the lisbon treaty- informed opinion

SV

I still don't have a clue what it means.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

AHHHHHHHHHH!!!! More lisbon treaty shoite...!!!

twinytwo

astrofool wrote: »

If we don't accept the Lisbon Treaty, the rest of Europe will find a way to go ahead without us. We'll lose access to the single market (eventually) and companies will avoid Ireland like the plague. If/when the conservatives get in, in the UK, we'll find ourselves isolated with them.

We can talk about the legalities, and commissioners all we want, but the long term consequences of us voting no is to isolate Ireland from the rest of the world, and give up on ever having a sustainable economy.

What a stupid comment to make.. all this going ahead without us ****e is comical... The eu is bound by the laws that were set in the nice treaty.. therefore nothing can be done/changed until everyone agrees... so please stop spreding this nonsence

astrofool

twinytwo wrote: »

What a stupid comment to make.. all this going ahead without us ****e is comical... The eu is bound by the laws that were set in the nice treaty.. therefore nothing can be done/changed until everyone agrees... so please stop spreding this nonsence

And what do you really think will happen in the long term then? Given that the rest of europe has shown no interest in maintaining the status quo.

ShooterSF

astrofool wrote: »

And what do you really think will happen in the long term then? Given that the rest of europe has shown no interest in maintaining the status quo.

Hmm the same thing that happened when France and Holland rejected the last treaty/constitution.

markesmith

I always thought the 'No' vote was more a protest vote at the way things were going, engineered by isolationist/'Special Relationship'/right-wing/Christian groups - e.g. Libertas - into an all-out lobby against it.

At the same time, the politicians handled it poorly. Many of the 'Vote Yes' posters were more dedicated to getting a head-n-shoulders shot of the politician than in giving reasons to vote yes.

And although Europe is bound by different laws/regulations that they can't "go ahead without Ireland", that is certainly something they will do in the long-run. I can't see France, Germany et al being held back by some naysayers in the top left-hand corner of the Continent.

I'll be voting Yes, but the Lisbon Treaty is evidence to me that, often, (adopts Mr. Burns voice) democracy often does not work.

astrofool

ShooterSF wrote: »

Hmm the same thing that happened when France and Holland rejected the last treaty/constitution.

That their next government would run on the basis that they would accept the Lisbon(which we negotiated) treaty? Or do you really think that the rest of Europe will renogotiate Lisbon to suit Ireland?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Deleted User wrote: »

First reaction to a well written post. You pretty much showed the exact perosn who votes No.

Ignorant.

Lame lame argument, GTFO....

nacho libre

markesmith wrote: »

I always thought the 'No' vote was more a protest vote at the way things were going, engineered by isolationist/'Special Relationship'/right-wing/Christian groups - e.g. Libertas - into an all-out lobby against it.

At the same time, the politicians handled it poorly. Many of the 'Vote Yes' posters were more dedicated to getting a head-n-shoulders shot of the politician than in giving reasons to vote yes.

And although Europe is bound by different laws/regulations that they can't "go ahead without Ireland", that is certainly something they will do in the long-run. I can't see France, Germany et al being held back by some naysayers in the top left-hand corner of the Continent.

I'll be voting Yes, but the Lisbon Treaty is evidence to me that, often, (adopts Mr. Burns voice) democracy often does not work.

so they'll draw up new legislation to punish us. which proves the rules can be changed as we go along despite assurances to the contrary

democracy does work because you will be getting the oportunity to vote again. which you would no doubt have welcomed if the majority of the electorate had voted yes. otherwise you'd be posting on here complaining democracy doesn't work because people were ignorant in the first vote and hence should be asked to vote again

anyway, the treaty will pass by a wide margin the second time around because people are scared and those who are wavering will come over to the yes side after iceland's invoked a few times.

the intellectual euro-skeptics who are impervious to this recession will vote no. those who are nationalistic - and put it above monetary concerns (usually well-off too) will vote no

the majority whose pockets are lighter will vote yes lest there pocker get even lighter from saying no to Europe again. afterall, in an economic ice age we all need to huddle together to keep warm from the bitter winds of an economic downturn and await the sun of regrowth that will come from further integration.

sid4lev

Yekreb, Im a "Yes" man, as ive told you elsewhere.
I think that the majority of the "No" people are purely ignorant as to its content.
I voted yes, (and will do so again) and I completely agree with what you've said in the op and subsequent to it. However some minor corrections are due.
The European Convention of Human Rights has been "enforceable" since the passing of the European Convention of Human Rights Act 2003. Its not even enforceable per se...all that act states is that our courts are supposed to take the convention into consideration when passing judgments.
What Lisbon would have done, is introduced "the Charter of Fundamental rights" (akin to similar charter in Canada), which would have for the first time given us a proper basis under which to vindicate our rights without taking a very expensive claim to what is in my opinion the arbitrary european court of human rights (which for those of you who dont know, has NOTHING to do with the EU/EC), whose judgments aren't even binding on our courts, merely "persuasive".
Put simply, the only places where are rights are currently vindicated in any significant way are:
1) Our own consititution BUT most of the rights we actually "think" we have are only "implied" within its articles, which means that one day a court may rule that you have that right, and another day, that you do not (obviously depending on your claim). For example, your right to privicy is not expressly stated in the constitution but is an "inherent and uninumerated" right which in my opinion opens (and has opened in the past) a gateway to undue use of discretion by the superior courts.
2) the European Convention of Human Rights: long story short, its articles are interpreted by the european court of human rights, to which you will not have access until you have gone as far as (and lost) in the Supreme Court....theres a lot more to it, but i couldnt be bothered explaining...its unnecessary...all you need to know that it would take a lot of effort, stress and MONEY to enforce your right under the convention

BUT

The Charter which would have been introduced by Lisbon, would have given each and every EU citizen a very long list of rights, fully binding on and directly enforceable by the lowest of courts in any member state.

Thats that.

Another reason why I voted yes (and this has been hugely overlooked) is because
1) the treaty (i cant remember the exact article) set up a fundamental basis on which the EU/EC could have introduced global warming legislation...it was a pretty vague provision as far as i can remember but a massive step in the right direction, in my opinion
2) there was a similarly vague article, deep within the treaty relating to restrictions on prohibitions on cloning related scientific advancements ... another huge step as in my opinion cloning soon will be (if it not already is) an extremely contentious area and one that in my opinion is crucial to our advancement as a race (that sound geeky, but, hey, im a geek!)

rant over

(yekreb, hu ever would have guessed that it was corp law i studied??);)

Call Me Jimmy

Spyral wrote: »

Just feck the bullies. They should respect the original no vote.

They're not very good bullies then...

"In my opinion it would be wise for you to give me your lunch money but if you say no then I won't take it"
"No"
"k..."

Ceartgoleor

ClioV6 wrote: »

I still don't have a clue what it means.

This is probably the most annoying thing you hear nowadays in Ireland regarding the Lisbon Treaty. Why do people expect to have massively important information spoonfed to them? You'd think if you were hearing about something day after day in the media over the course of a year or two, and you didn't understand it you'd go and look it up, even wikipedia it for a basic break down.

Its just laziness really on behalf of people not willing to do any work regarding a hugely important issue to everyone.

PrivateEye

If Daniel Cohn-Bendit says vote yes, common sense tells me to vote no. Free market liberal who embodies the whole thing in my eyes.

General Zod

As a result of the lisbon treaty and the upcoming "ah, sure we all know ye didn't really want to vote no" Lisbon II, I have abandoned all interest and hope in the Irish political system, that it is in any way representative of the will of the people or that any real change occurs with my vote.

From now on, I will only vote in Irish initiated constitutional referenda and for Bin Tax protesters in local and general elections.

Valmont

twinytwo wrote: »

+1

I wonder why you're still voting no when every single mad issue you had with the Lisbon treaty was factually discounted in brutal fashion in the Lisbon 2 thread. Just goes to show some people are literally impervious to reason.

FlyOver

Ceartgoleor wrote: »

This is probably the most annoying thing you hear nowadays in Ireland regarding the Lisbon Treaty. Why do people expect to have massively important information spoonfed to them? You'd think if you were hearing about something day after day in the media over the course of a year or two, and you didn't understand it you'd go and look it up, even wikipedia it for a basic break down.

Its just laziness really on behalf of people not willing to do any work regarding a hugely important issue to everyone.

1) Politicians have an obligation to to inform the public of such matters. The public always need to be spoon fed. It is the government/European government that are putting this vote to the people after all.

2) How can you generalise that the majority of the population DO NOT have an interest in the Lisbon Treaty, because the media say so? You go up to an OAP and ask them what Wikipedia is! Your way of thinking doesnt include all the members of the public.

3) Political ignorance has and always will be there.