge can be crossed when we get to it. If there is one thing I have learned in this life, it's premature to solve a problem in anticipation of that problem, as inevitably the problem will be an entirely different one when we get to it.

    As mentioned, i am not in the position, which you seem to be, to understand what the treaty contains, and am envious of you your certainty.


  • Options
    #739
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    agentorange wrote: »
    As mentioned, i am not in the position, which you seem to be, to understand what the treaty contains, and am envious of you your certainty.

    I am far from certain about the contents of the treaty. I've read most of it and I've read plenty of the summaries and arguments for and against it. The treaty seems to be mostly positive, and I have found no "show stopper" problems* with it so based on that I'll probably vote yes.

    I don't think I could hold all of the treaty in my head at once so there's bound to be parts I have misunderstood. I'm just going to act on the best information available to me.

    If I compare how I intend to vote with voting for TDs in a general election this referendum compares quite favourably. With the TDs I have their manifesto and previous record, it's not an awful lot to go on and i'm able to make decisions there.

    * Pretty much all of the "no" arguments I have heard so far have been either factually incorrect or based on a political premise that I don't hold/agree with. I have no problem with the latter arguments but the former bug me.


  • Options
    #740
    Mark2701
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭Mark2701


    Thanks for the info Sofflaw youve certainly cleared up my two negatives. Im now satisifed to vote yes.


  • Options
    #741
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    agentorange wrote: »
    I agree that voting "no" is unlikely to mean no future changes in the EU. To think otherwise would be naive and undesirable.

    However, that bridge can be crossed when we get to it. If there is one thing I have learned in this life, it's premature to solve a problem in anticipation of that problem, as inevitably the problem will be an entirely different one when we get to it.

    That will be next year, then, in respect of the Commissioners. Under the "status quo" of Nice, the Commission will be reduced in numbers and go over to a rotating basis in 2009, as opposed to 2014 under Lisbon.
    agentorange wrote: »
    As mentioned, i am not in the position, which you seem to be, to understand what the treaty contains, and am envious of you your certainty.

    And as IRLConor says, it's funny the way that doesn't stop people electing a government.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #742
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Mark2701 wrote: »
    Thanks for the info Sofflaw youve certainly cleared up my two negatives. Im now satisifed to vote yes.

    Glad to have been able to help clarify!

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #743
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    saw a snip of the news the other day about impacts from Lisbon on control of Foreign Direct Investment, Any info scofflaw ?


  • Options
    #744
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    saw a snip of the news the other day about impacts from Lisbon on control of Foreign Direct Investment, Any info scofflaw ?

    I think that's one that can't be answered. The Yes side tends to claim that FDI would be impacted negatively if we vote No, but I can't see how one would prove such a claim - FDI fluctuates for all kinds of reasons. There's nothing in the Treaty that directly impacts FDI either way, so no help there.

    Insofar as I have a view on it myself, I'd go with IBEC/ACCI/DCC etc (even the IDA, I seem to recall) on the subject - they feel a Yes vote is the better choice.


    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #745
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    fair enough.

    Still No though.

    (Farming Family)


  • Options
    #746
    ManofMunster
    Registered Users Posts: 87 ✭✭ManofMunster


    it's a 'no' from me too

    just for the craic, like ;)


  • Options
    #747
    jessop1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    Hello

    Please see this article printed in todays UK Daily telegraph.

    Secret deal to persuade Ireland on EU treaty

    Yet another example of the contempt and disrespect with which the irish and european political elite view irish and european citizens.


  • Options
    #748
    maniac101
    Registered Users Posts: 233 ✭✭maniac101


    jessop1 wrote: »
    Hello

    Please see this article printed in todays UK Daily telegraph.

    Secret deal to persuade Ireland on EU treaty

    Yet another example of the contempt and disrespect with which the irish and european political elite view irish and european citizens.

    Mirrored only by the contempt with which many in the Yes camp view those in the No camp. IMHO.
    Hang on a second...

    The article's title is "Secret deal to persuade Ireland on EU treaty". So where's the "deal"? There's no mention of one in the item. Instead, there's reference a couple of leaked memos from civil servants, indicating that bad news from Europe should be managed in the advent of the Irish vote (hardly surprising, given that that's a pretty common strategy in the run-up to any election). Inferring that 6000 jobs in Kildare are under threat as a result of this "deal" is simply ridiculous. Interviewing a florist in Leixlip hardly lends any weight to the argument!

    Now, I'd have to admit that I'm not informed enough to take sides on this particular debate - yet. But I know biased journalism when I see it (if you can call it journalism at all). This is simply a bad article from a bad newspaper.


  • Options
    #749
    RATM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭RATM


    I made up my mind on this treaty ages ago and Im not even going to bother reading a single bit of text of it before I go out and vote No.

    Why? Im voting no in solidarity with the 400m Europeans who are being denied their democratic rights. Im voting in solidarity with the Dutch and French voters who already shot this down.

    This treaty is, by Aherns own admission, 95% the same as the one the French and Dutch sent to the bin.

    A No vote is a vote to tell the European elites what we think of their democratic credentials, or lack of them.


  • Options
    #750
    jessop1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    maniac101 wrote: »
    Hang on a second...

    The article's title is "Secret deal to persuade Ireland on EU treaty". So where's the "deal"? There's no mention of one in the item. Instead, there's reference a couple of leaked memos from civil servants, indicating that bad news from Europe should be managed in the advent of the Irish vote (hardly surprising, given that that's a pretty common strategy in the run-up to any election). Inferring that 6000 jobs in Kildare are under threat as a result of this "deal" is simply ridiculous. Interviewing a florist in Leixlip hardly lends any weight to the argument!

    Now, I'd have to admit that I'm not informed enough to take sides on this particular debate - yet. But I know biased journalism when I see it (if you can call it journalism at all). This is simply a bad article from a bad newspaper.

    splitting hairs and shooting the messanger. IMHO.

    The part about the impact to kildare and other places in ireland as a result of potential impacts of the treaty is a concern shared by many. That point is however, somewhat perpiheral to the main point of the article around the leaked memo.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #751
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'll requote this for your convenience:
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's already a thread open on the Lisbon Treaty. jessop1, I suggest that you read it - yes, I know it's long - and see that most of the points raised in your signature link have been raised and largely rebutted.

    As for the article you reference, it manages to totally and utterly miss the rather significant point that the Lisbon Treaty has no bearing - none whatsoever - on our corporate tax rates. If you feel differently, take it up on the other thread.
    jessop1 wrote: »
    The part about the impact to kildare and other places in ireland as a result of potential impacts of the treaty is a concern shared by many. That point is however, somewhat perpiheral to the main point of the article around the leaked memo.
    Have you done as I asked and read the thread? Are you here to discuss the treaty, or to soapbox?


Advertisement