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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty

1235»

Comments

  • #122
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    It's nice the No campaign isn't engaged in wild fearmongering.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/editor_tupp/2455689447/

    Or this

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/daraghot/2493732013/in/pool-769144@N21

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/editor_tupp/2494470329/in/pool-769144@N21

    Nice to see a level campaign fought on the facts.


  • #123
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'd almost forgotten about this thread.
    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    There won't be a NO vote.
    You were saying...?


  • #124
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Yaaaaaaaay for Democracy, eh


  • #125
    cahill31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11 ✭cahill31


    Its funny how Brian Cowen is boasting about these "guarantees" that they somehow worked so hard to get. These issues on abortion, neutrality etc weren't a problem at all for the government last year. It was only when we voted no that they suddenly became concerned about them.
    And how are these "guarantees" legally binding if not a word of the text is changed? It would have to be ratified in all member states again to be legit, but it wouldn't be like the EU to do anything democratic would it?


  • #126
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    cahill31 wrote: »
    Its funny how Brian Cowen is boasting about these "guarantees" that they somehow worked so hard to get. These issues on abortion, neutrality etc weren't a problem at all for the government last year. It was only when we voted no that they suddenly became concerned about them.
    And how are these "guarantees" legally binding if not a word of the text is changed? It would have to be ratified in all member states again to be legit, but it wouldn't be like the EU to do anything democratic would it?
    They weren't an issue then and they're not an issue now. But many people were led to believe that they were an issue, so the government went to have official guarantees made up to say that these things aren't an issue. The treaty didn't have to be changed because there was nothing to change.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    we will be voting to change our constitution, that's the bottom line...

    if we get a yes vote
    we will no longer be sovereign and will be mere subjects of the E.U company..


  • #128
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    But that's just a lie.


  • #129
    snaps
    Registered Users Posts: 7,138 ✭✭✭snaps


    If we had voted yes in the last vote, would they be asking us to vote again to see if we really wanted to vote yes?


  • #130
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    snaps wrote: »
    If we had voted yes in the last vote, would they be asking us to vote again to see if we really wanted to vote yes?
    My dejà vu has dejà vu at this stage... :(


  • #131
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    humanji wrote: »
    But that's just a lie.

    what's a lie?

    that we are voting to change our constitution?

    or we that will become subjects?[lisbon is the final stage]

    infact under the nice treaty our legal system became subordinate to EU law[fishing quotas etc,etc,etc]

    none of which are lies.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    constance tench wrote: »
    what's a lie?

    that we are voting to change our constitution?

    or we that will become subjects?[lisbon is the final stage]

    infact under the nice treaty our legal system became subordinate to EU law[fishing quotas etc,etc,etc]

    none of which are lies.
    The second one.
    And the the one after that.

    Can you show where exactly in the Lisbon Treaty this is?


  • #133
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    humanji wrote: »
    But that's just a lie.

    A lie is something that the claimant knows to be false.

    What makes you so certain that the people making these claims know they're false?


  • #134
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    King Mob wrote: »
    The second one.
    And the the one after that.

    Can you show where exactly in the Lisbon Treaty this is?

    lisbon is not a 'treaty' in it's own right, it is an amendment to the other treaties..

    you don't believe we have major restrictions under EU law??

    we are handing over little by little the IRE corporation to the EU umbrella corporation..
    one of the largest chunks given away was when we entered the euro zone.. and now, we can't even control our intrest rates..

    [ed]oh, and check out annex 2[convention on the rights of the child] in accordance with article 49, article 2(2)
    all children being cared for by their grandparents *may* be seized by the ECJ

    i agree with future taoiseach
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61054730&postcount=15


  • #135
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    constance tench wrote: »
    you don't believe we have major restrictions under EU law??
    No.
    Can you show how any EU law has been detrimental to us?
    Call you show how this even relates to the Lisbon Treaty?
    constance tench wrote: »
    we are handing over little by little the IRE corporation to the EU umbrella corporation..
    one of the largest chunks given away was when we entered the euro zone.. and now, we can't even control our intrest rates..
    And can you point out where exactly we've been handing over power?

    I notice how you've completely avoided my original question.
    Which part of the Lisbon Treaty makes us "subjects"?
    Which part of the Lisbon Treaty make our laws subordinate?
    constance tench wrote: »
    oh, and check out Article 79(B) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
    all children being cared for by their grandparents may be seized by the ECJ
    Try as I might I can't find any Article 79 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
    Can you show this article?

    Cause all the source I've seen only go up to Article 53. And there isn't any reference to any children being seized by anyone any where in the document.


  • #136
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    King Mob wrote: »
    No.
    Can you show how any EU law has been detrimental to us?
    Call you show how this even relates to the Lisbon Treaty?
    article 6 of the TEU is amended by the lisbon treaty,
    and will make the charter a treaty in it's self
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/6209.htm

    detrimental?..fishing quotas and farming restrictions, at the end of the day this is all we have as a small island nation, so we'll just give them up along with our gas fields too,.. let's let our grandchildren starve and freeze to death..shure, why not? isn't the craic mighty anyway:rolleyes:
    King Mob wrote: »
    Try as I might I can't find any Article 79 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
    Can you show this article?

    Cause all the source I've seen only go up to Article 53. And there isn't any reference to any children being seized by anyone any where in the document.

    excuse me.. annex 2[convention on the rights of the child] in accordance with article 49 article 2(2) http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

    now, in the light of the recent case in Edinburgh where two children were
    taken from their grandparents, on the grounds they were 'too old' [59 and 46] and their subsequent christian stance, that they should not be adopted by a same sex couple [which was being pushed by social services, with an ultimatum of 'agree, and see them twice a year..or see them no more'] article 2(2) doesn't realy help their cause.

    so when the charter becomes EU law as a treaty it's own right.. the ECJ
    could very well suggest that our legal processes are in conflict with the treaty, and ..as i've said lisbon is not a treaty in its own right, it is an amendment to other treaties.
    King Mob wrote: »

    And can you point out where exactly we've been handing over power?

    I notice how you've completely avoided my original question.
    Which part of the Lisbon Treaty makes us "subjects"?
    Which part of the Lisbon Treaty make our laws subordinate?


    .

    see above


  • #137
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Diogenes wrote: »
    It's nice the No campaign isn't engaged in wild fearmongering.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/editor_tupp/2455689447/

    Or this

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/daraghot/2493732013/in/pool-769144@N21

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/editor_tupp/2494470329/in/pool-769144@N21

    Nice to see a level campaign fought on the facts.
    None of the above posters came from an official sources. Most would have been downloaded from the internet in clip art formation and doctored with photoshop by collage students and printed out on A4 size or less and pasted illegally around the capital.

    At least they were not cheap and sexist images like some of the classic examples that had come from the official Yes campaign.

    http://contexts.org/socimages/files/blogger2wp/Lisbonfemale.jpg

    http://contexts.org/socimages/files/blogger2wp/Lisbonmale.jpg


  • #138
    FutureTaoiseach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭FutureTaoiseach


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The treaty would create no such position. The existing position of President of the European Council, often referred to as the "President-in-Office", which is rotated every six months between the member states, would instead be elected every two and a half years by a qualified majority of the European Council.

    In other words, the treaty converts an existing role from an unelected to an elected one.

    Next.
    It undermines equality between nations to replace equal rotation with so-called 'election' by Qualified Majority Voting. QMV under Lisbon allows 4 countries with a combined 35%+ of the EU's population to form a blocking minority, effectively allowing 4 Big States to veto any candidate they don't like. It's hard to imagine an Irish candidate holding the Council Presidency under the new system.


  • #139
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    It undermines equality between nations to replace equal rotation with so-called 'election' by Qualified Majority Voting. QMV under Lisbon allows 4 countries with a combined 35%+ of the EU's population to form a blocking minority, effectively allowing 4 Big States to veto any candidate they don't like. It's hard to imagine an Irish candidate holding the Council Presidency under the new system.

    Not sure if you don't know or are deliberately playing silly buggers with the facts, however QMV it allows a block of four countries to form a blocking minority reagrdless of the combineed population and this aspect of QMV is widely accepted to be for the benift of the smaller nations.


  • #140
    FutureTaoiseach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭FutureTaoiseach


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Not sure if you don't know or are deliberately playing silly buggers with the facts, however QMV it allows a block of four countries to form a blocking minority reagrdless of the combineed population and this aspect of QMV is widely accepted to be for the benift of the smaller nations.
    Not true. The system will require both 4 countries and that they encompass over 35% of the EU population to form a blocking-minority.


  • #141
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    Not true. The system will require both 4 countries and that they encompass over 35% of the EU population to form a blocking-minority.

    TEU 16 (4) is used for most votes and a blocking vote under this method consists of four countries. There is no population requirement.

    TFEU 238 (3) (a) is used for votes under enhanced cooperation only. To make a blocking minority there must be countries representing 35% of the population represented by the enhanced cooperation group plus one other member.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    FutureTaoiseach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭FutureTaoiseach


    marco_polo wrote: »
    TEU 16 (4) is used for most votes and a blocking vote under this method consists of four countries. There is no population requirement.

    TFEU 238 (3) (a) is used for votes under enhanced cooperation only. To make a blocking minority there must be countries representing 35% of the population represented by the enhanced cooperation group plus one other member.
    I'm talking about the voting system under Lisbon. You are talking about the status-quo. There is a population-requirement under Lisbon - an explicit one at that. The blocking-minority is 4 member states including over 35% of the EU's population. The relevant section is Article 16 of the TEU as amended by Lisbon:
    Article 16, TEU wrote:
    Article 16
    1. The Council shall, jointly with the European Parliament, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall carry out policy-making and coordinating functions as laid down in the Treaties.
    2. The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.
    3. The Council shall act by a qualified majority except where the Treaties provide otherwise.
    4. As from 1 November 2014, a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union.
    A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.
    The other arrangements governing the qualified majority are laid down in Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
    As a qualified-majority is 55% of the countries including 65% of the EU's population, and as a blocking minority must include 4 countries, that means that a blocking-minority is 4 member states with over 35% of the EU's population.


  • #143
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    I'm talking about the voting system under Lisbon. You are talking about the status-quo. There is a population-requirement under Lisbon - an explicit one at that. The blocking-minority is 4 member states including over 35% of the EU's population. The relevant section is Article 16 of the TEU as amended by Lisbon:As a qualified-majority is 55% of the countries including 65% of the EU's population, and as a blocking minority must include 4 countries, that means that a blocking-minority is 4 member states with over 35% of the EU's population.

    Apologies, indeed you are correct. It has been a while since I have thought about the details of the treaty. Consider humble pie to be well and truely eaten. :)


Advertisement