The Next Referendum Vote Clock Is Ticking Down...

Biggins

According to the latest reports as of Saturday 15th 2008, we, the Irish are going to have to vote again once more of the treaty that we have already rejected. The previous vote being considered the equivalent of being invalid by our leaders.

Its become clear that the government has now to ratify the Lisbon Treaty as soon as possible.
* One of these reasons is that under the next upcoming change of government in Britain where there is a good chance the conservatives will regain power, that will further scupper the prospects for the Treaty/Constitution.
* Another reason is that in January Nicolas Sarkosy loses his position as president of the EU to the same Czech government that has sided with the anti-Lisbon community. Sarkosy also wants to leave the position claiming that his tenure was a successful one so he is currently pressurising (bullying!) Mr Brian Cowan into compliance.
* Cowans position as leader is presently shaky to say the least, he rolling from one political disaster to another.

Because of these direct problems its become known in political circles quietly that the government will publicly commit Ireland to a second referendum at the next month EU conference.

The referendum itself will more than like be held in the autumn of next year after the European summer elections with October being quietly referred to as the most current likely time.

Meanwhile back home, the government is preparing steps to curtail the opposition.
* One move is to remove the legal requirement from broadcasters to give equal time to both sides. As RTE is the main Irish station and is open to "pressure" from the government as as been shown previously (Late Late Show being one example and a doctor that was supposed to be on it opposing a T.D. on health issues), the government is trying to close the doors on which the opposition can walk through and be heard.
* Researchers have been reported to have been dispatched to dig for anything that could be thrown at opposition leaders from their personal and family lives. An upgraded and American form of political attack that which the government is now willing to openly use.
* Pro-Lisbon supporters including the head of the EU parliament in conjunction with leaders of Fianna Fail are also calling for opposition leaders to be investigated at that level also. Having done quietly previous investigations (and finding NOTHING), this time around the task is not only to investigate again the same material but to do so openly as to "throw mud" and attempt to dis-credit the opposition. Bring to bear intimidation and distraction with the procedure again of having to produce records again to be dug into.
* Exposing in public the names of anti-Lisbon supporters and their other family member names as to force them into withdrawing from lending any further support. An example of this was the leaked list of names of those that attended the dinner last week hosted by Libertas. Not only was the list of those there leaked (no one was hiding, after all they were in a public place) but the names of all their family including their husbands, wives (who didn't attend!) was given to the media too from the Department of Foreign Affairs. A first for them and was noted by all journalists. To what other end the passing on of other family names was provided, you can draw your own conclusions!

For Cowan to waste any more time in stalling to his masters in Europe, is being seen by all as another failing of him to toe the line with them.

Among Fianna Fail circles and leaked to some journalists, the word has gone out to prepare the groundwork for the word that Cowan will confirm the ignoring of the previous referendum by telling at the EU meeting next month, that he will be making the Irish people vote yet again so he can get his way - and his masters way!

dresden8

How can you say that? The government is still exploring what the last result meant! Yadda Yadda effin' Yadda.

Biggins

dresden8 wrote: »

...The government is still exploring what the last result meant!...

In case you missed the update (which you have) their research into the results finished up some time back and was passed onto the FF party and discussed already.
Keep up with the news...

I can say the above because of being informed of such and other sources have confirmed it.

O and by the way, watch the Sunday 6/9 news on RTE!

Sunday Night update: Some people thought I was talking through my backside - Oops! Guess what. My sources were right - imagine that!

snubbleste

"The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheál Martin, told RTE's 'The Week in Politics' that the decision has not been made yet. He said the Government will bring the 'elements of a solution' to the meeting in Brussels month." http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1116/lisbon.html

Looks like it is a definite referendum then.

How do I easily find out the government quotes prior to the last vote where we were told that if we voted No, the treaty was dead and other classics?

Biggins

The decision to make us vote yet again, was decided some time ago.
They are ONLY stalling because of the current political unrest.
F.F. is absolutely crying out for an appropriate time to announce it officially to the public, fearing yet another backlash, amid many that is onging.
The fact that the I.F.A. is now also on the back of the government once again, means that that organisation will once again have to be won over/bought off with more budget u-turns in order to get their members to say "yes" again!

...Here we go again...

So much for upholding the will of the people!

Integrity, honour and truthfulness in Fianna Fail is non-existent.

dresden8

Biggins wrote: »

In case you missed the update (which you have) their research into the results finished up some time back and was passed onto the FF party and discussed already.
Keep up with the news...

I can say the above because of being informed of such and other sources have confirmed it.

O and by the way, watch the Sunday 6/9 news on RTE!

Sunday Night update: Some people thought I was talking through my backside - Oops! Guess what. My sources were right - imagine that!

FFS. Anybody ever hear of sub-text around here?

PHB

If we have another refendum, and its passed, isn't that also the will of the people?

Biggins

PHB wrote: »

If we have another referendum, and its passed, isn't that also the will of the people?

True, but if the result is yet again another "No", will that too be ignored as well?
And if the will of the people has been made clear already (many have thought it has) how many more (previous) wills of the people are going to be ignored before the government actually sticks by one!

lostexpectation

PHB wrote: »

If we have another refendum, and its passed, isn't that also the will of the people?

its unwritten rule that you wait up to ten years before having a new referednum, the result carries that much weight, unless there a low turnout like nice 1

Biggins

lostexpectation wrote: »

its unwritten rule that you wait up to ten years before having a new referednum, the result carries that much weight, unless there a low turnout like the nice 1

...except in Ireland where the attitude is "Stuff them, lets make them vote again and again till their will actually matches what we want!"

Pride Fighter

What part of no do they not understand. They are doing nothing but fuelling anti-European sentiment, which no one wants IMO. If Sarkozy shut his trap and gave us time to find our feet we could find a solution with our European partners instead of being forced to vote down something we already voted down.

I guess democracy is dead.

utick

Biggins wrote: »

...except in Ireland where the attitude is "Stuff them, lets make them vote again and again till their will actually matches what we want!"

in a few years we may look back with blissfull memory when we didnt vote how our political masters wanted us to all it meant was being asked to vote again, eventually they are just going to do what happened in france and netherlands

tolosenc

Biggins wrote: »

The previous vote being considered the equivalent of being invalid by our leaders.

Source?

Biggins wrote: »

* One of these reasons is that under the next upcoming change of government in Britain where there is a good chance the conservatives will regain power, that will further scupper the prospects for the Treaty/Constitution.

1. For the last goddamn time, it's not a ****ing Constitution.
2. Britain has already ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, so if the Tories get in, they can't change that.

Biggins wrote: »

* Another reason is that in January Nicolas Sarkosy loses his position as president of the EU to the same Czech government that has sided with the anti-Lisbon community. Sarkosy also wants to leave the position claiming that his tenure was a successful one so he is currently pressurising (bullying!) Mr Brian Cowan into compliance.

1. The Czech Government recommended to their constitutional court that the treaty be not considered anti constitutional.
2. Sarkozy's tenure was successful in many other ways.
3. Cowan's not being bullied - he wants the Treaty passed.

Biggins wrote: »

Because of these direct problems its become known in political circles quietly that the government will publicly commit Ireland to a second referendum at the next month EU conference.

Good, can't wait to get a second chance. We're lucky.

Biggins wrote: »

* One move is to remove the legal requirement from broadcasters to give equal time to both sides. As RTE is the main Irish station and is open to "pressure" from the government as as been shown previously (Late Late Show being one example and a doctor that was supposed to be on it opposing a T.D. on health issues), the government is trying to close the doors on which the opposition can walk through and be heard.

Source?
And, if it keeps Libertas, and all those other liars, off of the airwaves and away from the populus, can it really be a bad thing?

Biggins wrote: »

* Researchers have been reported to have been dispatched to dig for anything that could be thrown at opposition leaders from their personal and family lives. An upgraded and American form of political attack that which the government is now willing to openly use.

Again, source? You're almost as bad as Ganley himself...

Biggins wrote: »

* Pro-Lisbon supporters including the head of the EU parliament in conjunction with leaders of Fianna Fail are also calling for opposition leaders to be investigated at that level also. Having done quietly previous investigations (and finding NOTHING), this time around the task is not only to investigate again the same material but to do so openly as to "throw mud" and attempt to dis-credit the opposition. Bring to bear intimidation and distraction with the procedure again of having to produce records again to be dug into.

Nothing? *cough* Libertas' funding *cough* *cough*

Biggins wrote: »

Exposing in public the names of anti-Lisbon supporters and their other family member names as to force them into withdrawing from lending any further support. An example of this was the leaked list of names of those that attended the dinner last week hosted by Libertas. Not only was the list of those there leaked (no one was hiding, after all they were in a public place) but the names of all their family including their husbands, wives (who didn't attend!) was given to the media too from the Department of Foreign Affairs. A first for them and was noted by all journalists. To what other end the passing on of other family names was provided, you can draw your own conclusions!

1. Is it not your opinion that these people have nothing to be ashamed about?
2. As you said, public place.
3. How exactly was the list of the absent spouses compiled. And i never heard any of this. I'd really hate to put 'Libertas' and 'made-up' into the same sentence again. It gets tiring.

Biggins wrote: »

For Cowan to waste any more time in stalling to his masters in Europe, is being seen by all as another failing of him to toe the line with them.

Bull.

Biggins wrote: »

Among Fianna Fail circles and leaked to some journalists, the word has gone out to prepare the groundwork for the word that Cowan will confirm the ignoring of the previous referendum by telling at the EU meeting next month, that he will be making the Irish people vote yet again so he can get his way - and his masters way!

Oh noes, not teh democracies!!!1! You can still vote No, but I'd seriously advise against it.

You would be seriously jeopardising our economy, as à la Iceland, we're just a tiny rock in the Atlantic with not much to offer without the EU. The EUs reaction to Lenihan's bail out was tantamount to "do whatever you want, we don't give a **** about you lot". We need to be at the core of Europe, not a bunch of dissident loonies.

nesf

lostexpectation wrote: »

its unwritten rule that you wait up to ten years before having a new referednum, the result carries that much weight, unless there a low turnout like nice 1

Does a result still carry a lot of weight if surveys showed that a substantial number of people voted while not understanding the issue? I'd agree that things like low turnout diminish the weight of a result, but I'd also broaden that to other factors like lack of understanding and/or a vote being skewed by deliberate misinformation or lies by one side.

More importantly, if a result was the result that the people truly believed to be the correct one then it should not matter if a referendum is rerun within a short time period since the people would most likely return the same result if asked again no? If it's a case where people didn't understand the issue then surely the correct way forward would be to explain to these people what the issue is and then allow them to cast a knowledgeable and informed vote on it.

Biggins

Sorry Obl but if you expect me to name sources of my information on a public forum (sources by the way that have been right so far!) you clearly don't understand the security issues involved in doing so.

* You say its not a constitution but a number of legal reviews have already stated that the inner contents of the treaty are the same as the previous constitution we voted on. The treaty being considered just a clever rewording by many.

* While you might agree that its a good idea to keep Libertas off the air, there are issues about others, not necessarily about this issue, being able to still have the right to speak out!
If, as the present government is trying to do, curtail free speech and the ability of others to hear an opposing voice, I and many others have an issue with this alone totally separate from the Lisbon issue.
Some day maybe you will want to speak out abut something that you disagree with your government with. will you be so happy then with the changed laws when you find out your being over-ruled and ignored and not given air time to explain your position?

* Just because you didn't hear about the list dispatched from the Dept of Foreign Affairs, don't make it less true. It was, the contents was real and has been reported on.

*

You would be seriously jeopardising our economy

Really! You mean we letting the government, can make things worse - thats a vote of confidence!

Its clear you feel a certain way about the treaty. I do too.

I take issue though also and moreso with the way and the methods being used/introduced to curtail any opposition. They are just as alarming as the government ignoring the last vote we had, making us all vote again till they get what they want!

Wacko

nesf wrote: »

Does a result still carry a lot of weight if surveys showed that a substantial number of people voted while not understanding the issue? I'd agree that things like low turnout diminish the weight of a result, but I'd also broaden that to other factors like lack of understanding and/or a vote being skewed by deliberate misinformation or lies by one side.

More importantly, if a result was the result that the people truly believed to be the correct one then it should not matter if a referendum is rerun within a short time period since the people would most likely return the same result if asked again no? If it's a case where people didn't understand the issue then surely the correct way forward would be to explain to these people what the issue is and then allow them to cast a knowledgeable and informed vote on it.

If Ireland had have voted Yes would there be talk of another vote to make sure we understood the issues the first time round ?

nesf

Wacko wrote: »

If Ireland had have voted Yes would there be talk of another vote to make sure we understood the issues the first time round ?

If large amounts of Yes voters were shown to have cast their vote ignorant of the issue or because of lies spread by the Yes campaign then yes, there should be one.

nesf

Biggins wrote: »

Sorry Obl but if you expect me to name sources of my information on a public forum (sources by the way that have been right so far!) you clearly don't understand the security issues involved in doing so.

Do not make any claims on this forum that you are not willing to provide sources for. If you do this again then I will ban you and delete your posts from this forum and this rule applies to everyone on both sides of the debate. I will not tolerate people making claims that they are unwilling to support on this forum.

Either back up the claims you made on the first post or remove them.

Biggins

Who's to say they were ignorant?
O' wait, those that want a re-vote. Their decision that the Irish public were ignorant of the issues, come to by their researchers!

Side issue: Even if we were all that ignorant, who let the public down in explaining the actual issues! They (F.F.) didn't exactly help themselves did they!

This issue is now going to split the country yet again....

Wacko

nesf wrote: »

If large amounts of Yes voters were shown to have cast their vote ignorant of the issue or because of lies spread by the Yes campaign then yes, there should be one.

But there clearly wouldn't be, proving the fact that the big parties only want one answer. Also I would believe just as many Yes voters were just as ignorant as No voters and labeling No voters as being stupid is pretty unfair.

nesf

Biggins wrote: »

Who's to say they were ignorant?

Anyone who says they voted Yes or No because they didn't understand the issue would be by definition ignorant of the issue in question.

Wacko wrote: »

But there clearly wouldn't be, proving the fact that the big parties only want one answer.

a) I'm only saying what I think should happen, I'd be quite sceptical of it actually happening but I think a second referendum would be justified in both cases.

b) The big parties wanting only one answer is not a big deal if it isn't the answer that the people don't want to give. If the people genuinely want to vote No to Lisbon on cogent and informed grounds then no number of rerunning will change their answer. Multiple referendums are not an issue so long as people make informed decisions and vote based on cogent grounds.

Wacko wrote: »

Also I would believe just as many Yes voters were just as ignorant as No voters and labeling No voters as being stupid is pretty unfair.

The surveys would seem to say otherwise though I would agree that many Yes voters probably were ignorant of the issue and that labelling No voters as a group as being stupid is both unfair and unwarranted.

utick

personally i think we should hold another referendum to repeal nice

Biggins

nesf wrote: »

Either back up the claims you made on the first post or remove them.

I understand your position.
Here is an article printed last week by a major paper to confirm what I mentioned above.

Main part


Bottom part (thats cut off):

Here is the article scanned and saved (jpeg x2) in a rar file: http://rapidshare.com/files/164453101/2008_11_16.rar
Open and have a look.

I can pass you on the reporters name and email by pm should still feel you need to contact him.

jhegarty

I don't think they could get a ban on murder passed at the moment...

Biggins

I have serious issues myself with Libertas.
I am not a fan of Ganley, I have worries myself about his connections. Let me make that clear.

I do have concerns about the conduct of the present government and their methods of persuading the Irish people to come over to their side.
Anything that is good for Ireland I am all for - genuinely.

I can also concerned that anyone, not including the present government, but future ones, can use such questionable methods to enforce their views and curtail others.

PHB

Why ten years? Why any amount of time?

For me, people who talk about the will of the people being ignored are just as bad as the FF'ers who want to ignore it. They are terrified of a yes vote in the next referndum, which would also be the will of the people.

Democracy is a complicated concept. Things aren't either democratic or undemocratic. For me the biggest problem I have with the argument is why should the people of the past bind us in any way? Yes it was only 6 months ago, but what if something massive changed? Say we realised that we needed to get something in the Lisbon treaty because it was absolutely essential to the Irish people, like 99% of people in polls said they would vote yes. Should we not do it because its against the will of the people in the past?

There's no doubt that FF are utterly undemocratic in their motives, but in terms of another referendum, its not anti-democratic, if anything, its more democratic.

Biggins

Side issue: I think right now F.F. need this issue to rear its head like they need a hole in the head (as the saying goes) but their hands (or will) are being pushed by others outside our borders. And if we like the present Dail lot or not, I take issue with our elected leaders being pressurised in such a strong manner.

Hell, I dislike the present F.F. lot but I'd defend their right to stand their ground against European bullies like Sarkosy!

GhostInTheRuins

Biggins wrote: »

* One move is to remove the legal requirement from broadcasters to give equal time to both sides. As RTE is the main Irish station and is open to "pressure" from the government as as been shown previously (Late Late Show being one example and a doctor that was supposed to be on it opposing a T.D. on health issues), the government is trying to close the doors on which the opposition can walk through and be heard.

If this is true then it is indeed very worrying, have you got any more information/sources for this Biggins?

PHB

Well like, the rule is kinda stupid to be honest. Or more accurately, the application of it is stupid. It states that media has to give 'fair and balanced' coverage to each side.

But they've interpreted this to mean equal coverage to each side. But to me, that's a load of crap.

If we had a referendum which was about killing children, the law would require them to give equal coverage to both sides of the arguments. The media have a responsibility to give fair and balanced coverage, but that doesn't mean giving a platform to the lunatics.
Fair coverage, but not equal coverage.

Biggins

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

If this is true then it is indeed very worrying, have you got any more information/sources for this Biggins?

THERE IS no requirement for broadcasters to ensure equal airtime for both sides of a referendum debate, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has said.
Speaking at the Joint Committee on the Constitution, Michael O'Keeffe, chief executive of the commission, said there was no requirement in its guidelines to ensure equal time for both sides in a referendum, but that there was a requirement for fair and balanced coverage.
The committee is reviewing the referendum process in light of the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty referendum earlier this year

Just to name four (below) but its been reported on a few times by a number of different media circles.

Source: http://www.tribune.ie/breakingnews/article/2008/oct/23/broadcast-rules-on-referendum-campaigns-may-be-cha/

Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1112/1226408553762.html

Source: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1111/broadcasting.html

Source: http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/ireland/equal-media-facilities-in-referendums-to-be-reviewed-6736.html

Phototoxin

Good news for rapists then. No means yes...

djpbarry

Biggins wrote: »

Here is an article printed last week by a major paper to confirm what I mentioned above.

Main part


Bottom part (thats cut off):

If you expect anyone to believe that either of those are from a "major paper", then you're seriously deluded; the grammar in both articles is appalling (although, I can barely read the first one because the resolution is too low).

Which "major paper" are they from?

Biggins

djpbarry wrote: »

...I can barely read the first one because the resolution is too low...

Did you bother to download the full sized version as by the link posted above?
I tested the contents and I can read them fine!

Here it is again: http://rapidshare.com/files/164453101/2008_11_16.rar

Here is the Irish Times latest updated short version: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1116/breaking42.htm

djpbarry

Biggins wrote: »

Did you bother to download the full sized version as by the link posted above?

No.

Biggins wrote: »

Here it is again: http://rapidshare.com/files/164453101/2008_11_16.rar

It's still a rag. What paper is it? By the standard of writing (and obvious bias), I'm guessing it's worse than a tabloid?

Biggins wrote: »

Here is the Irish Times latest updated short version: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1116/breaking42.htm

And what does this prove? That the government are going to make a decision?

Biggins

Respectfully, the name on this thread is "The next referendum vote clock is ticking down".
Besides bending over backwards to prove that point, what else do you personally require, blood?

I suspect nothing that is said or posted which conflicts with your view, will make any difference anyway or satisfy.

I wish you well.

nesf

Biggins wrote: »

Here is an article printed last week by a major paper to confirm what I mentioned above.

Major paper won't do, if you're linking to pdfs without the paper's title and date you need to provide both. Otherwise it's easy to photoshop whatever you want in there without people being able to check.

Biggins

I'm good at computers but at photoshopping - thats an art in itself I don't have the time for sadly!

As stated I will provide the name of the reporter so that he can be contacted independently from myself, to confirm this story.

Again all the links that are provided are seemingly still not enough to satisfy some. The newspaper that was provided as a single source was the Mail, a Saturday edition - reporters name: Richard Waghorne - do you want his email address?
Before it can be knocked for its reporting style, the content has been before reported (note the dates of the original source material provided below with further links) and after today's 6 o'clock news (Sunday) announcement, has been the same by other papers have reported - see yet again the more and more links below.
Please note the dates. If anyone else bothered to keep track of these things instead of having to ask repeatedly to the point of harassment, myself for links, they too would have concluded with clear thought that the previous referendum was not good enough for those leading the majority in the Dail.

Strange in that I that what was posted about having to vote again, has been now confirmed by the BBC, RTE and will be in and the papers from thereon from this date onwards...

But still some chose to have a go at me for some reason, reporting early for what will be confirmed in tomorrows papers and in the media news!

Right, here is more links to the related subject and changing of the law, etc:

Lisbon 'No' may spark end of votes on treaties - Friday October 24 2008
Source: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-no-may-spark-end-of-votes-on-treaties-1508101.html

EU officials still expecting Irish to vote again - Thursday September 11 2008 (changing of the law)

European union officials expect Ireland to cave in and hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Autumn 2009.

An internal EU briefing paper, entitled 'The Solution to the Irish Problem', predicts that officials will accede to the re-run at a meeting of Europe's leaders on October 15.

Source: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/eu-officials-still-expecting-irish-to-vote-again-1473414.html

EU begins secret drive to force Ireland to vote again on rejected Lisbon Treaty - 12th September 2008
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1054732/EU-begins-secret-drive-force-Ireland-vote-rejected-Lisbon-Treaty.html

Irish Examiner - Lisbon II in autumn 2009, says EU paper - Thursday, September 11, 2008
Source: http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2008/09/11/story72087.asp

...the links go on and on with more to be found if others bother to do their homework.
It would be time better spent than just finding another reason to have a go at me for reporting what now is in the open and is in the papers tomorrow (Monday).

nesf

Biggins wrote: »

I'm good at computers but at photoshopping - thats an art in itself I don't have the time for sadly!

And I wasn't accusing you of it, I'm just giving a reason for why we require people to give more details than just "a major paper".

The newspaper that was provided as a single source was the Mail, a Saturday edition

Thank you.

reporters name: Richard Waghorne - do you want his email address?

That's unnecessary, the paper and the approximate date is sufficient. I hope you understand why I need to ask people to give sources for their claims.

Biggins

I appreciate your position.

I just wish others would actually to their own research too.
When actual others do the work of keeping track of these things, we become targets for those that are just not willing to listen.
Its a sad state of affairs.

I bare no ill-will towards yourself Nesf. You have a forum role to do.

As mentioned already - I too am very weary of Libertas and those (many!) behind it (and would like to learn more).
My worry is other related matters and conduct by other principles involved too.
I hope most can see that.

Cheers for giving me the time to post more links. Others would be quick to write me off as just another fantasy artist or creator/writer.
Thankfully, the news leaked to RTE hours after it appeared here. (The media scramble will now begin again more so on this issue)

Good night to all (its now 2.55am - yikes!).
I look forwards to hearing further thoughts in the matter tomorrow.
Its going to be a long road again with this process - please I ask, that all will not make this issue a personal one to have a go at each other.
Lets discuss the issues - not have a go at ourselves.

All the best to both sides. At the end of the day, we all want what's best for our country.
If we didn't care, we wouldn't be so passionate. Thanks for caring and taking the time to do so.

Eurosceptic2008

PHB wrote: »

If we have another refendum, and its passed, isn't that also the will of the people?

Yes but I don't expect that to happen. I think to some degree there is a generational and class gap on this. Even the latest TNS-MRBI poll in the Irish Times has shown more in the 18-25 year old age-group opposed than in favour of Lisbon. The youth of Ireland do not remember the begging-bowl years when Albert came back in 1992 promising €8 billion. Then there's the cynicism about the trustworthiness of Irish politicians stemming from 11 years of Tribunals and the fact that Bertie Ahern, Ireland's voice at the negotiating table in the Lisbon negotiations, wanted us to believe him that this treaty is in Ireland's interests. Well sorry but I for one am not buying it.
My reasons for opposing Lisbon, as a young person are as follows:
A: I believe in the concept of the nation state, independent on the most important issues. The more power goes to Brussels, the more this concept is undermined. We have been in an empire before. We should see the parallels with 1800 when Castlereagh and Cornwallis came over at London's behest to bully the Irish Parliament into voting for the Act of Union. Some - including me - see parallels with the caravan of foreign politicians like Sarkozy, Merkel and Wallstrom coming to Ireland to try to nudge Irish ratification of Lisbon forward.

B: The Lisbon Treaty enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into European law. As such, it will be for the European Court of Justice to interpret it through court challenges to Irish law on human rights. In other words, the Irish Supreme Court's rulings in this area will be subordinate to those of the ECJ, where the final decision will rest. Bear in mind that Ireland currently has no judge on that court. We have to wait our turn along with 19 other small countries, while 7 Big States like the UK, France and Germany have permanent representation on the judiciary of the court. When you increase the power of a body dominated by Big States like the ECJ, you are de-facto reducing the influence of small countries. The Irish perspective on human rights issues will be absent from the deliberations of these judges most of the time, because there usually isn't an Irish judge due to the rotational system between small countries.

djpbarry

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

A: I believe in the concept of the nation state, independent on the most important issues. The more power goes to Brussels, the more this concept is undermined. We have been in an empire before. We should see the parallels with 1800 when Castlereagh and Cornwallis came over at London's behest to bully the Irish Parliament into voting for the Act of Union.

Yawn...

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

B: The Lisbon Treaty enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into European law. As such, it will be for the European Court of Justice to interpret it through court challenges to Irish law on human rights. In other words, the Irish Supreme Court's rulings in this area will be subordinate to those of the ECJ, where the final decision will rest.

Old hat.

Very original username by the way - I wonder what your agenda here could possibly be? Hmmmm.....

Eurosceptic2008

djpbarry wrote: »

Yawn...
Old hat.

Very original username by the way - I wonder what your agenda here could possibly be? Hmmmm.....

The agenda of supporting 54% of my compatriots who voted no to Lisbon. I make no apology for being a critic of the EU. I am however from the wing of the Eurocritical movement that favours engagement with the organisation rather than withdrawal.

Villain

If another referendum is gong to be run it will be pointless unless Ireland gets written clarification on the issues that affected the result, e.g. the tax issue.

And don't start the "the treat won't change anything with our tax system" the treaty is designed to be open to interrpution so a CLEAR statement that TAX system won't simple and would help a lot of people votes yes although imo sadly the Government have no hope of getting it passed at the moment.

Hitman Actual

Just a couple of quick points:

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

My reasons for opposing Lisbon, as a young person are as follows:
A: I believe in the concept of the nation state, independent on the most important issues.

What important issues do you believe we don't have independence in? And what important issues would Lisbon have taken away?

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

B: The Lisbon Treaty enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into European law. As such, it will be for the European Court of Justice to interpret it through court challenges to Irish law on human rights. In other words, the Irish Supreme Court's rulings in this area will be subordinate to those of the ECJ, where the final decision will rest. Bear in mind that Ireland currently has no judge on that court. We have to wait our turn along with 19 other small countries, while 7 Big States like the UK, France and Germany have permanent representation on the judiciary of the court. When you increase the power of a body dominated by Big States like the ECJ, you are de-facto reducing the influence of small countries. The Irish perspective on human rights issues will be absent from the deliberations of these judges most of the time, because there usually isn't an Irish judge due to the rotational system between small countries.

This is a terribly misinformed paragraph: EVERY member state has a member on the ECJ. It's a really basic underlying principal of the structure of the court.

Edit 1: Hang on a minute, are you talking about the advocate-generals? They don't make decisions, they just write opinions on cases, which dont have to be adhered to by the court. Your post is quite confusing, tbh.

Edit 2: Okay, I humbly acknowledge that I mis-read your post. But if you really believe that the ECJ doesn't or wont operate with complete impartiality, then there's not a lot anyone can say to you to change your mind. It absolutely shouldn't be a case of states being able to 'influence' the courts decision. If there was any evidence of this, then it would be seriously damaging or maybe even fatal to the EU ideal.

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

Very original username by the way - I wonder what your agenda here could possibly be? Hmmmm.....

Who cares if he has a Euroskeptic point of view? The name is this forum is European Union not Pro Europe! Although a lot of the time one could be forgiven for wondering why it isn't called Pro Europe.

In any case we've all known that from June 13th this year that there would be a second Lisbon referendum. I hope it's no again, lets put the unanimous question to bed once and for all. All states are equal so long as you all agree.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

If another referendum is gong to be run it will be pointless unless Ireland gets written clarification on the issues that affected the result, e.g. the tax issue.

And don't start the "the treat won't change anything with our tax system" the treaty is designed to be open to interrpution so a CLEAR statement that TAX system won't simple and would help a lot of people votes yes although imo sadly the Government have no hope of getting it passed at the moment.

So basically, the treaty has to contain a written assurance that it really, really, really means it when there's nothing whatsoever in it or any of the treaties it modifies about direct taxation?

You claim the treaty is designed to be open to interpretation: fine. Find the provision in the treaty that could be interpreted as meaning that we can't have a 12.5% corporation tax.

turgon

oscarBravo wrote: »

You claim the treaty is designed to be open to interpretation: fine. Find the provision in the treaty that could be interpreted as meaning that we can't have a 12.5% corporation tax.

Have some faith oscar. You might not be able to find it, nor might your lawyer, nor anyone else, but be rest assured the big bad EU have it up their sleeve somewhere. Kathy Sinnot will tell you, and shes never lied in her life

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

So basically, the treaty has to contain a written assurance that it really, really, really means it when there's nothing whatsoever in it or any of the treaties it modifies about direct taxation?

You claim the treaty is designed to be open to interpretation: fine. Find the provision in the treaty that could be interpreted as meaning that we can't have a 12.5% corporation tax.

You see this imo is exactly the issue with the treaty, Yes people say
"the treaty doesn't say that can happen etc etc"

But then when its put to them by No voters:
"grand so lets put a declaration in the treaty saying that",

You don't get the reply from YES voters:
"yea sure that makes sense there can be no confusion then"

Instead you get the Yes voter saying:
"Find the provision in the treaty that could be interpreted as meaning that we can't have a 12.5% corporation tax."

I don't believe the treaty can change our tax system and the 12.5% but I didn't vote No thinking it could.

YES people need to get down off the high horse where they look down and say " oh you silly peasant the treaty doesn't say that trust me I'm all intelligent" and start accepting that if this treaty is going to be passed it needs to have declarations that the ordinary Joe on the street can understand.

djpbarry

Villain wrote: »

YES people need to get down off the high horse where they look down and say " oh you silly peasant the treaty doesn't say that trust me I'm all intelligent" and start accepting that if this treaty is going to be passed it needs to have declarations that the ordinary Joe on the street can understand.

You're totally missing the point. How many different reasons have been offered for voting 'No'? There's quite an array, isn't there? Do we have to include written assurances for every single one of these reasons for voting 'No'? We would probably have to include assurances against anything else that Libertas, Cóir and Sinn Féin think up before any future referendum and a few extra assurances beyond that, just for good measure. You see how ridiculously impractical this is?

It would make a whole lot more sense if people just informed themselves on the content of the treaty, rather than seeking assurances that it doesn’t contain anything relating to x, y and z.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

YES people need to get down off the high horse where they look down and say " oh you silly peasant the treaty doesn't say that trust me I'm all intelligent" and start accepting that if this treaty is going to be passed it needs to have declarations that the ordinary Joe on the street can understand.

If there are five hundred stupid reasons for voting "no", all of which are irrelevant to the treaty, do we need to have five hundred redundant clauses added to the treaty to keep people happy? I've already mentioned the person who told me Lisbon would ban open-coffin funerals - should there be a clause appended to the treaty guaranteeing our right to open coffins? If I express a fear that Lisbon might be interpreted as banning ice cream, do I get an assurance too? Who gets to decide which fears are founded? You don't think our corporation tax is under threat, but you think those who do fear this should get a written assurance? Do you think an assurance on open coffins is required? What about ice cream? Where is the line drawn, and who decides?

At what point do we stop dumbing the treaty down with tautological and pointless assurances, and start asking the fearmongers to actually explain the mechanisms whereby their fears will be realised?

Villain

Ah lads come one your reply "oh we're going to have to 500 declarations then" doesn't account for the work that Government has done to identify the Main issues that people had problems with, I can't remember excatly what was stated by A minister Michael Martin I think but there was 4 or 5 main reasons.

If YES people want to pass this treaty next time they simply get declarations for those 4 or 5 items and thats it you have the treaty passed

BTW if the treaty was like our own constitution i.e. readable to the majority you wouldn't need clear declarations. I'm not saying taking sides here I'm simply pointing out what is needed imo to get the treaty passed and I believe the YES side are too stubborn to giev into the NO and get declarations.

If 5 declarations could be added to ensure the majority would vote YES in another vote would you agree to it or would you ignore the issues raised wrongly or rightly and risk a no vote?