ifa lisbon 2

alleyb

Well as an ifa member my support for lisbon 2 is in the balance, although i voted yes the last time and probably will again because i feel europe has been good for ireland in general ( although we gave up our valuable fishing waters) but due to the reps treatment of farmers and lack of protection of farmers payments(forestry etc) the demon in me is tempted to kick the government in the stones . interested to hear other views on lisbon 2

irish_bob

alleyb wrote: »

Well as an ifa member my support for lisbon 2 is in the balance, although i voted yes the last time and probably will again because i feel europe has been good for ireland in general ( although we gave up our valuable fishing waters) but due to the reps treatment of farmers and lack of protection of farmers payments(forestry etc) the demon in me is tempted to kick the government in the stones . interested to hear other views on lisbon 2

my advice to any farmer contemplating voting no is that now is not the time to kick the goverment in the nuts , vote against them over reps at the next general election , any short term satisfaction from voting no will be outlived by the consequences for agriculture in this country in a more isolated ireland , lets not cut off our nose to spite our face

i often hear farmers complain how europe is behind all the red tape involved in farming in this country , this is not true , the red tape exists primarily so as to keep civil servants at the department of agriculture in jobs , were ireland to leave the EU in the morning , spot checks , farm inspections etc would continue as theese people have to do something to justify thier unsackable permanently pensionable bullet proof from rescession possition

if we vote no again , dont be so naieve as to think the powers that be in brussells will think , oh , we better be nice to the irish , we ( especially farmers ) need them a hell of a lot more than they need us , without the single payment , every farmer in the country this year would be flate broke

Bitten & Hisses

Agreed. European directives are not the root of all evil, but the cack-handed implementation of them by our own government is woeful. From what I can see, the less power our representatives in Dublin have, the better. It's not like they've been doing such a bang-up job to date.

djmc

I have mixed views on it although I do think we are better off in europe
I also belive no means no, not we will do it again till you vote the way we want u to.
So a my own protest to this ill stay at home

irish_bob

djmc wrote: »

I have mixed views on it although I do think we are better off in europe
I also belive no means no, not we will do it again till you vote the way we want u to.
So a my own protest to this ill stay at home

i voted yes the last time , most people who voted no the last time did so because they were pissed off about the rescession and wanted to lash out , thier were very few true believers on the no side , as for the arguement that no means no and that should be that , its stubborn to the point of being obtuse , if someone asked you to vote on whether you wanted to go over a cliff in a shopping trolley and you said yes , would you insist on saying yes if asked again just for the sake of sticking to your f***ing principals , screw that , im not willing to be poor for my love of pure democrocy

mooverlive

bob i voted no last time because i di not know what i was voting for , and i believe the goverment didnt know what it was doing either , and quite honestly i still dont trust them , they must b the biggest shower i ever came across, one and all christ look at whats happening today there giving carroll more bloody money christ bring on an election fast , any no should mean no

djmc

irish_bob wrote: »

i voted yes the last time , most people who voted no the last time did so because they were pissed off about the rescession and wanted to lash out , thier were very few true believers on the no side , as for the arguement that no means no and that should be that , its stubborn to the point of being obtuse , if someone asked you to vote on whether you wanted to go over a cliff in a shopping trolley and you said yes , would you insist on saying yes if asked again just for the sake of sticking to your f***ing principals , screw that , im not willing to be poor for my love of pure democrocy

As I said I have mixed feelings on it
I voted no last time as I did not understand it
Also farmers and fishermen were a lot better off 30 years ago
eg You could sell 20 cattle and buy a house without any grants
Today with (grants for cheap food schemes) I make nothing
I dont give into scare tatics that we will be getting less from europe either
even if it came to that I might be better getting a weekly wage than getting f all for producing cheap food.
So Im not voting
You can vote what ever way u like.
Then again I might vote NO for democrocy it is a democrocy after all

irish_bob

djmc wrote: »

As I said I have mixed feelings on it
I voted no last time as I did not understand it
Also farmers and fishermen were a lot better off 30 years ago
eg You could sell 20 cattle and buy a house without any grants
Today with (grants for cheap food schemes) I make nothing
I dont give into scare tatics that we will be getting less from europe either
even if it came to that I might be better getting a weekly wage than getting f all for producing cheap food.
So Im not voting
You can vote what ever way u like.
Then again I might vote NO for democrocy it is a democrocy after all

so you think by voting no , brussells will see to it that a farmer with 20 cattle can make a living , brussells have nothing to do with the poor price of milk at the moment or the poor price of grain , as for the comment from mooverlive about voting no due to the crap goverment we have , the way to hurt the goverment is by voting against them at the next general election , the funny thing is , we will have many people who will vote no to lisbon yet yes to fianna fail next time round and if you didnt know what your were voting for , surely the thing to do is to not vote at all , thanks to that mouth ben dunne , the catchphrase , IF YOU DONT KNOW , VOTE KNOW took hold

djmc

Im saying while I belive the country has benifited from being in europe
money for roads grants etc. Im not sure agriculture is any better off
If we were not getting grants most of us would not be able to produce cheap food for supermarkets give money to millers ag stores machenery dealers tax man etc.
So either food prices would rise or farmers would go out of buisness along with a lot of agri related buisness

Min

I voted no last time, I don't believe the president of Europe should be simply installed by politicians, they could bring Europe closer to the people by having the people of Europe vote on who they want to represent Europe abroad.

Bad enough we have unelected commissioners and too many of them making rules, bring some democracy back to Europe rather than a Chinese government type system.

alleyb

As i said i voted yes the last time and probably will this time but the way its been launched this time using so called celebs and an irish premiership footballer to give the campaign the x factor would make me sick, as if a guy who earns 100000 plus per week in the uk is going to effect how i may decide to vote is bordering on the bazar, considering that our govn ministers didn't know the details of the treaty the last time was also very scary

johngalway

Haven't read the replies, just the opening post.

I voted yes last time. I'm in my final Reps 3 year, won't get into another scheme, that was worth €11,000+ to me each year. I've to increase stock numbers this/next year to qualify for another payment and due solely to a department cock up I'm also facing repaying over €6,500 from future payments, depending on appeal.

All that has left me with one option to survive, farm assist.

Do I want to vote yes this time? Hell no.

Will I? Yes, and even though it's the right thing to do it'll stick in my craw for a very long time being on the same side as this stinking bunch of idiots in Government now.

irish_bob

djmc wrote: »

Im saying while I belive the country has benifited from being in europe
money for roads grants etc. Im not sure agriculture is any better off
If we were not getting grants most of us would not be able to produce cheap food for supermarkets give money to millers ag stores machenery dealers tax man etc.
So either food prices would rise or farmers would go out of buisness along with a lot of agri related buisness

food prices would be the same as europe has nothing to do with what price the market sets , what would happen is , thousands of small farmers would go out of business and whoever is left would have to scale up

djmc

Ok Im convinced Ill VOTE NO

CJhaughey

I look at it like this, This electorate voted no last time, no means NO.
If we had voted yes would we be asked to have another vote just to clarify that we really meant yes?
I don't like being pressurised by anyone, not our Dimwit gov't nor a Europe that doesn't understand what No means and I will be voting No again.
This should have been flagged when Nice2 was run, basically Europe is saying you keep voting until the right result or else.
Thats not democracy, thats bullying. Feck that for a game of soldiers.

djmc

CJhaughey wrote: »

I look at it like this, This electorate voted no last time, no means NO.
If we had voted yes would we be asked to have another vote just to clarify that we really meant yes?
I don't like being pressurised by anyone, not our Dimwit gov't nor a Europe that doesn't understand what No means and I will be voting No again.
This should have been flagged when Nice2 was run, basically Europe is saying you keep voting until the right result or else.
Thats not democracy, thats bullying. Feck that for a game of soldiers.

Well said

irish_bob

CJhaughey wrote: »

I look at it like this, This electorate voted no last time, no means NO.
If we had voted yes would we be asked to have another vote just to clarify that we really meant yes?
I don't like being pressurised by anyone, not our Dimwit gov't nor a Europe that doesn't understand what No means and I will be voting No again.
This should have been flagged when Nice2 was run, basically Europe is saying you keep voting until the right result or else.
Thats not democracy, thats bullying. Feck that for a game of soldiers.

thats absolutley fine , just dont come crying if a NO vote results in ireland being left behind or more islotated , if this in time results in no more subsidies from europe , at least you can live off your principles and love of pure democrocy , lets not be so naieve as to think ther are no consequences of a NO vote , farmers are the group who have done best out of europe , im astonished that any farmer would even contemplate voting anything but YES

btw , if its a NO this time , i do not believe that thier should be another referendum , any concerns regarding taxation , neutrality or abortion have been dealt with and no politician can say the electorate were not clear on the treaty this time

Min

France and the Netherlands said no and their vote was respected - apart from not being allowed to vote next time when Lisbon came out....

I don't see how Lisbon progresses democracy in Europe, it is just like it is a club for politicians......give more say back to the citizens of Europe.

CJhaughey

irish_bob wrote: »

thats absolutley fine , just dont come crying if a NO vote results in ireland being left behind or more islotated , if this in time results in no more subsidies from europe , at least you can live off your principles and love of pure democrocy , lets not be so naieve as to think ther are no consequences of a NO vote , farmers are the group who have done best out of europe , im astonished that any farmer would even contemplate voting anything but YES

btw , if its a NO this time , i do not believe that thier should be another referendum , any concerns regarding taxation , neutrality or abortion have been dealt with and no politician can say the electorate were not clear on the treaty this time

So thats the sole reason that you would vote Yes, for Subsidies to continue as they are now?
Thats a pretty shortsighted view IMO, Subsidies will continue to be withdrawn with or without the EU, Look at REPS.
Thats a Govt decision not an EU decision.
Denmark have opted not to take a lot of the shyte from the EU yet they are still part of EU and continue to make decisions based on their national interest not the EU's good.
Ireland has done very poorly out of EU membership IMO, call it how you will building a few roads in return for the richest fishing grounds in Europe was a disaster in hindsight.
Norway has similar population and natural resources but has managed to make much better use of them than us, Why? perhaps because they don't have to worry about the EU.

irish_bob

CJhaughey wrote: »

So thats the sole reason that you would vote Yes, for Subsidies to continue as they are now?
Thats a pretty shortsighted view IMO, Subsidies will continue to be withdrawn with or without the EU, Look at REPS.
Thats a Govt decision not an EU decision.
Denmark have opted not to take a lot of the shyte from the EU yet they are still part of EU and continue to make decisions based on their national interest not the EU's good.
Ireland has done very poorly out of EU membership IMO, call it how you will building a few roads in return for the richest fishing grounds in Europe was a disaster in hindsight.
Norway has similar population and natural resources but has managed to make much better use of them than us, Why? perhaps because they don't have to worry about the EU.

always amuses me when the euro sceptics when discrediting irelands membership of the EU , point to the fact that we lost soverigntly over our shipping waters , as if half the country wished to make a living of angling cod
norway has oil , its is not near as internationally dependant on trade as a country as ireland

europe is not a big scary monster , of all the power blocs in the world , it is by far the most benign and non interventionist , we are a pretty dependant nation when it comes to a number of areas , in particular , energy security , i wonder would ireland be in a stronger possition negotiating an energy deal with RUSSIA on its own or as a member of a power bloc like europe , we have acess to a market of hundreds of millions of people as members of the EU , something that switzerland doesnt have , without it , we would have tarriffs imposed on our exports , we are seen as a gateway to the european market by american investment , the list goes on , i really dont think this country wants to row its own boat into uncharted waters at a time like this , not unless its people wish to return to dev,s ireland of the 1930,s - 1950,s anyhow

i can understand why isolationists like sinn fein want ireland to withdraw from the likes of europe , they deny this but in reality they would like to see ireland as a cuba without the good weather but why farmers who rely so much on access to foregin markets would wish to withdraw from the greatest thing that ever happened to the country is beyond me

if we vote NO , we deserve everything thats coming to us

tonycascarino

irish_bob wrote: »

if we vote NO , we deserve everything thats coming to us

Love the scaremongering... As the EU Internal Commissioner & Ireland's very own 'inside man' Charlie McCreevey let slip on the 26th of June 2009 :

"..I think all of the politicians of Europe would have known quite well that if a similar question had been put to their electorate in a referendum the answer in 95 per cent of countries would have been 'No' as well."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0626/breaking48.htm

CJhaughey

irish_bob wrote: »

always amuses me when the euro sceptics when discrediting irelands membership of the EU , point to the fact that we lost soverigntly over our shipping waters , as if half the country wished to make a living of angling cod

We didn't lose control of our Shipping waters, we lost the richest fishing grounds in Europe.
Norwegian waters are worth around 5BnUSD per annum, Not saying that Ireland would produce that exact figure but it would not be far removed if the waters belonged to us out to the 200mile limit.
Thats far from chump change and even further from angling for Cod.

squarebale

Norways fishing accounts for about 1% of its GDP and one third or more of that is aquaculture to which their many fjords are suited. Oil is 25% of GDP. If you're going to bring Norway into it remember the oil. I know this is'nt the kernel of the argument but throwing bull**** figures out to justify an argument gets on my wick. The same happened in another thread saying that there were 1 department workers for every 10 farmers which is untrue. Anyway I agree that fishing was probably sacrificed for agriculture when we joined the EEC but I'll be voting yes. I can't see any logical rational reason to vote no. Most of the debates on the media have "no" proponents that just don't make sense. I suppose there are enough stupid people out there to run it close. What are the benifits of the current treaty over Lisbon? I know the neutrality issue is bandied about but there are guarantees in place. What's so good about neutrality anyway? I have to laugh at the shinners going on about the evils of militarisation. They wer'nt so bothered about it when cowards with guns were filling Gardaí full of lead. Is removing ourselves from the centre of power going to drive up the world price of grain, milk and beef? Cop on.

CJhaughey

squarebale wrote: »

Norways fishing accounts for about 1% of its GDP and one third or more of that is aquaculture to which their many fjords are suited. Oil is 25% of GDP. If you're going to bring Norway into it remember the oil. I know this is'nt the kernel of the argument but throwing bull**** figures out to justify an argument gets on my wick. Is removing ourselves from the centre of power going to drive up the world price of grain, milk and beef? Cop on.

The figures I quoted are correct, there is no Bullshyte involved.
Whats being put ashore in Rossport?We don't have Oil in the same quantities but we do have Gas. 7 heads is producing and the Porcupine will probably produce more dicoveries.
You really think we are at the centre of power in Europe? Really?
I would call that delusional.
If we were we would not be asked to vote again.

squarebale

A lot closer than floating out in the Atlantic on our own and that's no delusion

irish_bob

squarebale wrote: »

Norways fishing accounts for about 1% of its GDP and one third or more of that is aquaculture to which their many fjords are suited. Oil is 25% of GDP. If you're going to bring Norway into it remember the oil. I know this is'nt the kernel of the argument but throwing bull**** figures out to justify an argument gets on my wick. The same happened in another thread saying that there were 1 department workers for every 10 farmers which is untrue. Anyway I agree that fishing was probably sacrificed for agriculture when we joined the EEC but I'll be voting yes. I can't see any logical rational reason to vote no. Most of the debates on the media have "no" proponents that just don't make sense. I suppose there are enough stupid people out there to run it close. What are the benifits of the current treaty over Lisbon? I know the neutrality issue is bandied about but there are guarantees in place. What's so good about neutrality anyway? I have to laugh at the shinners going on about the evils of militarisation. They wer'nt so bothered about it when cowards with guns were filling Gardaí full of lead. Is removing ourselves from the centre of power going to drive up the world price of grain, milk and beef? Cop on.

thier are only a small number of ( patricia mckenna type ) true believers on the NO side , most people who are planning to vote no are doing so because they are pissed off about the rescession , its good ol fashioned petulance , had this referendum been held in the summer of 2006 or 2007 , it would have sailed through


cj haughey , thank you for correcting me on my typo , i mean to say fishing waters instead of shipping waters

mooverlive

bob ur tail is up, this reminds me of a meeting i was at some years ago there was a vote that night by farmers for the take over of golden vale plc by kerry plc denis brosnan spoke and answered questions on the merits of this take over,nowthe farmers voted didnt matter because it was the d4 share holders who had the higher amount of votes anyway, a fool who was thought to b a smart man (me not included) stood up and said "we were out in the atlantic in a currach and kerry plc were the big ocean liner and it was better get on or we would not last as a plc" now we end up on the liner ,1 did it make a difference to our milk price no 2did we get a better return from our shares no 3 is bigger better ask glanbia suppliers that , point is europe must b kept in check and we are lucky one who can vote if every othe r country left its people vote we would not b having this discussion because they would have voted no. sorry for the rant

geuro

all this 'no means no' drivel is such a load of rubbish. many no votes were cast last time around because of a lack of understanding.

This is another chance to vote - inform yourself and make an intelligent decision. Don't be stubborn or childish. Don't try and hurt the government by disagreeing with them for the sake of it, you will only punish yourself. Vote no if you have a good reason, by all means.

We voted twice for divorce too by the way, I don't think many people have a problem with the outcome of the second referendum now. Things change. Become part of the decision making process, not an obstinate fool.

irish_bob

mooverlive wrote: »

bob ur tail is up, this reminds me of a meeting i was at some years ago there was a vote that night by farmers for the take over of golden vale plc by kerry plc denis brosnan spoke and answered questions on the merits of this take over,nowthe farmers voted didnt matter because it was the d4 share holders who had the higher amount of votes anyway, a fool who was thought to b a smart man (me not included) stood up and said "we were out in the atlantic in a currach and kerry plc were the big ocean liner and it was better get on or we would not last as a plc" now we end up on the liner ,1 did it make a difference to our milk price no 2did we get a better return from our shares no 3 is bigger better ask glanbia suppliers that , point is europe must b kept in check and we are lucky one who can vote if every othe r country left its people vote we would not b having this discussion because they would have voted no. sorry for the rant

ive no problem with rants if thiers a point in there somewhere

FutureTaoiseach

Voting yes won't help the economy. Since Spain voted yes, unemployment doubled to 18%. My main problem is that the Lisbon Treaty specifically enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law:

Article 6 TEU (as amended by Lisbon) wrote:

The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.

Particular concerns about the Charter include Article 15, which could be used by the ECJ to force Ireland to allow asylum-seekers to work - something currently not allowed. In the current economic circumstances, displacement of Irish labour would increase, and asylum-claims would return to 2002 levels (11,000 per annum) when we last allowed them to work. A system intended for refugees must not become a system of economic-migration for those who failed to get permission to come to our shores. Otherwise, we are ceding sovereignty to persons who have nothing to do with Ireland and have no reason to consider Irish interests. You also have to remember that because the UK has an optout, this would make Ireland and Malta the only English-speaking countries in the EU to allow asylum-seekers to work. Were that to happen, the Irish labour-market would be exposed as in 2004 with Enlargement. Asylum-seekers resident in the UK would move to Ireland if we allow them to work under the Charter. In a recession this is unacceptable

Article 15, Charter of Fundamental Rights wrote:

Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work

1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

Article's 18 and 19 enshrine ECJ interference in our asylum-system:

COFR, Article 18 wrote:

The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.

COFR, Article 19 wrote:

1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.

2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 18 will prevent Ireland withdrawing from the Convention if we believe it is being abused for economic-migration rather than by genuine refugees. Article 19 will effectively allow the ECJ to decide what constitutes a "serious risk" to the safety of the asylum-seeker and what constitutes "inhuman and degrading treatment". Furthermore, the significance of inserting these provisions into EU law is that they come within the ECJ's jurisdiction. As such, the ECJ will be determining whether it believes we are keeping to the Convention in individual asylum-cases. In affect, for all intents and purposes, we will be adding yet another layer of asylum-appeals on top of a system that already takes years in this country. No thanks.

This is the first time the ECJ is being given jurisdiction over fundamental rights. And it is the first time in the history of the EU that the right to asylum - a right flagrantly abused for economic-migration and welfare-tourism - is being enshrined into EU law by a Treaty. Even the European Convention on Human Rights - which defenders of the Charter say the latter is based on - doesn't contain such a right. It is the height of nonsense to allow the ECJ to stick its maw into this sensitive area. There are also ethical questions in terms of the impact of the ECJ on abortion, euthanasia etc. owing to provisions in the Charter such as the right to privacy:

Article 7 wrote:

Respect for private and family life

Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

This can be expected to result in challenges in the ECJ on the basis that deportation of bogus asylum-seekers with children in this country would undermine "respect for family life". We have already seen attempts by illegals in this country to use the Irish Constitution's provisions on the right of the child to the 'company of its parents' to obstruct deportations from this country, and we can expect that provisions such as Article 7 of the Charter will be latched onto by asylum-lawyers as another loophole they can exploit in challenging deportations in the ECJ. Furthermore, the right to privacy was the basis of the Roe v Wade judgement in 1974 by the US Supreme Court.

Article 9 wrote:

Right to marry and right to found a family

The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.

This will be used to force Ireland to give residency to illegals involved in marriages-of-convenience to get residency/citizenship here.

The question of harmonised taxes being imposed through Lisbon is still very much an issue in the no campaign. As constitutional-law expert Paul Anthony McDermott said on Questions and Answers some months ago after the 'guarantees' were agreed:

Paul Anthony McDermott wrote:

It's not clear they have any legal status...They are mumbo-jumbo. These legal guarantees - they're meaningless. The rest of Europe will sign up to anything if it gets them off the hook on Europe. But if you were ever to go to a court in Europe and try to rely on one of these pieces of paper you would be told "what article of the Treaty are you suing on and the answer would be I'm not suing on the Treaty, I'm suing on a piece of paper Ireland passed around the Council of Ministers and everyone signed up to it" so I'm certainly not a big fan of having another referendum.

I believe that Lisbon threatens our corporate tax rate for a number of reasons. Firstly, see Article 269 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by Lisbon:

Article 269 TFEU wrote:

The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies. The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament adopt a decision laying down the provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Union. In this context it may establish new categories of own resources or abolish an existing category.

What can "new categories of own resources" mean? It has to include EU-taxes.

Furthermore, Article 113 of the TFEU as amended by Lisbon allows the European Council to remodel corporation-tax as a turnover tax via the proposed CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base). This would force companies to pay destination-taxes to governments of countries where the transaction takes place, and to do so proportionately. This would lead to the Irish Exchequer of billions of euro as 85% of what Ireland produces is exported. If the Irish Government attempted to challenge it in the ECJ, we would be told that CCCTB was legal "to avoid distortion of competition" arising from our 12.5% corporate-tax rate:

The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

Vote no.

Bitten & Hisses

mooverlive wrote: »

a fool who was thought to b a smart man (me not included) stood up and said "we were out in the atlantic in a currach and kerry plc were the big ocean liner and it was better get on or we would not last as a plc" now we end up on the liner ,1 did it make a difference to our milk price no 2did we get a better return from our shares no 3 is bigger better ask glanbia suppliers that

And yet the vested interests still portray rationalisation in the dairy industry as the solution to all dairy farmers' problems.

powerfarmer

Bitten & Hisses wrote: »

And yet the vested interests still portray rationalisation in the dairy industry as the solution to all dairy farmers' problems.

True, just look at how the Farmers Journal are banging on about it every week.
BUT the rationalisation is happening slowly almost secretly. Without the farmer being asked what he thinks.
The co ops havnt said much about it but they are doing it, just look at all the re shuffling of processing facitilies in the last few years little by little.

Anyway thats a bit off topic I suppose.

irish_bob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Voting yes won't help the economy. Since Spain voted yes, unemployment doubled to 18%. My main problem is that the Lisbon Treaty specifically enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law:Particular concerns about the Charter include Article 15, which could be used by the ECJ to force Ireland to allow asylum-seekers to work - something currently not allowed. In the current economic circumstances, displacement of Irish labour would increase, and asylum-claims would return to 2002 levels (11,000 per annum) when we last allowed them to work. A system intended for refugees must not become a system of economic-migration for those who failed to get permission to come to our shores. Otherwise, we are ceding sovereignty to persons who have nothing to do with Ireland and have no reason to consider Irish interests. You also have to remember that because the UK has an optout, this would make Ireland and Malta the only English-speaking countries in the EU to allow asylum-seekers to work. Were that to happen, the Irish labour-market would be exposed as in 2004 with Enlargement. Asylum-seekers resident in the UK would move to Ireland if we allow them to work under the Charter. In a recession this is unacceptable
Article's 18 and 19 enshrine ECJ interference in our asylum-system:

Article 18 will prevent Ireland withdrawing from the Convention if we believe it is being abused for economic-migration rather than by genuine refugees. Article 19 will effectively allow the ECJ to decide what constitutes a "serious risk" to the safety of the asylum-seeker and what constitutes "inhuman and degrading treatment". Furthermore, the significance of inserting these provisions into EU law is that they come within the ECJ's jurisdiction. As such, the ECJ will be determining whether it believes we are keeping to the Convention in individual asylum-cases. In affect, for all intents and purposes, we will be adding yet another layer of asylum-appeals on top of a system that already takes years in this country. No thanks.

This is the first time the ECJ is being given jurisdiction over fundamental rights. And it is the first time in the history of the EU that the right to asylum - a right flagrantly abused for economic-migration and welfare-tourism - is being enshrined into EU law by a Treaty. Even the European Convention on Human Rights - which defenders of the Charter say the latter is based on - doesn't contain such a right. It is the height of nonsense to allow the ECJ to stick its maw into this sensitive area. There are also ethical questions in terms of the impact of the ECJ on abortion, euthanasia etc. owing to provisions in the Charter such as the right to privacy:



This can be expected to result in challenges in the ECJ on the basis that deportation of bogus asylum-seekers with children in this country would undermine "respect for family life". We have already seen attempts by illegals in this country to use the Irish Constitution's provisions on the right of the child to the 'company of its parents' to obstruct deportations from this country, and we can expect that provisions such as Article 7 of the Charter will be latched onto by asylum-lawyers as another loophole they can exploit in challenging deportations in the ECJ. Furthermore, the right to privacy was the basis of the Roe v Wade judgement in 1974 by the US Supreme Court.This will be used to force Ireland to give residency to illegals involved in marriages-of-convenience to get residency/citizenship here.

The question of harmonised taxes being imposed through Lisbon is still very much an issue in the no campaign. As constitutional-law expert Paul Anthony McDermott said on Questions and Answers some months ago after the 'guarantees' were agreed:I believe that Lisbon threatens our corporate tax rate for a number of reasons. Firstly, see Article 269 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by Lisbon:What can "new categories of own resources" mean? It has to include EU-taxes.

Furthermore, Article 113 of the TFEU as amended by Lisbon allows the European Council to remodel corporation-tax as a turnover tax via the proposed CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base). This would force companies to pay destination-taxes to governments of countries where the transaction takes place, and to do so proportionately. This would lead to the Irish Exchequer of billions of euro as 85% of what Ireland produces is exported. If the Irish Government attempted to challenge it in the ECJ, we would be told that CCCTB was legal "to avoid distortion of competition" arising from our 12.5% corporate-tax rate:Vote no.

i know you taoiseach from many forums and im smart enough to know that i am not half well read enough to debate with a scholar like yourself , however , i also know from various forums that you are almost zealous like in your opposition to the lisbon treaty , my brother is a full time farmer , i see what he got for his milk this year and i know that without his single payment , he would not have a schilling out of farming this year , europe has been good to farming in this country and as ive said before , any farmer who votes NO to lisbon , they deserve whats coming to them

irish_bob

Bitten & Hisses wrote: »

And yet the vested interests still portray rationalisation in the dairy industry as the solution to all dairy farmers' problems.

thier is no competition among the different creamerys in ireland , if you try and leave lakeland , glanbia wont take you , mergers are needed as too much inneficency exists beit with small plants or too many CEO,s and men in suits to be paid , they have one creamery in new zealand and the farmers are no worse off , this country has far too many creamerys

Neddyusa

geuro wrote: »

"many no votes were cast last time around because of a lack of understanding"

This is a poor argument that people voted no because they didn't understand. I would say that it is mostly the proponents of a Yes vote who seem to know least or understand least about the actual treaty - which is what we are voting on -
and instead talk rubbish about unrelated issues such as 'keeping Ireland at the heart of Europe'.

Farmers have every reason to vote against giving more unconditional powers to the unelected bureaucrats who gave us the ridiculous 'farm by dates and numbers' Nitrates Directive and the ban on turf cutting under the Habitats Directive. These two pieces of anti-farming legislation alone should be enough to convince any farmer that we are granting too much power to Brussels and should not vote to endorse that shift of power by supporting Lisbon.

We have such a scant voice in the EU decision making process as it stands that they decided to ignore our vote last year. If we vote for Lisbon we will essentially be conceeding that we should not be asked anymore - because the EU know better.

irish_bob

Neddyusa wrote: »

geuro wrote: »

"many no votes were cast last time around because of a lack of understanding"

This is a poor argument that people voted no because they didn't understand. I would say that it is mostly the proponents of a Yes vote who seem to know least or understand least about the actual treaty - which is what we are voting on -
and instead talk rubbish about unrelated issues such as 'keeping Ireland at the heart of Europe'.

Farmers have every reason to vote against giving more unconditional powers to the unelected bureaucrats who gave us the ridiculous 'farm by dates and numbers' Nitrates Directive and the ban on turf cutting under the Habitats Directive. These two pieces of anti-farming legislation alone should be enough to convince any farmer that we are granting too much power to Brussels and should not vote to endorse that shift of power by supporting Lisbon.

We have such a scant voice in the EU decision making process as it stands that they decided to ignore our vote last year. If we vote for Lisbon we will essentially be conceeding that we should not be asked anymore - because the EU know better.

whether ireland was in europe or not , farmers would have to endure inspections , miles of red tape and bull**** schemes , this all exists primarily so as to keep civil servants at the dept of agri in jobs

I_am_Jebus

Neddyusa wrote: »

geuro wrote: »

"many no votes were cast last time around because of a lack of understanding"

This is a poor argument that people voted no because they didn't understand. I would say that it is mostly the proponents of a Yes vote who seem to know least or understand least about the actual treaty - which is what we are voting on -
and instead talk rubbish about unrelated issues such as 'keeping Ireland at the heart of Europe'.

Farmers have every reason to vote against giving more unconditional powers to the unelected bureaucrats who gave us the ridiculous 'farm by dates and numbers' Nitrates Directive and the ban on turf cutting under the Habitats Directive. These two pieces of anti-farming legislation alone should be enough to convince any farmer that we are granting too much power to Brussels and should not vote to endorse that shift of power by supporting Lisbon.

We have such a scant voice in the EU decision making process as it stands that they decided to ignore our vote last year. If we vote for Lisbon we will essentially be conceeding that we should not be asked anymore - because the EU know better.

I don't see what the issue is with the turf cutting ban. As far as I know, only 32 bogs will be affected this year in Ireland. That's not an awful lot and this was announced in 1997 I tink.

Sam Kade

One of the things that voting yes will do is give the EU power to combat climate change. That's fair enough if you believe in this nonsense. It will mean more taxes and power over EU citizens. Remember the Nice treaty and how it was supposed to benefit agriculture, all it meant was more red tape and
restrictions.

Pacoa

Would Michael Collins vote yes?

rooney32

the best reasons i heard to vote yes is from michael o leary.

1 vote yes for jobs
2 vote yes because the ecb is supplying us with cash to get us through our recession.
3 vote yes beacuase the more decisions that we allow the eu to make the less power our gombeen politions have.

Sam Kade

rooney32 wrote: »

the best reasons i heard to vote yes is from michael o leary.

1 vote yes for jobs
2 vote yes because the ecb is supplying us with cash to get us through our recession.
3 vote yes beacuase the more decisions that we allow the eu to make the less power our gombeen politions have.

1 So if we vote yes we will all have jobs:rolleyes:
2 The taxpayers are the only people supplying the cash to get us through the recession.
3 The gombeen politicians can still tax us as much as they want and the EU can make them throw in extra carbon taxes for good measure.

rooney32

sam
we will get more overseas investment if we are seen to be an active member of europe. more investment = more jobs
never said we will all have jobs

the tax payer is not providing the cash that is why we hane to borrow a couple of hundred euro a week and the bulk of it is coming from ecb.

when you see all the new motor ways in this country you see part funded by eu. all these roads have to be done to the eu spec if not we dont get the grant. we never would have got a decent infrastructure in this country unless the eu steped in. our counsils/government would be too busy with local issues to see the big picture.

i would be interested to hear 3 reasons from you to vote no.

Sam Kade

rooney32 wrote: »

sam
we will get more overseas investment if we are seen to be an active member of europe. more investment = more jobs
never said we will all have jobs

the tax payer is not providing the cash that is why we hane to borrow a couple of hundred euro a week and the bulk of it is coming from ecb.

when you see all the new motor ways in this country you see part funded by eu. all these roads have to be done to the eu spec if not we dont get the grant. we never would have got a decent infrastructure in this country unless the eu steped in. our counsils/government would be too busy with local issues to see the big picture.

i would be interested to hear 3 reasons from you to vote no.

Our government sent €9m to the six counties for their roads any M roads down here never reach their destination. When the government borrows money from the ecb the taxpayer pays it back with interest.

squarebale

Sam. Are you for real. You really don't believe in climate change. I suppose you don't believe that the world is round or that we revolve around the sun either.

irish_bob

rooney32 wrote: »

sam
we will get more overseas investment if we are seen to be an active member of europe. more investment = more jobs
never said we will all have jobs

the tax payer is not providing the cash that is why we hane to borrow a couple of hundred euro a week and the bulk of it is coming from ecb.

when you see all the new motor ways in this country you see part funded by eu. all these roads have to be done to the eu spec if not we dont get the grant. we never would have got a decent infrastructure in this country unless the eu steped in. our counsils/government would be too busy with local issues to see the big picture.

i would be interested to hear 3 reasons from you to vote no.

i wouldnt bother , anyone dumb enough to deny the existance of climate change is hardly going to be persuaded of the obvious merits of eu membership , some people believe what they want to believe and in sam,s case , choose not to see whats in front of them , i.e , three wettest years on record in a row

rooney32

Sam Kade wrote: »

Our government sent €9m to the six counties for their roads any M roads down here never reach their destination. When the government borrows money from the ecb the taxpayer pays it back with interest.

And this is why "sam" is voting no. good man sam.

of course you pay interest on loans but its a much bigger problem if you cant get money
this country will get back on its feet again even if we do vote no but it will take alot longer and will be alot more painful.
still waiting for a 3 reasons from you to vote no.

irish_bob

Sam Kade wrote: »

Our government sent €9m to the six counties for their roads any M roads down here never reach their destination. When the government borrows money from the ecb the taxpayer pays it back with interest.

im in agreement with you on the money we sent up north but that was yet another example of bertie aherne throwing money at various interests and nothing to do with brussells , in the norths case , it was buying friendship with the DUP , all we got in return was the occasional ignorant comment from peter robinson or other unionists about tyrone winning a foreign competition but then again bertie seldom got little value for money , he did however get votes by the truck load

Sam Kade

rooney32 wrote: »

And this is why "sam" is voting no. good man sam.

of course you pay interest on loans but its a much bigger problem if you cant get money
this country will get back on its feet again even if we do vote no but it will take alot longer and will be alot more painful.
still waiting for a 3 reasons from you to vote no.

That's sweet coming from someone that said a good reason to vote yes was based on 3 silly reasons that Michael o Leary gave, a man that is known for talking rubbish. I don't recall mentioning how I was going to vote either so stop jumping to conclusions. As for wanting 3 reasons to vote no you do know that this is a disscussion forum not a competition forum.

Bob if Bertie gave them €9m they must be getting €18m as Brian Cowen only made the decision in July this year.

Wendell Gee

On the issue of being asked to vote a second time on Lisbon.
We are one of a union of 27 Nations. The other 26 have decided to accept Lisbon (One of whom will not formally ratify until we have cast our vote). We voted against Lisbon last year, as is our sovereign right. However, rights come with responsibilities, and surely it is not too much of an imposition for our 26 fellow member states to ask us to have a second look at Lisbon. All the more so as the first referendum followed a narrow, self-obsessed, and often nasty campaign - on both sides.
If we vote no to Lisbon, the EU project arrives at a crossroads, not just for us, but for 27 states and 500 million people. To vote No out of conviction is something I fully respect. To vote No because "Brussels won't listen" is simply irresponsible.

Neddyusa

Wendell Gee wrote: »

On the issue of being asked to vote a second time on Lisbon.
We are one of a union of 27 Nations. The other 26 have decided to accept Lisbon (One of whom will not formally ratify until we have cast our vote). We voted against Lisbon last year, as is our sovereign right. However, rights come with responsibilities, and surely it is not too much of an imposition for our 26 fellow member states to ask us to have a second look at Lisbon. All the more so as the first referendum followed a narrow, self-obsessed, and often nasty campaign - on both sides.
If we vote no to Lisbon, the EU project arrives at a crossroads, not just for us, but for 27 states and 500 million people. To vote No out of conviction is something I fully respect. To vote No because "Brussels won't listen" is simply irresponsible.

Completely agree Wendell Gee - except for your last statement in bold. The EU project has already ploughed through said crossroads without pausing at the stop sign, stopping, looking or listening to its people. Economic co-operation, a free market, a common currency - fine, but I believe the vast majority of Europeans do not want an all powerful federal style union which controls their social, military and foreign policy.
These moves in the Lisbon treaty are driving the EU in the direction of a superstate and developing common policies in these areas, which for 27 totally diverse nations is unworkable.

moondogspot

Wendell Gee wrote: »

On the issue of being asked to vote a second time on Lisbon. We are one of a union of 27 Nations. The other 26 have decided to accept Lisbon (One of whom will not formally ratify until we have cast our vote).

The Czech President Klaus has yet to sign the Treaty and regardless of our vote is probably waiting for a British Referendum to crush it. Also the citizens of the other nations didn't get to vote on it. Their governments pushed it through.