UCD Students And The Treaty of Lisbon

Het-Field

It has been reported that Irish people will go to the polls on the 15th June to Vote on the Proposed Lisbon Treaty.

Personally, I am very much in favour of the Treaty. Between 2004 and 2007 we have seen the European Union grow at a most rapid rate. 12 new States have been admitted, and there are more to come. The Treaty attempts to streamline the commission, and offer continuity by having a 2 1/2 year term for President of the Council. The Powers of Petition also offer an avenue for the average punter to engage with the European Union. The Powers or the more or less redundant European Parliment are extended by offering greater powers of scrutiny. It also serves to incorporate the Charter Of Fundamental Rights. The article which ensures that more European Council meetings will be held in public is another factor to be welcomed. Finally the extending of the QMV to over 60 new competencies will allow for more work to be completed.

However, I know that my view is not representative of all people. Furthermore, the wide range of amendments has led to confusion and a lack of knowlege amongst those enfranchised. I would like to know what are the issues which UCD students find most complicated about the treaty, weather Ireland's vote will have any impact, and ultimately weather they will Vote Yes or No.

I have set the ball rolling. Het-Field says YES !

Dave!

I haven't had a chance to familiarise myself with the treaty yet. I've been too busy with essays, assignments, and exams really. AFAIK the referendum will be in June, and I finish my exams on 15th May, so after that I will start reading some of the literature, etc., on it.

From what I gather however, the treaty gives more power to Europe and further reduces our autonomy to some degree. I'm generally in favour of the EU and the idea of European Union, so I'd be okay with giving up a bit of independence for greater cooperation and harmony between European countries.

I'll have to read up on it though before I actually decide to vote for or against it.

Bubs101

I'll probably vote yes. From what I gather it means less representation for the smaller states but as I am half British that doesn't bother me and it'll probably help Europe run smoother

Red Alert

I am voting no. I am passionately pro-European and I love what the EU has done both for Ireland domestically and in opening up a great number of countries to foreign travel without restrictions. I think the ideals of the EU are good, but the never-ending expansionist policy and micro-management will be its downfall. A trend has been started that degrades the idea of bringing local autonomous countries together in favour of an autocratic top-down approach in recent years. This is enough to turn anyone off any more powers to any state-arm of europe.

What I do take issue with is that this treaty is itself a way of avoiding the 'no' vote by France and Holland to the EU constitution. A no vote should mean 'No'. It should not mean 'go back and remove the really outrageous stuff then sneak it back in'. Not that the vote will probably matter anyway, since we were told go back and give the right answer next time with the Nice treaty. That sort of thing better befits the regime Bob Mugabe runs in my opinion.

Debate on the treaty has been in my view deliberately stifled by the government, both in not naming a date and having confusing information on the treaty's content. The only real message the government are interested in getting out is that a 'yes' vote is necessary and mandatory. They are not interested in getting a debate going and seeing how the public really want to react to it.

On a related point the Irish government themselves are very selective about which parts of Europe they 'do', since they have decided that it's not really in our interest to remove VRT on cars from other European member states amongst other policies which inevitably feed into the FF donators' hands.

pretty*monster

June 15th? Where did you hear that?
I shall be in London on that date so won't be voting. If it's held on a different date I'll be voting no based on general Euro-skepticness.

arbeitsscheuer

Red Alert wrote:

Debate on the treaty has been in my view deliberately stifled by the government, both in not naming a date and having confusing information on the treaty's content. The only real message the government are interested in getting out is that a 'yes' vote is necessary and mandatory. They are not interested in getting a debate going and seeing how the public really want to react to it.

Concur absolutely.
And that is a good enough reason alone to vote No imo.

I'm not going to go into all the reasons I'll be voting no, but I'll rattle off a list of a few points that have influence the decision;
*Destruction of workers' rights under the misnomer of "free movement of services" - what the IWU more aptly calls "free movement of exploitation".
*"Common Defence Policy" which demands greater defence spending by all member states, drawing desperately needed funds away from social spending.
*The further removal of national sovereign power and autonomy, strengthening the EU as a political entity while continuing to ignore the democratic deficit inherent in its institutions.

NO all the way.

EDIT: Btw, the date for the vote has been provisionally pencilled in as June 12th. Dunno where the hell you got June 15th from hetfield.

Tom65

I'll probably vote Yes. I've read up on it aubt, and I'm 'pro-Europe' (I don't like that term...more that I recognise that the EU has done a lot of good). I'm still weary of the EU overstepping its boundary as regards autonomy. Diminishing power in Europe was always going to be likely with the accession states a couple of years ago. In order to make the EU, I think the Lisbon Treaty is necessary. Plus, I'd trust Europe a lot more on some issues than I'd trust the Daíl.

In the couple of months until the referendum, I could probably be persuaded to vote No, but as it stands I'm fairly convinced that its worth a Yes vote.

dajaffa

The Refurendum has already been declared for the 12th June, by Bertie just before he announced his resignation...

Breezer

Red Alert wrote: »

Debate on the treaty has been in my view deliberately stifled by the government, both in not naming a date and having confusing information on the treaty's content. The only real message the government are interested in getting out is that a 'yes' vote is necessary and mandatory. They are not interested in getting a debate going and seeing how the public really want to react to it.

Agreed. However, that is not in itself a reason to vote No in my book. Every political party with the exception of Sinn Féin is advocating a Yes vote, not just the Government parties. Fine Gael and Labour have been calling for the Government to set a date and allow the Referendum Commission to start informing the people for months now. I think the issues contained within this treaty are far more important than Bertie's finances and the distraction they have posed to the Government for the past while.

Regarding the 'less representation in Europe' argument, this would appear to centre around the fact that we will not have a seat on the Commission for 5 out of every 15 years. This is not something that will apply solely to Ireland or even to smaller states: every state will be subject to the same system. The logic behind this is that a smaller Commission will function more smoothly. Since the Commissioners are meant to represent the interests of Europe as a whole, and not their own countries' interests, the fact that 1/3 of the countries will not be represented at any one time is not a means of 'silencing' those countries, it is merely the fairest way of reducing the Commission's size to a workable number.

Further, in terms of representation, the new President of the European Council, elected by the Council, will have to be endorsed by the directly elected MEPs, which will ensure that citizens' views will be reflected at the top level. For example, should the majority of MEPs lean to the left, then will not endorse a right-wing President and vice versa.

Regarding the 'this will destroy our neutrality' argument, it should be noted that Lisbon has absolutely no effect on our neutrality. For the EU to act unilaterally, approval from all member states is needed, effectively giving Ireland a veto. For our troops to take part in peace keeping operations, as at present, UN, Government and Dáil approval is needed. We will not be forced into joining an 'EU army' or any equivalent thereof.

I'll leave it there for the moment; there are other points I could make but I don't want to take over the thread, this post is long enough already.

Oh and I'm voting Yes, if people haven't got that yet

Chakar

I'm voting in favour of the Lisbon Treaty and will probably be canvassing for a 'Yes' vote after my exams in Dublin South and neighbouring constituencies. I think the referendum has an excellent chance of passing with Brian Cowen due to be elected Taoiseach on 7th May as the voters do take into account the person (Taoiseach) putting the question to the people. That's part of the reason why the referendum on the European Constitution was defeated in France with Jacques Chirac as President.

pretty*monster

arbeitsscheuer wrote: »

EDIT: Btw, the date for the vote has been provisionally pencilled in as June 12th. Dunno where the hell you got June 15th from hetfield.

Hmm, in that case I might be able to belt down to the polling station on my way to the airport.

Red Alert

Chakar wrote: »

I'm voting in favour of the Lisbon Treaty and will probably be canvassing for a 'Yes' vote after my exams in Dublin South and neighbouring constituencies. I think the referendum has an excellent chance of passing with Brian Cowen due to be elected Taoiseach on 7th May as the voters do take into account the person (Taoiseach) putting the question to the people. That's part of the reason why the referendum on the European Constitution was defeated in France with Jacques Chirac as President.

What in a nutshell should make me want to vote yes about the treaty itself as opposed to the 'yes/no' inuendo?

CantGetNoSleep

There is widespread anger in France however at not holding another referendum

Breezer

Red Alert wrote: »

What in a nutshell should make me want to vote yes about the treaty itself as opposed to the 'yes/no' inuendo?

You've stated that you're very pro-Europe, and that you respect the work the Union has done in the past. The EU is a lot larger now than it was then, and in order for the EU to continue doing work like this, structural change needs to happen.

For example, at the moment, many decisions taken at EU level require unanimity among member states. This was practical and desirable in a 6, 12 or even 15 member union. However, in a 27 member union made up of people of many different backgrounds and beliefs, it becomes impractical (one might say impossible) to achieve unanimity on many issues.

The new system will replace the requirement for unanimity with double majority voting. This means that for a decision to be made, it must be agreed upon by 55% of the member states (i.e. 15 in a 27 member union) which represent 65% of the Union's population. This a fair system which ensures that neither a small number of large states nor a large number of small states alone can push a decision through. There needs to be a reasonable amount of agreement across the board, without the need for unanimity which could lead to a stalemate.

On several very important issues, such as the issues of the EU budget and taxation, social security, foreign policy and common defence, unanimity will still be required.

Additionally, in areas where unanimity was not required before, the new double majority system will replace the current qualified majority system, whereby each state has a certain number of votes relative to its population. Currently, larger states such as Germany and France have up to 29 votes each, whereas Ireland has 7. This means that if the 12 largest states want to push through a decision, they can. Under the new system, 15 states will be needed, which benefits smaller states such as Ireland. In this way we will have more influence, not less.

You could argue that the EU has expanded too much; however, this amounts to trying to turn back the clock. We voted to allow further expansion in the Treaty of Nice, and now it is essential that we allow the expanded union to function properly.

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

There is widespread anger in France however at not holding another referendum

Sarkozy explicitly stated during his election campaign that he was in favour of drawing up a shortened version of the EU Constitution, with references to flags etc. removed, that would be ratified by the French parliament. That is exactly what happened. The French got what they voted for.

EamonnKeane

Breezer wrote: »

Sarkozy explicitly stated during his election campaign that he was in favour of drawing up a shortened version of the EU Constitution, with references to flags etc. removed, that would be ratified by the French parliament. That is exactly what happened. The French got what they voted for.

People say a lot during campaigns; little of it is ever heard again

Breezer

EamonnKeane wrote: »

People say a lot during campaigns; little of it is ever heard again

So are you saying that by sticking to a campaign promise, Sarkozy misled the people, and that they really voted for him because they expected him to do the opposite of what he said? I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument.

Raphael

Hmm, June 12th? That's annoying, I'll be in America. Wonder if there;s any form of absentee ballot I can sort out...

tywy

Breezer wrote: »

Agreed. However, that is not in itself a reason to vote No in my book. Every political party with the exception of Sinn Féin is advocating a Yes vote, not just the Government parties. Fine Gael and Labour have been calling for the Government to set a date and allow the Referendum Commission to start informing the people for months now. I think the issues contained within this treaty are far more important than Bertie's finances and the distraction they have posed to the Government for the past while.

Regarding the 'less representation in Europe' argument, this would appear to centre around the fact that we will not have a seat on the Commission for 5 out of every 15 years. This is not something that will apply solely to Ireland or even to smaller states: every state will be subject to the same system. The logic behind this is that a smaller Commission will function more smoothly. Since the Commissioners are meant to represent the interests of Europe as a whole, and not their own countries' interests, the fact that 1/3 of the countries will not be represented at any one time is not a means of 'silencing' those countries, it is merely the fairest way of reducing the Commission's size to a workable number.

Further, in terms of representation, the new President of the European Council, appointed by the Commission, will have to be endorsed by the directly elected MEPs, which will ensure that citizens' views will be reflected at the top level. For example, should the majority of MEPs lean to the left, then will not endorse a right-wing President and vice versa.

Regarding the 'this will destroy our neutrality' argument, it should be noted that Lisbon has absolutely no effect on our neutrality. For the EU to act unilaterally, approval from all member states is needed, effectively giving Ireland a veto. For our troops to take part in peace keeping operations, as at present, UN, Government and Dáil approval is needed. We will not be forced into joining an 'EU army' or any equivalent thereof.

I'll leave it there for the moment; there are other points I could make but I don't want to take over the thread, this post is long enough already.

Oh and I'm voting Yes, if people haven't got that yet

w00t! Another Yes vote from me!

PS I hate those Libertas ads, how irritating...

Breezer

Raphael wrote: »

Hmm, June 12th? That's annoying, I'll be in America. Wonder if there;s any form of absentee ballot I can sort out...

I think you're out of luck in this case Raphael. While technically you can register for a postal vote if you're studying full time away from home, you need to make the application within two days of the date for the referendum being set. Also there's no provision for voting from abroad unless you're a diplomat on service there.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/elections-and-referenda/voting/registering-to-vote/?searchterm=postal%20voting

Raphael

Bollocks, thanks anyway Breezer

Chakar

Red Alert wrote: »

What in a nutshell should make me want to vote yes about the treaty itself as opposed to the 'yes/no' inuendo?

I've already informed myself regarding the treaty and my post was not intended to describe the treaty itself. I was reflecting on the chances of the Treaty passing.

Anyway this document I'm linking to is titled 'True Guide to the Treaty of Lisbon' by British MEP Andrew Duff of the ALDE group in the European Parliament and Liberal Democrat politician. It's only 14 pages in all, I'd recommend that you have a look.

http://www.alde.eu/fileadmin/files/Download/True-Guide-NEW.pdf

This document also has the full text of the Treaty of Lisbon relating to previous treaties so amended if ratified by the Member States. It's 272 pages.

http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/FileCache/PUBPDF/FXAC07306ENC/FXAC07306ENC_002.pdf

This document is The White Paper on the Reform Treaty by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It's 104 pages and goes through each article and section explaining the implications of such.

http://www.reformtreaty.ie/eutreaty/pDF08-White-paper_6.pdf

Here also is a guide to the Reform Treaty. This is smaller at 22 pages.

http://www.reformtreaty.ie/eutreaty/guide-english.pdf

panda100

Breezer wrote: »

. Every political party with the exception of Sinn Féin is advocating a Yes vote, not just the Government parties.

Your wrong there Breezer,the socialist party,people before profit(SWP) and many individual members of Labour and the Greens will be advocating a No vote. Take Patricia Mc Kenna for example a former Green party MEP ,who is rigurously opposing the treaty.

Breezer wrote: »

. Further, in terms of representation, the new President of the European Council, appointed by the Commission.

And who appoints the commission Breezer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Barroso ,This guy the president of the European council

"In 2003, Barroso hosted U.S President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar in the Portuguese Island of Terceira, in the Azores, in which the four leaders met and finalised the controversial U.S-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Under Barroso's leadership, Portugal became part of the coalition of the willing for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. "
So the man who commisioned the killing of a million innocent Iraqis and sent hundreds of US and British soldiers of to their deaths in a war over oil will be in charge of commisoning the majority of our laws form hereon in.


There are many reasons im voting No to the Lisbon treaty.Here are just a few.
Firstly,the question of democracy. As red alert has already said France and other countries have already rejeceted the treaty and the fact that all members states are not being allowed vote on it for me is wholly undemocratic.
I dont agree that non- elected EU individuals should be able to make laws for us . It will be the end of our veto as It will be the EU court of Justice that decides our fate and 90% of cases they rule in favour of private ownership intrests over public intrests.
Also I am vehmnetly opposed to the increasing militrisation of Europe. The treaty demans that each member states increases their military spending by 3%. This means deflecting money from already strapped services such as health and education.
I dont agree with the need for the increase in military spending as it says in article2 for the 'fight against terrorism' and for 'peace enforcing'. This is not the language of peace keeping or peace making language,it is the language of war and enforcment.

Read any 'Yes' vote material,like the propogande left by fine gael in the arts block last week and its just full of buzzwords about the EU and moving forward. The yes side have yet to inform people of the content of the treaty and thats for a good reason. Its beacuse its not in our favour to vote yes to this treaty.

Chakar

All right first of all Breezer meant that all parties represented in the Dáil with the exception of Sinn Féin are supporting the passing of the Lisbon Treaty.

The competencies allowing the European Union to legislate for on an European level is not simply the ceding of our sovereignty, it is the pooling of sovereignty within the European sphere to better tackle the challenges of an enlarged European Union such as in the policy field of Justice and Home Affairs, which is especially important with a 'borderless Union' as created by the Schengen agreement which was enlarged to a further nine Member States two weeks ago.

That Fine Gael pamphlet is only a promotion for their public meeting on the Lisbon Treaty chaired by Gay Mitchell with Alan Dukes as an guest speaker. Fair play to them anyway.

There will be detailed guides sent to every household in the country so voters can inform themselves such as the recent White Paper on the Reform Treaty released by the Department of Foreign Affairs last Wednesday. I have provided a link to the document above among others of interest.

Breezer

panda100 wrote: »

Your wrong there Breezer,the socialist party,people before profit(SWP) and many individual members of Labour and the Greens will be advocating a No vote. Take Patricia Mc Kenna for example a former Green party MEP ,who is rigurously opposing the treaty.

As Chakar said, I was referring to the major political parties represented in the Dáil. In any case, this is taking my point out of context. My aim was to point out that voting No because the Government wants you to vote Yes is not a valid argument, and the Government's major critics are putting that aside to encourage a Yes vote.

Patricia McKenna also opposed the Green Party entering into Government with Fianna Fáil. Fair play to her, she is entitled to air her views, but they do not necessarily reflect those of the party leadership or indeed the grassroots membership.

And who appoints the commission Breezer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Barroso ,This guy the president of the European council

Sorry, there was an inaccuracy in my original post. The President will be elected by the European Council, not the Commission. In any case, you are again quoting half of my sentence out of context. My point was that the new President, who will not necessarily be Barroso, will have to be endorsed by the MEPs directly elected by the people of Europe. They will have the authority to decline the endorsement if the President's views do not match their own, and hence the people's.

So the man who commisioned the killing of a million innocent Iraqis and sent hundreds of US and British soldiers of to their deaths in a war over oil will be in charge of commisoning the majority of our laws form hereon in.

The President of the European Council is not the 'President of Europe;' it is largely a figurehead role: he or she will 'give a face to Europe,' represent Europe abroad and chair the Council's work, much as the current rotating presidents do. The difference is that this is a more stable position which will allow for focus to remain on projects that cannot be rushed through and allow them to be worked on over a period of time (2 and a half years is a presidential term).

Firstly,the question of democracy. As red alert has already said France and other countries have already rejeceted the treaty and the fact that all members states are not being allowed vote on it for me is wholly undemocratic.

No country in Europe is a dictatorship. Every country voted to join Europe, and they voted in the governments that have ratified the treaty by parliament. Their constitutions do not require ratification by referendum; ours does. Democracy is being observed in all these cases. What would be undemocratic would be for us to tell these countries that adhering to their own constitutions is wrong - we do not have that right IMO.

In the case of France, Nicolas Sarkozy explicity stated in his recent electoral campaign that he would see a reduced form of the EU Constitution ratified by the French parliament. This was his Europe policy, and the French electorate voted for it. The notion that this is somehow undemocratic does not wash with me.

I dont agree that non- elected EU individuals should be able to make laws for us . It will be the end of our veto as It will be the EU court of Justice that decides our fate and 90% of cases they rule in favour of private ownership intrests over public intrests.

If you are referring to the commission, this is currently the case anyway. In fact, under Lisbon there will be less 'unelected officials.' I should point out that in every democracy there are unelected officials either making or executing laws, our own Seanad for example. While the Irish Seanad's powers are quite weak, this is not the case for the Upper House in many other countries. In fact, neither the US President nor the candidates who run for that position are directly elected by the people.

We will still have a veto in many key areas I have outlined above. In cases where we will not, no state will, and under the double majority system Ireland will have more of a say than it currently does on issues which we cannot veto. It is impractical and unworkable that any state in a 27 member union would be able to veto anything it likes.

Also I am vehmnetly opposed to the increasing militrisation of Europe. The treaty demans that each member states increases their military spending by 3%. This means deflecting money from already strapped services such as health and education.
I dont agree with the need for the increase in military spending as it says in article2 for the 'fight against terrorism' and for 'peace enforcing'. This is not the language of peace keeping or peace making language,it is the language of war and enforcment.

If it were the case that a terrorist group took issue with Ireland and started bombing us, would you think it fair that we ask Europe to come to our aid because we didn't want to spend on our own military? While I think that this is an unlikely scenario in the short term, we cannot rule it out. In fact, it has already been threatened, though as I said I would take those threats with a pinch of salt at present.

There are many examples of wasted resources in this country: e-voting, Bertie's make up, a Tribunal excessively prolonged by the unco-operation of same politicians who set it up, excessive levels of beurocracy in the HSE. I do not agree that increasing our military budget is a waste of resources. In fact, even if all it does is increase safety in military vehicles to prevent soldiers getting spinal injuries in crashes on the M50, then I would consider it money well spent.

Read any 'Yes' vote material,like the propogande left by fine gael in the arts block last week and its just full of buzzwords about the EU and moving forward. The yes side have yet to inform people of the content of the treaty and thats for a good reason. Its beacuse its not in our favour to vote yes to this treaty.

Admittedly I didn't see this. However, Fine Gael have presented what I believe to be a very strong case for ratifying this treaty, and have rubbished the myths being propogated by the No camp. See the link in my signature, and related links on the Fine Gael website, for more details.

Het-Field

panda100 wrote: »

Your wrong there Breezer,the socialist party,people before profit(SWP) and many individual members of Labour and the Greens will be advocating a No vote. Take Patricia Mc Kenna for example a former Green party MEP ,who is rigurously opposing the treaty.



And who appoints the commission Breezer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Barroso ,This guy the president of the European council

"In 2003, Barroso hosted U.S President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar in the Portuguese Island of Terceira, in the Azores, in which the four leaders met and finalised the controversial U.S-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Under Barroso's leadership, Portugal became part of the coalition of the willing for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. "
So the man who commisioned the killing of a million innocent Iraqis and sent hundreds of US and British soldiers of to their deaths in a war over oil will be in charge of commisoning the majority of our laws form hereon in.


There are many reasons im voting No to the Lisbon treaty.Here are just a few.
Firstly,the question of democracy. As red alert has already said France and other countries have already rejeceted the treaty and the fact that all members states are not being allowed vote on it for me is wholly undemocratic.
I dont agree that non- elected EU individuals should be able to make laws for us . It will be the end of our veto as It will be the EU court of Justice that decides our fate and 90% of cases they rule in favour of private ownership intrests over public intrests.
Also I am vehmnetly opposed to the increasing militrisation of Europe. The treaty demans that each member states increases their military spending by 3%. This means deflecting money from already strapped services such as health and education.
I dont agree with the need for the increase in military spending as it says in article2 for the 'fight against terrorism' and for 'peace enforcing'. This is not the language of peace keeping or peace making language,it is the language of war and enforcment.

Read any 'Yes' vote material,like the propogande left by fine gael in the arts block last week and its just full of buzzwords about the EU and moving forward. The yes side have yet to inform people of the content of the treaty and thats for a good reason. Its beacuse its not in our favour to vote yes to this treaty.

For a start Patricia McKenna is the Mary White (FF Senator) or Dick Roche of the Green Party i.e. a laughing stock. She is a no hoper who is a fringe of a fringe. Furthermore, it was the rules of the Green Party Constitution which prevented the majority view from being implemented The Socialist Party and the People Before Profit are unrepresented save one or two councellors, while The Labour Party have agreed to support the ratification of the Treaty, save one or two.

One could equally say Panda that Sarkozy promised a mini treaty as party of his Presidential Campaign last summer, and the people of France ratfified his programme by voting him in. I would also ask weather it is democratic for a Country of 3million to be capable of vetoing the Treaty, over the wishes of the other democratically elected national parliments who have chosen to ratify the treaty.

To use the word "increased militarisation" is scaremongering. It is purely to do with cooperation for benevolent mission, such as that in Chad. If the Socialist Party and the rest of the left wish to view that as negative, then its their right. However, I dont believe it.

On a side point, its shocking how Fine Gael continue to put themselves forward as the main proponents of the treaty. They must realise that Win or Lose, it will not effect the willingness of the Irish people to vote for them. It would be a micro victory, with very hollow ramifications for FG's attempts at breaking the Monopoly of power which has existed. Plus if the Lisbon Treaty is to be rejected, it will have very negative impacts on the party who have had the most prominant activisim vis a vis the treaty

Breezer

Het-Field wrote: »

On a side point, its shocking how Fine Gael continue to put themselves forward as the main proponents of the treaty. They must realise that Win or Lose, it will not effect the willingness of the Irish people to vote for them. It would be a micro victory, with very hollow ramifications for FG's attempts at breaking the Monopoly of power which has existed. Plus if the Lisbon Treaty is to be rejected, it will have very negative impacts on the party who have had the most prominant activisim vis a vis the treaty

I agree with everything you have said bar this. I'm not entirely sure what else you expect Fine Gael to do. Their TDs were elected to represent the interests of the people of Ireland, and they believe that this treaty is in Ireland's interest. Likewise, their MEPs (the largest group of Irish MEPs) were elected to represent Ireland in Europe, and they believe that the new structures brought in by Lisbon will help them to do that. Of course they're going to support the treaty.

Not every Irish political party are proponents of Mé Féinism, some genuinely believe in doing their best for this country (and I'm not just referring to Fine Gael). Of course FG could go out and score cheap points against the Government and attempt to bring Lisbon down in order to embarrass FF, but that's not in line with the view the party takes on Europe. This treaty isn't about short term gain in Dáil Éireann; whether you're for it or against it, it's about the future of our country and 26 others.

Het-Field

Breezer wrote: »

I agree with everything you have said bar this. I'm not entirely sure what else you expect Fine Gael to do. Their TDs were elected to represent the interests of the people of Ireland, and they believe that this treaty is in Ireland's interest. Likewise, their MEPs (the largest group of Irish MEPs) were elected to represent Ireland in Europe, and they believe that the new structures brought in by Lisbon will help them to do that. Of course they're going to support the treaty.

Not every Irish political party are proponents of Mé Féinism, some genuinely believe in doing their best for this country (and I'm not just referring to Fine Gael). Of course FG could go out and score cheap points against the Government and attempt to bring Lisbon down in order to embarrass FF, but that's not in line with the view the party takes on Europe. This treaty isn't about short term gain in Dáil Éireann; whether you're for it or against it, it's about the future of our country and 26 others.

I completely agree with you. Fine Gael are a party of high public standards, and in terms of campaigning for the treaty have the publics best interests at heart. This is in direct contradication of many in Fianna Fail, who have used public officer for personal gain. I am a firm opponent of allowing Fianna Fail join the ELDR/ALDE, and OGRA join the Youth Wing called LYMEC. For a start, Fianna Fail are not a Liberal Party, and just because they have no proper home in terms of a European Grouping, its becomes annoying to see them try and slither their way into the ELDR. I would hate to see Ogra hacks use LYMEC's bureau as a way of playing MEP

However Fine Gael have a firm home in the EPP, and I thin they Ireland's strongest European Party. I didnt mean to sound like I was condemning FIne Gael's Campaign, as a proponent of the treaty, I am most welcoming of it. However, I do believe that there are factions within Fine Gael, who believe a yes vote, is a fine gael victory. Its important that Fine Gael move on, once the electorat vote on this, and look to domestic policy, which has been mediocre from a FG perspective.

Chakar

Het-Field I accept your opinion but a lot has changed since 2004 and we don't want to join ELDR/ALDE political parties in the European Parliament. We're content to remain within the UEN group of which Brian Crowley is co-President. The UEN group allows us a greater say in the decision-making process where in another grouping we would be outnumbered by other national delegations.

The policy and political differences between Fianna Fáil and the other European political parties also make it difficult for us to contemplate a move in practice. The one substantive policy difference ruling out our move to the ALDE/ELDR parties is their position on abortion.

Red Alert

There's another discussion on Irish neutrality vs the Lisbon treaty here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055269445

It's the elephant in the room that isn't being discussed by the mainstream parties on for a yes vote.

The_Minister

The triple lock will remain in place if the Treaty is signed meaning that our neutrality is protected.
Even if it is a awful policy.

Red Alert

It's an awful policy to say we're neutral and not protect it by examining what's going in and out of the country.

gliondar

I'm passionately pro-Europe and pro-EU. Always have been. But this Treaty flies in the face of the proud tradition of democracy and accountability that we have fostered for fifty years.

The obvious reason to vote no is the disenfranchisement of nearly 500 million people, countless millions of whom are strongly opposed to the Treaty.

At first I had an open mind, but all the lies the government has been telling about no tax harmonisation http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0408/1207602058354.html, neutrality and 'streamlining' are daily being revealed as deceit.



1. Ireland’s vote in the Council will be cut by 60% while Germany’s increases by 100% and France’s by 50%

2. Foreign Direct Investment would come under the control of the Common Commercial Policy for the first time so that the Irish Government could no longer legislate in this area except with the permission of Brussels.

3. Ireland would lose its commissioner for five out of every 15 years – an Irish voice in the body that has the exclusive right to propose EU legislation

4. Ireland would lose its veto in 68 areas including over “competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market”, immigration policy, employment policy and many other areas.

5. The EU’s traditional commitment to “free and undistorted competition”, a key component of every EU treaty since the 1957 founding Treaty of Rome, has been relegated in the Lisbon Treaty by Nicholas Sarkozy, who upon removing the clause asked “what has competition ever done for us?” His idea is to have European business dominated by what he calls “National Champions”. This is code for protection of inefficient state supported industries to the detriment of European entrepreneurship and innovation, the growth companies that produce 80% of all new jobs in Europe.

6. So understanding that we would have our voting weight reduced, the competition clause relegated, surrendering 68 key vetoes, and conceding to having an unelected President and Foreign Minister. Any person familiar with business negotiation might ask, what do we get in return that we don’t already have? Nothing.

I urge everyone to VOTE NO!

The_Minister

Red Alert wrote: »

It's an awful policy to say we're neutral and not protect it by examining what's going in and out of the country.

*Sigh*
Neutral =/= pacifist.
Thats why Switzerland has such a great army.

We allowed Russia to fly planes to Cuba through our airports, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that nearly lead to WWIII. If we turn around now and forbid a different country from doing something that is not nearly as bad, then THAT makes us not neutral. Neutral means that we don't take sides (except where it is clearly in our own interest), it doesn't mean that we stick our head in the sand and everyone leaves us alone. We facilitate all countries, or none. America needs to send troops to another country, we get money for it. That does not in any way break our neutrality, as long as the offer is also open to other countries as well.

We sent condolences when Hitler died thanks to neutrality. We still have a statue up to a man who tried to sell us to the Nazis.
I firnly believe that e should have been opposed to Hitler, not neutral. But, hey, that's just me.

The_Minister

gliondar wrote: »

The obvious reason to vote no is the disenfranchisement of nearly 500 million people, countless millions of whom are strongly opposed to the Treaty.

Ok.
Firstly, Germany cannot constitutionately hold a popular referendum, because, well, thats how Hitler got his power, and we all saw how that ended:).
Secondly, the elected representatives of every country in Europe have endorsed this treaty. The reason that it does not need a vote, is quite simply because its not a constitution. They didn't get a vote on any other EU treaty, what is so special about this one. Does the fact that they didn't get to vote on the other Treaties make them invalid IYO?

gliondar wrote: »

At first I had an open mind, but all the lies the government has been telling about no tax harmonisation http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0408/1207602058354.html, neutrality and 'streamlining' are daily being revealed as deceit.

1. We have a veto on tax harmonisation, and as long as the Progressive Democrats, Fianna Fail, or Fine Gael are in power, we will use it. The only party that has voted in favour of it (IIRC) was Labour. France tried this before, we smacked them down, we will do so again.
2. We still have the triple-lock. Google it and then tell me how we will not be neutral if it is still in place
3. Streamlining. I have no idea what your problem is here. The treaty is mostly about streamlining, and allowing the Union to fuction with 27 members. The vast majority of the text is solely about this.


I have to do some research before I answer the rest of your points.

Red Alert

The_Minister wrote: »

We sent condolences when Hitler died thanks to neutrality. We still have a statue up to a man who tried to sell us to the Nazis.
I firnly believe that e should have been opposed to Hitler, not neutral. But, hey, that's just me.

And possibly get what was then a young country with big instability problems of its own to get itself into chaos? Ireland at that time had it went to war wouldn't have had sufficient military personnel capacity to both go out fighting and to offer suitable home defence. Compare even the military engineering and support resources the UK had to ours - no contest. Letting the UK use our country as a base would have been unwise since the amount of civil unrest it could have led to. Similarly letting the Germans operate from Ireland would have been a big mistake since it would have led to presumably automatic invasion from Britain. Neutrality was the only sensible option to protect the civilian people in Ireland, and if you say you're neutral you must act neutral. An uncharacteristically wise decision on the part of the government.

Breezer

gliondar wrote: »

The obvious reason to vote no is the disenfranchisement of nearly 500 million people, countless millions of whom are strongly opposed to the Treaty.

Other countries do not require these treaties to be ratified by a referendum. It is not in their constitution. It is in ours. Their elected representatives, voted for by them, ratified it on their behalf; we are ratifying it directly because our constitution requires it. In the case of France, Sarkozy made it very obvious during his campaign that he would see this treaty ratified by parliament, and the French voted him in.

At first I had an open mind, but all the lies the government has been telling about no tax harmonisation http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0408/1207602058354.html, neutrality and 'streamlining' are daily being revealed as deceit.

Firstly, this is a policy being pushed by France, not by Europe. In any case, we can veto this policy. Forget what any campaign website or newspaper tells you on this, here is what the treaty says:

Article 223.2 of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as amended by Lisbon wrote:

The European Parliament, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council, shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.

In other words, if the Taoiseach says no, tax harmonisation won't happen.

1. Ireland’s vote in the Council will be cut by 60% while Germany’s increases by 100% and France’s by 50%

This is a gross over-simplification. Ireland is a nation of 4 million people, France and Germany have (off the top of my head) 50 or 70 million people each. Of course they will have a bigger say. However, the new system of double majority voting will help the smaller states have a bigger say than their populations would dictate - see my earlier posts.

3. Ireland would lose its commissioner for five out of every 15 years – an Irish voice in the body that has the exclusive right to propose EU legislation

So would every state. This is to ensure the commission is a workable size. The commissioners are not supposed to represent their countries anyway, they represent Europe as a whole, so it is not losing 'an Irish voice' in the sense you are making it out to be.

4. Ireland would lose its veto in 68 areas including over “competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market”, immigration policy, employment policy and many other areas.

As would every country. Any of 27 countries vetoing anything they don't like would result in stalemate within the union. The veto is retained in key areas such as the EU budget and common defence; again, see my earlier posts.

conceding to having an unelected President and Foreign Minister.

We currently have an unelected President and 2 unelected Foreign Ministers. These roles will simply be more stable to allow more consistency within the council. Every democracy in the world has unelected officials, including Ireland. See my earlier posts for an explanation as to how, under Lisbon, the President of the European Council will actually be more accountable to the people.

Your other points I will have to look into and respond to later.

Red Alert wrote: »

And possibly get what was then a young country with big instability problems of its own to get itself into chaos? Ireland at that time had it went to war wouldn't have had sufficient military personnel capacity to both go out fighting and to offer suitable home defence. Compare even the military engineering and support resources the UK had to ours - no contest. Letting the UK use our country as a base would have been unwise since the amount of civil unrest it could have led to. Similarly letting the Germans operate from Ireland would have been a big mistake since it would have led to presumably automatic invasion from Britain. Neutrality was the only sensible option to protect the civilian people in Ireland, and if you say you're neutral you must act neutral. An uncharacteristically wise decision on the part of the government.

I accept your point, and agree broadly. However, this is 2008, not 1939. We are no longer a fledgling nation, and are no longer facing threat from the Nazis. WWII has nothing to do with Lisbon.

Het-Field

gliondar wrote: »

I'm passionately pro-Europe and pro-EU. Always have been. But this Treaty flies in the face of the proud tradition of democracy and accountability that we have fostered for fifty years.

The obvious reason to vote no is the disenfranchisement of nearly 500 million people, countless millions of whom are strongly opposed to the Treaty.

At first I had an open mind, but all the lies the government has been telling about no tax harmonisation http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0408/1207602058354.html, neutrality and 'streamlining' are daily being revealed as deceit.



1. Ireland’s vote in the Council will be cut by 60% while Germany’s increases by 100% and France’s by 50%

2. Foreign Direct Investment would come under the control of the Common Commercial Policy for the first time so that the Irish Government could no longer legislate in this area except with the permission of Brussels.

3. Ireland would lose its commissioner for five out of every 15 years – an Irish voice in the body that has the exclusive right to propose EU legislation

4. Ireland would lose its veto in 68 areas including over “competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market”, immigration policy, employment policy and many other areas.

5. The EU’s traditional commitment to “free and undistorted competition”, a key component of every EU treaty since the 1957 founding Treaty of Rome, has been relegated in the Lisbon Treaty by Nicholas Sarkozy, who upon removing the clause asked “what has competition ever done for us?” His idea is to have European business dominated by what he calls “National Champions”. This is code for protection of inefficient state supported industries to the detriment of European entrepreneurship and innovation, the growth companies that produce 80% of all new jobs in Europe.

6. So understanding that we would have our voting weight reduced, the competition clause relegated, surrendering 68 key vetoes, and conceding to having an unelected President and Foreign Minister. Any person familiar with business negotiation might ask, what do we get in return that we don’t already have? Nothing.

I urge everyone to VOTE NO!

Uunder the current situation the Commission is not working as a result of the large number of commissioners. I have Irish ministerial testimony to back this up. In fairness, all other countries will have the commissioner for 10 of every 15 years. Thus we are not losing. It would be losing if Ireland were the only, or one of a few countries, to lose a commissioner. However, Germany and France etc will all be forced to contend with this provision

We have always had an unelected President in Europe. However, now the term is just going to last two years longer. Again its a figurehead role, and will not evolve into a US style Presidency, where a Federal Europe will be run at the whim of this evil tyrant

Four-Too

This treaty will take away most of our sover'ty, don't blindly vote "yes" just cause it's Government policy. My advice is go on youtube and watch some videos there, you will be amazed. This treaty is set up by a few European elites, to give them all the power. Under Lisbon, the EU will act to suit itself, it will not operate in Ireland's interests. Interests rates and infation could surge, but we could do nothing as the banks in Brussels would determine all this. Ireland would have to commit 10% each year to military spending, even though we want neutrality.
Our vote is putting the fate of 500million people in our hands. I, for one, don't want Ireland to be just a "state" in the EU, the same as the USA. Our forefather's gave their lives for our indepence...so why should we give it up so easily?

Tom65

Everytime I read or hear something anti-Treaty, it comes across as a simplification and sounds like propaganda. Like Breezer post (well done, by the way), the usual anti-Treaty arguments are countered by the actual wording of the Treaty (as opposed to someone saying "it'll take away our neutrality" etc.).

I'm concerned about neutrality, taxation, and the way the EU works in terms of representation, but I'm yet to see any grounding to fear the Lisbon Treaty in these kinds of areas.

panda100

Tom65 wrote: »

. Like Breezer post (well done, by the way), the usual anti-Treaty arguments are countered by the actual wording of the Treaty (as opposed to someone saying "it'll take away our neutrality" etc.).

.

(Art 28). The treaty stipulates that “all member states shall undertake to progressively improve their military capabilities”. We are required “to make civilian and military capabilities available for the implementation of EU defence policy” (Art 28).

The treaty says the common security and defence policy shall include “joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks and post-conflict stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories” (Art 28B).

Still think it wont take away our neutrality?

Tom65

panda100 wrote: »

(Art 28). The treaty stipulates that “all member states shall undertake to progressively improve their military capabilities”. We are required “to make civilian and military capabilities available for the implementation of EU defence policy” (Art 28).

The treaty says the common security and defence policy shall include “joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks and post-conflict stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories” (Art 28B).

Still think it wont take away our neutrality?

No, I don't. No crisis management task can be launched without unanimous vote in the Council. Ireland can also retain the right to take part in any mission. It also says that the obligation to assist a country which has been attacked "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States" (Article 28). As far as the Common Security and Defence Policy goes, I don't see it as any different to the UN Peacekeepers, which Ireland has been a part of for 50+ years.

The_Minister

Four-Too wrote: »

Under Lisbon, the EU will act to suit itself, it will not operate in Ireland's interests.

It does this anyway, because *Shock* its an alliance of 27 countries, so it doesn't act just to suit just one country.

Four-Too wrote: »

Interests rates and infation could surge, but we could do nothing as the banks in Brussels would determine all this.

Already happening for years, I've yet to be hit by a piece of falling sky.

Four-Too wrote: »

Ireland would have to commit 10% each year to military spending, even though we want neutrality.

Neutrality =/= Pacifist. We have an army, and we send it around the world for peacekeeping, and it does brilliantly, despite the fact that we underfund it.
Also, you haven't said 10% of what.

Four-Too wrote: »

Our vote is putting the fate of 500million people in our hands. I, for one, don't want Ireland to be just a "state" in the EU, the same as the USA. Our forefather's gave their lives for our indepence...so why should we give it up so easily?

This does not make us a federal state.
Our forefathers did not fight for our independence from other countries. They fought to allow us to choose who we interacted with, and who we shared sovereignty with. Even the most extreme proponants of independence always knew that we would be dependant on Britain for trade, they just wanted it to be by our choosing.

Breezer

panda100 wrote: »

Still think it wont take away our neutrality?

Yes, I do, because you're still selectively quoting. In order to avoid repeating this, I have quoted the entire article you refer to below, and highlighted the parts which refute your argument in bold, using red for extra emphasis when necessary. Due to the source I am using being the Treaty on European Union as it would read when amended by Lisbon, I am referring to this as Articles 42 and 43 of the amended Treaty on European Union:

Treaty on European Union, as amended by Lisbon wrote:

Article 42

1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military
capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development,
research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

4. Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

5. The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union’s values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.

6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 46. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 43.

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

Article 43

1. The tasks referred to in Article 42(1), in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.

2. The Council shall adopt decisions relating to the tasks referred to in paragraph 1, defining their objectives and scope and the general conditions for their implementation. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy, acting under the authority of the Council and in close and constant contact with the Political and Security Committee, shall ensure coordination of the civilian and military aspects of such tasks.

In other words, Ireland will have a veto on any aspect of common defence it does not agree with, and any military operations we participate in will be subject to the triple lock as defined in our constitution.

Panda, I may be wrong here, but I'm getting the impression that you are opposed to the military in general on point of principle. If that's the case then fine, I can respect that, but voting No to Lisbon is not going to take our army away, and voting Yes is not going to take our neutrality away.

The_Minister

I've added a poll, as requested, to this thread. I was a little facetious with the options, as this isn't the politics forum, so we don't have to be super-serial here, but if people are *really* offended (and I mean a significant number) then I'll change it.
I would ask, to ensure that this thread doesn't get moved to politics, that people try to in some way reference students or UCD now and again. Not every post, but considering that the new Europe-wide SU has brought out a big chunky booklet giving reasons that students should support the treaty, I don't see why student-specific issues should not be discussed, as well as the bigger picture.

Breezer

I like it The thread in politics is a little, em, long at this stage (yes I'm not at my most verbose at this hour) so I think it's worthwhile having this here to make it a bit more accessible to UCD students who are interested. Given that students tend to be a bit more radical as well I think it's interesting to see the different views. I'll try come up with some student-specific issues at a less ungodly hour though.

Red Alert

Just as a matter of interest has the treaty been a talking point in any politics lectures/tutorials or the like?

Chakar

Red Alert wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest has the treaty been a talking point in any politics lectures/tutorials or the like?

In European politics modules it has been dealt with in context of developments in the Union.

Het-Field

Red Alert wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest has the treaty been a talking point in any politics lectures/tutorials or the like?

I did an essay on the Crotty v Ireland (1987) decision up in Kings Inns. I have posed the question has Crotty (for those who dont know, is the case which has stimulated referenda on Massatrich/Amsterdam/Nice and Lisbon) bastardised democracy ? Should a country of just over three million people be capable of vetoing the workings and decisions of other democratically elected parliments.

In the past three years I have come to view the EU's relationship with Ireland, as similar to that which is apparent between the members of UCD Students Union and the Union of Students in Ireland. Its a vicarious relationship, and its left up to those that we democratically elect (Local level sabbatical officers, and the elected USI Officers) to look after our interests on this level. If we were to reduced the USI to the views of each and every student in affiliated colleges no work would be done. Thusly, if we look at the European Union, as what can Ireland get out of it, we are not going to guarantee any success.

Four-Too

There is no democracy in this Lisbon Treaty. So many EU countries, and their leaders have decided themselves to sign up to it, the people were given no choice. Ireland is the only country where the people we allowed to vote. We are heading for dictatorship like it or not, and I will not support it. A future EU lead by some tyrannical rascal!

Red Alert

I'd have been much less suspicious of this overall if every country in the EU had a popular vote on it. If it's so good then what are they afraid of?

panda100

Was walking up grafton street yesterday and was confronted with young fine gaels vote yes to Lisbon posters: Take a look http://www.yfg.ie/


What does breast size and penis size have to do with the Lisbon treaty??