North West Candidates

smiles302

Does anyone want to go through the pros and cons of the north west candidates?



*such lovely lovely weather we are having*

Zuiderzee

Well, I wish I could write in a candidate - Luke 'Ming' Flanigan springs to mind.

My biggest problem is that apart from Ganley / Libertas and Sinn Fein they all seem to support the Lisbon treaty, which I am still not too hot on.

I really dont like the fact that we have to do it twice, and that currently no one else has any choice in the matter

There really is a lack of choice

Steviemak

The country voted in a Pro Lisbon govt - thats democracy. If Sinn Fein get into power then they can have a referendum on leaving the EU for good - thats democracy.

Zuiderzee

Stevie, that is not fair comment -

It is obvious that most people in the state are pro EU.

Being anti Lisbon does not make one anti EU.
We elected a pro EU Government, but rejected the Lisbon treaty - thats democracy.

Sinn Fein, who I do not support - do not want to leave the EU.

Libertas - who I do not support - to the best of my knowledge also do not want to leave the EU in the sense that UKIP do.

However, I dont fel that the current version of Lisbon treaty is democratic or in the best interests of Ireland, I also do not trust the Government or FG to interperet it.

I really would like to see genuine concerns fully addressed, a clearer treaty with clearer information available and dont want people scared into accepting it.

Lisbon has nothing to do with the current economic crisis, but it will be used as a lever.

I do remember that when Nice II went through we were assured by FF and others that there was no way whatsoever we would join the PfP without referendum.

That was a manafesto promise in 1997, yet in 1999 we joined without referendum.

I dont like being hoodwinked, being lied to or being told by a political establishment with little credibility left to go back and do it again because our democratic collective decision did not suit them.

I am also unhappy with the lack of choice

citizensimon.blogspot.com

Lockstep

I'm rather fond of O'Keeffe.

She's the woman who exposed the corruption leading to the Beef Tribunal.
Was willing to go to jail to protect her sources.

smiles302

I don't really like Libertas... They seem very No No No and their why never makes much sense.
(hoping I'm making sense)

And that's as far as my knowledge towards this election goes..

Does anyone know how much of a say if any Europe has on issues such as abortion?
John Higgins (hoping I got his name right)
gave a bit of a speach on the right to life etc on www.campaignwatch.ie but didn't answer any other questions lol.

PopeBuckfastXVI

smiles302 wrote: »

Does anyone know how much of a say if any Europe has on issues such as abortion?

Europe has no say on the legality of abortion in Ireland.

Zuiderzee

O Keefe is who I would normally vote for, but as I said, the Lisbon thing is an issue for me.

citizensimon.blogspot.com

WooPeeA

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Europe has no say on the legality of abortion in Ireland.

Not only in Ireland but anywhere else, and the Lisbon Treaty will only make it stronger.

Steviemak

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I am also unhappy with the lack of choice

You can not possibly have someone to vote for that totally reflects your views unless you vote for yourself.

I am never totally happy with all policies politicians put forward but democracy is about compromise. Lisbon is a compromise made by mature democracies across the EU. And Ireland did very very well out of that compromise.

Our democracy is representative democracy - you need to come to terms with that, seriously.

BlitzKrieg

I don't really like Libertas... They seem very No No No and their why never makes much sense.
(hoping I'm making sense)

Dont worry

You have them spot on.

ionix5891

Besides Libertas and SF who are loonie and have been discussed to death

what about other candidates? who of the current lot has the most experience? and where can we check their voting records?

sorry if this was answered elsewhere

ednwireland

this morning apparantley pat the cope is topping the polls that have been done here
the current polls show pat the cope, jim higgins and harkin getting in

depressing isn't it

mind you the calibre of the rest of the candidates leaves a lot to be desired i've not heard of any of them for 5 years so i'm not voting for any of the existing meps (or pat the cope - he's been on the gravy train long enough)

oscarBravo

I'm torn between voting for the candidates I admire most on a personal/political level, and voting strategically to keep Ganley out.

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm torn between voting for the candidates I admire most on a personal/political level, and voting strategically to keep Ganley out.

I would find it difficult to identify a strategic voting strategy for such a purpose. I would like to think it is not necessary.

Has any poll shown Ganley on more than 9%? Do people think that some who intend to vote for Libertas lie to pollsters about their intentions, and that the true level of support for Libertas might be higher than the polls show? [Might Caroline Simons get an astonishing 2%?]

Scofflaw

ionix5891 wrote: »

Besides Libertas and SF who are loonie and have been discussed to death

what about other candidates? who of the current lot has the most experience? and where can we check their voting records?

sorry if this was answered elsewhere

These guys - votewatch.eu - have records. My only caveat is that they changed Mary-Lou's attendance record the moment Sinn Fein objected to the accurate one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

I'm voting strategically to keep Ganley out.


O'Keeffe is getting my No1 but her vote will transfer so after that, it's strategy all the way.

Will probabaly go;
O'Keeffe (will transfer)
Mac Loughlainn (will probabaly transfer)
Harkin (given she'll be fighting with Ganley for the seat)
Higgings/the Cope (they'll likely get in anyway

And then all the way to the bottomg with Ganley getting my last choice.

Some of you may rememebr me in the Europolitics forum from my sceptisism to the Lisbon Treaty, despite this, Ganley epitomises everything I'm worred about for Europe.
Keeping him out is my priority.

Steviemak

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ganley epitomises everything I'm worred about for Europe.

Exactly he wants a more federal and military Europe with the council of minisiter's and commission's say reduced which by default means Irelands say shrinks significantly.

Not what I want and I'm very Pro Lisbon for this reason as it locks in our overly weighted voting rights.

toiletduck

kickoutthejams wrote: »

And then all the way to the bottomg with Ganley getting my last choice.

Mind me asking why do you do this i.e. give preferences all the way down even to those whom you don't want in for any reason? I know people who do it but have never gotten a proper answer out of them for it!

ixtlan

toiletduck wrote: »

Mind me asking why do you do this i.e. give preferences all the way down even to those whom you don't want in for any reason? I know people who do it but have never gotten a proper answer out of them for it!

Well there is a reason to do it down to the second last name if you have any marginal preference at all for one candidate over another.

However for the very last name you should not put it on paper, since they could conceiveably get a vote from that (though realistically it would be very much against the odds).

Sorry, I'm wrong, I think... If your vote goes all the way to the last preference, then all other candidates must be out of contention so it doesn't make a difference?

Ix.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ixtlan wrote: »

If your vote goes all the way to the last preference, then all other candidates must be out of contention so it doesn't make a difference?

Ix.

That's correct.

oscarBravo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Has any poll shown Ganley on more than 9%?

Leaving inside the "internal polls", it worries me slightly that the bookies are shortening their odds on Ganley dramatically. Also, the Mayo News has just predicted Ganley for the third seat, although I don't think it's unfair to describe the paper as editorially anti-Lisbon.

Lockstep

toiletduck wrote: »

Mind me asking why do you do this i.e. give preferences all the way down even to those whom you don't want in for any reason? I know people who do it but have never gotten a proper answer out of them for it!

No worries man; I really really don't want Ganley getting in.

Giving every candidate a preference minimises the chance of him getting a seat.
I really don't want to take the chance of him getting a transfer.

View

toiletduck wrote: »

Mind me asking why do you do this i.e. give preferences all the way down even to those whom you don't want in for any reason? I know people who do it but have never gotten a proper answer out of them for it!

Well I always do it. Partly it is to keep my vote "in play" for as long as possible. In the unlikely event that the counters are looking at my 6th or 7th preferences, I do want them to matter. Partly it is also because I enjoy "voting against" some candidates by giving them the lowest preferences that I can.

At this stage, I tend to vote something like follows:
i) Candidates/Parties whose policies I agree with most get high preferences,
ii) Candidates/Parties whose policies I fundamentally disagree with are guarenteed low/last preferences,
iii) The middle preferences tend to get filled on the basis of "Which of these would do the least damage if they got in?"

Hope that helps...

toiletduck

Well I see kickoutthejams reasoning (keeping Ganley out), but I don't get the 'keep the vote in play'.

Anyways, I'm still undecided (in the NorthWest).

smeg_for_brains

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Stevie, that is not fair comment -


I do remember that when Nice II went through we were assured by FF and others that there was no way whatsoever we would join the PfP without referendum.

That was a manafesto promise in 1997, yet in 1999 we joined without referendum.

citizensimon.blogspot.com

well done for remembering that one.
I remember them also saying at the time that it would not compromise our neutrality.
Then later in the Dail, some FF guy , maybe Bertie, I can't remember, was asked a defence-related question and replied "we are obliged to do in under PFP".

I remember thinking.. "hang on a sec...."

smeg_for_brains

There is also a voting register kept here

http://greens-efa-service.org/votetracker/en/social-protection-and-inclusion.html

keep in mind that these seem to be issues or amendments put forward by the
Greens, European free alliance, so is limited. It does give you an idea of how candidates vote.

In the NW, marian Harkin seems to vote with the centre/right nearly all the time, so that knocks her off my personal list.

I never vote FF anyway.

FG are in with Berlusconi's party and I really cant stand that guy so that's them out.

I was happy with Ireland losing a commissioner with Lisbon. I find the EU a good counterbalance to nearly constant FF leadership in this country and the less influence they have over there the better. Labour also want to keep the Irish Commissioner , and alse create some new ones. A waste of money, so I wont vote for them either.

I cant even get the Libertas Website to load on the computer.

If cathy Sinnott was in NW I would maybe have voted for her, but it looks like I wont be voting .

My main issues for the near future would be:

Expansion : not for the next 10 years until the last batch get embedded and are able to contribute to the next lot.

Commmissioners - reduce to save money

Irish language - do not have as an official language where documents have to be translated into Irish. We would then have other minority languages looking for the same status due the peoples' parochial pride. A total waste of money.

Cant say I can find anyone to agree with me on the above.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I do remember that when Nice II went through we were assured by FF and others that there was no way whatsoever we would join the PfP without referendum.

That was a manafesto promise in 1997, yet in 1999 we joined without referendum.

Yes and Nice II was run and ratified on 19th October 2002

Do you see a problem with your timeline here?

smeg_for_brains

smeg_for_brains wrote: »

There is also a voting register kept here



If cathy Sinnott was in NW I would maybe have voted for her, but it looks like I wont be voting .
.

After looking at the Cathy Sinnott post,... looks like more research would have been required there before my vote was cast in that direction:)

spank_inferno

oscarBravo wrote: »

Leaving inside the "internal polls", it worries me slightly that the bookies are shortening their odds on Ganley dramatically. Also, the Mayo News has just predicted Ganley for the third seat, although I don't think it's unfair to describe the paper as editorially anti-Lisbon.

I heard that on the "Last word" on Today FM yesterday evening. (or was it newstalk)
It was quite interesting that they were calling the 3rd seat for Ganley.
They mentioned a large swell of workers on the ground for him.

Perhaps its too late to make a difference?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ok... so at this point Ganley is 5/4 to get a seat with Paddy Power.

Fair enough.

Let's have a look at some of their other odds...
Harkin to get a seat: 1/7
Gallagher to get a seat: 1/9
Higgins to get a seat: 1/12

After that I wouldn't read a huge amount into Ganley's 5/4 to be honest, more fuss about nothing from the party with no policies.

dreenman

I am amazed that so many people on this board are so Anti-Libertas they are basically saying that Democracy will be better without an Opposition!

Also

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Europe has no say on the legality of abortion in Ireland.

Well this is not strictly true basically Declaration 17 of the Treaty "Declaration concerning Primacy" reiterates that "well settled" case law of the Court of Justice of European Union means that treaties and laws adopted under treaties have primacy over the law of member states.

Lisbon makes NO mention of abortion and neither therefore does it give any guarantees about future laws concerning abortion being adopted by the Union.

As for 'protection' under certain protocols - these can be amended without recourse to another treaty and therefore without recourse to a referendum in this country.

By the way for what it matters I would be opposed to much of the right wing garbage being spouted by Ganley and also I would be in favour of legalising abortion ... but I very much want to see real argument and scrutiny in Europe because once Lisbon is adopted there will be precious little of it in this country.

BlitzKrieg

so many people on this board are so Anti-Libertas they are basically saying that Democracy will be better without an Opposition!

yeah cause libertas are the only opposition...

oscarBravo

dreenman wrote: »

I am amazed that so many people on this board are so Anti-Libertas they are basically saying that Democracy will be better without an Opposition!

That's a total non-sequitur, tbh.

As for 'protection' under certain protocols - these can be amended without recourse to another treaty and therefore without recourse to a referendum in this country.

Nope. The protocols form part of the treaties, and as such any amendment to them would require unanimous ratification by all member states.

Given that the protocol in question directly refers to an article of our Constitution, I can't see us ratifying a change to it without a referendum, can you?

By the way for what it matters I would be opposed to much of the right wing garbage being spouted by Ganley and also I would be in favour of legalising abortion ... but I very much want to see real argument and scrutiny in Europe because once Lisbon is adopted there will be precious little of it in this country.

That's just bog-standard anti-Lisbon empty rhetoric.

Dinner

dreenman wrote: »

I am amazed that so many people on this board are so Anti-Libertas they are basically saying that Democracy will be better without an Opposition!

Yep, democracy will be better without opposition...
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5834/libertas.jpg

dreenman

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a total non-sequitur, tbh. Nope. The protocols form part of the treaties, and as such any amendment to them would require unanimous ratification by all member states.

Given that the protocol in question directly refers to an article of our Constitution, I can't see us ratifying a change to it without a referendum, can you? That's just bog-standard anti-Lisbon empty rhetoric.

Thank you that is exactly the point! The amendment would be to a protocol no referendum required!! - only a new treaty would need a referendum! This is the last treaty ever needed to be voted on by the Irish people and remember member state law is subservient to European Union law - we can take all the referendum we want they will be meaningless.

oscarBravo

dreenman wrote: »

Thank you that is exactly the point! The amendment would be to a protocol no referendum required!! - only a new treaty would need a referendum! This is the last treaty ever needed to be voted on by the Irish people and remember member state law is subservient to European Union law - we can take all the referendum we want they will be meaningless.

All of the above is complete, total and utter fiction. It's archetypal Libertas FUD.

In other words, it's nonsense. You'll have to try harder.

Hitman Actual

dreenman wrote: »

Thank you that is exactly the point! The amendment would be to a protocol no referendum required!! - only a new treaty would need a referendum! This is the last treaty ever needed to be voted on by the Irish people and remember member state law is subservient to European Union law - we can take all the referendum we want they will be meaningless.

You are completely wrong in your deduction there. Any further amendments to the Treaties (post Lisbon) must be "ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". So if an amendment is adjudged to be in conflict with the Crotty judgement, we can only ratify it by referendum. This is a very basic part of Lisbon (see Article 48), and if you don't understand this you're in trouble with the rest of the Treaty.

Or are you trying to argue some other meaningless rhetorical point?

lostexpectation

marian harkin seems quite a reasonable person in comparison to the rest

dreenman

Hitman Actual wrote: »

You are completely wrong in your deduction there. Any further amendments to the Treaties (post Lisbon) must be "ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". So if an amendment is adjudged to be in conflict with the Crotty judgement, we can only ratify it by referendum. This is a very basic part of Lisbon (see Article 48), and if you don't understand this you're in trouble with the rest of the Treaty.

Or are you trying to argue some other meaningless rhetorical point?

Oh dear please dont use the "rhetorical point" jibe so beloved of the school debating society, well done junior what next... pointing out grammatical mistakes?

Meanwhile back to the real argument ... Dont start hiding behind The Crotty Judgement. It has indeed served this state well. But remember the Supreme court ruled that a referendum was required for amendments of European Union treaties where transfers of sovereignty to Europe are involved (even then the judgment only related to foreign policy) and without it we wouldn't of course have had a first and now a second referendum on Lisbon

However if passed Lisbon I would have handed over sovereignty!!

Recall what we were being asked to vote on

“No provision of this [Irish] Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”

As all the pro-Lisbon apologists know any attempt to force a referendum on future changes as per Crotty would have almost no chance of succeeding in front of the Supreme Court today.

One of the main effects of the Lisbon Treaty is that European Union legislation changes will never ever again be held up by the likes of Ireland voting the "wrong" way!

Hitman Actual

Again, you are completely wrong. That Article already exists in our Constitution; it's just being renumbered. See here.

Irish Constitution Article 29 wrote:

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

If it already exists, how can Lisbon change the current position?

dreenman

oscarBravo wrote: »

All of the above is complete, total and utter fiction. It's archetypal Libertas FUD.

In other words, it's nonsense. You'll have to try harder.

Hey great repost! You conservatives are really getting the hang of free speech... and ermmm perhaps you should try reading the treaty?

BlitzKrieg

ermmm perhaps you should try reading the treaty?

perhaps you should read the Irish constitution

dreenman

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Again, you are completely wrong. That Article already exists in our Constitution; it's just being renumbered. Constitution[/b]%20of%20IrelandNov2004.pdf]See here.:



If it already exists, how can Lisbon change the current position?

So you're one of those who believe that even with reference to Crotty that in all likelihood that Lisbon could be ratified without a referendum!!

BlitzKrieg

One of the main effects of the Lisbon Treaty is that European Union legislation changes will never ever again be held up by the likes of Ireland voting the "wrong" way!

since you are such a fan of reading the treaty

article 48 section 4

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by
the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be
made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with
their respective constitutional requirements.

and since you already pointed it out

Supreme court ruled that a referendum was required for amendments of European Union treaties where transfers of sovereignty to Europe are involved

I think you can stop praddling BS...

Hitman Actual

dreenman wrote: »

So you're one of those who believe that even with reference to Crotty that in all likelihood that Lisbon could be ratified without a referendum!!

Edit: I've read that quote wrong; I thought you were referring to what would happen if Lisbon was ratified. No, Lisbon can't be ratified without a (Yes vote in a) referendum.

Here's Article 48 of Lisbon anyway, which deals with further ratification of Treaty amendments:

wrote:

Article 48
(ex Article 48 TEU)
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

Ordinary revision procedure
2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.

3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.

The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

Simplified revision procedures
6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

Our constitutional requirements are through the Crotty judgement, and this won't change one bit with the Lisbon Treaty. This is fact.

Out of curiosity, why do you believe what you've posted in this thread? Is it Libertas brain-washing? Why can't you do a bit of research on your own? Do many more of you believe these things?

BlitzKrieg

as it came up in a recent debate that drove me up the wall

5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

Subsection 5 does not give the european council any powers over the national governments to overturn decisions or delays, the subsection's role is to stop unadressed amendments getting sidetracked by a sort national filebusters. Going by the current and future powers of the council of europe, the worse they can do is ask our government to ask us again in a 2nd referendum, in the more common scenario, they will more likely discuss adjusting amendments to suit the state with a disagreement. And after that we will still have to ratify it by our constitutional requirements

Scofflaw

dreenman wrote: »

Oh dear please dont use the "rhetorical point" jibe so beloved of the school debating society, well done junior what next... pointing out grammatical mistakes?

Meanwhile back to the real argument ... Dont start hiding behind The Crotty Judgement. It has indeed served this state well. But remember the Supreme court ruled that a referendum was required for amendments of European Union treaties where transfers of sovereignty to Europe are involved (even then the judgment only related to foreign policy) and without it we wouldn't of course have had a first and now a second referendum on Lisbon

However if passed Lisbon I would have handed over sovereignty!!

Recall what we were being asked to vote on

“No provision of this [Irish] Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”

As all the pro-Lisbon apologists know any attempt to force a referendum on future changes as per Crotty would have almost no chance of succeeding in front of the Supreme Court today.

One of the main effects of the Lisbon Treaty is that European Union legislation changes will never ever again be held up by the likes of Ireland voting the "wrong" way!

Here's Article 29.4.10 of Bunreacht:

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

Notice anything? Why yes - it's exactly the same stipulation as you say Lisbon is introducing. It's been there since 1973. The only reason it's appearing in the Lisbon amendment is to update the text to reflect the final abolition of the EC.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dreenman

You can quote article 48 all you like you know fine it is all about future treaty changes. The whole idea of Lisbon is to streamline legislation making and to virtually make future treaty amendments redundant.

The whole point of the referendum is to amend the constitution to accept the Lisbon Treaty including Declaration 17.
As everybody knows Declaration 17 clarifies and restates that Union law takes supremacy over member state law.

Laws made under the Treaty of European Union will then assume the primacy of European Law as per Declaration 17.
Only future amendments to treaties would possibly require another referendum. Not law changes! Hopefully another Crotty will emerge to challenge this but I fear not.

The only protection for the Irish people will be the voting rights of our representatives and the so called protocols.

As for what stance I come from - a socialist stance - You probably havent heard of a great Brit politician called Tony Benn ( think he was the only good Brit). You should check out his opinions he recognises the EU for what it has become i.e. a means to prevent any democratically elected socialist govenment from enacting socilaist polcies and to oil the wheels of capitalism. (the same wheels that have now come off!).

I'm off to have a whiskey, good luck to all you right wing pit bulls.

Scofflaw

dreenman wrote: »

You can quote article 48 all you like you know fine it is all about future treaty changes. The whole idea of Lisbon is to streamline legislation making and to virtually make future treaty amendments redundant.

The whole point of the referendum is to amend the constitution to accept the Lisbon Treaty including Declaration 17.
As everybody knows Declaration 17 clarifies and restates that Union law takes supremacy over member state law.

Laws made under the Treaty of European Union will then assume the primacy of European Law as per Declaration 17.
Only future amendments to treaties would possibly require another referendum. Not law changes! Hopefully another Crotty will emerge to challenge this but I fear not.

The only protection for the Irish people will be the voting rights of our representatives and the so called protocols.

As for what stance I come from - a socialist stance - You probably havent heard of a great Brit politician called Tony Benn ( think he was the only good Brit). You should check out his opinions he recognises the EU for what it has become i.e. a means to prevent any democratically elected socialist govenment from enacting socilaist polcies and to oil the wheels of capitalism. (the same wheels that have now come off!).

I'm off to have a whiskey, good luck to all you right wing pit bulls.

Given the hash you've made of something quite simple - bit in Constitution = bit in Constitution = no change - I dread to imagine what you think socialism consists of.

Anyway, enjoy your whiskey.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

dreenman wrote: »

You can quote article 48 all you like you know fine it is all about future treaty changes. The whole idea of Lisbon is to streamline legislation making and to virtually make future treaty amendments amending treaties redundant.

FYP

Lisbon allows individual amendments to be ratified separately through the normal national ratification procedures, instead of requiring an new international treaty between the agreed parties just to amend the existing treaties. Any amendments using this new procedure that have any impact upon our constitution would require a referendum.