French Minister warns Irish voters if they vote Non

Carlow52 · 09-06-2008 4:14pm #1

No vote would cost Ireland, French FM warns

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has warned that Ireland would pay a high price if it rejects the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum this week.

Mr Kouchner said a No vote from the Irish would be greeted with 'gigantic incomprehension' from the rest of Europe.

He said: 'The first victims would be the Irish. They have benefited more than others.'

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0609/eulisbon.html

Remember these are the same people who murdered the Greenpeace activist in the South Pacific because they did not like what he was doing.

http://www.nukewatch.com/Quarterly/20053fall/page10.pdf

zuroph · 09-06-2008 4:17pm

Carlow52 wrote: »

No vote would cost Ireland, French FM warns

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has warned that Ireland would pay a high price if it rejects the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum this week.

Mr Kouchner said a No vote from the Irish would be greeted with 'gigantic incomprehension' from the rest of Europe.

He said: 'The first victims would be the Irish. They have benefited more than others.'

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0609/eulisbon.html

Remember these are the same people who murdered the Greenpeace activist in the South Pacific because they did not like what he was doing.

http://www.nukewatch.com/Quarterly/20053fall/page10.pdf

what the hell has that to do with anything?!?! This evil propoganda is disgusting dirty tactics, cop on to yourself.

he was merely saying that a no vote would be bad for ireland, it would leave us in a weakened position, and we'd be the first to suffer beacuse of lisbon not going though.

Clarehobo · 09-06-2008 4:35pm

Why is it his business what way the Irish choose to vote?

The Netherlands & France did not suffer any consequences for voting against the constitution.

Why should people vote yes just because they are being threatened?
Why should people vote yes just because Sinn Féin are backing a no vote?*
Why should people vote yes just because our politicians & the posters say so?*

Why should people vote no just because we are the only democracy afforded the right to have a referendum on treaties that impact our constitution & we feel everyone else in Europe has been robbed of this opportunity to make themselves heard?
Why should people vote no 'just in case' Europe will put in a sneaky back door to change our laws such as our stance on abortion & our supposed neutrality?

I would like to see people present some decent reasons for voting yes to a document that the majority do not understand. If you don't understand the document & the consequences of voting in either direction for us & for Europe as a whole, why vote?
I do believe in exercising your right to vote, but I believe in using it intelligently & actually knowing what you are voting for/against.

*Both reasons presented to me as to why I should vote yes by people I would have thought would have had more valid reasons

zuroph · 09-06-2008 4:49pm

Clarehobo wrote: »

Why is it his business what way the Irish choose to vote?

The Netherlands & France did not suffer any consequences for voting against the constitution.

Why should people vote yes just because they are being threatened?
Why should people vote yes just because Sinn Féin are backing a no vote?*
Why should people vote yes just because our politicians & the posters say so?*

Why should people vote no just because we are the only democracy afforded the right to have a referendum on treaties that impact our constitution & we feel everyone else in Europe has been robbed of this opportunity to make themselves heard?
Why should people vote no 'just in case' Europe will put in a sneaky back door to change our laws such as our stance on abortion & our supposed neutrality?

I would like to see people present some decent reasons for voting yes to a document that the majority do not understand. If you don't understand the document & the consequences of voting in either direction for us & for Europe as a whole, why vote?
I do believe in exercising your right to vote, but I believe in using it intelligently & actually knowing what you are voting for/against.

*Both reasons presented to me as to why I should vote yes by people I would have thought would have had more valid reasons

can you prove this? france is in recession for many years now?

the problem with this referendum is it is the first time ireland has been faced with no "clear cut" sides. its not like divorce yes or no, abortion yes or no.

the yes campaign has been ineffective in pointing out the good deal ireland have gotten here. They seem to be scared to put their name on the line, as the homeland political situation is so stressed at the moment.

the no campaign have a problem in that several of the main groups putting their name to the group seem to have ulterior motives, whether it be their personal dislike for the EU in general, their allegiances to american business, or their attempts to align themselves to the anti-government working class.

IMO the benefits for Ireland of voting yes far outweigh the consequences of voting no, particularily as this deal was negotiated when ireland was in a booming economy, now, we havent an economic leg to stand on.

Regardless of a personal dislike for the government, i dont believe they would endorse a deal that would destroy our economy any further, that would be political suicide.

The no campaigns sly tactics only encourages me more to vote yes. the sneaky "if you dont understand vote no" tactic is an attempt to cash in on our laziness. they're giving people the perfect excuse to do nothing and vote no. the treaty has been well explained in clear simple language, if people are too lazy to read up on it, i hope they are too lazy to go vote.

Clarehobo · 09-06-2008 5:21pm

Ireland is heading for a recession whichever way we vote - I'm no doom & gloom merchant but I work with a lot of people in the construction trade & jobs are being lost at an enormous rate since the start of the year. No one can be so ignorant as to pretend that the construction industry hasn't been a major player in our economic boom.

And a lot of people would argue that the government are the ones being sly in their tactics...

I wouldn't vote yes or no just because I perceive one side as being slyer/more manipulative than the other.

If I do vote it will be how I choose to vote after making an informed decision.

I am just wondering what all these benefits for Ireland will be that everyone is dangling in front of our noses?
Give me one real world example of how things will be better if we vote in these changes, as opposed to leaving things as they are which seems to be working quite well so far.

zuroph · 09-06-2008 5:34pm

Clarehobo wrote: »

Ireland is heading for a recession whichever way we vote - I'm no doom & gloom merchant but I work with a lot of people in the construction trade & jobs are being lost at an enormous rate since the start of the year. No one can be so ignorant as to pretend that the construction industry hasn't been a major player in our economic boom.

And a lot of people would argue that the government are the ones being sly in their tactics...

I wouldn't vote yes or no just because I perceive one side as being slyer/more manipulative than the other.

If I do vote it will be how I choose to vote after making an informed decision.

I am just wondering what all these benefits for Ireland will be that everyone is dangling in front of our noses?
Give me one real world example of how things will be better if we vote in these changes, as opposed to leaving things as they are which seems to be working quite well so far.

100% agreed, just, IMO, if we are to fight against this, a yes vote is a better option for us. This is based on informed decision, having studied as much information from balanced sources as i can. My decisions are not based on trust for either side, as the government lost my trust a long time ago.

its not about benefit for IRELAND in my personal view. its about benefit for europe in total. i dont believe ireland itself has anything to lose by voting yes. but I believe the EU has a lot to gain by voting yes. A more streamlined well functioning Europe is what is needed, especially facing into this worldwide economic slump, and with pressure economically from the east. Europe needs to combine its efforts to fight against losing business to china. As you work in construction, im sure you've noticed the influx of chinese product. at present only 66% (approx)of legislation makes its way through the legal bureacracy of the EU. if the yes vote succeeds, this can increase to 95% (approx), saving billions in taxpayers money, and allwoing the EU to come to fast effective decisions to fight against outside forces economically.

sink · 09-06-2008 5:39pm

Clarehobo wrote: »

Give me one real world example of how things will be better if we vote in these changes, as opposed to leaving things as they are which seems to be working quite well so far.

To name but a few. Under new the new areas of energy and environment that move to QMV, the EU can introduce stronger laws that would most likely be blocked by Germany due to their large car industry and Poland due to their large coal industry. Spending on bureaucrats and administration would be cut because it merges the three pillars of the EU into one. A High representative for foreign affairs will be able to have a loud and clear voice on the world stage giving the EU's and by extension Ireland's voice a boost. Opening up the council to the media and allowing EU citizens to view the process of making legislation and providing transparency. Increasing the role of parliament allowing it to vote on 95% of legislation and giving it more power oversee the commission.

If you're looking for a benefit that will directly affect you and your life you won't find one because that is not what this treaty is about. It is about the EU and it's structure so it can better cope with the challenges of the modern world. It has no direct negative effect on you personally either despite what the no side will claim. The fact that it does not affect Irish citizens directly is the main reason the government is having such difficulty selling it.

CtrlSource · 09-06-2008 5:57pm

clarehobo wrote: »

why Is It His Business What Way The Irish Choose To Vote?

The Netherlands & France Did Not Suffer Any Consequences For Voting Against The Constitution.

Why Should People Vote Yes Just Because They Are Being Threatened?
Why Should People Vote Yes Just Because Sinn Féin Are Backing A No Vote?*
Why Should People Vote Yes Just Because Our Politicians & The Posters Say So?*

Why Should People Vote No Just Because We Are The Only Democracy Afforded The Right To Have A Referendum On Treaties That Impact Our Constitution & We Feel Everyone Else In Europe Has Been Robbed Of This Opportunity To Make Themselves Heard?
Why Should People Vote No 'just In Case' Europe Will Put In A Sneaky Back Door To Change Our Laws Such As Our Stance On Abortion & Our Supposed Neutrality?

I Would Like To See People Present Some Decent Reasons For Voting Yes To A Document That The Majority Do Not Understand. If You Don't Understand The Document & The Consequences Of Voting In Either Direction For Us & For Europe As A Whole, Why Vote?
I Do Believe In Exercising Your Right To Vote, But I Believe In Using It Intelligently & Actually Knowing What You Are Voting For/against.

*both Reasons Presented To Me As To Why I Should Vote Yes By People I Would Have Thought Would Have Had More Valid Reasons

+1

ircoha · 09-06-2008 5:58pm

sink wrote: »

To name but a few. Under new the new areas of energy and environment that move to QMV,
1 the EU can introduce stronger laws that would most likely be blocked by Germany due to their large car industry and Poland due to their large coal industry.
2 Spending on bureaucrats and administration would be cut because it merges the three pillars of the EU into one.
3 A High representative for foreign affairs will be able to have a loud and clear voice on the world stage giving the EU's and by extension Ireland's voice a boost.
4 Opening up the council to the media and allowing EU citizens to view the process of making legislation and providing transparency.
5 Increasing the role of parliament allowing it to vote on 95% of legislation and giving it more power oversee the commission.

If you're looking for a benefit that will directly affect you and your life you won't find one because that is not what this treaty is about. It is about the EU and it's structure so it can better cope with the challenges of the modern world. It has no direct negative effect on you personally either despite what the no side will claim. The fact that it does not affect Irish citizens directly is the main reason the government is having such difficulty selling it.

1 FF have always set their face against the carbon tax, we can see from Mahon why.

2: I have numerous friends in Brussels and they are of the opinion that the notion of increased efficiency in Brussels and Strasbourg is like turkeys voting for Christmas, it wont happen.

3: AKA as Minister for War.

4 and 5: aspirational at best in terms of real meaning. The accounts have not been audited for 7 or more years and any fraud less than 1 million euro is not examined.

oscarBravo · 09-06-2008 6:01pm

ircoha wrote: »

The accounts have not been audited for 7 or more years...

I'm really getting tired of seeing this one trotted out.

It's not true.

It has been debunked repeatedly, over and over and over again.

Doesn't anyone read this forum? Is it a write-only medium?

ircoha · 09-06-2008 6:04pm

zuroph wrote: »

what the hell has that to do with anything?!?! This evil propoganda is disgusting dirty tactics, cop on to yourself.

he was merely saying that a no vote would be bad for ireland, it would leave us in a weakened position, and we'd be the first to suffer beacuse of lisbon not going though.

With all due respects to our learned friend from Carlow, it is important to remember what the establishment/politicians will do to achieve the end result.

Since when is murder propaganda.

This time the murder will be economic, starting 1 July once the French get the presidency.

zuroph · 09-06-2008 6:05pm

ircoha wrote: »

1 FF have always set their face against the carbon tax, we can see from Mahon why.
irrelevant what FF do or not. i hate FF for the shannon airport fiasco, but i still will vote yes.
2: I have numerous friends in Brussels and they are of the opinion that the notion of increased efficiency in Brussels and Strasbourg is like turkeys voting for Christmas, it wont happen.
I have numerous friends in ireland who'd disagree. hearsay.
3: AKA as Minister for War. 2
scaremongering is dirty politics. "sure arent we just trying to give the power back to the nazis?!?":rolleyes:
4 and 5: aspirational at best in terms of real meaning. The accounts have not been audited for 7 or more years and any fraud less than 1 million euro is not examined. Id prefer if they caught the million euro frauds first

replies in red

oscarBravo · 09-06-2008 6:05pm

ircoha wrote: »

This time the murder will be economic, starting 1 July once the French get the presidency.

Get off the soapbox, and discuss the realities of the treaty. This isn't an ESB pole, so you can't just post up an empty slogan without backing it up.

zuroph · 09-06-2008 6:08pm

ircoha wrote: »

With all due respects to our learned friend from Carlow, it is important to remember what the establishment/politicians will do to achieve the end result.

Since when is murder propaganda.

This time the murder will be economic, starting 1 July once the French get the presidency.

sure they're only a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys, why did we ever join europe at all at all?!?!

the greenpeace activist has nothing to do with lisbon.
sure that man fritzl was from europe, surely that means all europeans are crazed sex criminals.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Scofflaw · 09-06-2008 6:54pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm really getting tired of seeing this one trotted out.

It's not true.

It has been debunked repeatedly, over and over and over again.

Doesn't anyone read this forum? Is it a write-only medium?

Many people's opinions are write-only, I'm afraid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

froggy 2 · 09-06-2008 6:58pm

As you are commenting declaration of my foreign minister, I consider I am not offside to comment it.

First, it is no use in insulting people : Kouchner, even if one can disagrre with him, is a profoundly respectable man. He had nothing to do with greenpeace affair (not in the govt at that time).
Furthermore, the key part of the inteview is not in the sentence you give : that sentence only uses the argumentation that there would be negative consequences for Irish, and that the Irish who had taken many advantages of Europe should be ingrateful to vote NO.
That argumentation had been used in France in 2005; I don't think there is any threat in that : he simply plays on emotion; quite faire play, in fact.

The key part is elsewhere :
http://www.rtl.fr/fiche/146420/bernard-kouchner-tout-le-monde-se-tourne-vers-l-europe-au-moment-ou-on-la-refuse-a-l-interieur.html

in the 3d paragraph:

Ce serait quand même très, très, très gênant pour la pensée honnête qu'on ne puisse compter sur les Irlandais qui, eux, ont beaucoup compté sur l'argent de l'Europe.

It would be ver very very embarrassing for the honnest thought (can be translated by "intellectual honnesty") that we could not rely on the Irish as they largely relied on Europe's money.
4th paragraph:

Si un pays manquait à l'appel, les 26 pourraient-ils appliquer le Traité ? Ou le Traité serait-il définitivement loin ?

Théoriquement non. Théoriquement non. Je pense qu'il faudrait poursuivre en ce qui concerne la France puisque nous serons Président à partir du 1er juillet, il faudrait continuer, s'acharner, aller très vite, continuer sur les priorités que nous avons définies et puis tenter de convaincre les Irlandais qui ont déjà revoté une fois à propos du Traité de Nice justement, de remettre ce Traité sur le métier.

And, if a country would fail (to ratify), could the 26 apply the treaty ? Or would the treaty forever gone?

Theorically NO. Theorically No. I think that we should keep on, concerning France since we will be president for July the 1st, we should keep on, act swiftly on the defined priorities and then try to convince Irish, who have already revoted on time on the Nice treaty, to try again with this treaty (idiomatic expression)

One can interpret this last paragraph as he wishes; anyway, for me, it clearly states that:
1) The french presidency would do its upmost to obtain another vote (no possible discussion on that point).
2) To what part of the question does the "theorically NO" anwer correspond?
Not really clear (sol 1 : would the treaty forever gone; sol 2 : could the 26 apply the treaty).
Important point there, since if you state that something is true "in theory", you also suggests that "in practical", it could be otherwise.

Note : by the way, France is absolutely not in recession.
The situation is not florishing, the increase rate (taux de croissance) is 2.2% in 2007 and we scored a +0.4% in the first quarter 2008; finally unemployement has begun to decrease ... in May 2005 (ironnical enough to mention although it has obviously no link with the referendum result). Now, unemployement rate is 7.5%, I think.

Call Me Jimmy · 09-06-2008 7:03pm

ircoha wrote: »

2: I have numerous friends in Brussels and they are of the opinion that the notion of increased efficiency in Brussels and Strasbourg is like turkeys voting for Christmas, it wont happen.

What the hell does that mean? Are these friends just people who live in brussels?

Clarehobo · 09-06-2008 9:20pm

zuroph wrote: »

100% agreed, just, IMO, if we are to fight against this, a yes vote is a better option for us. This is based on informed decision, having studied as much information from balanced sources as i can. My decisions are not based on trust for either side, as the government lost my trust a long time ago.

its not about benefit for IRELAND in my personal view. its about benefit for europe in total. i dont believe ireland itself has anything to lose by voting yes. but I believe the EU has a lot to gain by voting yes. A more streamlined well functioning Europe is what is needed, especially facing into this worldwide economic slump, and with pressure economically from the east. Europe needs to combine its efforts to fight against losing business to china. As you work in construction, im sure you've noticed the influx of chinese product. at present only 66% (approx)of legislation makes its way through the legal bureacracy of the EU. if the yes vote succeeds, this can increase to 95% (approx), saving billions in taxpayers money, and allwoing the EU to come to fast effective decisions to fight against outside forces economically.

Those wagons should have been circled a long time ago IMO, when all the call centres were starting to move abroad to India and industry started to move to the lower paid nations en masse.
It is a free world and everyone is entitled to make money/live how they see fit. I don't see how the EU is going to protect itself from these mega industrial nations who can sell everything at a fraction of the price due to their low overheads; unless we start behaving like the US imposing higher taxes on imports from outside their region. But that is not feasible as it will cause the cost of living to soar even more.
I see where you are coming from with the solidarity and united front stance that we are presuming Europe will take but when it comes down to the bottom line(i.e. money) it's the big businesses that call the shots and not the people.

sink wrote: »

To name but a few. Under new the new areas of energy and environment that move to QMV, the EU can introduce stronger laws that would most likely be blocked by Germany due to their large car industry and Poland due to their large coal industry. Spending on bureaucrats and administration would be cut because it merges the three pillars of the EU into one. A High representative for foreign affairs will be able to have a loud and clear voice on the world stage giving the EU's and by extension Ireland's voice a boost. Opening up the council to the media and allowing EU citizens to view the process of making legislation and providing transparency. Increasing the role of parliament allowing it to vote on 95% of legislation and giving it more power oversee the commission.

If you're looking for a benefit that will directly affect you and your life you won't find one because that is not what this treaty is about. It is about the EU and it's structure so it can better cope with the challenges of the modern world. It has no direct negative effect on you personally either despite what the no side will claim. The fact that it does not affect Irish citizens directly is the main reason the government is having such difficulty selling it.

Do you mean larger states will not have the ability to block legislation either? And these guys in Europe won't have money in their accounts that they cannot explain?!!!! Brilliant! I have just had an epiphany ~ these stooges up in Leinster house are far too over paid & they don't do much anyway. Get rid of them & move it all to the centralised government in Europe. That way we will save millions each year in tribunals, bribes & wages, not to mention Paddy's day junkets for all & sundry;-) God, wouldn't that be great! No more tribunals... We could then call our country Utopia!

ircoha wrote: »

1 FF have always set their face against the carbon tax, we can see from Mahon why.

2: I have numerous friends in Brussels and they are of the opinion that the notion of increased efficiency in Brussels and Strasbourg is like turkeys voting for Christmas, it wont happen.

3: AKA as Minister for War.

4 and 5: aspirational at best in terms of real meaning. The accounts have not been audited for 7 or more years and any fraud less than 1 million euro is not examined.

On point 1 - I would agree with a carbon tax if I saw it was going directly to improve public transport nationwide, offsetting emissions or even towards researching and considering all types of alternative energy(including fielding a debate on the place of nuclear energy in Ireland - if the French can get it so right why don't we just hire them in to build a proper power station for us & watch it power the national grid while selling the excess energy to our neighbours! Hell, the French can even get tidal power right...)

On point 2 - I have numerous friends who own turkey farms(well, one, I exaggerate) & the birds enjoy themselves too much in the run up to Christmas to be checking the advent calendar;-) But on a serious note, where there is more than one person involved, there will always be debate and inefficiency; and, to make a gross generalisation, even more so with civil servants. Nothing is ever efficient when it comes to people - that will never change unless a weird new evolutionary trait pops it's head up in Brussels...

On point 3 - We are not neutral! Anyone that believes we can remain neutral while allowing the Americans to fly through our air space on missions of war... I just think that Europe should not be allowed to dictate our military spending. When we have universal healthcare of a high class standard as well as enough schools to deal with our children, and enough money in the coffers to support our ill, elderly, etc... , and when we have a few euros left over, then we should consider improving our air core and military equipment. Sorry, that rant was off the point: We have had the US and UK protecting us for a long time. Now we are looking to our European neighbours to protect us as we are "neutral". I don't see a problem with Europe presenting a united front in the case of an outside aggressor attacking a European state. If it comes to starting a war for the sake of funding our weapons industry, then I have a problem with that. If this person is as willing to discuss solutions as he/she is to advocate aggression against an outside source, I actually don't have a problem with it as long as the vast majority of EU citizens are in agreement.

On points 4 and 5 - so these people who have accounting discrepancies of less than a million do not get investigated??? Bertie took the wrong job! He should have been in Europe all along; CJ and the rest of them could have joined him. If we took that approach there would have been no tribunals in the first place - Europe is starting to become a land of happy little elves and candy floss to me. (Thinking to myself I need a career move - how do I get one of these jobs? Is it on monster.ie by any chance?)

oscarBravo wrote: »

Get off the soapbox, and discuss the realities of the treaty. This isn't an ESB pole, so you can't just post up an empty slogan without backing it up.

Totally agree! Tired of all the generalisations. If I wanted that I would just go outside and look at the posters on the ESB poles.

froggy 2 wrote: »

As you are commenting declaration of my foreign minister, I consider I am not offside to comment it.

First, it is no use in insulting people : Kouchner, even if one can disagrre with him, is a profoundly respectable man. He had nothing to do with greenpeace affair (not in the govt at that time).
Furthermore, the key part of the inteview is not in the sentence you give : that sentence only uses the argumentation that there would be negative consequences for Irish, and that the Irish who had taken many advantages of Europe should be ingrateful to vote NO.
That argumentation had been used in France in 2005; I don't think there is any threat in that : he simply plays on emotion; quite faire play, in fact.

The key part is elsewhere :
http://www.rtl.fr/fiche/146420/bernard-kouchner-tout-le-monde-se-tourne-vers-l-europe-au-moment-ou-on-la-refuse-a-l-interieur.html

in the 3d paragraph:

It would be ver very very embarrassing for the honnest thought (can be translated by "intellectual honnesty") that we could not rely on the Irish as they largely relied on Europe's money.
4th paragraph:

And, if a country would fail (to ratify), could the 26 apply the treaty ? Or would the treaty forever gone?

Theorically NO. Theorically No. I think that we should keep on, concerning France since we will be president for July the 1st, we should keep on, act swiftly on the defined priorities and then try to convince Irish, who have already revoted on time on the Nice treaty, to try again with this treaty (idiomatic expression)

One can interpret this last paragraph as he wishes; anyway, for me, it clearly states that:
1) The french presidency would do its upmost to obtain another vote (no possible discussion on that point).
2) To what part of the question does the "theorically NO" anwer correspond?
Not really clear (sol 1 : would the treaty forever gone; sol 2 : could the 26 apply the treaty).
Important point there, since if you state that something is true "in theory", you also suggests that "in practical", it could be otherwise.

The interview was on the RTE news website, so it was not an omission by the original poster but by our impartial media.

That treaty will come back again if it is not accepted - we saw that the last time. On another note, why didn't they make the Dutch & the French vote again on the constitution that time?

We will have to vote yet again, deal with posters placed on poles low enough that even a small child could injure themselves if they weren't careful.

Can we get a constitutional amendment whereby all these posters have to be at least 7 feet off the ground? We could use that new thing they are hoping to introduce - get 1 million signatures & we could even get the flamin' things banned!!! Power to the people! This treaty is getting better by the second....

A country with no Leinster house, no tribunals, no campaign posters... What next??? We might even be able to convince Europe to physically move Ireland to the mediterranean to get more sunshine!:cool:

But all my nonsense* aside, I am still of the opinion that I won't listen to my own politicians, let alone a fella who does not live here and therefore will not have to deal with the ramifications either way. His country has already had their say. Let us, as a nation, vote intelligently and not listen to scare mongering from either side.

* I mean it about the posters...

Irish and Proud · 09-06-2008 10:18pm

zuroph wrote: »

what the hell has that to do with anything?!?! This evil propoganda is disgusting dirty tactics, cop on to yourself.

he was merely saying that a no vote would be bad for ireland, it would leave us in a weakened position, and we'd be the first to suffer beacuse of lisbon not going though.

Basically, he is telling us how to vote IMO! :mad:

Regards!

Irish and Proud · 09-06-2008 10:20pm

Clarehobo wrote: »

* I mean it about the posters...

AFAIK, the posters must be taken down 2 weeks after polling day - otherwise, the parties responsible will be fined!

Regards!

zuroph · 10-06-2008 12:30am

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Basically, he is telling us how to vote IMO! :mad:

Regards!

so is every vote yes/no poster.

regards.

passive · 10-06-2008 1:07am

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Basically, he is telling us how to vote IMO! :mad:

Regards!

I really hope you catch fire some day and retain this attitude when someone (A French minister, ideally) tells you to vote yes to having a bucket of water thrown on you. And I hope it's before polling day.

Mr.Nice Guy · 10-06-2008 4:02am

Typical EU scaremongering.

Also the audacity of a French Minister commenting on such matters when they wouldn't allow a vote for the French public who rejected the EU Constitution (which is what Lisbons is). Just disgraceful.

craichoe · 10-06-2008 10:33am

Everything else deviating off of the main point is meaningless.

The french foreign minister has no place in interfering with Irish politics. Just as Ireland would have no place interfering in french politics.

Thats the issue.

is_that_so · 10-06-2008 10:59am

One also need to take into account that there is much head scratching as the effect of a No vote is unknown and journalists like everyone else are looking for a definitive answer and looking for a good story.

pickarooney · 10-06-2008 12:08pm

craichoe wrote: »

Everything else deviating off of the main point is meaningless.

The french foreign minister has no place in interfering with Irish politics. Just as Ireland would have no place interfering in french politics.

Thats the issue.

It's European politics though, and as a European Kouchner is as entitled to express his opinion as any other politican or layman.

He's not your Mammy and is not telling you what to do any more than ads for Daz are telling you to buy washing powder.

craichoe · 10-06-2008 3:48pm

pickarooney wrote: »

It's European politics though, and as a European Kouchner is as entitled to express his opinion as any other politican or layman.

He's not your Mammy and is not telling you what to do any more than ads for Daz are telling you to buy washing powder.

Irish referendum .. has no place for a french citizens input, the french would tell you where to go under the same circumstances

Its politics .. not Daz ..

oscarBravo · 10-06-2008 3:49pm

craichoe wrote: »

Irish referendum .. has no place for a french man

So you reckon those French, Dutch, Czech and whatever poster who are urging us to vote "no" on their behalf should bugger off?

Zzippy · 10-06-2008 5:00pm

Whatever way people are thinking of voting, Irish people don't like foreigners telling them what to do, especially with veiled threats. His own country voted no to the EU constitution, so he is hardly in a position to lecture us on how to vote. I already had my mind made up on how to vote, but if I was undecided this wouldn't exactly be persuading me to vote yes.

nhughes100 · 10-06-2008 5:09pm

Cowan was on Radio one earlier today and all week bullying people into voting yes. One of his less thought out quotes - Sure whos for the treaty, the shinners and what have they ever done for the economy. Now I thought this treaty wasn't about the economy but watch Cowan lick up to the shinners when he needs their votes to form a coalition once the greens get decimated at the next GE. All this nonsense that there is no plan B even though Lisbon is already a plan b for the constitution which Cowan admitted is 95% in Lisbon. The big 3's attitude of well of course people can vote no but I wouldn't know why they would want to is sickening.

I say bring on the EU if we reject Lisbon, lets see your true colours, we're already contributing more then we get out of the EU so what else are they going to do? Imagine what they'll do to any nation actually wanting to leave the EU which I'm fairly confident will happpen in the next 15-20 years. Our biggest trading partners are still outside the Euro zone and to try and link the passing of EU referendums in the past to the emergance of the Celtic tiger is utter gibberish(Again Cowan bleating this morning)

Good to see Senator Shane Ross, as ameanable and respectable a politician I've ever heard coming out against the treaty. The man is level headed and speaks his mind, no one could accuse him of being from the looney left or some "privately funded" organisation. More Cowan propaganda against Libertas earlier saying oh where do they get their money from. This is rich coming from the masters of the back hander fund whom we have to thank for the rigid laws regarding funding of political organisations in the past. The first interview I ever heard with Declan Ganley explained their funding that they are subject to the same constraints as FF,FG and any other political movement.

I also enjoyed Professor Gwyn Prince on the right hook yesterday, again another educated man (who has actually read the treaty, imagine!) saying it is an unreadable nonsense(deliberately so) and not only that it is a self amending treaty which means Thursday may be our last chance to vote in a European referendum.

I have no problem with our European partners asking us to vote no as it may give them a chance to have their own referendum- Yes we elect governments to give them a mandate but some issues of this importance should be put to all the people.

Vote NO we may never get another chance! PRO-EEC - Anti-EU.

DeVore · 10-06-2008 5:20pm

Can you elaborate on your comment about it being a "self-amending" treaty? Preferably with some links to the treaty or neutral explanation sites. I'm genuinely interested in that as I think its important...

DeV.

VoidStarNull · 10-06-2008 5:35pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

Our biggest trading partners are still outside the Euro zone and to try and link the passing of EU referendums in the past to the emergance of the Celtic tiger is utter gibberish(Again Cowan bleating this morning)

Not sure if your post is intended to be serious, but for what it's worth check out the CSO for the truth about who our largest trading partners are:

UK we import 20,154.4 we export 16,566.1
USA we import 16,566.1 we export 15,805.3
ROW we import 17,005.9 we export 16,690.5
EU (ex UK) we import 18,160.6 we export 39,509.1

(millions of euros)

source: http://www.cso.ie/statistics/botmaintrpartners.htm

Icebear_151 · 10-06-2008 5:41pm

zuroph wrote: »

100% agreed, just, IMO, if we are to fight against this, a yes vote is a better option for us. This is based on informed decision, having studied as much information from balanced sources as i can. My decisions are not based on trust for either side, as the government lost my trust a long time ago.

its not about benefit for IRELAND in my personal view. its about benefit for europe in total. i dont believe ireland itself has anything to lose by voting yes. but I believe the EU has a lot to gain by voting yes. A more streamlined well functioning Europe is what is needed, especially facing into this worldwide economic slump, and with pressure economically from the east. Europe needs to combine its efforts to fight against losing business to china. As you work in construction, im sure you've noticed the influx of chinese product. at present only 66% (approx)of legislation makes its way through the legal bureacracy of the EU. if the yes vote succeeds, this can increase to 95% (approx), saving billions in taxpayers money, and allwoing the EU to come to fast effective decisions to fight against outside forces economically.

Are you sure you studied it?

The Lisbon Treaty prepares the entering of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which then becomes valid for all member states once the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

ECHR article 2:

Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

In other words, Police can shoot into any protest gathering lawfully, it's only a question of declaring it a riot. This enables LAWFULL EXECUTIONS!
Look at Protocol 6, which enables the death penalty in case of war or imminent thread of war.

The Lisbon Treaty itself is full of frightening articles. e.g. article 48 says the treaty will be easily changeable in part III (the functioning of the EU) without referendum, only by parlementary vote. So in five years there might be the obligation of wearing the chip under the skin, or the working week of 50 hours. OK, it's gloomy picture, but there's just no protection against.

http://www.libertas.org/content/view/203/113/

Besides, don't trust in voting machines, as they were already used to cheat elections in Germany. Since the use of machines, exit poll estimations and final results don't fit anymore.

DeVore · 10-06-2008 5:42pm

I found the info I was requesting:

This is really quite interesting and I have to say, a touch disturbing....
Its from here: http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html
which is supposedly a neutral site. I think everyone should read this:

More Info on Role of National Parliaments

Proposed Changes - Power to Change the Treaties
At present the Treaties governing the EU are amended only by the Member States agreeing to an amending treaty which must then be approved by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. In almost all cases this involves parliamentary approval. In some cases, for example in Ireland, a referendum may be required.

The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties. Any such changes cannot increase the competence of the EU. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council. This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present.

The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give them the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.

This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.

The power to change from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting or from the Special Legislative Procedure to a Ordinary Legislative Procedure does not extend to military and defence issues.

It could apply, for example, to taxation where unanimity is required at present. However as outlined earlier in this website, any such proposed change could be vetoed by the Irish government.

DeV.

oscarBravo · 10-06-2008 5:44pm

DeVore wrote: »

Can you elaborate on your comment about it being a "self-amending" treaty? Preferably with some links to the treaty or neutral explanation sites. I'm genuinely interested in that as I think its important...

"Self-amending" is a misleading term used to describe the effect of Article 48 of the treaty. The point of Article 48 is to allow individual changes to the treaties to be ratified by the member states as required, rather than having to wait several years for a whole big treaty and voting on hundreds of changes at once.

It basically allows the EU treaties to be amended as the Irish constitution is, by individual amendments rather than having to practically replace the entire document every few years.

Each change still has to be ratified by every member state in order to come into effect, and if any change encroaches on Irish sovereignty, it still has to go to a referendum.

So, as you can see, the term "self-amending" is quite misleading.

oscarBravo · 10-06-2008 5:46pm

Oops, you got there ahead of me.

DeVore wrote: »

This is really quite interesting and I have to say, a touch disturbing....
Its from here: http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html
which is supposedly a neutral site.

What do you find disturbing about it?

DeVore · 10-06-2008 5:56pm

Ok, I dont find it so disturbing now (in fact I was wondering why this whole thing comes as a package with a single Yes/No vote).

You should have written that website OB, their explanation was fairly confusing.

DeV.

nhughes100 · 12-06-2008 11:48am

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Not sure if your post is intended to be serious, but for what it's worth check out the CSO for the truth about who our largest trading partners are:

UK we import 20,154.4 we export 16,566.1
USA we import 16,566.1 we export 15,805.3
ROW we import 17,005.9 we export 16,690.5
EU (ex UK) we import 18,160.6 we export 39,509.1

(millions of euros)

source: http://www.cso.ie/statistics/botmaintrpartners.htm

Oh yes the post was serious, I love the way you've conglomerated the entire EU into one trading block bar the UK, they haven't got their federal government yet! what about the other 25 countries in it? My post stated that our two biggest trading countries were outside the Euro Zone

None of these "Euro Zone" countries individually trade more with us then the UK or the US. Not only that since the euro is getting stronger against the UK+US currencies our exports are hugely more expensive in these countries and as if that wasn't bad enough interest rates are going to go up so Hans and Gunter don't have to worry about inflation.

sink · 12-06-2008 12:51pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

Oh yes the post was serious, I love the way you've conglomerated the entire EU into one trading block bar the UK, they haven't got their federal government yet! what about the other 25 countries in it? My post stated that our two biggest trading countries were outside the Euro Zone

None of these "Euro Zone" countries individually trade more with us then the UK or the US. Not only that since the euro is getting stronger against the UK+US currencies our exports are hugely more expensive in these countries and as if that wasn't bad enough interest rates are going to go up so Hans and Gunter don't have to worry about inflation.

Do you realise that if we still had the punt, it would have to loose value to make our exports more competitive to the UK and US. The knock on effect would be that imports would be more expensive and that would drive up inflation, inflation in my guestimate would be 6-7% we currently have 3.3% or so. Do you think that would be a better situation?

nhughes100 · 12-06-2008 5:09pm

At least if we had the punt we would have direct control over it's value and interest rates and yes I do believe that would be a better situation, your guess-timates on inflation is pure speculation, in fact before we had the euro we had very low inflation. So when your mortgage repayments go up over the next few months reflect on the fact that we have zero control over that. Incidentally Last time I looked inflation was around 5% for the best part of a year. I hadn't realised it has dropped to 3.3.

VoidStarNull · 12-06-2008 5:18pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

At least if we had the punt we would have direct control over it's value and interest rates and yes I do believe that would be a better situation, your guess-timates on inflation is pure speculation, in fact before we had the euro we had very low inflation. So when your mortgage repayments go up over the next few months reflect on the fact that we have zero control over that. Incidentally Last time I looked inflation was around 5% for the best part of a year. I hadn't realised it has dropped to 3.3.

If we didn't have the Euro the Irish punt would be following Sterling downwards. Good for Irish exporters, bad for inflation, and not exactly independence when the British cental bank is effectively controlling your currency. [ At least the ECB is mandated to take Irish inflation into account when making decisions ]

sink · 12-06-2008 5:21pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

Incidentally Last time I looked inflation was around 5% for the best part of a year. I hadn't realised it has dropped to 3.3.

http://www.finfacts.ie/inflation.htm

It hasn't been at 5% for years.

RDM_83 · 12-06-2008 5:33pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm really getting tired of seeing this one trotted out.

It's not true.

It has been debunked repeatedly, over and over and over again.

Doesn't anyone read this forum? Is it a write-only medium?

Ok its a lie that it hasn't been audited, its just that the majority parliment which will be getting more powers doesn't believe that its electorate should be able to see its audits

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7266286.stm

Edit: Ps I'm pro european (cos of environmental EU legislation I've funding) I just see the creation of president etc as an opportunity for more corruption, perks and jobs for the boys.

djpbarry · 12-06-2008 5:39pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

...before we had the euro we had very low inflation.

That statement means very little; inflation fluctuates all the time. Our highest rate of annual inflation in recent years was in 2000 (before the Euro was legal tender) when it reached 5.6%.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 5:43pm

"The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give them the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.

This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.
"

And is this not a genuine concern? what are those "certain areas" etc.?

sink · 12-06-2008 5:45pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

And is this not a genuine concern? what are those "certain areas" etc.?

All areas apart from military and foreign policy.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 5:52pm

I thought I read asylum etc now fell under majority voting

Anyway I dont fancy leaving this area to our government who have already shown they're afraid of ruffling other countries feathers. I doubt they'd ever use their veto

sink · 12-06-2008 5:54pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

I thought I read asylum etc now fell under majority voting Anyway I dont fancy leaving this area to our government who have already shown they're afraid of ruffling other countries feathers. I doubt they'd ever use their veto

Asylum, immigration, justice and policing all move to QMV but we have opt outs for these areas, we don't have to implement the laws we can pick an choose the ones that suit us.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 5:58pm

sink wrote: »

Asylum, immigration, justice and policing all move to QMV but we have opt outs for these areas, we don't have to implement the laws we can pick an choose the ones that suit us.

Which in 3 years we'll have another referendum on that from what I've read? No real point just want to make sure I'm clear..

sink · 12-06-2008 6:02pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Which in 3 years we'll have another referendum on that from what I've read? No real point just want to make sure I'm clear..

Well the exact wording is it will be reviewed, there are no specifics so it's entirely up to the government how they go about reviewing it.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 6:06pm

sink wrote: »

Well the exact wording is it will be reviewed, there are no specifics so it's entirely up to the government how they go about reviewing it.

Thanks for you're reply man. I know we don't see anywhere near eye to eye, and as an example the vagueness of that statement is exactly the problem I HAVE here, but I appreciate the grown up approach you take to assisting people with information. Thanks.

French Minister warns Irish voters if they vote Non

Comments