Ireland <3 Lison Treaty

Dave!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1117/1226700658973.html

Middle classes and farmers firmly in treaty Yes camp

STEPHEN COLLINS, Political Editor

Mon, Nov 17, 2008

OPINION POLL:THE SWING to the Yes side in the latest Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll is mainly due to a hardening of support for the Lisbon Treaty among middle-class voters, who are now much more strongly in favour of the treaty than in the final poll of the referendum campaign last June.

Working-class voters are still against the treaty by a significant margin. A majority of women and young people are also opposed, but farmers have moved decisively into the Yes camp.

Support for the treaty among the better-off ABC1 social category is now running at 55 per cent while opposition to it is at 30 per cent.

In the last Irish Times poll, a week before the referendum in June, the Yes side was ahead in this category by 36 per cent to 31 per cent. The poll question is based on the assumption that Ireland will be allowed to retain an EU commissioner in a clarification of the treaty.

As it stands the treaty provides that all EU states, big and small, will lose a commissioner for five out of every 15 years. However, the treaty provides that this can be changed by unanimity and there has been speculation since last June that agreement on maintaining a commissioner for every country may be possible.

The poll question also assumes that the Government will be able to negotiate clarifying declarations on issues like abortion, neutrality and taxation, which could be appended to the treaty.

While the poll result will come as a boost for the Yes side, it should be pointed out that the Irish Times polls in January and May also indicated a clear lead for the Yes side and it was only the final poll of the campaign that put the No side ahead.

However, one important difference between the current poll and the earlier polls that put the Yes side ahead is that a substantial majority of voters have now come to a clear view on the issue.

The first poll on the treaty in January showed that 64 per cent had no opinion and even the May poll, in the middle of the campaign, found that 47 per cent had no opinion, compared with 35 per cent for the Yes side and 18 per cent No.

This time over 80 per cent of the voters have a view on the issue and there is a much smaller number of undecided voters in the middle to play for.

The big weakness of the Yes campaign is among women voters and people in the youngest age group.

Among 18-24-year-olds just 32 per cent intend to vote Yes and 38 per cent No. However, there is a substantial 30 per cent in this category who have no opinion. The strongest Yes support comes from middle-aged voters with the over-65s being less enthusiastic.

Among women 40 per cent intend to vote No compared with 38 per cent Yes, with 23 per cent in the don't know category. This is still a big improvement on the last poll in June, which showed that 32 per cent of women were in the No camp, just 25 per cent intended to vote Yes, and a substantial 36 per cent were undecided.

Men are for the treaty by 48 per cent to 38 per cent, with 15 per cent having no opinion. Again this is a significant change since June when men were against by 39 per cent to 34 per cent.

In regional terms, the Yes lead is biggest in Munster where 45 per cent are in the Yes camp and 35 per cent on the No side.

The Yes side has a narrower lead in Dublin of 44 per cent against 40 per cent; the rest of Leinster is almost identical. The sides are closest in Connacht-Ulster with a Yes lead of 41 per cent against 39 per cent.

In party terms Fianna Fáil voters are the most positive with 51 per cent intending to vote Yes and 34 per cent No.

Supporters of the other pro-treaty parties have all shifted back into the Yes side since the last poll in June. Sinn Féin is the only party whose supporters are still opposed to the treat.

© 2008 The Irish Times

Biggins

Its already clear more so now, that more time (than last time) should be spend convincing those that are "unsure". Hopefully in a better and more professional process than one filled with personal attack from one side to the other.
* To briefly mention the US election a few weeks back - this is one area that McCain failed to pick up enough support - the "unsures" - it aided to his losing. McCain it is also said lost due to his negative campaign.
The Irish government some felt, spend too much time in attacking individual persons than attacking the ideology behind the policies the opposition was presenting to the people. A negative process that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the public. Last time around the Government I felt was mostly on the defensive. If they are to win over the public they should be more positive and on the offensive.

I hope they make their next case based more around the policies rather than the principles involved.
God knows this country needs some sort of hope for the future - not negative attacking from a defensive position.

oscarBravo

Dave!, please read the charter, specifically the bit about starting threads without offering your own opinions.

Dave! wrote: »

As it stands the treaty provides that all EU states, big and small, will lose a commissioner for five out of every 15 years. However, the treaty provides that this can be changed by unanimity and there has been speculation since last June that agreement on maintaining a commissioner for every country may be possible.

I'd be less than impressed if this comes to pass. It's an exercise in pure pandering; a concession to a Libertas-style hysteria campaign. "Save our commissoner!" Um, why?

Dob74

No means No! How dare the government force another referendum down our throats. If there was a Yes vote would we be re-running the referendum. Its clear the government has done nothing for young people and the working class since June. So why go to the people again. They did a deal for farmers before the referendum and bought there votes. But they wont do anything for the urban workers. The only thing we can do is to reject this Treaty again.

oscarBravo

Dob74 wrote: »

No means No!

I'm going to ask a question that I don't think I've ever received a straight answer to: is it your position that not a single provision contained in the Lisbon Treaty should ever again be put to the Irish electorate under any circumstances?

Dave!

Sorry oscar, in my haste I forgot!

I have to say I'd be quite surprised if it was passed next time. I would have thought it would be OVERWHELMINGLY rejected if put to the vote again any time soon, in the aftermath of the budget. Everybody's p*ssed at the government, and I'm sure alot of people would see this as a way of sticking 2 fingers up at FF (again).

I'd like to see some more polls tbh

Furious-Dave

Hello everyone. This is my first post on this forum.

One joke made by a comedian recently about the referendum that I really enjoyed was "it's either a 'Yes' vote or as many times as is needed so that people get it right"...or something along those lines.

Anyway, I could go on a rant about this and that but I'm just going to keep it short. I am a hardcore 'YES' voter and I believe that others like me, not only in Ireland but all over the EU, need to organize and confront Libertas and others like them on every move they make. I believe the sole purpose of Libertas is to destablize the EU political process and in doing so preventing it from solidifying into the super power it should be. An EU superpower would make NATO obsolete.

Peace.

Hitman Actual

oscarBravo wrote: »

Dave!, please read the charter, specifically the bit about starting threads without offering your own opinions. I'd be less than impressed if this comes to pass. It's an exercise in pure pandering; a concession to a Libertas-style hysteria campaign. "Save our commissoner!" Um, why?

Agreed, I cringed when I read that part.

One thing I still don't get is why so many women are against the treaty. I thought a lot of the gender/social equalities in Ireland are a direct result of EU legislation in the '70s when Patrick Hillary was the social affairs commissioner?

As regards younger people being against the treaty, the film "Idiocracy" comes to mind.

Dob74

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm going to ask a question that I don't think I've ever received a straight answer to: is it your position that not a single provision contained in the Lisbon Treaty should ever again be put to the Irish electorate under any circumstances?

No means do not put this before the electorate again. Is was voted down fair and square. If we had voted yes would they be trying to re-run the referendum. I dont think so. Should we go back and re-run the Nice Treaty the score is one all. First to two. Has the government told us how much money they paid Millward Brown for that report in September. Funny how they come out with these answers in there latest poll just in time for the summit in December. They have not published their finding on this poll on their website. If the government what to bully the no voters into Lisbon2 it will be interesting to see how people react.
They did a nice deal with the farmers on the eve of the Referendum and the ERSI held back there report on the economy going into the tank until just after the vote. Coincidentally just before the pay talks.
So I dont know what rabits in the hat they can produce now. But it will be interesting to see what happens.

oscarBravo

Dob74 wrote: »

No means do not put this before the electorate again. Is was voted down fair and square.

Not one single provision contained in the treaty should ever be presented to the Irish public, ever again, under any circumstances?

Dob74

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not one single provision contained in the treaty should ever be presented to the Irish public, ever again, under any circumstances?

Never say never , but there definately has to be a cooling of period of about 5 years. I think most people are happy with the way things are now so why rock the boat. France and holland said no , more probably would have followed if they were allowed to vote. The way things are going the world economy is about to go in the sh**er and since we are the most globalised economy were F**ked.

oscarBravo

Dob74 wrote: »

Never say never , but there definately has to be a cooling of period of about 5 years.

Why?

utick

lets vote on nice again, we got it wrong last time

ateam

Patricia McKenna was on Vincent Brown tonight for the No side. How is that woman allowed on television.

Dob74

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why?

We voted no so please just except it. I bet the opposition would like to have a re-run of the last election. The lisbon treaty is dead so why cant the yes side get over it.
I have not heard one good reason to vote yes. Just attacks on the no side. When Ganley meet the Czech President the media went crazy. Since most of or media is owned by two of the biggest tax dogders in the country(well they live in other countries on their tax returns!!!) its a bit rich to be complaining about protocols.

Lisbon will never pass so let it go please.

Dave!

Shock horror, you can't actually defend your position

Mahatma coat

Oscar, what are you getting at, People on the yes side complain that the no side dont make a coherent argument, I've yet to hear a coherent argument for voting yes, I've heard things like

"Europe Needs this"

"It'll be better For Europe"

"It Streamlines Europe"

"Just shut up and go back to sleep"

"Oh you wouldnt understand anyway"


But vry little about the actual content of the Treaty

Yes there is weighted Voting, but depending on who you ask this is described in diferent ways

and theres the loss of the permanent Comissioner

but dont we have Proportional representation on the European Parliment anyway?

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I've yet to hear a coherent argument for voting yes

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Furious-Dave

The Irish commissioner to the EU does NOT represent Ireland. They represent the EU commission. So what difference does it make if we have our own commissioner or operate it on a rotation with a few other countries? Having fewer commissioners in the EU means things will get agreed upon quicker.

Dob74

Dave! wrote: »

Shock horror, you can't actually defend your position

The yes voters can not justify there vote because they only voted yes on the command of there party. Most older voters, party loyalist and of course the west brits on dublins southside.
Older voters fair enough they have been voting yes consistly and generally follow FF and FG.
Party loyalists , Laois Offlay,Clare ,Kildare north. Cowen was able to get his constituency so did McCreevy. Clare is a FF stronghold as well. And in other FF strongholds the campaign did well but this was not because they read the treaty line for line. It was just out of political loyality which is amiable.
But the most frieghtening thing is that class detates the way people vote now. The upperclass of this country huddled together in the southside enclave of the dart line all voted yes by over 60% in favour of the treaty.
When you exploit a foreign worker and drive down wages of irish people you can see why they voted in favour.
Let them fumble in there greasy til


Reasons for voting no
The is EU is fine as it is, if we had voted yes it would be the last step to the United States of Europe. We have a common currency and open boarders what next? The eurocrats are pushing strong for countries like Turkey to be let in. Despite there appalling human rights record. Plus its not in Europe except for a small piece.

Furious-Dave

I have no loyalty to any political party. I voted yes, as I said, because I want a stronger Europe. The way I see it is Ireland is too small to be completely independent. Sure we had a good relationship with the EU but the EU is now changing and so we can either make sure that we remain part of it and have our say, small as it may be, from the inside, or we can isolate ourselves from it and become a poor nation on the outskirts with no say what so ever. We need to be part of a larger group, so it's either the "United States of Europe" or the United States of America. I say Europe.

Also, as I said before, a lot of people voted no because they didn't have a clue what was going on and because they bought the lies spread by Libertas.

oscarBravo

What was that about showing respect for other people's decisions?

[In reply to Dob74]

Dob74

oscarBravo wrote: »

What was that about showing respect for other people's decisions?

[In reply to Dob74]

Good tactic go on the attack. I wonder where you got that idea

Dob74

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I have no loyalty to any political party. I voted yes, as I said, because I want a stronger Europe. The way I see it is Ireland is too small to be completely independent. Sure we had a good relationship with the EU but the EU is now changing and so we can either make sure that we remain part of it and have our say, small as it may be, from the inside, or we can isolate ourselves from it and become a poor nation on the outskirts with no say what so ever. We need to be part of a larger group, so it's either the "United States of Europe" or the United States of America. I say Europe.

Also, as I said before, a lot of people voted no because they didn't have a clue what was going on and because they bought the lies spread by Libertas.

Well thats fair enough if you want a United States of Europe. I don't so i will continue to vote no.

oscarBravo

Dob74 wrote: »

Good tactic go on the attack. I wonder where you got that idea

You're having a laugh, right?

Dob74 wrote: »

Well thats fair enough if you want a United States of Europe. I don't so i will continue to vote no.

Can you point out the provision in the Lisbon Treaty that provides for a United States of Europe?

sink

Dob74 wrote: »

The yes voters can not justify there vote because they only voted yes on the command of there party. Most older voters, party loyalist and of course the west brits on dublins southside.
Older voters fair enough they have been voting yes consistly and generally follow FF and FG.
Party loyalists , Laois Offlay,Clare ,Kildare north. Cowen was able to get his constituency so did McCreevy. Clare is a FF stronghold as well. And in other FF strongholds the campaign did well but this was not because they read the treaty line for line. It was just out of political loyality which is amiable.
But the most frieghtening thing is that class detates the way people vote now. The upperclass of this country huddled together in the southside enclave of the dart line all voted yes by over 60% in favour of the treaty.
When you exploit a foreign worker and drive down wages of irish people you can see why they voted in favour.
Let them fumble in there greasy til


Reasons for voting no
The is EU is fine as it is, if we had voted yes it would be the last step to the United States of Europe. We have a common currency and open boarders what next? The eurocrats are pushing strong for countries like Turkey to be let in. Despite there appalling human rights record. Plus its not in Europe except for a small piece.

I would find that insulting if I didn't know it came from a place of complete ignorance. I dont exactly fit into any of your categories, 25, middle class, north County Dublin and independent. I have posted my reasons for voting yes many times and I have researched the treaty quiet extensively so feel free to ask me any questions.


1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.

The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Lisbon Treaty increases this to 95%. The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget, this will be increased to 100%

2. The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally

Under the Nice treaty the commission will be slimmed down in 2009. However the rules are not yet set, Lisbon sets those rules in a manner which gives 100% equality to all states big and small. The larger states originally wanted a permanent commissioner and all the small states would rotate. The Irish delegation got them to agree to agree to a binding system of equality. If the treaty does not pass this is back on the table.

3. Permanent President of the European Council

The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the role, this causes the President to push his/her countries agenda often against the will of others. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with an elected President by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state.

4. The Councils must meet in the open.

At present the European Council and the Council of Ministers meet behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open providing valuable transparency.

5. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies

Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own.

6. Greater role for EU peacekeepers

The treaty provides for a greater role for EU militaries to co-operate on UN mandated peacekeeping missions, while guaranteeing our neutrality.

7. Includes charter of human rights

For the first time EU all laws will be based on a charter of rights guaranteeing all EU citizens human rights.

8. Increases co-operation in Justice and Policing

The treaty increases the ability of national police forces and judiciary to combat international crime such as drug smuggling and people trafficking.

9. The two foreign policy posts are merged into one

The Lisbon creates an new role as the High Representative For Foreign affairs. It merges the two positions of 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' with the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy'. This is to provide a coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, few governments are clear who to contact in regards to specific areas.

10. Three pillar structure scrapped and merged into one structure

The Lisbon treaty merges the three pillars of the EU into one single organisation. This is designed to improve strategic alignment trough better communications and control and to cut down on costs and bureaucracy by eliminating unnecessary duplicate rolls and reducing staff.

Lemming

Dob74 wrote: »

No means No! How dare the government force another referendum down our throats. ... SNIP ...

Dob74 wrote: »

No means do not put this before the electorate again. Is was voted down fair and square. ... SNIP ...

So we shouldn't have amended our constitution to allow for divorce then (to use one example).

tolosenc

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you point out the provision in the Lisbon Treaty that provides for a United States of Europe?

I can provide one that essentially rules it out. Something along the lines of each state maintaining control over national borders and security. I posted it an awful lot back in June, I can probably dig it up if needs be.

And again, could I be reminded about when voting on something became undemocratic? Or should I just not feed the troll?

ParkRunner

If a larger State like Germany, Italy, Spain put this referendum to the people and it was rejected, would it be put to them again? In the next referendum on a European treaty they might as well just put yes on the ballot paper

Vote09ireland

On an interesting note Libertas head Ganley stated he wanted an constituiton like document for Europe (25 pages long only) to the commitee on the lisbon treaty which perhaps proves he is simply Anti Lisbon not anti Europe
Lisbon was in effect a last effort (by Bertie Ahern as Council president) to pass the shreds of the Constitutional treaty which makes Ganleys comments slightly ironic
Lisbon did contain allot of controversial stuff It did not get rid of an Irish commissioner but insured we kept it Under Nice the commission was to be made smaller by 2009 the Lisbon treaty set up a system for every country to have a commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years.
There will be another vote, we will get assurances that lisbon won't upset our neutrality won't make us part of an EU army etc etc, and this will be enough to ask the people again as happened with Denmark and Nice
Before this the vote for the European Parliament will occur in june and even if the increased powers of lisbon don't pass the Parliament is still a important vote and the irish people will be asked whether they are anti lisbon or anti Europe

Furious-Dave

I don't think that Ganley is anti-Europe as such, he just wants to make sure that his company keeps getting contracts from the pentagon. A stronger, more united Europe could reduce the number of US military operations around the world, and so in turn reduce the demand by the pentagon for the military systems that his company manufactures. The US also don't want Europe to be strong enough to hinder their "war on terror" and could be using Ganley to disrupt the European political process.

dresden8

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I don't think that Ganley is anti-Europe as such, he just wants to make sure that his company keeps getting contracts from the pentagon. A stronger, more united Europe could reduce the number of US military operations around the world, and so in turn reduce the demand by the pentagon for the military systems that his company manufactures. The US also don't want Europe to be strong enough to hinder their "war on terror" and could be using Ganley to disrupt the European political process.

If you can hold out long enough without the illuminati or the lizards eating your brain Lidl or Aldi might do a special on tin-foil.

Furious-Dave

LOL. What's odd about a business man looking after the future of his company? Do you really believe that if it was in Americas interest that Europe didn't become more powerful that they wouldn't have people in place to stop it from happening, or at least delay it? Ganley does have contracts with the pentagon and being the chairman of a US military systems manufacturer he definately has connections in CIA and other agencies.

Continued: Here's the wikipedia page for Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley

He claims that the EU constitution should only be 25 pages and that everyone in the EU should have a vote. He only wants a people to have a vote because he knows that people are gullible and he can sway their opinion, with probably more lies. I say until he can prove beyond any doubt that he is not acting in the interest of the US and his company Rivada Networks then he should be forbidden to go anywhere near politics.

dresden8

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I say until he can prove beyond any doubt that he is not acting in the interest of the US and his company Rivada Networks then he should be forbidden to go anywhere near politics.

Eh, Shannon, all your details going to the US government, us being a part of the coalition of the willing, Bertie looking into the great President Bush's eyes etc. etc. etc. We're all linked to the US and the CIA whether you like it or not. (And I don't)

And one of the weaknesses of our Dail is its full of schoolteachers, barristers and publicans. The odd real businessman involved in politics probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

But Ganley is a tosser alright.

Furious-Dave

dresden8 wrote: »

Eh, Shannon, all your details going to the US government, us being a part of the coalition of the willing, Bertie looking into the great President Bush's eyes etc. etc. etc. We're all linked to the US and the CIA whether you like it or not. (And I don't)

And one of the weaknesses of our Dail is its full of schoolteachers, barristers and publicans. The odd real businessman involved in politics probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

But Ganley is a tosser alright.

Businessmen should never be involved in politics as they will always act in their companies interest. Look at the US. Decisions get made based on what is best for the corporations that run the country. There is a difference between a government having links with CIA etc and a private businessman like Ganley who is possibly acting in their favour when opposing something like the Lisbon Treaty.

If it isn't already obvious, I'm fairly anti-American. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that Obama was elected and I honestly believe that he will do his best to make the necessary changes to help improve the current world situation. But he isn't in control and I believe that there needs to be a counter balance to US power. And I believe that balance is Europe.

BlitzKrieg

Sink I have to ask do you have those points saved in a word document on your desktop?

Cause I think this is the 50th or so time since the referendum was *finished* that you had to post those points in response to comments like the following

People on the yes side complain that the no side dont make a coherent argument

cabinteelytom

It's been difficult to understand just what the misgivings concerning the Treaty were; and even more difficult to judge,'Were the misgivings valid?' and 'Is voting against the Treaty the best way to counter the perceived disadvantages?;( or might the dark arts of diplomacy, persuasion and horse-trading, exercised by our Government, have achieved the desired ends).
Post 12-6-07, there's been an understandably emotional (ie angry) reaction to our Government's decision to blank this choice of the Irish people as if it had never happened- in contrast to the Swiss Government of some years back who respected the electorate's choice, and negotiated a unique relationship with the EU.
Some of the misgivings were:
* self-amending Treaty [no more referenda]
* militarisation of the EU
* specific endorsement of NATO
* threats to Ireland's low rate of corporation tax [no loss;that one trick pony won't gallop forever]
* empowerment of the Euro elite (President and Foreign minister)
* ending internal borders; loss of control by nation-states
* the fraud of the Citizens' Initiative
* Charter of Fundamental Rights; gives rights to non-EU foreigners to services and legal process and could oblige governments to grant regular amnesties.
* enlargement ; [most of the Euro elite say it won't happen without this Treaty.]

Any other misgivings to add to this list?

sink

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Sink I have to ask do you have those points saved in a word document on your desktop?

Cause I think this is the 50th or so time since the referendum was *finished* that you had to post those points in response to comments like the following

Nah just searched my post history and copied and pasted. It's always handy to use as a counter argument against people who don't know what they're talking about.

Dob74

Lemming wrote: »

So we shouldn't have amended our constitution to allow for divorce then (to use one example).

Divorce referendum one 1985. Divorce referendum two 1995. Ten years in between not one year.

Dob74

Furious-Dave wrote: »

LOL. What's odd about a business man looking after the future of his company? Do you really believe that if it was in Americas interest that Europe didn't become more powerful that they wouldn't have people in place to stop it from happening, or at least delay it? Ganley does have contracts with the pentagon and being the chairman of a US military systems manufacturer he definately has connections in CIA and other agencies.

Continued: Here's the wikipedia page for Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley

He claims that the EU constitution should only be 25 pages and that everyone in the EU should have a vote. He only wants a people to have a vote because he knows that people are gullible and he can sway their opinion, with probably more lies. I say until he can prove beyond any doubt that he is not acting in the interest of the US and his company Rivada Networks then he should be forbidden to go anywhere near politics.

Unlike Peter Sutherland chairman of BP. How many Iraq's are they going to kill to get the oil out of there. The CIA want this treaty to pass to let Turkey in. A key ally in the war on oil.

BlitzKrieg

havnt alot of these been debunked?

* self-amending Treaty [no more referenda]

From my understanding the self amending treaty means Ireland wont need to hold a referendum everytime a treaty recieves a cosmetic overhaul? Someone gave a great example during the run up to the vote, best I can think of is the renaming of institutes or positions within the EU. The Irish constitution still requires a referendum if the treaty changes in a manner that brings it in conflict with our constitution. That is still firmly in place.

* militarisation of the EU

Honestly this is one of two points about the treaty I felt that debate was justified, it really is an issue at the core of the EU as a whole. But saying that in the run up to the treaty Ireland carved out substantial powers to insure our neutrality. The issue of course is how people feel about the rest of the EU becoming more militarised.

* specific endorsement of NATO

Again I think Ireland was given exception to this in the treaty

* threats to Ireland's low rate of corporation tax [no loss;that one trick pony won't gallop forever]

Good wording, seeing as there was nothing in the treaty about corporation tax and no powers given in it to allow them to change our corporation tax. But still it could be threatened by some unseen unknown force or element within the EU.

* empowerment of the Euro elite (President and Foreign minister)

Isnt this retitling again? Its a renaming of the head of the commission right? No new powers though. Similar case I think of foreign minister (might be a new position rather then renaming but I dont think there's any power in the position beyond representing EU interests, internationally)

* ending internal borders; loss of control by nation-states
* the fraud of the Citizens' Initiative
* Charter of Fundamental Rights; gives rights to non-EU foreigners to services and legal process and could oblige governments to grant regular amnesties.
* enlargement ; [most of the Euro elite say it won't happen without this Treaty.]

These are new complaints to me. Havnt heard anything about boarders in the treaty, I dont think the charter of fundemental rights can do what your suggesting (but maybe a shrewd lawyer can argue it) and the process of enlargement is ongoing regardless of this treaty or not. (Turkey is desperatly still clawing at the door trying to make herself look good )

utick

Furious-Dave wrote: »

He claims that the EU constitution should only be 25 pages and that everyone in the EU should have a vote. He only wants a people to have a vote because he knows that people are gullible and he can sway their opinion, with probably more lies. I say until he can prove beyond any doubt that he is not acting in the interest of the US and his company Rivada Networks then he should be forbidden to go anywhere near politics.

tbh with the amount of money ganley has he would have a much easier time buying politicians votes than trying to persuade 500 million people

djpbarry

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* self-amending Treaty [no more referenda]

Not true - feel free to prove otherwise.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* militarisation of the EU

Meaning what exactly?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* specific endorsement of NATO

Endorsement is not the word I would use. Recognising that certain EU member states are also members of NATO is just common sense.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* threats to Ireland's low rate of corporation tax [no loss;that one trick pony won't gallop forever]

Wrong again. Feel free to prove otherwise.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* empowerment of the Euro elite (President and Foreign minister)

Empowerment? How exactly?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* ending internal borders; loss of control by nation-states

Could you elaborate on this?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* the fraud of the Citizens' Initiative

Fraud? You think it's better NOT to have the Citizens Initiative? You think it's better that the people do not have a means of putting something on the commission's agenda?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* Charter of Fundamental Rights; gives rights to non-EU foreigners to services and legal process and could oblige governments to grant regular amnesties.

Could you elaborate?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* enlargement ; [most of the Euro elite say it won't happen without this Treaty.]

While I do not agree that Lisbon is necessary for future enlargement, why would further enlargement be a bad thing?

dresden8

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Businessmen should never be involved in politics as they will always act in their companies interest.

So, will you be the first to tell IBEC and ISME to stfu when they come out in support of Lisbon 2?

Furious-Dave

The support of businessmen is as far as it should go. But no businessman should be allowed into an influential position in politics. Look at Chaney in the US. How much extra business did Haliburton get because he was vice president? Not to mention all the other companies that people in the Bush Admin are chairperson of. The US War Of Terror in the Middle East has been to the benefit of a certain number of companies, most of which are connected to the Bush Admin, particularly Haliburton.

dresden8

Furious-Dave wrote: »

The support of businessmen is as far as it should go. But no businessman should be allowed into an influential position in politics. Look at Chaney in the US. How much extra business did Haliburton get because he was vice president? Not to mention all the other companies that people in the Bush Admin are chairperson of.

Ganley is nowhere near power. (Apart from his donations to FF which they conveniently forgot about when this stranger "came out of nowhere")

That's sorted so.

Furious-Dave

dresden8 wrote: »

Ganley is nowhere near power. (Apart from his donations to FF which they conveniently forgot about when this stranger "came out of nowhere")

That's sorted so.

Perhaps, but he wants to have people in the EU elections. Who do you think will be in charge of them if they are elected? The EU commission? Also I think the ability to influence the Irish public in the way that he did is far too much power for him to have.

dresden8

So IBEC and ISME can campaign for a yes vote as long as they're totally ineffectual.

Again, sorted.

cabinteelytom

The following Rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, are worded 'for everyone', unlike those articles which apply to 'EU Citizens' or citizens of member states, or to 'workers'. Articles;
14.1 Everyone has a right to education and to have access to vocational training.
15.1 Everyone has a right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.
29. Everyone has the right of access to a free placement service.
41.2 ...the right of every person to be heard before before any individual measure which could affect him or her adversely is taken.
- the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy.
- the obligation of the adninistration to give reasons for it's decisions.
41.3 Every person has the right to have the Community make good any damage caused by the institutions or by it's servants in the performance of their duties in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the member states.
4.3 Any natural or legal person residing in a member state has the right to refer to the Ombudsman of the Union cases of maladministration in the activities of Community institutions or bodies with the exception of the Court of Justice and the court of first instance acting in their judicial role.
[to be continued].

cabinteelytom

Also articles ;
47 Everyone whose right and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with conditions laid down in this Article.
Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independant and impartial tribunal established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised,defended and represented.
Legal aid shall be made available...

Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/justice_home/visit/charte/index.en.html

Comment: When after Lisbon this CFR becomes the the supreme law of this state, and it's interpretation is a power of the european courts, it gives substantial and expensive entitlements to services, information, legal process, legal aid and appeals, to persons who are illegally in the State; and exhausted Governments and cowed minor officials will be tempted just to make what was formerly illegal, legal (eg amnesties for illegals).

cabinteelytom

'Citizens' Initiative' of the Lisbon Treaty; Article 8B

4. Not less than one million citizens who are members of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of it's 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'(my italics).

Comment: The citizens initiative can only be used to push the EU in the direction it is already taking.
This is not an exercise in grass-roots democracy, and that's why I call the citizens' initiative a fraud.