Has Declan Ganley / Coir hired a team of shills?

Sleepy

Seriously?

The amount of newbie posters spouting nonsense 'reasons' to vote no to Lisbon in posts that often make it very clear that English isn't their first language...

Is this the beginning of a new age of political campaigning through the spreading of misinformation on the internet? If so, is this something we want to allow on boards? Should we be looking at a minimum post count before one is allowed to post on Politics?

For what it's worth, I'm pretty certain I'm voting yes to the treaty based mainly on the fact that the only one's against it are the crackpots and I've not heard a single solid reason to vote no.

meglome

I'm genuinely disgusted with how the No campaign have handled themselves. Not that the Yes campaign is wonderful.

I'm voting Yes on what's in the treaty but I'm really glad I'm on the opposite side to most of the No campaign.

joolsveer

I voted yes last time and will be voting yes again. It grieves me to vote on the Government side though although the no camp contains a lot of strange bedfellows.

optocynic

I am voting yes... again.
Because it is the rational and right thing to do!

The No voters were wooed by lies and reactionary tabloid crap from the No campaigns last time.. but now they have the added power of irish voter petulance.. like a no vote will hurt FF...

Not as much as it will hurt Ireland guys!!!

prinz

Sleepy wrote: »

Seriously?
The amount of newbie posters spouting nonsense 'reasons' to vote no to Lisbon in posts that often make it very clear that English isn't their first language....

It wouldn't suprise me in the slightest. Regardless of people here, but it's funny that the same nonsense seems to pop up everywhere, from boards to youtube. Added to the wonderful praising comments on the bringganleyback website, which funnily enough has not got the facility to leave a comment..

the_syco

A no vote didn't seem to hurt FF last time, they'll got reelected next time, so I don't see how it'll hurt FF this time?

optocynic

the_syco wrote: »

A no vote didn't seem to hurt FF last time, they'll got reelected next time, so I don't see how it'll hurt FF this time?

You are assuming that the petulant voters I speak of are capable of such mature deduction!...

flanzer

I hear ya OP. Maybe a system like what in the Soccer Forum might work?

CD87

I am pretty pissed off with people who have decided to vote no being called idiots or morons. We are all entitled to our opinions. I was away from home for the last referendum and couldn't vote so I didn't get a chance to read up on it. And I am proud to say I still haven't, not through laziness but through choice. I couldn't care less if this was a treaty giving the people of Ireland free socks for the next 10 years 46 days. The people have voted on it once and they gave their answer (and don't tell me about these bull-**** handshake guarantees, they mean **** all at the end of the day).

Don't start trying to make me out as a nutjob pro-life loon, I just like democracy, give us a truly different treaty and I might vote yes.

prinz

CD87 wrote: »

Don't start trying to make me out as a nutjob pro-life loon, I just like democracy, give us a truly different treaty and I might vote yes.

What's to say you wouldn't read up on that one? .

CD87

prinz wrote: »

What's to say you wouldn't read up on that one? .

I explained why I didn't read up on Lisbon I, I wasn't able to vote, and of course I would read up on a new treaty because it wouldn't have been voted on before. This isn't a referendum it is just the people of Ireland being asked "are you sure you meant that the last time, or do we have to ask a third time".

prinz

CD87 wrote: »

I explained why I didn't read up on Lisbon I, I wasn't able to vote, and of course I would read up on a new treaty because it wouldn't have been voted on before...

No, you chose not to read it. Ability to vote, and informing yourself of the Treaty are not mutually exclusive. You already made clear that you don't care what is in the treaty.

CD87 wrote: »

This isn't a referendum it is just the people of Ireland being asked "are you sure you meant that the last time, or do we have to ask a third time".

No, I think you'll find it's a referendum.

Robbo

In relation to the Ganser and internet shills, there was a PR company he retained during the last Euro elections to "assist" with "helpful" blog comments and the like. Whether or not they're still working for him is another matter although I look forward to the next cut'n'paste new registration who starts off with "As an Elbonian I urge you to vote no because I never had the chance because of General Krull..."

Euro_Kraut

CD87 wrote: »

I explained why I didn't read up on Lisbon I, I wasn't able to vote, and of course I would read up on a new treaty because it wouldn't have been voted on before. This isn't a referendum it is just the people of Ireland being asked "are you sure you meant that the last time, or do we have to ask a third time".

If you can't be bothered to read the Lisbon Treaty, you might make some time to read Bunreacht na h-Eireann.

Our constitution permits the Govt to run a referendum as they see fit. The High Court backed this up after a case was taken recently challenging the referendum.

The Dail can hold as many referendums as they like. Its is our constitutional right to have these. On October 2nd you will be asked if you want Ireland to ratify the Lisbon treaty, not if you disagree with the Dails right to called referendums as they see fit.

Sam Vimes

CD87 wrote: »

I am pretty pissed off with people who have decided to vote no being called idiots or morons. We are all entitled to our opinions.

Nobody is called an idiot for deciding to vote no, it's only when idiotic reasons are given that the scorn gets poured. Yes everyone is entitled to an opinion but that entitlement does not mean that every opinion is rational. Just as people are entitled to vote either way for stupid reasons, I am entitled to think those reasons are stupid. Note that it's the reasons that are stupid and not the people or the act of voting no

Two prime examples of this are the idiotic notion that it's acceptable or wise to deny 26 other countries a treaty that they have ratified (or will soon ratify) because we don't like Brian Cowen or that the method of ratification in other EU countries (through parliament) is in any way our business or should effect the way we vote

CD87 wrote: »

I was away from home for the last referendum and couldn't vote so I didn't get a chance to read up on it. And I am proud to say I still haven't, not through laziness but through choice. I couldn't care less if this was a treaty giving the people of Ireland free socks for the next 10 years 46 days. The people have voted on it once and they gave their answer (and don't tell me about these bull-**** handshake guarantees, they mean **** all at the end of the day).

And I'm sorry to tell you mate but this is another example of one of those reasons. Significant numbers of people voted no because of the issues of taxation, neutrality, abortion, conscription and the commissioner. The commissioner issue has been rectified, it just didn't require a change to the treaty and the other issues have been guaranteed as not now nor ever having been related to Lisbon in any way and these guarantees are legally binding, despite what liars on the no side tell you. The people who voted no on those issues now no longer have a reason to vote no.

Add to that the fact that the biggest reason for rejection by far was lack of understanding. People have now had two years to learn about it and there is a wealth of information out there so they no longer have that reason to vote no

All of those reasons for rejection are no longer valid even though the treaty hasn't changed so why not give the people who voted no for those reasons an opportunity to change their minds?

mickoneill30

CD87 wrote: »

I am pretty pissed off with people who have decided to vote no being called idiots or morons.

You're absolutely right. Everybody has the right to vote yes or no and not be branded an idiot.

The only people who are really idiots or morons are those that vote on it (either yes or no) without knowing what's in it or without bothering to educate themselves on it at all. But thats their right too.

Scofflaw

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

If you can't be bothered to read the Lisbon Treaty, you might make some time to read Bunreacht na h-Eireann.

Our constitution permits the Govt to run a referendum as they see fit. The High Court backed this up after a case was taken recently challenging the referendum.

The Dail can hold as many referendums as they like. Its is our constitutional right to have these. On October 2nd you will be asked if you want Ireland to ratify the Lisbon treaty, not if you disagree with the Dails right to called referendums as they see fit.

Yes - it's slightly surprising that the judge's opinion is not more widely known:

The judge noted the State, while stating there were important changes of significance since the people last voted on the Lisbon Treaty, had said it was prepared to meet Mr Burke’s case on the basis the question being put on October 2nd was the same as that put in June 2008.

The State’s argument the people could be asked more than once to vote on an issue was “compelling” because, if the people could decide a matter only once, that would effectively disenfranchise people in the future from expressing their view.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CD87

prinz wrote: »

No, I think you'll find it's a referendum.

You clearly don't seem to understand sarcasm, so I'll let that one go over your head.

prinz

CD87 wrote: »

You clearly don't seem to understand sarcasm, so I'll let that one go over your head.

And you clearly don't seem to understand irony.

ixtlan

CD87 wrote: »

I am pretty pissed off with people who have decided to vote no being called idiots or morons. We are all entitled to our opinions. I was away from home for the last referendum and couldn't vote so I didn't get a chance to read up on it. And I am proud to say I still haven't, not through laziness but through choice. I couldn't care less if this was a treaty giving the people of Ireland free socks for the next 10 years 46 days. The people have voted on it once and they gave their answer (and don't tell me about these bull-**** handshake guarantees, they mean **** all at the end of the day).

Don't start trying to make me out as a nutjob pro-life loon, I just like democracy, give us a truly different treaty and I might vote yes.

Other have said the same thing but I have to repeat it becuase your attitude is so annoying...

You are "proud" not to have read up on Lisbon. You will not vote yes to another treaty until it is "truly different".

It is surely reasonable to ask people who voted no exactly what differences need to be in a future treaty. It seems your attitude would be that you don't care. Just change all the words so that it's different and then possibly if you feel like it you might read it and make a decision on whether you like it or not. Of course the previous treaty might have been better, but that doesn't matter does it?

And you can research this in the other threads if you wish but those guarantees are as legally binding as any EU treaty we sign, being independent treaties lodged with the UN, outside of the EU. If you feel the other states will break those treaties then the whole basis of the EU is undermined and treaties become irrelevant in any case.

You need to do more than like democracy. You need to respect it, understand it and do your bit to be a part of it.

The main reason to vote again is that of the electorate, 53% voted, 53% of those voted no, and of the no voters over 50% (a conservative estimate) did so due to lack of understanding or issues not in the treaty.

So that comes to 14% of the electorate who may have had good reason to vote no.

Personally I would favour some laws requiring a minimum percentage to vote before a referendum becomes valid, which might force people like you to take just a little time to consider the options and decide, yes or no.

Ix.

The Volt

CD87 wrote: »

I just like democracy, give us a truly different treaty and I might vote yes.

You like democracy but don't want to vote?

CD87

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Nobody is called an idiot for deciding to vote no, it's only when idiotic reasons are given that the scorn gets poured. Yes everyone is entitled to an opinion but that entitlement does not mean that every opinion is rational. Just as people are entitled to vote either way for stupid reasons, I am entitled to think those reasons are stupid. Note that it's the reasons that are stupid and not the people or the act of voting no

Two prime examples of this are the idiotic notion that it's acceptable or wise to deny 26 other countries a treaty that they have ratified (or will soon ratify) because we don't like Brian Cowen or that the method of ratification in other EU countries (through parliament) is in any way our business or should effect the way we vote


And I'm sorry to tell you mate but this is another example of one of those reasons. Significant numbers of people voted no because of the issues of taxation, neutrality, abortion, conscription and the commissioner. The commissioner issue has been rectified, it just didn't require a change to the treaty and the other issues have been guaranteed as not now nor ever having been related to Lisbon in any way and these guarantees are legally binding, despite what liars on the no side tell you. The people who voted no on those issues now no longer have a reason to vote no.

Add to that the fact that the biggest reason for rejection by far was lack of understanding. People have now had two years to learn about it and there is a wealth of information out there so they no longer have that reason to vote no

All of those reasons for rejection are no longer valid even though the treaty hasn't changed so why not give the people who voted no for those reasons an opportunity to change their minds?

Thank you for some rational arguments against my opinion, instead of just trying to have a go at me personally like a lot of the other posters. I accept the fact that you would have a problem with someones reasons for voting no and the reason I started posting here was because of a post here generalising no voters as "petulant" and immature. Which I think is just arrogant. So if you don't mind me saying so I think we agree on that. I take your point about the guarantees, most are legally binding some are not. But, excuse my lack of a law degree, what does legally binding mean, what can we do if the EU decide they are going to take them away after Lisbon goes through, who will uphold them, realistically we aren't going to leave the EU if they do go 'missing' at a later date, what come back do we have ?

CD87

Voltwad wrote: »

You like democracy but don't want to vote?

As I have made clear, I am voting and I am voting no.

K-9

CD87 wrote: »

Thank you for some rational arguments against my opinion, instead of just trying to have a go at me personally like a lot of the other posters. I accept the fact that you would have a problem with someones reasons for voting no and the reason I started posting here was because of a post here generalising no voters as "petulant" and immature. Which I think is just arrogant. So if you don't mind me saying so I think we agree on that. I take your point about the guarantees, most are legally binding some are not. But, excuse my lack of a law degree, what does legally binding mean, what can we do if the EU decide they are going to take them away after Lisbon goes through, who will uphold them, realistically we aren't going to leave the EU if they do go 'missing' at a later date, what come back do we have ?

Personally, I'd have no reason to trust the EU on anything, ever again.

Treaties and future guarantees would be pointless, not just for Ireland, but for other countries too.

I'd say any future Referenda would be a guaranteed No and I could see a serious debate on us leaving the EU.

Scofflaw

CD87 wrote: »

Thank you for some rational arguments against my opinion, instead of just trying to have a go at me personally like a lot of the other posters. I accept the fact that you would have a problem with someones reasons for voting no and the reason I started posting here was because of a post here generalising no voters as "petulant" and immature. Which I think is just arrogant. So if you don't mind me saying so I think we agree on that. I take your point about the guarantees, most are legally binding some are not. But, excuse my lack of a law degree, what does legally binding mean, what can we do if the EU decide they are going to take them away after Lisbon goes through, who will uphold them, realistically we aren't going to leave the EU if they do go 'missing' at a later date, what come back do we have ?

Well, first, "the EU" can't take them away, because they're in the form of international agreements binding all of the EU member states individually. The EU is bound to those agreements because the EU is controlled by the member states, and exists only as an agreement between them. So what you're asking there is what would happen if all 27 member states reneged on the international agreements they have signed as our guarantees. As far as I know, there is no formal mechanism for punishing states that renege on agreements - a state that does so would simply find it harder to form international agreements in future.

cordially,
Scofflaw

smokingman

Been posted before but it's pretty good at explaining stuff without the rubbish:

http://www.jasonomahony.ie/The_Improved_Spoofers_Guide_To_The_Lisbon_Treaty.pdf

Toiletroll

First of all Ganley and Coir are not working together. So the title of the OP is deliberately mis-leading.

Second of all I am voting NO because I have read the treaty.

Oafley Jones

Toiletroll wrote: »

First of all Ganley and Coir are not working together. So the title of the OP is deliberately mis-leading.

Second of all I am voting NO because I have read the treaty.

What specifically are you objecting to in the treaty?

Sam Vimes

CD87 wrote: »

Thank you for some rational arguments against my opinion,

You're welcome

CD87 wrote: »

So if you don't mind me saying so I think we agree on that. I take your point about the guarantees, most are legally binding some are not. But, excuse my lack of a law degree, what does legally binding mean, what can we do if the EU decide they are going to take them away after Lisbon goes through, who will uphold them, realistically we aren't going to leave the EU if they do go 'missing' at a later date, what come back do we have ?

During the last campaign a number of lies were deliberately spread by groups who simply don't like the EU. Among these lies were that the EU would raise our corporation tax, introduce abortion and conscription, compromise our neutrality and require us to increase our military spending.

Our government went to the EU to clarify these issues and got these legally binding guarantees. Legally binding means that the entire validity of the EU would collapse if they went back on them, it would cease to exist. Those are the actions of countries like North Korea.

But even without these guarantees none of this stuff would happen because it was never going to happen. They were simply lies to try to trick people into rejecting the treaty and they worked. And now we have a whole host of new lies to contend with like this €1.84 minimum wage bollocks and the people who say that the guarantees aren't really guarantees. They are:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

The only actual change to the treaty* is that we will now keep our commissioner. This isn't actually a good thing because the commissioners don't represent Ireland, they look after EU interests, and it has become too big and bureaucratic but the Irish people voted no in large numbers because of this issue, again, because a lie was spread that the commissioner does represent his country in the EU. The EU gave us what we wanted on this issue.

So basically, an awful lot of reasons for the previous no vote are now irrelevant so it's perfectly reasonable to ask people if they've changed their minds, no?


*The change did not require a change to the treaty text.

Toiletroll

Oafley Jones wrote: »

What specifically are you objecting to in the treaty?

On the treaty...
Both sides agree that our ability to stop new legislation being passed down from Lisbon will be decreased by 40% for example.

On the EU...
The EU have as much corruption and scandals going on at the moment as FF. I see the EU as a bigger, more effeciently corrupt version of FF.

Scofflaw

Toiletroll wrote: »

On the treaty...
Both sides agree that our ability to stop new legislation being passed down from Lisbon will be decreased by 40% for example.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence for that claim before you make it again.

regards,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I know, there is no formal mechanism for punishing states that renege on agreements - a state that does so would simply find it harder to form international agreements in future.

I guess the point I would make on this is that if the states renege on those agreements, they might do the same with the EU agreements, and then it becomes somewhat irrelevant debating whether the guarantees have no value because they are outside the treaty because even the treaty may be reneged on and hence it also has no value.

It's sort of a circular argument...

Either people trust that the treaty will be honoured in which case the guarantees will also be, and the no side seems to believe the treaty will be honoured since they are so worried about what is in (or not in) it.

Or they don't trust the guarantees, in which case they should not trust the treaty either, and debating what's in (or not in it) is irrelevant.

Ix.

Toiletroll

Scofflaw wrote: »

Really? Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence for that claim before you make it again.

regards,
Scofflaw

I will find it - it was stated on Vincent Browne last week and the yes side did not disagree with it!

Scofflaw

Toiletroll wrote: »

I will find it - it was stated on Vincent Browne last week and the yes side did not disagree with it!

"Did not disagree with on a chat show" is not "agree", even within the parallel universe of the Lisbon 'debate'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

ixtlan wrote: »

Or they don't trust the guarantees, in which case they should not trust the treaty either, and debating what's in (or not in it) is irrelevant.

Ix.

True. As I've said to someone before, people who honestly believe that reneging on the guarantees is a possibility should not be debating the pros and cons of the treaty, they should be campaigning for us to sever all links with this maniacal rogue union that reneges on legally binding international agreements on a whim

Toiletroll

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Did not disagree with on a chat show" is not "agree", even within the parallel universe of the Lisbon 'debate'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Still searching but I think it refers to QMV in place of currently veto-able legislation.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

True. As I've said to someone before, people who honestly believe that reneging on the guarantees is a possibility should not be debating the pros and cons of the treaty, they should be campaigning for us to sever all links with this maniacal rogue union that reneges on legally binding international agreements on a whim

And to start building up our army...

ro09

Sleepy wrote: »

Seriously?

The amount of newbie posters spouting nonsense 'reasons' to vote no to Lisbon in posts that often make it very clear that English isn't their first language...

Is this the beginning of a new age of political campaigning through the spreading of misinformation on the internet? If so, is this something we want to allow on boards? Should we be looking at a minimum post count before one is allowed to post on Politics?

For what it's worth, I'm pretty certain I'm voting yes to the treaty based mainly on the fact that the only one's against it are the crackpots and I've not heard a single solid reason to vote no.

I don't support any Party but I am voting No because every time we sign a Treaty into Law we loose some of our own Law making abilities in certain areas, we loose the Power to Govern our Own People in certain areas, this is due to the fact that all EU Law supersedes our Constitutional Law - Take a read of Article 29 . 10 of our Constitution.

Also are you calling for some sort of censorship of peoples opinions????

Also are you having a go at the Irish Language??????

marco_polo

ro09 wrote: »

I don't support any Party but I am voting No because every time we sign a Treaty into Law we loose some of our own Law making abilities in certain areas, we loose the Power to Govern our Own People in certain areas, this is due to the fact that all EU Law supersedes our Constitutional Law - Take a read of Article 29 . 10 of our Constitution.

Also are you calling for some sort of censorship of peoples opinions????

Also are you having a go at the Irish Language??????

Like Spamalot?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61989682&postcount=71

You should totally vote yes then, it means we could leave the EU and get rid of that pesky Article 29.10.

Toiletroll

Toiletroll wrote: »

I will find it - it was stated on Vincent Browne last week and the yes side did not disagree with it!

In more than 60 areas of policy, countries lose the right to veto legislation they disagree with - on everything from transport to the rights of criminal suspects and aspects of foreign policy. Britain would lose nearly 30% of its power to block legislation it disagrees with, while Ireland would lose 40%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7927742.stm

ro09

marco_polo wrote: »

Like Spamalot?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61989682&postcount=71

You should totally vote yes then, it means we could leave the EU and get rid of that pesky Article 29.10.

Why would we want to leave the EU ?????

Voting No will not take us out of the EU like some posters are implying.

I think Free movement of Goods and Services and Business is good.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Toiletroll wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7927742.stm

You forgot to attribute the quote for your 40% figure.

Let me help.

Lorraine Mullally is Director of Open Europe, in the UK.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ro09 wrote: »

Why would we want to leave the EU ?????
I think Free movement of Goods and Services and Business is good.

Then you'll have to live with 29.10 I'm afraid.

Toiletroll

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You forgot to attribute the quote for your 40% figure.

Let me help.

Lorraine Mullally is Director of Open Europe, in the UK.

Cop on it doesnt matter who or where it comes from. Stop being protectionist when it suits. You might not like the UK coming here but I dont mind!

See below if you dont liek the UK coming over here then.

“The Treaty will remain intact, with all that that entails - including a massive loss of power to the EU. This Treaty will mean that ordinary people in Ireland will lose power to impact on decisions that affect their daily lives - as Ireland loses 40% of its power to block legislation it disagrees with.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1214/breaking19.htm

BlitzKrieg

you are quoting the same crowd again!

The director of eurosceptic thinktank Open Europe, Lorraine Mullally,

Scofflaw

Toiletroll wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7927742.stm

This is not evidence. It is the unbacked opinion of another person opposed to the Treaty. Evidence would involve some data.

Back it up or stop claiming it.

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Toiletroll wrote: »

Cop on it doesnt matter who or where it comes from. Stop being protectionist when it suits. You might not like the UK coming here but I dont mind!

See below if you dont liek the UK coming over here then.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1214/breaking19.htm

Lorraine Mullally is Irish, but biased, and certainly doesn't represent 'both sides' of the debate when she claims this 40% figure.

Sam Vimes

Toiletroll, do you realise that Ireland has never used its veto?

And do you realise that even in areas where QMV currently applies unanimity is the norm?

And do you realise that every country is losing its veto in these areas, not just Ireland, so England and Germany can be overruled just as easily as us?

And do you know that there is a clause to prevent just 3 large countries from blocking a change, even if they represent over 65% of the EU population?

And do you like a system where just one of 26 countries can block something every other country wants, like how the US blocks UN sanctions against Israel and enforces the embargo on Cuba or how China blocks any action against Sudan because of their business interests?


Which areas are you particularly worried about moving to QMV? Taxation and defence I could understand but they're staying unanimous. Some things are better decided at EU level, eg if Ireland enacts a climate change policy it doesn't make a whole lot of a difference. Or how the EU forced the mobile networks to lower roaming rates or regulates food quality

Do you think that the interests of our neighbours are so far removed from ours that at least 15 of them would want to enact a policy that's devastating to Ireland? (remember they can't effect our taxes)

Toiletroll

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Toiletroll, do you realise that Ireland has never used its veto?

And do you realise that even in areas where QMV currently applies unanimity is the norm?

And do you realise that every country is losing its veto in these areas, not just Ireland, so England and Germany can be overruled just as easily as us?

And do you know that there is a clause to prevent just 3 large countries from blocking a change, even if they represent over 65% of the EU population?

And do you like a system where just one of 26 countries can block something every other country wants, like how the US blocks UN sanctions against Israel and enforces the embargo on Cuba or how China blocks any action against Sudan because of their business interests?


Which areas are you particularly worried about moving to QMV? Taxation and defence I could understand but they're staying unanimous. Some things are better decided at EU level, eg if Ireland enacts a climate change policy it doesn't make a whole lot of a difference. Or how the EU forced the mobile networks to lower roaming rates or regulates food quality

Do you think that the interests of our neighbours are so far removed from ours that at least 15 of them would want to enact a policy that's devastating to Ireland? (remember they can't effect our taxes)

They didnt have a vote. The only two countries who had a vote, the French and Dutch said NO. They were bypassed. I dont like that kind of anti democratic behaviour!

We never used our veto because having the veto means that we could make a big deal about anything controversial.

If the the long term plan of the EU was to remove the veto then why would they bother with anything controversial which would jeapordise Lisbon and their long term goal of removing the veto? Once the veto is removed they have to refrain less on controversial legislation.

Scofflaw

Toiletroll wrote: »

They didnt have a vote. The only two countries who had a vote, the French and Dutch said NO. They were bypassed. I dont like that kind of anti democratic behaviour!

We never used our veto because having the veto means that we could make a big deal about anything controversial.

If the the long term plan of the EU was to remove the veto then why would they bother with anything controversial which would jeapordise Lisbon and their long term goal of removing the veto? Once the veto is removed they have to refrain less on controversial legislation.

You are, as far as I can tell, confusing the process of treaty ratification with voting on the EU's Council of Ministers.

impressed,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

Toiletroll wrote: »

They didnt have a vote. The only two countries who had a vote, the French and Dutch said NO. They were bypassed. I dont like that kind of anti democratic behaviour!

Well it's a good thing that that's not what happened so isn't it? The french and dutch voted no, the parts of the treaty that they objected to were removed and then their governments ratified the new treaty. That's how democracy works. Something is proposed, you voice your objections and a compromise is reached. The distinct lack of protests in those countries suggests to me that this treaty is one more of the millions of things that they're happy for their government to decide for them and with the farce this referendum has become here I wish we weren't having a referendum either. It's embarrassing

Toiletroll wrote: »

We never used our veto because having the veto means that we could make a big deal about anything controversial.

If the the long term plan of the EU was to remove the veto then why would they bother with anything controversial which would jeapordise Lisbon and their long term goal of removing the veto? Once the veto is removed they have to refrain less on controversial legislation.

Yes indeed. The EU, by which you mean the heads of state of the governments of our neighbours, have been lulling us into a false sense of security for the last 36 years by negotiating, compromising and generally respecting our wishes so that they can strip away all sovereign power from everyone, including themselves, and share it among everyone, including us, for the purposes of forcing changes on us. They don't seem to be very good at this whole empire thing though since they've put in loads of checks and balances to prevent this happening, they've made it so we can also force changes on them and they've laid out specifically in Lisbon how we can leave the EU if they try to do it

CT is that way mate ---->