More annoying Creationism or Lisbon Treaty rejection?

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Thrown together, it was 6.5 years of negotiations of democratically elected governments.

It was thrown together in less than a year following the democratic defeat of the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands 2 years earlier. I'm sick and tired of hearing the "It's been worked on for 7 years and been democratically agreed upon by 27 Member States" line and the implied respectibility and credibility that goes with it. It's a total misrepresentation of its true reality.

Fanny Cradock

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of people voted 'no' primarily because of the religion (abortion) issue. Had a certain group of people put aside their religious beliefs, could we have seen a 'yes' result?

Of course, not all religious people are against abortion, and not all irreligious people support it. I wouldn't have though that this one issue was the deciding factor.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course, not all religious people are against abortion, and not all irreligious people support it.

Indeed, I'm a firm atheist but am against abortion (with the exception of provable cases where rape has occurred).

OK-Cancel-Apply

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course, not all religious people are against abortion, and not all irreligious people support it. I wouldn't have though that this one issue was the deciding factor.

Well, I just thought I'd raise the point, seeing as this is the A+A forum. It may not have been the ultimate deciding factor, but out of the 100,000 or so majority, I'd be willing to bet the a large chunk felt they had to vote 'no' because of the abortion issue.

Galvasean wrote: »

Indeed, I'm a firm atheist but am against abortion (with the exception of provable cases where rape has occurred).

Words I haven't seen often on the internet! I'd be intrigued to hear your secular anti-abortion viewpoint, but that of course would be another thread. TBH I never thought there were many anti-abortion secularists.

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

Indeed, I'm a firm atheist but am against abortion (with the exception of provable cases where rape has occurred).

Funnily, if I found myself in your position, I would think that my opinion would remain the same as it in now.

Galvasean

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I'd be intrigued to hear your secular anti-abortion viewpoint, but that of course would be another thread. TBH I never thought there were many anti-abortion secularists.

And so you shall.

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

For the record I voted 'No' and don't meet the criteria outlined in the OP.
Of course if someone disagrees with a referendum they must be ignorant because we know the treaty was nothing but sunshine and rainbows. :rolleyes:
If it were so clear cut which was the right decision there would be no need to vote on it.

Well they haven't articulated an intelligent reason for the no.
If you like to do that, please do...

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well they haven't articulated an intelligent reason for the no.
If you like to do that, please do...

Likewise all the 'Vote Yes' literature I received didn't articulate an intelligent reason to do so.
Perhaps you would like to do so?

Two of my gripes with the Treaty were the proposed reduction of Ireland's voting power (due to our small population) and also the fact that the Treaty can be changed without doing another referendum in Ireland.

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

It was thrown together in less than a year following the democratic defeat of the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands 2 years earlier. I'm sick and tired of hearing the "It's been worked on for 7 years and been democratically agreed upon by 27 Member States" line and the implied respectibility and credibility that goes with it. It's a total misrepresentation of its true reality.

Are you also tired of the UN? Tell me all the referenda there have been for that?

The need for a re-working of European Instituitions was in the treaty of Nice, 2001 and the Laeken declaration of December 2001 committed the EU to improving democracy, transparency and efficiency, and set out the process by which a constitution aiming to achieve these aims could be arrived at.

It has been a seven year process agreed by democractically elected governments. You have a right not to like it or accept it, but if you can't give an intelligent reason to move forward like I said it means one of the following:

1. Europe moves forward without us.
2. Europe doesn't move forward.

So you sit there and moan and whinge, but we're does that get us?

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So you sit there and moan and whinge, but we're does that get us?

It gets us on boards.ie in the A&A department. It seems a lot of the moaning and whinging is coming from the yes camp at the moment.

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

Likewise all the 'Vote Yes' literature I received didn't articulate an intelligent reason to do so.
Perhaps you would like to do so?

HEre's a few:
1.
It creates certainty that in the Euro-zone we have an agreed form of governance. We don't have that know and the Euro has already dropped in value.

2. The EU is one of the only instituitions to promote ethical legislation. The treaty echos my values, Article 2 states:
"The EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a Society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail."

Article 3 (5) states: "In its relations with the wider world the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular, the rights of the child as well as the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter".

3. Promotes further means of getting legislation:
Article 8(b)4 states: "Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may table the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties".

Thus the Lisbon Treaty provides any citizen or group of citizens with an independent mechanism for placing an issue on the EU Agenda.

4.
Lisbon Fights Global Poverty

Article 188 (d) states that "Union development co-operation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long-term, the eradication of poverty".
In Article 188J a strong commitment is given to Humanitarian Aid "for the purpose of third countries which are victims of natural and man-made disasters".

5.
Lisbon Tackles Climate Change
The Lisbon Reform Treaty gives a legal basis for combating climate change for the first time. Thus the EU is taking on a leadership role in tackling the most serious environmental problem facing the world, namely, climate change.

Article 174 of the Treaty is amended to commit the EU to "Promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems and, in particular, combating climate change".

Two of my gripes with the Treaty were the proposed reduction of Ireland's voting power (due to our small population)

Where in the council or the parliament? Be more specific so I can give an answer.

and also the fact that the Treaty can be changed without doing another referendum in Ireland.

Well you must really hate the UN then.

iUseVi

Galvasean wrote: »

It gets us on boards.ie in the A&A department. It seems a lot of the moaning and whinging is coming from the yes camp at the moment.

They be fightin' words!

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

It gets us on boards.ie in the A&A department. It seems a lot of the moaning and whinging is coming from the yes camp at the moment.

Like I said I have a morgage and I have a job. So do lots of Irish people. Now the state has got itself into a mess and has no constructive solution or way forward.

Here was another good reason for Lisbon:

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html wrote:

At present, national parliaments are not directly involved in EU decision making. If the Treaty enters into force then national parliaments – in Ireland’s case, the Dáil and Seanad - will have 8 weeks after the publication of an EU legislative proposal to vet that proposal and offer an opinion.

If a number of national parliaments object to the proposal it must be reviewed. Each national parliament has two votes; the Dáil and Seanad have one vote each. The review must take place if one third of the national parliaments request this. In the case of judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation, a quarter of the national parliaments would be able to require a review. The Treaty would also give national parliaments a specific role in relation to proposed changes to the Treaties.

Galvasean

Tim, points 2 and 4 seem a bit superfluous if you ask me.
Do we not already have respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities?
Ireland already gives out much foreign aid. Do we really need the Treaty for these things?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Where in the council or the parliament? Be more specific so I can give an answer.

The council.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well you must really hate the UN then.

Aside from the point. Whats the point in voting for a treaty you agree with only for them to change it soon after without your consent?

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

Tim, points 2 and 4 seem a bit superfluous if you ask me.
Do we not already have respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities?
Ireland already gives out much foreign aid. Do we really need the Treaty for these things?

Ireland signed up to give 0.7 of its GNP but did not fulfill it. Yes we do need to be told and reminded about our values.

The council.

According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union
Our vote in the council goes from 0.9 to 2.1.

Aside from the point. Whats the point in voting for a treaty you agree with only for them to change it soon after without your consent?

Well you must specify what change you are talking about?
How about your quote the exact part of the treaty you are taling about.
We kept our veto in key areas.

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union
Our vote in the council goes from 0.9 to 2.1.

Lots of the info. on that page is out of date. I can't actually spot the part where it says our council vote goes due to Lisbon. The chart on the right hand side presents such figures but is not in relation to the Lisbon treaty as far as I can tell.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How about your quote the exact part of the treaty you are taling about.

Sorry, but I'm really not in the mood for trawling through the awkward Lisbon Treaty to satisfy your efforts to convince me I voted wrongly. If you wanted to discuss the treaty in such detail perhaps you could have consulted one of the many threads about it elsewhere on boards.ie I'm sure the posters there will provide you with better debate and detail than I am willing to go in to.

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

Lots of the info. on that page is out of date. I can't actually spot the part where it says our council vote goes due to Lisbon. The chart on the right hand side presents such figures but is not in relation to the Lisbon treaty as far as I can tell.


Sorry, but I'm really not in the mood for trawling through the awkward Lisbon Treaty to satisfy your efforts to convince me I voted wrongly. If you wanted to discuss the treaty in such detail perhaps you could have consulted one of the many threads about it elsewhere on boards.ie I'm sure the posters there will provide you with better debate and detail than I am willing to go in to.

Well if you have to know I deliberately avoided such debate just like I deliberately avoid the creationist thread. Because I think the No side are just as insular, stubborn and stupid as creationists.

I really am very worried about where our state will now go and what will happen.

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well if you have to know I deliberately avoided such debate just like I deliberately avoid the creationist thread. Because I think the No side are just as insular, stubborn and stupid as creationists.

Oh ffs, would you ever read your own posts and get down off that pedestal.

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well if you have to know I deliberately avoided such debate

Avoid such debate? You started a thread mate.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think the No side are just as insular, stubborn and stupid as creationists.

That's a terribe thing to say about anyone.

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Are you also tired of the UN? Tell me all the referenda there have been for that?

We haven't given the UN the power to make legislation that takes precedence over our Constitution. That's a considerable difference.

If memory serves, we actually did have a referendum on the International Criminal Court as it means that war crimes were being taken outside the scope of our Constitution. So, as I understand it, that means that if an Irish soldier shoots someone in Chad and there's a feeling that the circumstances of the case warrant concern, he will not be tried in an Irish court nor will he be able to claim the protection any rights under the Irish Constitution.

That said, I'm actually not sure people knew thats what they were voting for in that referendum. But it simply had to be put to a vote (despite the ICC Treaty similarly being a complex legal document) as the Government can't just rip up your Constitutional rights. They can only do what we mandate them to do, which takes us right back to why we needed to have a referendum. Why do we need one and not every other State? Because we haven't mandated our Government to sign away our rights on our behalf. If they want to get that right, they'll have to ask us for it.

Or perhaps you'd prefer if we argued that the ultimate source of legitimacy for political authority rests with God.

estebancambias

As David McWilliams said ''the yes side was extremely patronising'


I know people who voted yes because they said voting yes was good for the economy.:rolleyes:

Sinn Fein said NO!:rolleyes:

Scumbags are saying no, so I'm voting yes.


TimRobbins here is an example of this patronising nonsense.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well if you have to know I deliberately avoided such debate just like I deliberately avoid the creationist thread. Because I think the No side are just as insular, stubborn and stupid as creationists.

I really am very worried about where our state will now go and what will happen.

:eek:

marco_polo

I voted yes, but I appreciate that many on the No side did so on the basis of well thought out and legitimate concerns about the treaty and the direction europe is taking generally. Of course there are people who voted no out of understandable fear or misunderstanding. It could be argued that those who voted no as a protest vote were aiming at the wrong target (the EU instead of our Government), but threads like this are extremely patronising, unhelpful and ultimately achieve nothing.

An Fear Aniar

This was a really good result for Europe.

In democracies it's good that the people displease the ruling classes by asserting their electoral authority.

Hundreds of milions of Europeans have been denied a say in the future of their countries.

In the UK all three main parties promised a referendum - when Labour got elected, they denied the people a vote.

Why?

.

pH

My thoughts ...

I wonder how many countries would have ratified the treaty if it had gone to a referendum? France and Holland rejected it in constitutional form, the UK certainly would not, I'd be surprised if more that half the countries would ratify is it had to go to a public vote.

There is a huge disconnect between the 'Yes' campaign's lack-lustre performance and focus on "technical changes" and Friday's "Euro Crisis". Either the treaty contains really important big stuff (without which Europe is scuppered) in which case why couldn't all this have been explained, or it doesn't (then it's hardly a crisis - 27 commissioners will just have to get along)

Don't underestimate one of the main reasons for the No vote - that was never mentioned - Europe was great when we were on a 30 billion gravy train, however now the country is now "full of Poles" and the gravy train itself is heading east.

For me I'd far rather have more or the laws of this country influenced by progressive European legislation than these idiots we elect to the Dail every few years. The Euro has been a great success as has most of the rest of the European project. However there is a real disconnect between the voters and "Europe" (What do MEPs actually do apart from cost us money), and there are those of the "Euro Elite" who openly seek a Federal European state - which is deeply unpopular, and voters are very wary of being tricked into it.

Me - I voted yes because I heard we'd finally get abortion if I did, and hopefully conscription will arrive to take some of the yobs of the street and make them proper citizens. Also Sin Fein were voting No.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

That's a terribe thing to say about anyone.

Apologies.

Tim Robbins

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

This was a really good result for Europe.

In democracies it's good that the people displease the ruling classes by asserting their electoral authority.

Hundreds of milions of Europeans have been denied a say in the future of their countries.

In the UK all three main parties promised a referendum - when Labour got elected, they denied the people a vote.

Why?

.

Marxist nonsense. A ruling class?

Hundreds of millions of Europeans voted for the governments to negotiate a treaty for them, because it creates logistical problem to have 500 million people around a table.

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hundreds of millions of Europeans voted for the governments to negotiate a treaty for them, because it creates logistical problem to have 500 million people around a table.

If their votes on the Lisbon Treaty were/would have been so misinformed and incorrect, then how can you have expected them to elect a government worthy of negotiating a fair treaty in the first place?

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

If their votes on the Lisbon Treaty were/would have been so misinformed and incorrect, then how can you have expected them to elect a government worthy of negotiating a fair treaty in the first place?

Because the European Union places an emphasis on consensus and ethics.
The chances of it coming up with a treaty which was really unfair are very low even if you exclude every Irish politician from the process.
Secondly, if our politicians don't perform they get voted out and they are jobless.

Referendums are dangerous because there are no safety guards to ensure people aren't protest voting.