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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Irish Friends vote 'No' for me (please!)

2

Comments

  • #52
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    utick wrote: »
    well they are hardly going about it in the most democratic fashion are they?


    1)So it will give the eu more 'control' over our lives? How is this democratic?

    Ah - now I finally understand what people are misunderstanding here! No, the increase of Parliament's right to refuse/amend legislation is only relevant to EU legislation - not member state legislation. It will reduce the amount of EU legislation, because it makes it possible for MEPs to refuse more of it on behalf of voters.
    utick wrote: »
    2)Is this not already the case, if not where in lisbon is this stated?

    Respectively, no, and the Protocol On The Role Of National Parliaments In The European Union (if you have the consolidated versions, you can search for "INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS").
    utick wrote: »
    3)citizen movement is already entiteled in the eu

    You are confusing "a citizens' movement" with "freedom of movement for citizens", I'm afraid.
    utick wrote: »
    as far as combating global warming goes, that will mean more taxes (part of that eu control you were talking about i guess)

    Tax would be up to the national governments. Emissions reduction targets and alternative energy policy are the EU's instruments.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #53
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    utick wrote: »
    1)So it will give the eu more 'control' over our lives? How is this democratic?

    You've completely misunderstood what Scofflaw was saying. The power resides with the Councils and the Commission now, the Lisbon treaty will transfer some of this power to the directly elected European parliament.
    utick wrote: »
    2)Is this not already the case, if not where in lisbon is this stated?

    No, atm national parliaments can debate EU legislation and make comments on it but it is a courtesy. The Lisbon treaty will enshrine this in law and allow national parliaments to delay legislation for 8 weeks. The cam also send back legislation that does not comply with the principle of subsidiary.
    utick wrote: »
    3)citizen movement is already entiteled in the eu

    But a petition system which makes the Commission pay attention does not!
    utick wrote: »
    as far as combating global warming goes, that will mean more taxes (part of that eu control you were talking about i guess)

    The EU already has some say on indirect taxation i.e VAT. This is the type of tax that is levied on fuel and energy so the EU can have an impact here. All decisions made in this area are made by unanimous vote in the council and Ireland has a veto. The EU has absolutely no say over direct taxation such as corporate tax and income tax, to do so would require another referendum in this country.


  • #54
    Benfatto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭Benfatto


    djpbarry wrote: »
    As Scofflaw has already pointed out, this is absolute nonsense. Why would all the individual member states negotiate a treaty that renders them completely powerless?

    The same old thing that has driven politicians since the beginning of time: greed. They believe that with the creation of an all powerful super state they can rule even more. In fact prime ministers/presidents around Europe are dreaming right now about being the president of Europe (juncker (Lu) Balkenende (NL) TonyBlair)

    I did not make this up - this is confirmed by the EU politicians themselves, again, just read my quotes:

    ” It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin … Against the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, the essential European legislative functions lie with the members of the executive … The figures stated by the German Ministry of Justice make it quite clear. By far the large majority of legislation valid in Germany is adopted by the German Government in the Council of Ministers, and not by the German Parliament … And so the question arises whether Germany can still be referred to unconditionally as a parliamentary democracy at all, because the separation of powers as a fundamental constituting principle of the constitutional order in Germany has been cancelled out for large sections of the legislation applying to this country … The proposed draft Constitution does not contain the possibility of restoring individual competencies to the national level as a centralisation brake. Instead, it counts on the same one-way street as before, heading towards ever greater centralisation … Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something is going wrong, that an untransparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competencies and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this.”
    - Former German President Roman Herzog and former president of the German Constitutional Court, article on the EU Constitution, Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007

    “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. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage.”
    - Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001
    djpbarry wrote: »
    So the quote that you originally posted was in fact from The Bruges Group and not from "some of the auditors", as you claimed? Big difference there, don’t you think?

    overlooked that, not that it matters much. Anyone with a basic understanding of financials can read the auditors report and see it's a mess.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Are they indeed... :rolleyes:

    Look, I quote all these politicians admitting they have deceived their people and still you don't believe me? man, you're really lost...
    djpbarry wrote: »
    You seem to be having difficulty separating The Bruges Group from the CAO. Here, let me help:
    • The Bruges Group is a euro-sceptic think tank which is often associated with the British Conservative Party.
    • The European Court of Auditors is a panel of financial experts that examines the revenue, expenditures, management, and overall efficiency of the European Union's bureaucracy.

    See the difference?

    The quotations in that article are from the rapport itself, being sceptic does not imply making things up (like the scare mongering on of the 'yes' kamp)

    djpbarry wrote: »
    I fail to see what any of this has to do with Lisbon; you're argument is not terribly convincing. In fact, I'd say you've made me even less likely to vote 'No'.

    It doesn't really matter who's debating you and how much proof is being thrown into your face, you have been brainwashed. That is what this source is all about. It's not your fault, schools are public for a reason, media isn't state controlled for nothing, so please don't feel offended, you just cannot help it. Let's just hope it won't go as far as soldiers' boots kicking people in camps even though it might give you a reality check.


  • #55
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    Benfatto wrote: »
    It doesn't really matter who's debating you and how much proof is being thrown into your face, you have been brainwashed. That is what this source this is all about. It's not your fault, schools are public for a reason, media isn't state controlled for nothing, so please don't feel offended, you just cannot help it. Let's just hope it won't go as far as soldiers' boots kicking people in camps even though it might give you a reality check.

    My eyes...they're opening...
    Jews...everywhere...


  • #56
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Benfatto wrote: »
    ...being sceptic does not imply making things up (like the scare mongering on of the 'yes' kamp)

    ...

    Let's just hope it won't go as far as soldiers' boots kicking people in camps even though it might give you a reality check.
    Who's doing the scaremongering?


  • #57
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    The same old thing that has driven them since the beginning of time: greed. They believe that with the creation of an all powerful super state they can rule even more. In fact prime ministers/presidents around Europe are dreaming right now about being the president of Europe (juncker (Lu) Balkenende (NL) TonyBlair)

    I did not make this up - this is confirmed by the EU politicians themselves, again, just read my quotes:

    I appreciate that you didn't make this up. However, perhaps you might choose to read your quotes again, since they don't prove the point you appear to think they prove.

    The idea that virtually every member of every parliament in Europe is dreaming of being "President of Europe" is pretty ridiculous. For a start, Europe is actually used by most EU governments as a "dumping ground" for failed politicians. They're not dreaming of Europe - they fear it might happen to them.

    As to EU heads of state dreaming of it - the position is actually President of the European Council. Currently that's on rotation between the heads of state you claim are "dreaming of it". Sarkozy will be President in the second half of this year, for example.

    Once in a while, you should at least check in with reality. Even if you don't fancy that, there are still far better conspiracy theories on offer than the ones you're peddling here - even if Libertas agree with you on some of them.

    really,
    Scofflaw


  • #58
    Benfatto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭Benfatto


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Who's doing the scaremongering?

    Had you actually seen my source you would have understood why I made this remark.


  • #59
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Benfatto wrote: »
    It doesn't really matter who's debating you and how much proof is being thrown into your face, you have been brainwashed. That is what this source is all about. It's not your fault, schools are public for a reason, media isn't state controlled for nothing, so please don't feel offended, you just cannot help it. Let's just hope it won't go as far as soldiers' boots kicking people in camps even though it might give you a reality check.

    I am also assuming that your belief in the truth of the No vote is on the basis that you actually know what the consequences of rejection will be. A little less condescension and hyperbole might also help in trying to win hearts and minds.


  • #60
    Benfatto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭Benfatto


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The idea that virtually every member of every parliament in Europe is dreaming of being "President of Europe" is pretty ridiculous.

    No it's not:

    WHAT TOP EU POLITICIANS SAY ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY/ EU CONSTITUTION
    (These quotations are in chronological order backwards)
    “France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments… A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.”
    - French President Nicolas Sarkozy,at meeting of senior MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007
    _______
    “The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary … But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.”
    - V.Giscard D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007
    ______
    ‘ “I think it’s a bit upsetting… to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity”, Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said on Sunday 21 October, according to the Irish Independent. ‘If you believe in something …why not let your people have a say in it. I think the Irish people should take the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that they believe in the cause, and perhaps others shouldn’t be so afraid of it,’ he added. “
    - Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, EU Observer, Brussels, 22 October 2007
    ______
    “They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”
    - Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007
    _____
    “Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires. We have the dimension of Empire but there is a great difference. Empires were usually made with force with a centre imposing diktat, a will on the others. Now what we have is the first non-imperial empire.”
    - Commission President J-M Barroso, The Brussels Journal, 11 July 2007
    _____
    “Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
    - V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007
    ____
    ” The most striklng change ( between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.”
    - Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Taoiseach, Irish Times, 30 June 2007
    _____
    “The substance of the constitution is preserved.That is a fact.”
    - German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speech in the European Parliament, 27 June 2007
    _______
    The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left.”
    - Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007
    _______
    “The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’ “.
    - Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007
    ______
    “90 per cent of it is still there…These changes haven’t made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004.”
    - Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007
    ____
    “The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable … The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
    - Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007
    ____
    “The good thing about not calling it a Constltution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”
    - Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007
    ____
    “Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable … I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU much more difficult. If a referendum had to be held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?”
    - Commission President Jose M. Barroso, Irish Times, 8 Feb.2007; quoting remarks in Het Financieele Dag and De Volkskrant, Holland; also quoted in EUobserver, 6 February 2007
    _____
    ” It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin … Against the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, the essential European legislative functions lie with the members of the executive … The figures stated by the German Ministry of Justice make it quite clear. By far the large majority of legislation valid in Germany is adopted by the German Government in the Council of Ministers, and not by the German Parliament … And so the question arises whether Germany can still be referred to unconditionally as a parliamentary democracy at all, because the separation of powers as a fundamental constituting principle of the constitutional order in Germany has been cancelled out for large sections of the legislation applying to this country … The proposed draft Constitution does not contain the possibility of restoring individual competencies to the national level as a centralisation brake. Instead, it counts on the same one-way street as before, heading towards ever greater centralisation … Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something is going wrong, that an untransparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competencies and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this.”
    - Former German President Roman Herzog and former president of the German Constitutional Court, article on the EU Constitution, Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007
    _______
    “If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘On we go”, and if it’s a No we will say ‘We continue.’”
    - Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister and holder of the EU Presidency, Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2005
    ________
    “The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”
    - Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004
    _____
    “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. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage.”
    - Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Benfatto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭Benfatto


    is_that_so wrote: »
    I am also assuming that your belief in the truth of the No vote is on the basis that you actually know what the consequences of rejection will be. A little less condescension and hyperbole might also help in trying to win hearts and minds.

    Should Ireland vote 'No' they will probably use the same old tactic as they did with the Nice treaty: hold referendums until Brussels gets the desired answer.

    Maybe they will take the effort of renaming it one more time.


  • #62
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Benfatto wrote: »
    Should Ireland vote 'No' they will probably use the same old tactic as they did with the Nice treaty: hold referendums until Brussels gets the desired answer.

    Maybe they will take the effort of renaming it one more time.

    This is indeed a trouble with all of the No arguments, absolute certainty that the Treaty is wrong and should be rejected but are unable to say , no more than anyone else what that will mean, because that is a complete unknown, maybe even an unknown unknown.


  • #63
    Benfatto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭Benfatto


    is_that_so wrote: »
    This is indeed a trouble with all of the No arguments, absolute certainty that the Treaty is wrong and should be rejected but are unable to say , no more than anyone else what that will mean, because that is a complete unknown, maybe even an unknown unknown.

    Please read what I said: I was talking about the way of implementing treaties, not about the treaty itself.

    The Irish rejected the Nice treaty in the past, but accepted it in the next referendum.

    Switzerland voted I believe 6 times in a referendum for EU accession, rejected all as you know (love them)

    France and Netherlands rejected, and are know being ****ed. Same constitution, different name, no referendum.

    And you are tolerating this?


  • #64
    ninty9er
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    Benfatto wrote: »
    • Ireland's low tax rates are key for making it one of the richest countries in the world. Most EU member states however have higher tax rates than Ireland. Countries like Germany and France have repeatedly stated that they oppose tax competition, opposing in effect Ireland and other members. Already the European commission is working on a unified EU corporate tax rate. Recently it has been postponed untill after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all member states.
    • The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU the possibility to extend their legislative powers into any political area. It is therefore only a matter of time before all issues will be centrally decided, including national taxation policies.
    You have discredited your first point with your second. Unanimity is required to extend legislative areas. Tax is an area Ireland (and the UK) are unwilling to cede.

    TAX=Nothing to do with the EU and nothing to do with the European Reform Treaty

    Q.E.D


  • #65
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Benfatto wrote: »
    Please read what I said: I was talking about the way of implementing treaties, not about the treaty itself.

    The Irish rejected the Nice treaty in the past, but accepted it in the next referendum.

    Switzerland voted I believe 6 times in a referendum for EU accession, rejected all as you know (love them)

    France and Netherlands rejected, and are know being ****ed. Same constitution, different name, no referendum.

    And you are tolerating this?

    And again I repeat myself. The EU are not responsible for individual countries not having referendums. Government by the people etc.

    It is our constitution which requires amendment, and if I was wavering in any way it would not be on the basis of solidarity with the "disenfranchised" of Europe.

    My point still stands, you advocate no, although for a different reason to many others, without being able to say what a No result means.


  • #66
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    murphaph wrote: »
    18 other parliaments.
    The EU Constitution was ratified by popular referendum in Luxembourg, Spain and Romania.
    murphaph wrote: »
    I disagree with a common defence policy and believe this is aimed squarely at building the weapons industry in Europe to rival the americans.
    Very unlikely that this will happen for the simple reason that people don't want it to happen.
    murphaph wrote: »
    I think the EU has already expanded too far and believe Lisbon will allow even further expansion more easily.
    The EU is unlikely to expand beyond the former-Yugoslav states in the short to medium term; Turkey, Switzerland and Norway are the only other states to officially express an interest in acceding, but none are likely to join any time soon.
    HydeRoad wrote: »
    ...a recent radio interview with Declan Ganley very decidedly swung me in favour of voting NO.
    May I ask if you researched any of his claims in an effort to see if they could be substantiated?
    HydeRoad wrote: »
    Years of lies, squandered boom, and more lies, mean that I am unlikely to take seriously any statement made by a member of the main political parties, on any side of the issue.
    And yet you have been convinced to vote 'No' by a man/organisation that you know virtually nothing about?
    Benfatto wrote: »
    The same old thing that has driven politicians since the beginning of time: greed.
    That still doesn't make any sense. Even if true, why would a group of "greedy" politicians negotiate a treaty that renders them completely powerless?
    Benfatto wrote: »
    They believe that with the creation of an all powerful super state they can rule even more.
    :rolleyes:

    Conspiracy theories is this way.
    Benfatto wrote: »
    ...this is confirmed by the EU politicians themselves...
    No it isn't - you're seeing something that isn't there.
    Benfatto wrote: »
    overlooked that, not that it matters much.
    Yes it does matter; it matters quite a bit.
    Benfatto wrote: »
    Look, I quote all these politicians admitting they have deceived their people...
    Again, no. Care to point out the admission of deceit in this statement:
    "The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’ ".
    Benfatto wrote: »
    The quotations in that article are from the rapport itself, being sceptic does not imply making things up (like the scare mongering on of the 'yes' kamp)
    What scaremongering is this? Care to provide an example?
    Benfatto wrote: »
    It doesn't really matter who's debating you and how much proof is being thrown into your face, you have been brainwashed. That is what this source is all about. It's not your fault, schools are public for a reason, media isn't state controlled for nothing, so please don't feel offended, you just cannot help it. Let's just hope it won't go as far as soldiers' boots kicking people in camps even though it might give you a reality check.
    Wow. Terrific argument. Kudos to you.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    PrivateEye
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,283 ✭✭✭PrivateEye


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6abZudYWJ5k

    ^Love that video :pac:

    I'm voting No myself, which leaves me a little worried- Libertas, Youth Defence and the Workers Party? not great company I admit.
    Still.... I don't think party lines apply here.

    Pro Europe, but I don't see Lisbon as a good deal...I imagine people like me make up the majority of the No side?


  • #68
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    PrivateEye wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6abZudYWJ5k

    ^Love that video :pac:

    I'm voting No myself, which leaves me a little worried- Libertas, Youth Defence and the Workers Party? not great company I admit.
    Still.... I don't think party lines apply here.

    Pro Europe, but I don't see Lisbon as a good deal...I imagine people like me make up the majority of the No side?

    Probably not, I'm afraid. The bulk of the No side will be made up of the same 500,000 voters who vote No every time. People who actually think Lisbon is a bad deal will come in on top of that. If the No vote more than doubles from its usual level then you can claim to be in the majority.

    Mind you, I have no particular idea why Lisbon isn't a good deal.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #69
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    murphaph wrote:
    I disagree with a common defence policy and believe this is aimed squarely at building the weapons industry in Europe to rival the americans
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Very unlikely that this will happen for the simple reason that people don't want it to happen.

    Sorry but would these 'people' perhaps be the french and dutch voters whose views were ignored and cynically sidestepped to prevent them expressing their views a second time.

    Yes this is certainly an institution to be a proud member of.

    Are you really willing to endorse this subversion of what 'the people don't want to happen' as you say.


  • #70
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    Sorry but would these 'people' perhaps be the french and dutch voters whose views were ignored and cynically sidestepped to prevent them expressing their views a second time.

    Yes this is certainly an institution to be a proud member of.

    Are you really willing to endorse this subversion of what 'the people don't want to happen' as you say.

    I would like to add that I don't agree with djbarry but I don't agree with you either. Europe already has a massive arms industry, second only to the US. Ever heard of BAE, EADS, Dassault, Fabrique Nationale, Heckler & Koch, Beretta, AgustaWestland and SAAB? European arms are sold all over the world and are growing in sales. The EDA allows EU militaries to collectively bargain with them and international manufacturers to get a better deal. It's purpose is not to increase arms manufacturing in Europe, the arms manufacturers are doing that just fine without the help of the EU.


  • #71
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    sink wrote: »
    I would like to add that I don't agree with djbarry but I don't agree with you either. Europe already has a massive arms industry, second only to the US. Ever heard of BAE, EADS, Dassault, Fabrique Nationale, Heckler & Koch, Beretta, AgustaWestland and SAAB? European arms are sold all over the world and are growing in sales. The EDA allows EU militaries to collectively bargain with them and international manufacturers to get a better deal. It's purpose is not to increase arms manufacturing in Europe, the arms manufacturers are doing that just fine without the help of the EU.
    I would like to add that the member states in the EU which are in NATO are also getting on fine without dragging in the EU institutions, but wait NATO objectives are still introduced into this treaty, funny that.

    Of course, just to repeat, the purpose of my post was to highlight the democratic deficit in the EU in case djpbarry hadn't noticed it. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    I would like to add that the member states in the EU which are in NATO are also getting on fine without dragging in the EU institutions, but wait NATO objectives are still introduced into this treaty, funny that.

    Of course, just to repeat, the purpose of my post was to highlight the democratic deficit in the EU in case djpbarry hadn't noticed it. ;)

    If the EU is going to have battlegroups (requested by the UN), does it not make sense that it should have some communication with the main military block in Europe?

    You've been going on about this democratic deficit, but the deficit you keep pointing out is in other countries not in the EU. I remembering voting for in the last European parliamentary election and in the last general election.


  • #73
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    sink wrote: »
    If the EU is going to have battlegroups (requested by the UN), does it not make sense that it should have some communication with the main military block in Europe?

    I dont equate 'some communication' with a defence policy that "shall be consistent with commitments under NATO". I can't believe that this was going to be enshrined in our constitution before it was rejected.
    sink wrote:
    You've been going on about this democratic deficit, but the deficit you keep pointing out is in other countries not in the EU. I remembering voting for in the last European parliamentary election and in the last general election.

    France, Holland ....'other countries not in the EU'...... okay....

    Pity your vote didn't stop those peoples views being ignored and railroaded through.


  • #74
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    France, Holland ....'other countries not in the EU'...... okay....

    Pity your vote didn't stop those peoples views being ignored and railroaded through.

    My vote of course didn't affect a foreign country. My vote only affect those which are meant to represent me. If they voted for a different government in both of their countries there would probably be an entirely different outcome. I don't have a vote in their countries, I wouldn't expect to and neither do you nor should you.


  • #75
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    I dont equate 'some communication' with a defence policy that "shall be consistent with commitments under NATO". I can't believe that this was going to be enshrined in our constitution before it was rejected.

    Well it does not make sense for the EU to act against an organisation in which many EU countries are members. That's all it means.


  • #76
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    As EU citizens you either accept that we're in it together or we're not.

    Well now you do have a vote as an EU citizen regarding the EU itself. This is a chance to change the EU for the better but if we vote yes we resign the european union to the bad habits it has developed.


  • #77
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    sink wrote: »
    Well it does not make sense for the EU to act against an organisation in which many EU countries are members. That's all it means.
    Aligning the EU to NATO's commitments isn't the only option to not act against NATO.

    Leaving it out of our *constitution* does not mean we are anti-NATO, just not in their back pockets.


  • #78
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    As EU citizens you either accept that we're in it together or we're not.

    Well now you do have a vote as an EU citizen regarding the EU itself. This is a chance to change the EU for the better but if we vote yes we resign the european union to the bad habits it has developed.

    I'm pretty certain we've been over this point before. If the EU was to hold it's own referenda it would effectively be a state itself. It would seem
    the majority in Europe don't want the EU to be a state so what your asking for is not what the majority in Europe wants. Like it or not your not going to get what you want by voting no.


  • #79
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    Aligning the EU to NATO's commitments isn't the only option to not act against NATO.

    Leaving it out of our *constitution* does not mean we are anti-NATO, just not in their back pockets.

    It does not say anything like 'aligning' the EU with NATO, it says 'consistent with' NATO. Two very different words but you seem to think they are the same.


  • #80
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    Okay this is my last contribution for the evening,
    the free dictionary wrote:
    align

    verb

    To be formally associated, as by treaty:
    consistent
    adj.

    In agreement; compatible:
    Being in agreement with itself; coherent and uniform: a

    They are very different indeed, opposites in fact.:rolleyes:

    Look this is symantics, i'm off to bed.


  • #81
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    Okay this is my last contribution for the evening,

    They are very different indeed, opposites in fact.:rolleyes:

    Look this is symantics, i'm off to bed.

    One means to be associated with to such an extent that there aims are the same. The other means to be compatible with and to not conflict, but not necessarily to share the same aims. Very simple! Semantics you have not grasped I might add. I'm being pedantic I know, but you have to be when it comes to an international treaty as one word can change the entire meaning.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    johnnyq wrote: »
    Okay this is my last contribution for the evening,

    They are very different indeed, opposites in fact.:rolleyes:

    Look this is symantics, i'm off to bed.

    We need not go into semantics, though. 21 EU members are NATO members - 78% of the EU. They have agreed to certain things as NATO members - duties and obligations. They cannot sign up to another Treaty which does not accept and respect those obligations. Therefore, either:

    a) EU Treaties must accept and respect those obligations

    or

    b) all the 21 member states must leave NATO

    or

    c) 21 out of the 27 EU member states must leave the EU

    There's a theoretical option (d), where the NATO Treaties are amended to make NATO respect EU military obligations - making the EU treaties the primary military treaties of the NATO members instead of the NATO one. I'm pretty certain that's not actually a good idea, though.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #83
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    johnnyq wrote: »
    Sorry but would these 'people' perhaps be the french and dutch voters whose views were ignored and cynically sidestepped to prevent them expressing their views a second time.
    They were hardly ignored; correct me if I'm wrong, but the EU constitution was not ratified, was it?


  • #84
    redspider
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,544 ✭✭✭redspider


    is_that_so wrote: »
    you advocate no without being able to say what a No result means.

    A 'No' results in the status quo. Look around you, this IS what a No result is. We are living in a 'No' EU right now, right this very second, every second!

    That's what a No result means.

    It is true that it does not mean the status quo will be like this forever, or even for a very long time. Change is inevitable and beneficial, thats the right change of course. Not all changes are perfect.

    Voters need to decide whether this propsed change with the Lisbon Treaty is a good change for them, for Ireland and for Europe. Irish voters, as the only people being directly asked their opinion, should think of all Europeans as well as just Ireland. If it is rejected, another change will be proposed at some point in the future. Change will not come to a standstill.

    A rejection of the Lisbon Treaty wont stop the 'european project', it wont make us 'bad members' of the EU, it wont make us non-Europeans, and we wont be ostracised.

    Vote Wisely .....

    Redspider


  • #85
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    redspider wrote: »
    A 'No' results in the status quo. Look around you, this IS what a No result is. We are living in a 'No' EU right now, right this very second, every second!

    That's what a No result means.
    That's an utterly naive view, to the point of irresponsibility.

    Every decision has consequences. You've acknowledged that the status quo can't remain static, but you've extrapolated that to mean that there can be no negative consequences of a no vote.

    In the short term, there is at least one direct consequence of a no vote - the size of the Commission will be reduced five years earlier.

    In the longer term, I don't know what the consequences of a no vote will be. Neither do you, and it's disingenuous at best to claim that you do.


  • #86
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Sorry but would these 'people' perhaps be the french and dutch voters whose views were ignored and cynically sidestepped to prevent them expressing their views a second time.
    They were hardly ignored; correct me if I'm wrong, but the EU constitution was not ratified, was it?

    And the Dutch and French negotiating teams got specific features negotiated into the Lisbon Treaty to address their concerns - see, for example, this article: Bringing the Treaty Back Home: The Netherlands and the Lisbon Treaty:
    To that aim, the Dutch negotiating position focused specifically on the incorporation of a number of concrete checks and balances, safeguards and emergency breaks into the treaty text. Two key points included the Dutch demand for clarification of the existing division of competencies between member states and the Union, and the incorporation into the treaty text of a reference to the accession criteria for candidate member states. It was successfully made clear to the EU negotiating partners that conceding these particular demands would be instrumental for the Dutch delegation in bringing the treaty back home. The vulnerability of the Dutch position in terms of legitimacy was thereby effectively turned into a strength in the negotiations.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #87
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    redspider wrote: »
    A 'No' results in the status quo. Look around you, this IS what a No result is. We are living in a 'No' EU right now, right this very second, every second!

    That's what a No result means.

    It is true that it does not mean the status quo will be like this forever, or even for a very long time. Change is inevitable and beneficial, thats the right change of course. Not all changes are perfect.

    Voters need to decide whether this propsed change with the Lisbon Treaty is a good change for them, for Ireland and for Europe. Irish voters, as the only people being directly asked their opinion, should think of all Europeans as well as just Ireland. If it is rejected, another change will be proposed at some point in the future. Change will not come to a standstill.

    A rejection of the Lisbon Treaty wont stop the 'european project', it wont make us 'bad members' of the EU, it wont make us non-Europeans, and we wont be ostracised.

    Vote Wisely .....

    Redspider

    No it will not but nor does it guarantee this status quo will last any longer than next week nor does it guarantee anything else. Change will not stop but nor is there anything to suggests that would be an equal part of that change if we do not ratify the treaty. Lisbon is the next stage in the EU's evolution and while the EU specialises in 11th hour rescues, this treaty has been in process for almost 7 years.

    One could criticise the EU for not providing a clear answer to this question but as has been observed this is Plan B that has been painstakingly assembled and reassembled. The fact that we are unaware of what Lisbon is about IMO is down to our own government for not communicating what it was doing beyond it's good for Ireland.
    And therein lies the problem and regrettably one of the reasons the results of referenda, for all their democratic credentials, can often end up a mish-mash of skewed logic, emotive threats and cajoling.
    I wonder if it is unhappiness with the treaty or the fact that we were ignored until we were needed to vote on it.


  • #88
    Duffman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭Duffman


    redspider wrote: »
    A 'No' results in the status quo. Look around you, this IS what a No result is. We are living in a 'No' EU right now, right this very second, every second!

    That's what a No result means.

    The status quo? You mean a situation where the EU is too busy trying to decide what exactly it is to effectively deal with climate change, rocketing food and energy prices and a more assertive and threatening Russia on its doorstep.

    Brilliant.

    Anyway, you're wrong about the consequences of a No vote. The Constitutional Treaty, although flawed, could at least be explained to the average citizen without much difficultly. The direct consequence of its rejection is Lisbon, Plan B, an amendment to the tangled web of existing treaties that is virtually impossible to explain in detail to someone who knows nothing about the EU. Eurosceptics really did themselves a favour there.


  • #89
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    Ye are getting way too into the whole thing.

    Bottom line, there is indeed scaremongering going on here.
    If you're so angry about nopt getting a vote on it then take it up with your government and stop trying (Like the OP) to get us to vote on your behalf, I'll be voting on my behalf and my country's behalf, not a bunch of pissed off europeans.

    They are, i live in the Netherlands, there's protests outside our Irish embassies. The Dutch are really p*ssed that their right to vote has been removed on this issue.

    So beyond having riots what else are they supposed to do ?

    The french foreign minister has threatened:
    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbojmhauey/
    Ireland will be "the first victim" if voters reject the Lisbon Treaty in this Thursday's referendum.

    And the EC president has Manuel Barosso has done the same.

    Anyway at this stage, i dont really care what the Yes camp has to say, i'd vote no simply because its my right and not because someone was trying to threaten a country into getting the vote they want.


  • #90
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    craichoe wrote: »
    Ye are getting way too into the whole thing.

    Bottom line, there is indeed scaremongering going on here.



    They are, i live in the Netherlands, there's protests outside our Irish embassies. The Dutch are really p*ssed that their right to vote has been removed on this issue.

    So beyond having riots what else are they supposed to do ?

    The french foreign minister has threatened:
    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbojmhauey/


    And the EC president has Manuel Barosso has done the same.

    Anyway at this stage, i dont really care what the Yes camp has to say, i'd vote no simply because its my right and not because someone was trying to threaten a country into getting the vote they want.

    Did you notice that he said 'punish yourselves' not 'we'll punish you' two very different things. One is a warning a friend would give another if they were walking into danger the other is a threat.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    sink wrote: »
    Did you notice that he said 'punish yourselves' not 'we'll punish you' to very different things. One is a warning a friend would give another if they were walking into danger the other is a threat.

    Thats what the officers in Concentration camps during WWII said to people about escaping.

    If you make a statement you should give a reason, not just .. "Bad things will happen if you don't vote yes"


  • #92
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    craichoe wrote: »
    They are, i live in the Netherlands, there's protests outside our Irish embassies. The Dutch are really p*ssed that their right to vote has been removed on this issue.

    What a load of tripe. The right to vote on the issue wasn't removed, it was never there. Part of the Dutch Governments mandate is to negotiate and ratify (or not) treaties on behalf of their people. The Dutch didn't have their right to vote taken away. That makes it sound like it was all done illegally.


  • #93
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    craichoe wrote: »
    Thats what the officers in Concentration camps during WWII said to people about escaping.

    If you make a statement you should give a reason, not just .. "Bad things will happen if you don't vote yes"

    Plenty in the No campaign are happy to make baseless statements also. While I agree it was foolish for them to make the statements they did given the Irish temprament, I still don't think we should vote down the Treaty because of it. Vote for the merits of the Treaty itself and ignore the backgroud noise.


  • #94
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    What a load of tripe. The right to vote on the issue wasn't removed, it was never there. Part of the Dutch Governments mandate is to negotiate and ratify (or not) treaties on behalf of their people. The Dutch didn't have their right to vote taken away. That makes it sound like it was all done illegally.[/QUOTE]

    Still no vote here. Last time the vote was no, this time the vote will be yes, however its not up to the people.

    Does that sound right to you?


  • #95
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    craichoe wrote: »
    Thats what the officers in Concentration camps during WWII said to people about escaping.
    They said nothing of the sort. :rolleyes:


  • #96
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    craichoe wrote: »
    Thats what the officers in Concentration camps during WWII said to people about escaping.

    If you make a statement you should give a reason, not just .. "Bad things will happen if you don't vote yes"

    Another ludicrous extreme. Sigh.
    Have a look at some of the other threads on this question. Nobody said it will bad if you don't, but there are unknown consequences of a No vote. I'd suggest there's a degree of personal projection on your part.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    craichoe wrote: »
    What a load of tripe. The right to vote on the issue wasn't removed, it was never there. Part of the Dutch Governments mandate is to negotiate and ratify (or not) treaties on behalf of their people. The Dutch didn't have their right to vote taken away. That makes it sound like it was all done illegally.

    Still no vote here. Last time the vote was no, this time the vote will be yes, however its not up to the people.

    Does that sound right to you?[/quote]

    Its a regular occurance in politics that an option is presented, and then rejected, only to be modified slightly and re-submitted for reconsideration. While I can understand the frustration I really think that there are so many other policy areas that affect our lives on a far more regular basis that we dont get to have a say in, like budgets. Its a bit wierd, I find, to get so carried away with the right to vote on this item, but yet not have the same feeling towards other more relevant things to our day to day lives.


  • #98
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Another ludicrous extreme. Sigh.
    Have a look at some of the other threads on this question. Nobody said it will bad if you don't, but there are unknown consequences of a No vote. I'd suggest there's a degree of personal projection on your part.

    How is it a ludicrous extreme, thats what the french foreign minister said.

    Well .. i guess by that logic, we didnt need it before and i can't see that anythings changed so we can vote no safe in the knowledge that there will be no negative impact.

    All i've heard is that it will be bad, with no reasoning as to why.


  • #99
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Do you believe by voting "no" you'll create goodwill in Brussells?


  • #100
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    craichoe wrote: »
    How is it a ludicrous extreme, thats what the french foreign minister said.

    Well .. i guess by that logic, we didnt need it before and i can't see that anythings changed so we can vote no safe in the knowledge that there will be no negative impact.

    All i've heard is that it will be bad, with no reasoning as to why.

    Regardless of what happens if there is a No vote, if there is a Yes then we should see a more efficient EU, and given the benefits we've already gained from being members this can be nothing but good news. I really like the idea of the Citizens Initiative too. Another positive to my mind is the single foreign affairs post, which will give us a stronger global voice. And I think we do tend to be a bit more level headed than the US so for me there is great potential there.

    I don't like the "If you don't vote Yes" approach, any more than I like a lot of the No approach. Scaremongering is unnessecary and cheap. We don't know what will happen if we vote No. I'm not sure there is a better deal to be had seeing as we're talking about negotiating with so many other nations. So I have no idea where it will go after a No vote or what the fallout (if any) there will be. I would much rather see a positive campaign outlining why we should vote Yes rather than why we shouldn't vote Noi.


  • #101
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    Zulu wrote: »
    Do you believe by voting "no" you'll create goodwill in Brussells?

    Goodwill in Brussels ?

    What the people vote is up to them and brussels will have to respect that.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement