Some lies about the Lisbon Treaty.

Gadjodilo

Feel free to use this for lies from the yes side if you can find any but all the lies I've seen so far are coming from the no side.

Click on the link below to see just one example of the degree of distortion that some members of the 'no' campaign will stoop to.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=34560&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=57

Rockofcashel is a prominent member of Sinn Féin in Tipperary. He is quite open about how he plans to lie to people on the doorstep about the effect the Lisbon Treaty will have on the freedom this country will have to set corporation tax rates. In the above link, he's already conceded that he's wrong but will lie anyway.

The no campaign have been quoting Article 93 which relates only to indirect taxes. But corporation tax is not an indirect tax. So he's banking on the fact that most people won't know that.

Gadjodilo

Libertas (the main anti-Lisbon group- I call them Liebertas) are up to their necks in the dishonesty too. See this link:

http://www.libertas.org/content/view/252/131/

Especially this paragraph:

3. Back Doors to Increased Taxes
Article 93 of the Lisbon Treaty opens another door to EU tax meddling. Where national differences in company tax lead to "distortion of competition", it would enable the European Court of Justice to apply the internal market rules on competition, where majority voting applies, to matters of corporation tax thus bypassing our much touted Tax Veto, which is relevant to tax harmonization but not other key aspects of Irelands tax policy.

Article 93 relates to indirect taxes and has nothing to do with company taxes. Yet, Liebertas is hoping that most people won't know that or won't know exactly what indirect taxes refer to.

More than twenty four hours after the Referendum Commission gave a ruling on this saying that the Lisbon Treaty has no effect on our tax veto, Liebertas is still repeating the lie.

uptherebels

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Feel free to use this for lies from the yes side if you can find any but all the lies I've seen so far are coming from the no side.

And that may be because the yes side dont need to tell lies.They just hype up the good points and ignore the bad.Have you heard a government official who is in favour of the treaty point out any of the downsides.Both the yes and no groups are as bad as each other.(I realise that the no side dont point out the good sides either).

dlofnep

"Voting no would be disasterous for Ireland".

"Voting no is a precursor to an exit from the EU".

Both lies.

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

"Voting no would be disasterous for Ireland".

"Voting no is a precursor to an exit from the EU".

Both lies.

Well, the latter, anyway, for sure. The former is certainly both debatable and overstated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

heyjude

The thing that struck me about the Lisbon Treaty debate is that the Yes side are absolutely sure that all of the arguments made by the No campaign are either false or inaccurate and that all their claims for what the Lisbon Treaty will bring for us and Europe in the future are all nonsense. Which is strange given the poor record of our politicians when making predictions on any subject.

So if they are that certain (100%) that none of these things will happen, let them put their money where their mouth is and put their house on the line, that in the event that the treaty is passed and any of the predictions made by the No Campaign actually come to fruition, then they'll 'donate' their house to charity. They should have no problem doing this, as they are sure that the No campaign's arguments are false or misleading, but of course while they are absolutely certain, they wouldn't dream of putting their house on the line, because while they are 100% certain in public, in private they know that almost nothing is certain(more like on the balance of probability) and that even the most improbable forecasts are accurate occasionally.

The problem is that once the country has agreed to the treaty, there is no going back, there is no point in saying sorry and saying there was no way of knowing what would happen. Get a copy of the Yes campaign literature now, save the quotes of the Yes campaigners, for they should be called on to resign if or when the effects and consequences of the Lisbon Treaty turn out to be the opposite to that which they are now 100% sure of.

In any case, it is slightly irrelevant as the treaty will be passed, whether its at the first, second or third attempt, the government will just keep coming back till they get a Yes. Maybe there should be be an amendment to the constitution that says that once a referendum on a particular subject has been held, no referendum on the same or a similar subject can be held again for say 12-18 months

dlofnep

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, the latter, anyway, for sure. The former is certainly both debatable and overstated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw, do you not agree that the word diasterous is a little heavy? As for the EU, Ireland's place there is secure and always will be.

To understand the use of the word disaster,you have to get into the minds of the most European of politicians,that would be most of ours and obviously the government.
It would be disasterous in their eyes to have to be embarrassed by a no vote majority.
I have great difficulty with that approach by a campaign.

To suggest a no vote would be disasterous is utter sensationalist nonsense.
It's a hyperbolous (to coign a phrase) use of a soundbyte.

Equally the same is the case if a yes vote is carried.It's not the end is nigh.
Things would continue to be as rosy as they can be, albeit with certain peoples principles being bruised.

bonkey

heyjude wrote: »

In any case, it is slightly irrelevant as the treaty will be passed, whether its at the first, second or third attempt, the government will just keep coming back till they get a Yes.

Maybe there should be be an amendment to the constitution that says that once a referendum on a particular subject has been held, no referendum on the same or a similar subject can be held again for say 12-18 months

Its interesting you should mention that.

When the government did re-run a referendum, I suggested to all those who vehemently complained about it that they campaign for just that, as soon as the referendum had passed.

They didn't.

In 2004, another referendum came about, and those against it complained that a no vote would only result in a re-run. I asked why they hadn't been campaigning for a change in legislation since mid-2002 to prevent that, and suggested that they should start such a campaign immediately after the referendum, regardless of the result, in order to ensure this didn't come about. I believe I explicitly suggested they keep it in the public's memory, so that it could be used against the government come election-time.

They didn't.

Now, in 2008, guess what. We have a referendum coming up yet again, and all of a sudden the long-silent have rediscovered their voice, and are reminding us once again that the government will surely pull a fast one if they don't get their way.

I will, unsurprisingly, repeat my long-held position. Until you can build a popular movement to prevent the government from re-running referenda when there isn't an issue on the table that you have a vested interest in, no-one is going to take those claims seriously.

I predict, however, that once this referendum is past, the issue will once again disappear, only to be raised as a certainty, again, by whoever opposeses whatever the next referendum is about.

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, the latter, anyway, for sure. The former is certainly both debatable and overstated.

Scofflaw, do you not agree that the word diasterous is a little heavy? As for the EU, Ireland's place there is secure and always will be.

Well, yes, that's why I said it was debatable and overstated. Certainly compared to, say, the Black Death or the Famine, it won't rate.

Will it be bad for Ireland? I would think so - nothing very obvious, but we'll find our allies and our opponents less obliging, since they have themselves spent a certain amount of political capital both negotiating the Treaty, and ratifying it ahead of us. There will be, I think, a substantial loss of goodwill - and from the point of view of those who actually do the negotiating for Ireland, that may well be something that can be characterised as 'disastrous'. For the rest of us, I suspect the result would be subtle but unpleasant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

It's a hyperbolous (to coign a phrase) use of a soundbyte.

Stepping briefly entirely off-topic:

"hyperbolous" would indicate something that had the properties of an enormous ball of digested food

"coign" is the keystone of an arch

"soundbyte" would presumably be 7 or 8 bits of an audio file.


pedantically,
Scofflaw

Gadjodilo

Another blatant lie - from Libertas again!
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/267/1/

They're trying to pretend that under article 48, we're basically signing away the right to have future referenda on amendments to the EU treaties.

They're careful not to quote the sections where it says:
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Our constitutional requirements are to hold referenda if there is a change in sovereignty or in the nature of the EU that would impinge on our sovereignty. The Lisbon Treaty does nothing to change this.

I submitted a series of questions to Libertas yesterday. Someone called Evonne wrote back saying she passed them on to the "Libertas team". No word so far.....

Gadjodilo

uptherebels wrote: »

And that may be because the yes side dont need to tell lies.They just hype up the good points and ignore the bad.

Hmmmm. Is there something to stop the 'no' side from hyping up the bad points and ignoring the good? Why can they not do that? Why do they need to lie? Can it be because they haven't found any bad points?

Gadjodilo

dlofnep wrote: »

"Voting no would be disasterous for Ireland".

"Voting no is a precursor to an exit from the EU".

Both lies.

Both of the above are debatable. The second is less likely than the first but if push came to shove, I can't see over 300 million Europeans waiting around forever because 4 million Irish won't approve the necessary reforms.

The lies I'm quoting are verifiably untrue. All you have to do is read the articles yourself. I'll post some links for people if ye need them.

bonkey

heyjude wrote: »

The thing that struck me about the Lisbon Treaty debate is that the Yes side are absolutely sure that all of the arguments made by the No campaign are either false or inaccurate

You've been struck wrong. The Yes side are absolutely and categorically sure that many of the arguments made by the No campaign are false or inaccurate.

So if they are that certain (100%) that none of these things will happen, let them put their money where their mouth is

Are you limiting this to the things they say are lies or misunderstandings, or including the arguments that the Yes side have not claimed are such?

Additionally - who gets to decide if these things have happened? The same people who are spreading the lies and misinformation, or an informed and neutral third party?

and put their house on the line, that in the event that the treaty is passed and any of the predictions made by the No Campaign actually come to fruition, then they'll 'donate' their house to charity.

Will any of the No campaign spreading lies and misinformation put their house on the line that the claims pointed out to be lies or misunderstandings are correct?

The problem is that once the country has agreed to the treaty, there is no going back, there is no point in saying sorry and saying there was no way of knowing what would happen.

One can say the same about what will happen should we say no. There's no going back and saying that we're sorry but would like to reconsider. There is, similarly, no way of knowing what would happen.

Get a copy of the Yes campaign literature now, save the quotes of the Yes campaigners, for they should be called on to resign if or when the effects and consequences of the Lisbon Treaty turn out to be the opposite to that which they are now 100% sure of.

I'd agree to that, if you agree that anyone spreading lies and misinformation should be asked resign from any equivalent position of authority they hold right now if their claims are shown to be false.

Well? Quid pro quo?

Or was this all just a bit of FUD-spreading on your part, to try and encourage a no vote without actually having a solid argument why that would stand up to factual scrutiny?

dlofnep

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Both of the above are debatable. The second is less likely than the first but if push came to shove, I can't see over 300 million Europeans waiting around forever because 4 million Irish won't approve the necessary reforms.

The lies I'm quoting are verifiably untrue. All you have to do is read the articles yourself. I'll post some links for people if ye need them.

What 300 million Europeans? The ones who were never given the option to vote in the first place? It's not as if all 300 million people are either (a) Aware of the intricacies of the Lisbon Treaty - and (b) Waiting for us to "approve" it.

bonkey

Gadjodilo wrote: »

if push came to shove, I can't see over 300 million Europeans waiting around forever because 4 million Irish won't approve the necessary reforms.

I can see 300 million Europeans thinking long and hard about whether or not they want to establish that its ok to ride rough-shod over a member-nation, ignoring that its against the currently-standing agreements.

If it was some other nation than Ireland, would you be clamouring to establish the precedent that could be one day turned around to shaft you? I know I wouldn't.

johnnyq

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Another blatant lie - from Libertas again!
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/267/1/

They're trying to pretend that under article 48, we're basically signing away the right to have future referenda on amendments to the EU treaties.

They're careful not to quote the sections where it says:
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Our constitutional requirements are to hold referenda if there is a change in sovereignty or in the nature of the EU that would impinge on our sovereignty. The Lisbon Treaty does nothing to change this.

I submitted a series of questions to Libertas yesterday. Someone called Evonne wrote back saying she passed them on to the "Libertas team". No word so far.....

This point should really be clarified -

Does Article 48 allow the Dail/Seanad change the voting procedures on certain issues in the treaty from unanimous to majority voting without needing to call a referendum?

Or will the 'constitutional requirements' clause require a referendum to called regardless of what Dick Roche said yesterday?

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

This point should really be clarified -

Does Article 48 allow the Dail/Seanad change the voting procedures on certain issues in the treaty from unanimous to majority voting without needing to call a referendum?

Or will the 'constitutional requirements' clause require a referendum to called regardless of what Dick Roche said yesterday?

Hmm. Whether a referendum is required is not in the power of the Dáil to determine at all. Nor can an EU Treaty change the mechanisms for ratification of a member state.

What Article 48 allows for is simply that the Treaties can be amended by simple amendment, as our Constitution is.

The knock-on effect of that is that each amendment is considered singly.

Some amendments may involve changes in sovereignty, or in the scope of the EU. Those will have to be ratified by referendum, as at present.

However, if an amendment involves purely, say, the change from unanimity to QMV on a given area, it is not certain whether this would or would not require a referendum. Politically, it almost certainly does. Legally...well, the Crotty judgment stated that the QMV issues brought up in the case did not constitute transfer of sovereignty sufficient to require a referendum, but added a rider that this may not always be the case.

My own view is that if the government attempted to pass a QMV amendment purely through the Oireachtas, they would be wide open to legal challenge as well as political challenge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

uptherebels

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Another blatant lie - from Libertas again!
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/267/1/

They're trying to pretend that under article 48, we're basically signing away the right to have future referenda on amendments to the EU treaties.

They're careful not to quote the sections where it says:
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Our constitutional requirements are to hold referenda if there is a change in sovereignty or in the nature of the EU that would impinge on our sovereignty. The Lisbon Treaty does nothing to change this.

I submitted a series of questions to Libertas yesterday. Someone called Evonne wrote back saying she passed them on to the "Libertas team". No word so far.....

Correct me if im wrong but isnt the EU trying to bring in qualified majority voting with the lisbon treaty which would mean that a no vote by us would be irrellevent unless backed by other states.

Scofflaw

uptherebels wrote: »

Correct me if im wrong but isnt the EU trying to bring in qualified majority voting with the lisbon treaty which would mean that a no vote by us would be irrellevent unless backed by other states.

Er, no. QMV is a voting mechanism for EU legislation, and has no relevance to ratification of treaties etc.

Also, QMV is already in operation across quite a lot of EU areas. Lisbon adds 34 areas (or 50, if you separate appointing someone from rejecting them), which currently require unanimity.

Just to reiterate the point above, though, QMV makes no difference to how we ratify or reject Treaties - and all EU Treaties require ratification by every member state.

cordially,
Scofflaw

spikedimitri

Hi folks!

I'm new here. Just signed up. Wondering about this QMV thing. As I understand it, this will considerably swing the balance of power in the EU Council of Ministers to the ministers from the big 4 (UK, France, Germany & Italy) because each minitser's voting power is weighted by population of their country. So the vote of the Irish Minister (Bertie or Biffo or whoever) would be only 1/20th of say the German Minister's vote.

This ain't good for us smaller countries. Does anyone have a link explaining which areas QMV will apply to after Lisbon is ratified?

Spike.

brianthebard

I've read that some ministers have said that we have to vote yes to prevent another Auschwitz. That was in a Kevin Myers article so hard to know if its true or not, but the yes side are definitely overhyping the potential damage of voting no.

Gadjodilo

dlofnep wrote: »

What 300 million Europeans? The ones who were never given the option to vote in the first place?

What about them? Are we their keepers? If there is a democratic deficit in their countries and they're worried about it, they have the freedom to take action. We have to evaluate the treaty solely on whether or not it's good for us.

Gadjodilo

bonkey wrote: »

If it was some other nation than Ireland, would you be clamouring to establish the precedent that could be one day turned around to shaft you? I know I wouldn't.

Did I say I was clamouring for anything? No. I'm just speculating on what might happen.

bonkey wrote: »

I can see 300 million Europeans thinking long and hard about whether or not they want to establish that its ok to ride rough-shod over a member-nation, ignoring that its against the currently-standing agreements.

It wouldn't involve riding roughshod over anyone. No-one would force us to accept anything we voted against. If this treaty fails as a result of our voting 'no', there is the possibility of the EU becoming increasingly unworkable because the reforms planned under Lisbon could not be implemented.

At that point, the other 26 countries are quite free to draw up another agreement among themselves to establish a EU like union (they could call it the European Alliance, for example) and proceed pretty much as before - without Ireland, of course. The EU would still be there and all pre-Lisbon agreements would still be in place but the power centre would have shifted dramatically.

Gadjodilo

brianthebard wrote: »

I've read that some ministers have said that we have to vote yes to prevent another Auschwitz. That was in a Kevin Myers article so hard to know if its true or not, but the yes side are definitely overhyping the potential damage of voting no.

Thank you for that. Yet more lies from the No side. Unless you/he is referring to some other quote? What Gay Mitchell said was that "European integration has replaced the Panzer divisions and gas chambers".

So you see, it's Myers who's doing the over-hyping.

spikedimitri

Gadjodilo wrote: »

What Gay Mitchell said was that "European integration has replaced the Panzer divisions and gas chambers".

That's an interesting statement. The panzer divisions and gas chambers were part of the Nazi attempts to create a new world order. They failed, and after WW2 the banking and masonic elites (in the form of David Rockefeller, Victor Rothschild, Jean Monnet, Joseph Retinger...who by the way funded Hitler!) switched their focus to a tactic of slow encroachment on the sovereignty of nations (via the Bilderberg Group, cartels etc.) to create a new world order of their own.

So certainly from their point of view,"European integration has replaced the Panzer divisions and gas chambers" as a NWO tactic!

(By the way, doesn't the EU have a population of something like 490 million rather than 300?)

Scofflaw

spikedimitri wrote: »

Hi folks!

I'm new here. Just signed up. Wondering about this QMV thing. As I understand it, this will considerably swing the balance of power in the EU Council of Ministers to the ministers from the big 4 (UK, France, Germany & Italy) because each minitser's voting power is weighted by population of their country. So the vote of the Irish Minister (Bertie or Biffo or whoever) would be only 1/20th of say the German Minister's vote.

This ain't good for us smaller countries. Does anyone have a link explaining which areas QMV will apply to after Lisbon is ratified?

Sure - link to proposed QMV areas, from the EU.

As to the voting system...it's rather more complicated than is usually made out. The existing system involves:

* To pass: Majority of countries (50% or 67%) and votes (74%) and population (62%)
* To block: Condition to pass a vote not achieved

So, currently, Ireland's "voting weight" is:

To pass:

• 6.67% of 15 countries, or 5.3% of 19 countries
• 2.7% of votes (7 out of 255)
• 1.37% of the necessary 62% of the population

To block:

• 8.3% of 12 countries, or 11% of 9 countries
• 7.7% of votes (7 out of 90)
• 2.23% of the necessary 38% of the population

The Treaty of Lisbon proposes the following method:

* To pass: Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met
* To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal

So Ireland's voting weights are:

To pass:

• 6.67% of 15 countries, or 5.3% of 19 countries
• 1.3% of the necessary 65% of the population

To block:

• 25% of the necessary 4 countries
• 2.36% of the necessary 35% of the population

So, when someone tells you, for example, that Ireland's voting weight in QMV on the Council is being halved (or whatever), do ask them how they're calculating that, because the situation above doesn't seem to me to be easily reduced to two easily compared numbers!

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Thank you for that. Yet more lies from the No side. Unless you/he is referring to some other quote? What Gay Mitchell said was that "European integration has replaced the Panzer divisions and gas chambers".

So you see, it's Myers who's doing the over-hyping.

I was refering to Mary Hanafin. This is the quote from the article.

myers wrote:

And I'm not exaggerating: Mary Hanafin actually said that unless the European project was fully realised, the alternative was another Auschwitz: an echo of the same idiocy that was uttered across the chancelleries of Europe after the French people voted down the proposed European constitution.

Gadjodilo

brianthebard wrote: »

I was refering to Mary Hanafin. This is the quote from the article.
And I'm not exaggerating: Mary Hanafin actually said that unless the European project was fully realised, the alternative was another Auschwitz: an echo of the same idiocy that was uttered across the chancelleries of Europe after the French people voted down the proposed European constitution.

Brian,

You originally said this:
I've read that some ministers have said that we have to vote yes to prevent another Auschwitz. That was in a Kevin Myers article so hard to know if its true or not, but the yes side are definitely overhyping the potential damage of voting no.

Why did you mention "voting yes" when Myers made no mention of it at all?

I'm not going to comment on this point any more for now. I think it's up to you to go and find the statement she made and substantiate whatever it is you're trying to say.

spikedimitri

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - link to proposed QMV areas, from the EU.

As to the voting system...it's rather more complicated than is usually made out. The existing system involves:

* To pass: Majority of countries (50% or 67%) and votes (74%) and population (62%)
* To block: Condition to pass a vote not achieved

So, currently, Ireland's "voting weight" is:


To pass:

• 6.67% of 15 countries, or 5.3% of 19 countries
• 2.7% of votes (7 out of 255)
• 1.37% of the necessary 62% of the population

To block:

• 8.3% of 12 countries, or 11% of 9 countries
• 7.7% of votes (7 out of 90)
• 2.23% of the necessary 38% of the population

The Treaty of Lisbon proposes the following method:

* To pass: Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met
* To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal

So Ireland's voting weights are:


To pass:

• 6.67% of 15 countries, or 5.3% of 19 countries
• 1.3% of the necessary 65% of the population

To block:

• 25% of the necessary 4 countries
• 2.36% of the necessary 35% of the population

So, when someone tells you, for example, that Ireland's voting weight in QMV on the Council is being halved (or whatever), do ask them how they're calculating that, because the situation above doesn't seem to me to be easily reduced to two easily compared numbers!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for the info Scofflaw. I haven't read through the link yet (I have to print it off to save me eyes!). I'll respond when I have .

As to your post, why are the percentages out of 9 or 19 countries rather than the full 27? I understand the need for 4 to block, but surely the reverse of that is that you need 23 to pass?

Scofflaw

spikedimitri wrote: »

Thanks for the info Scofflaw. I haven't read through the link yet (I have to print it off to save me eyes!). I'll respond when I have .

As to your post, why are the percentages out of 9 or 19 countries rather than the full 27? I understand the need for 4 to block, but surely the reverse of that is that you need 23 to pass?

Well, a proposal can be blocked, or it can simply fail to pass. Say Ireland puts forward a proposal to do something, and no-one really opposes it, but nobody really supports it either. Then the proposal would fail to pass.

If, on the other hand, most members supported it, but 4 were resolutely opposed, then they could block it, assuming they represent enough people.

It seems reasonably solid to me - the big states have more weight, as befits the greater number of people they represent, but can't do without the small states.

The EU has some fairly standard sets of allies in different policy areas - we're usually with the UK on tax and business (usually against the French), and with France on farming (usually against the UK).

cordially,
Scofflaw

berliner

the eu is undemocratic.when you vote no they insist you vote again until they get the result they want.the whole eu project is a lie,a con.

heyjude

bonkey wrote: »

Its interesting you should mention that.

When the government did re-run a referendum, I suggested to all those who vehemently complained about it that they campaign for just that, as soon as the referendum had passed.

They didn't.

In 2004, another referendum came about, and those against it complained that a no vote would only result in a re-run. I asked why they hadn't been campaigning for a change in legislation since mid-2002 to prevent that, and suggested that they should start such a campaign immediately after the referendum, regardless of the result, in order to ensure this didn't come about. I believe I explicitly suggested they keep it in the public's memory, so that it could be used against the government come election-time.

They didn't.

Now, in 2008, guess what. We have a referendum coming up yet again, and all of a sudden the long-silent have rediscovered their voice, and are reminding us once again that the government will surely pull a fast one if they don't get their way.

I will, unsurprisingly, repeat my long-held position. Until you can build a popular movement to prevent the government from re-running referenda when there isn't an issue on the table that you have a vested interest in, no-one is going to take those claims seriously.

I predict, however, that once this referendum is past, the issue will once again disappear, only to be raised as a certainty, again, by whoever opposeses whatever the next referendum is about.

The government propose and schedule referendums, so I couldn't see any circumstances in which they would wish to handcuff themselves into waiting for 18 months to repeat a vote. Probably what we would need is some mechanism whereby a referendum can be proposed and held without having to be approved by the government. I think they have some system for referenda in Switzerland whereby if you can get 250,000 to sign a petition then you can have such a vote. AFAIK we don't have such an arrangement here and without it, the government will continue to have sole control over what we vote on and when.

heyjude

The government is trying to paint the NO campaign by Libertas and others as being full of lies, inaccuracies and exaggerations, but this is the same government that a few years ago told us that when the new accession states joined the EU that since there was no history of emigration from eastern Europe to Ireland, that just 5,000 were expected to travel here.

Their argument was that, as something had never happened before(mass emigration from eastern europe into Ireland), it wouldn't happen now.

Well 4 years later, the number who actually arrived is something like 400,000.

Now I don't have a problem with most of those that came, but if we're talking about credibility and accuracy when talking about Europe and what is likely to happen in the next few years in Europe, post-Lisbon, then I don't think the current government has a record that inspires confidence.

If they could be wrong to this extent before, then whose to know, maybe their forecasts about the effects of the Lisbon Treaty could be equally inaccurate, with unforeseen consequences.

Moriarty

heyjude wrote: »

If they could be wrong to this extent before, then whose to know, maybe their forecasts about the effects of the Lisbon Treaty could be equally inaccurate, with unforeseen consequences.

Would you agree that certain prominent proponents for a No vote could be equally inaccurate in their forecasts of what will or will not happen should we vote No?

Gadjodilo

heyjude wrote: »

The government is trying to paint the NO campaign by Libertas and others as being full of lies, inaccuracies and exaggerations, but this is the same government that a few years ago told us that when the new accession states joined the EU that since there was no history of emigration from eastern Europe to Ireland, that just 5,000 were expected to travel here.

Their argument was that, as something had never happened before(mass emigration from eastern europe into Ireland), it wouldn't happen now.

Well 4 years later, the number who actually arrived is something like 400,000.

Now I don't have a problem with most of those that came, but if we're talking about credibility and accuracy when talking about Europe and what is likely to happen in the next few years in Europe, post-Lisbon, then I don't think the current government has a record that inspires confidence.

If they could be wrong to this extent before, then whose to know, maybe their forecasts about the effects of the Lisbon Treaty could be equally inaccurate, with unforeseen consequences.

I'm not from the government and I've succeeded in showing that the NO campaign by Libertas and others is full of lies, inaccuracies and exaggerations. Check my posts above; if you don't believe me, I'll post the links proving it.

The No to Nice campaign was trying to tell us that voting yes would mean mass immigration. The yes people said that there was no link. Voting yes would not necessarily mean mass immigration; voting no would not necessarily stop. The main reason behind the mass immigration was economic - we needed the workers due to labour shortages. Now, it's impossible to prove this now but I do believe that we'd have let them in anyway, Nice or no Nice. The business organisations were clamouring for it.

Anyway, if you don't trust the yes side, don't accept blindly what the no side is saying. Go and read up on it yourself.

Overheal

Irish Independent wrote:

THE Irish Exporters' Association yesterday added its voice to the chorus of Lisbon Treaty supporters, arguing the treaty's defeat could jeopardise €56bn of EU-bound annual exports.
The move comes ahead of today's launch of a pro-Lisbon campaign fronted by business luminaries including Glen Dimplex's Martin Naughton, C&C's Maurice Pratt and BP's Peter Sutherland.
"Ireland has benefited hugely from being in the EU, with European exports growing from €839m when we joined in 1973 to €56bn last year," said IEA boss John Whelan.
"A No vote would have the effect of unravelling the hard work of exporters over the past decades, would turn away prospective new investors in Ireland and would bring further uncertainty into our current manufacturing sector."
A survey published last week by business lobby group ISME showed the treaty would be rejected by 73pc of owner/managers of small business if a vote were held immediately.
A spokesman for anti-Lisbon lobby group Libertas dismissed the IEA's comments as "scaremongering".
"A No Vote would leave the European Union exactly where it is now -- working well," he added. "We would also ask why the terrible fate outlined by the IEA did not befall the Netherlands, another small country in Europe, when they said a resounding No to the exact same document in 2004?"
Further arguments for the treaty will be unveiled today when the Business Alliance formally calls for a yes vote.
Members of the alliance include Mr Sutherland, Mr Pratt and Mr Naughton, along with Microsoft Ireland managing director Paul Rellis, Dublin Airport Authority boss Declan Collier and former Industrial Development Agency (IDA) boss Padraic White.
- Laura Noonan

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/exporters-say-no-vote-would-spell-disaster-1367087.html


"A No vote would have the effect of unravelling the hard work of exporters over the past decades, would turn away prospective new investors in Ireland and would bring further uncertainty into our current manufacturing sector."


I dont see how?

marco murphy

dlofnep wrote: »

"Voting no would be disasterous for Ireland".

"Voting no is a precursor to an exit from the EU".

Both lies.

Dermot Ahern doesn't think so.

justfortherecor

Brian Goggin, CEO of Bank of Ireland, also gave full support to the Treaty at his speach at the Smurfit Business School Annual dinner on May 1st.

He also highlights the importance of EU exports, after all 84% of what we produce in this country ends up on the export market. He also said the Treaty will cement our corporation tax of 12.5% and make it harder for other member nations to try and influence it.

From a business point of view, the vote on the Treaty is a no brainer.

is_that_so

heyjude wrote: »

The government is trying to paint the NO campaign by Libertas and others as being full of lies, inaccuracies and exaggerations, but this is the same government that a few years ago told us that when the new accession states joined the EU that since there was no history of emigration from eastern Europe to Ireland, that just 5,000 were expected to travel here.

Their argument was that, as something had never happened before(mass emigration from eastern europe into Ireland), it wouldn't happen now.

Well 4 years later, the number who actually arrived is something like 400,000.

Now I don't have a problem with most of those that came, but if we're talking about credibility and accuracy when talking about Europe and what is likely to happen in the next few years in Europe, post-Lisbon, then I don't think the current government has a record that inspires confidence.

If they could be wrong to this extent before, then whose to know, maybe their forecasts about the effects of the Lisbon Treaty could be equally inaccurate, with unforeseen consequences.

As others have posted this is not about the government nor should it be seen as a a chance to give them a bloody nose. That's for next year.:D

That said to Dick Roche's credit he playing a blinder, showing up everywhere and standing his ground very firmly.

In the end read and understand it as best you can, and make your decision on information rather than the prejudice of others.

IMO,the only lies are the ones people make to themselves because they don't verify what they are being told.

Gadjodilo

More lies from the No side!

EC Vice President Margot Wallstrom recently said the following while addressing the Irish Institute of European Affairs in Brussels. This is the quote from the article in the Irish Examiner:

“Under the terms of the treaty, member states will lose their commissioner for five years in every 15 in an effort to make the body more streamlined.

But Ms Wallstrom, who is very much in favour of the treaty, said a system has to be found to ensure countries are not left out in any way when they do not have a commissioner.

Member states nominate commissioners and while they pledge to serve the interests of the EU overall, they are a vital link between the commission and their home country.

Ms Wallstrom, addressing the Irish Institute of European Affairs in Brussels, said she had concerns about the new arrangement.
“Whatever we win in efficiency we might lose in democratic legitimacy because we need someone who can speak their own language and be acceptable to their people and stand up for them,” she said.

However, the rotating system had been agreed and would affect both big and small member states and all would have to be treated equally, she said.

“We have only started to reflect on how it can work in practice with losing a commissioner and we have to find a system — this is the down side and definitely it is a problematic thing but there will be a lot of structures that will have to be adapted,” the commissioner said.

Liebertas (sorry Libertas) cut that down to:

“Whatever we win in efficiency we lose [the ‘might’ is deleted] in democratic legitimacy because we need someone who can speak their own language and be acceptable to their people and stand up for them,”.
“We have only started to reflect on how it can work in practice with losing a commissioner and we have to find a system — this is the down side and definitely it is a problematic thing”

They took it out of the context it was in, turned it into a very selective quote and deliberately distorted it. See the bits they removed (in bold) even from the quotes they did use.

Folks, they're asking us to trust them with their reading of an extremely important treaty. I wouldn't trust them with yesterday's newspaper.

sink

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Liebertas (sorry Libertas) cut that down to:

It's actually lieberats. Little rodent's that spread lies and confusion, I think Ireland needs to call pest control to exterminate them.

Vinegar Hill

The Independant has an article in today about some of the articles in the treaty. It is a good read and does touch a few of the reasons I will vote no.

http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html

One point to ponder;

Redistribution of voting weights between member states
Within those areas to be decided by qualified majority voting, the current rules require the support of a little over 72% of member states for a law to be passed. Under the new system due to come into effect from 2014, a vote can be passed if it is backed by 55% of member states, and secondly, if these countries represent 65% of the EU’s population. It can also be passed if less than four countries oppose it. The changes mean
that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

Gadjodilo

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

The Independant has an article in today about some of the articles in the treaty. It is a good read and does touch a few of the reasons I will vote no.

http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html

One point to ponder;

Redistribution of voting weights between member states
Within those areas to be decided by qualified majority voting, the current rules require the support of a little over 72% of member states for a law to be passed. Under the new system due to come into effect from 2014, a vote can be passed if it is backed by 55% of member states, and secondly, if these countries represent 65% of the EU’s population. It can also be passed if less than four countries oppose it. The changes mean
that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

We could argue all day as to whether or not this is a good or bad thing. I'd like to see you argue how we're being so hard done by with barely 1% of the population. One major point of difference between us lies in the following sentence:
Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

Gosh! Do small countries only ever block legislation?!

More than anything else this betrays your view of the EU. As I've mentioned before, you clearly see Ireland as still being a poor little member out on the edge being pushed around by the others and that under the Lisbon Treaty, we'll be pushed around even more. Have a look at the the thread called "It should be called the treaty of Dublin":
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055293886

As you see, we're actually a very dynamic, engaged member of the EU and have been excellent at building up consensus and blocks of support. That's how the EU operates; it's not about how much votes you have; it's about your ability to liaise with and convince other members.

Lose the inferiority complex, for God's sake. We've been very good at putting forward changes that have benefitted us. Why turn down a treaty that makes it even easier for us to do that?

Vinegar Hill

Gadjodilo wrote: »

We could argue all day as to whether or not this is a good or bad thing. I'd like to see you argue how we're being so hard done by with barely 1% of the population. One major point of difference between us lies in the following sentence:
Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

Gosh! Do small countries only ever block legislation?!

More than anything else this betrays your view of the EU. As I've mentioned before, you clearly see Ireland as still being a poor little member out on the edge being pushed around by the others and that under the Lisbon Treaty, we'll be pushed around even more. Have a look at the the thread called "It should be called the treaty of Dublin":
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055293886

As you see, we're actually a very dynamic, engaged member of the EU and have been excellent at building up consensus and blocks of support. That's how the EU operates; it's not about how much votes you have; it's about your ability to liaise with and convince other members.

Lose the inferiority complex, for God's sake. We've been very good at putting forward changes that have benefitted us. Why turn down a treaty that makes it even easier for us to do that?

Yes Ireland is a poor little country within the EU and yes we have very little impact on the EU or it's policies at this time. But if this treaty passes we will have none.

Suppose 100% of Ireland wanted to supply it's feed for the farmers from within Ireland and the EU decided we were going to buy it all from say Brasil? Then there is nothing we could do or say about it if the rest of the EU supported buying from Brasil.

I have no inferiority complex BTW. You just dislike the facts when faced with them. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. Do you get paid for your views about his BTW?

Vinegar Hill

Besides I forgot to mention, my original post was a link to an article in the Independant (As was pointed out in the post). You can read it and enlighten us to the lies it contains.

Gadjodilo

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Yes Ireland is a poor little country within the EU and yes we have very little impact on the EU or it's policies at this time. But if this treaty passes we will have none.

Second highest GDP per capita of the 27 nations and you think we're poor? You're totally wrong in your claim that we have very little impact on EU policy. You're making the classic mistake of focusing on our voting power. That's not crucial when it comes to getting your way. You make friends, form alliances with other countries, support them if they're sore on certain points on the understanding that they'll support you.

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Suppose 100% of Ireland wanted to supply it's feed for the farmers from within Ireland and the EU decided we were going to buy it all from say Brasil? Then there is nothing we could do or say about it if the rest of the EU supported buying from Brasil.

LMFAO! Are you seriously suggesting that the EU (after all this gumph about lowering trade barriers, breaking monopolies etc.) might start to force all European farmers to buy their feed from Brazil? Are you seriously suggesting that all EU countries would accept this? Are you seriously suggesting that the French with their very militant farm lobby would accept this?

Do you live in Ireland? Do you even live in Europe?

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

You just dislike the facts when faced with them.

Well, for a change, try me with a few.

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Do you get paid for your views about his
BTW?

Yes! I'm paid by a shadowy alliance composed of the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, the Freemasons and the Elders of Zion. There are also a couple of blokes in black robes and hoods who come in every now and again. I don't know who they are but the others are all scared ****less of them.

Gadjodilo

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Besides I forgot to mention, my original post was a link to an article in the Independant (As was pointed out in the post). You can read it and enlighten us to the lies it contains.

I'm not saying it's lies. I'm questioning your totally negative interpretation of it. In all the years we've been members, there has never been an instance where we're stood alone against the others. We've always been able to find wiggle room and get some positives with quid pro quos etc. Particularly now, with small countries in the vast majority and the new Eastern European countries being so well disposed towards us, I don't see that changing. In fact, I see huge possibilities in building alliances with these new members.

But then that's were we differ, Vinegar. I can point to all our successes, our stunning 2004 presidency that was so widely praised, our recent presidency of the European Parliament, our current and previous secretary generalship of the European Commission (one Irish diplomat has succeeded another in this high profile job). I have a lot of confidence in our diplomats and civil servants. You - despite all the evidence to the contrary - have none.

Vinegar Hill

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Second highest GDP per capita of the 27 nations and you think we're poor? You're totally wrong in your claim that we have very little impact on EU policy. You're making the classic mistake of focusing on our voting power. That's not crucial when it comes to getting your way. You make friends, form alliances with other countries, support them if they're sore on certain points on the understanding that they'll support you.

How is it a mistake to vote on our voting power? We all know that alliances and friends can not always be counted on and we do not have a way to hold them accountable.

LMFAO! Are you seriously suggesting that the EU (after all this gumph about lowering trade barriers, breaking monopolies etc.) might start to force all European farmers to buy their feed from Brazil? Are you seriously suggesting that all EU countries would accept this? Are you seriously suggesting that the French with their very militant farm lobby would accept this?

Lowering trade barriers and breaking monopolies? Seems it is all about the furthering of Capitalism and nothing more. It seems a few short months ago it was the Irish farmers that had to protest the Irish Army being fed South American beef with the full knowledge and consent of the EU. They refused to ban it despite the safety concerns. This beef was shown not to meet the standards that European beef was being held.

Do you live in Ireland? Do you even live in Europe?

No, I live on the moon.... Perhaps I will hold my own referendum on creating a super state.


Well, for a change, try me with a few.

If Lisbon is good for democracy, then why are the people of Europe who it will effect, NOT being allowed to vote on it. What about France, Holland, and Germany (Referendum are illegal there BTW)



Yes! I'm paid by a shadowy alliance composed of the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, the Freemasons and the Elders of Zion. There are also a couple of blokes in black robes and hoods who come in every now and again. I don't know who they are but the others are all scared ****less of them.

Well that explains it then

Gadjodilo

1. Given the tiny level of voting power we have (still more than the population warrants!), it's not significant. Of course, there are no guarantees with alliances but realistically we can do nothing on its own with the tiny level of voting power we have. That applies now whether or not Lisbon is passed.

2. First of all you were suggesting that the EU might give a monopoly to Brazilian farmers and that that would be a bad thing. Now you seem to be suggesting that breaking monopolies is a bad thing. Which is it?

3. The EU did ban Brazilian beef pretty much on the insistence of Ireland. Thank you for that example of how much power we do actually have.

4. I'm as unhappy as you are about the lack of referenda in the other 26 members but there's nothing we can do about it. It's their problem and if they were so concerned about it, why aren't they out protesting in the streets of their capitals?