The Lisbon Treaty for Dummies

bazzer06

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Bazzer06, not sure you should put your faith too much in Napoleonic Law: if you were a defendant you were considered guilty until proved innocent, rather than innocent until proved guilty.

You're right though, that does seem to be the direction the EU are heading.

I meant Napoleonic law as in codified law, so much more general than that - also, innocent until proven guilty actually does exist in pleny of Napoleonic systems, and even so is of far less importance there anyway, as the system is inquisitorial. In many ways Napoleonic criminal law is fairer than ours. But thats another day's argument.

Also I don;t know exactly what you're getting at with the last sentence - headed towards what exactly? Enforcing Napoleonic principles of criminal law in Ireland? Not gonna happen. There's nothing ominous about EU law becoming more codified - I'd argue the opposite actually, for the democratic reasons I stated before

roosh

MarkK wrote: »

In short, "no change" is not an option, the world is changing all the time, both "Yes" and "No" will have consequences. There is a separate thread on this.

Anyway, why are you expecting me to prove myself when you have not bothered to prove your assertion that the outcome will have no real bearing on recovery?

No change is exaclty an option, that is what the No vote is.

Don't try and give some fallacious reasoning that "the world is changing" threfore we have to Vote Yes to Lisbon. That is the exact type of empty rhetoric coming form the Yes campaign.

If indeed we do need to keep up with a changin world, do you think it is wise to adopt a pre-economic downturn solution in a post-economic downturn world?

I cannot prove a negative, the onus is on your good self to show how it will positively affect recovery. As I have siad before, just because businesses want it, it does not mean that it will result in recovery for the people of Europe. You can bet your bottom dollar, all it means is increased profitability for companies. As Jobs are inversely related to profit, because jobs give rise to cost, which reduces profit, how will it benefit the economic recovery of the peolpe of Europe?

roosh

bazzer06 wrote: »

Surely everyone's had enough time to go and understand it! If people haven't made an effort to go and get informed by now, then IMO they simply shouldn't vote at all. They've had plenty of time, and to be honest it smacks of civic laziness and apathy to me.

How do you propose that ordinary Joe Soaps go about understanding a complicated legal Treaty? Again, the onus is on those wanting us to change the status quo to tell us why we should. Also, whatever it smacks of, it is the situation that we find ourselves in, with a largely ill-infomred electorate going to poll in under a week. Now, we can blame the electorate for not educating themselves, and in an ideal world where everyone fulfills their civic duty, then perhaps we wouldn't even need to ratify things such as the Lisbon Treaty, there would be no need for Laws, we could all roam free safe in the knowledge that everyone is going to fulfill their civic duty. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Don't think I raised any of the other points, and don't think I have seen them from anyone else.

bazzer06

mangaroosh wrote: »

As Jobs are inversely related to profit, because jobs give rise to cost, which reduces profit, how will it benefit the economic recovery of the peolpe of Europe?

Wow - and here was me thinking economics was complicated stuff! Is there not the slightly important factor of production to be taken into account?

roosh

spudington16 wrote: »

A wasted vote is always a shame in a democracy, provided the voter knows what he/she is voting for/against. However, your voting no (again) solely because you couldn't be bothered getting full information about the treaty is actually probably in my view worse than if you didn't vote at all this time around.

I'm not advocating either side here, but any outcome of this referendum will have ramifications, so the decision to accept or reject it shouldn't be taken on a whim, or worse to spite the Government, as other posters have suggested.

The ramifications of voting Yes are irreversible, the ramifications of voting No are reversible.

If you're not sure you should vote No

IrelandSpirit

MarkK wrote: »

Anyway, why are you expecting me to prove myself when you have not bothered to prove your assertion that the outcome will have no real bearing on recovery?

Hi Markk, I’m gonna try and quickly answer this one for ya, just a very basic lesson in basic centralised private banking/fractional reserve banking, based on the fiat currency we use nowadays (money out of thin air, blips on computer screens), as opposed to other forms of money which were based on precious metals, gold, silver etc:

I have a bank in centralised Frankfurt. You have a country called Ireland. I lend you, say €1,000,000 (keep it simple) at 5% interest. You put up say, you’re railway system as collateral on the loan.

End of the year, how will you pay me back both the capital and the interest?

You can’t. €1,000,000 is all the money you have in circulation.

So I lend you another €1,000,000 at 5% interest.

End of that year. How will you pay me back both the capital and the interest?

You can’t. €2,000,000 is all the money you have in circulation.

So I lend you another €1,000,000 at 5% interest. And on, and on, and on, a downward spiral of ever-increasing debt. And the more money coined, the more your money diminishes in value, and the more you need to borrow from me each year.
Until, I threaten and/or shut off your money supply and cry, enough! I’m in trouble here! You owe me all this money, I’m going bust, bail me out!

Total bolocks of course, I’m not in trouble. Nothing could be further from the truth. I coined the money out of thin air in the first place; it’s worthless, money is the last thing I want, even if you did have it.

So how do you pay me?

With whatever you put up as collateral for the loan. In this case, your country’s railways. Real wealth.

Good. I open up for business again. How much do you need, and what are you going to put up as collateral this time...

Scale it up, and you have the basic principle of the world-banking scam, I mean ‘system’ – same thing. It's a form of slavery.

In a nutshell, there will not be an economic recovery until I, Frankfurt, says they’ll be.

roosh

bazzer06 wrote: »

Wow - and here was me thinking economics was complicated stuff! Is there not the slightly important factor of production to be taken into account?

there is, but how do you propose that the Lisbon Treaty will increase production?

IrelandSpirit

ei.sdraob wrote: »

please elaborate

Napoleonic Law, guilty until proven innocent...

To hell in a basket :eek:

Napoleonic Law. Don't ya get it?

Jeez... It was a reference to Napoleon's empire, when ya got yer head lopped off at the guillotine and it flopped into a... yep, ya got it - a basket!

MarkK

mangaroosh wrote: »

No change is exaclty an option, that is what the No vote is.

That's not true, but there is a separate thread for that.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Don't try and give some fallacious reasoning that "the world is changing" threfore we have to Vote Yes to Lisbon. That is the exact type of empty rhetoric coming form the Yes campaign.

I never said that. I did not advocate either a yes or no on this thread.
You are the one pushing your agenda.

As for empty rhetoric, you are not doing so bad yourself.

mangaroosh wrote: »

I cannot prove a negative, the onus is on your good self to show how it will positively affect recovery.

You said it was a fact, I did not say it would affect it one way or the other, why is the onus me?

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

The ramifications of voting Yes are irreversible, the ramifications of voting No are reversible.

If you're not sure you should vote No

wrong!

Lisbon makes it easier for states to leave the EU

reverse away

ferngully

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

That's actually very worrying, what's the story with animal welfare?

He was talking about chickens.....
Flock numbers and monitoring for illness/neglect etc.....

Same as the EU has implemented for other animals.....

This is to balance the modern view from most that modern farm animals are machines.....

It is an unfortunate situation that there has to be rules to stop people from doing all sorts of things......

But left to their own the average modern human wants to cut corners.....

Same reason as the NCT was brought in......

To get dangerous cars off the road,because even basic things like brakes wernt being serviced and people were dying.....

So some people are Voting No because they think they wont have to make their animals lives better or put slurry tanks in to stop polluting ground water/wells/rivers/lakes etc....

Many of the farms are being run into the ground due to cheap imports......

So that should be addressed which would then give more incentive for farmers to invest in their farms,instead of selling the land off for holiday homes....

bazzer06

mangaroosh wrote: »

there is, but how do you propose that the Lisbon Treaty will increase production?

To be honest that comment was directed only towards what i think was an ignorant assertion that, firstly, the EU is any more "profit over people" than any modern western state. (I think this notion comes from the fact that the most important job of the EU is still the common market, and therefore it doesn't have the power - or arguably the mandate - to legislate on social factors which balance out the promotion of business interests); secondly your job/profit ratio takes no account of the fact that production increases profit too, and more production necessitates more workers.

As regards whether or not Lisbon would increase production, I can't think of any particular provision at the moment that assures that - it's more the fact that (and i know this is very broad and oversimplified!) Lisbon stabilises and strengthens the Union, which controls the common market, and I think a more assured guiding hand can better guide the whole market towards recovery.

Also, more legislative efficiency makes the EU better able to react to changing economic circumstances.

MarkK

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

...In a nutshell, there will not be an economic recovery until I, [/FONT][/COLOR]Frankfurt, says they’ll be.

Ok, and if Ireland and his 26 friends spend 8 years and lots of money coming up with a new plan, which Ireland has a major contributor to and agrees to.
Then Ireland suddenly says, I don't think I'll bother with the plan and I am going to block all of you from going forward with it too.
Then Ireland needs to ask his 26 friends for a favour to help with it's economic recovery, how disposed are they going to be to go overboard in helping out?

roosh

MarkK wrote: »

That's not true, but there is a separate thread for that.

How do you mena its not true? Do you mean that the scheduled changes that have been due to come into effect for years will actually come into effect?

MarkK wrote: »

I never said that. I did not advocate either a yes or no on this thread.
You are the one pushing your agenda.

As for empty rhetoric, you are not doing so bad yourself.

I don't have an agenda! I don't gain anything either way. I just personally want people to consider all of the ramifications when they vote, because there is worrying attempt by the political powers of Europe and Ireland to con the people.

It was implied that in order to keep up with a changing world, that we need Lisbon. If you didn't mean to imply it, then I apologise for the interpretation, but that is the way it came across.

MarkK wrote: »

You said it was a fact, I did not say it would affect it one way or the other, why is the onus me?

Ok, my bad, again the implication was that it would. The fact is that Lisbon has nothing to do with economic recovery, it is to do with the decision making powers of the EU. There is nothing to do with economics in there

roosh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

wrong!

Lisbon makes it easier for states to leave the EU

reverse away

how does it actually do this?

are you suggesting that leaving the EU is a positive thing, or something we should be aiming for? Lets try and remain practical

roosh

ferngully wrote: »

He was talking about chickens.....
Flock numbers and monitoring for illness/neglect etc.....

Same as the EU has implemented for other animals.....

This is to balance the modern view from most that modern farm animals are machines.....

It is an unfortunate situation that there has to be rules to stop people from doing all sorts of things......

But left to their own the average modern human wants to cut corners.....

Same reason as the NCT was brought in......

To get dangerous cars off the road,because even basic things like brakes wernt being serviced and people were dying.....

So some people are Voting No because they think they wont have to make their animals lives better or put slurry tanks in to stop polluting ground water/wells/rivers/lakes etc....

Many of the farms are being run into the ground due to cheap imports......

So that should be addressed which would then give more incentive for farmers to invest in their farms,instead of selling the land off for holiday homes....

please don't vote a certain way to try and balance someone elses vote

roosh

bazzer06 wrote: »

To be honest that comment was directed only towards what i think was an ignorant assertion that, firstly, the EU is any more "profit over people" than any modern western state. (I think this notion comes from the fact that the most important job of the EU is still the common market, and therefore it doesn't have the power - or arguably the mandate - to legislate on social factors which balance out the promotion of business interests); secondly your job/profit ratio takes no account of the fact that production increases profit too, and more production necessitates more workers.

Indeed, it was oversimplified on my behalf. However, increased production does not actually result in increased profit either. Firstly there has to be a market there to warrant the increased production - Lisbon will not create new markets. Also, production actully reduces profit, as it is a cost. Sales increases turnover which directly affects profit, but again, Lisbon won't lead to increased sales.

Also, there is nothing to suggest that increased production/sales for a particular company will result in an increase in jobs in Ireland. With the focus of companies being on profit, a lower cost base would be more desirable, or one with a lower corporation tax rate - or preferably both. There are more attractive countries in Europe based on this criteria than Ireland.

As regards whether or not Lisbon would increase production, I can't think of any particular provision at the moment that assures that - it's more the fact that (and i know this is very broad and oversimplified!) Lisbon stabilises and strengthens the Union, which controls the common market, and I think a more assured guiding hand can better guide the whole market towards recovery.

As for "profit over people", the Laval case shows a clear bias towards profit over people.

bazzer06 wrote: »

Also, more legislative efficiency makes the EU better able to react to changing economic circumstances.

This is a fair point, but whose interests are going to be primary focus? Will it be a continuation of the rising tide lifts all boats approach that hasn't actually lead to a real reduction in the gap between rich and poor?

roosh

MarkK wrote: »

Ok, and if Ireland and his 26 friends spend 8 years and lots of money coming up with a new plan, which Ireland has a major contributor to and agrees to.
Then Ireland suddenly says, I don't think I'll bother with the plan and I am going to block all of you from going forward with it too.
Then Ireland needs to ask his 26 friends for a favour to help with it's economic recovery, how disposed are they going to be to go overboard in helping out?

the thing is, we won't be dealing with the same people the whole time. But they may just be willing to go evern furhter to make sure we defintiely ratify it the next time.

ferngully

mangaroosh wrote: »

please don't vote a certain way to try and balance someone elses vote

Thats what voting is....Yes/No.....

Polls"who gets the most votes"

Yes I agree

No I dont

That person votes for what he agrees with

I vote for what I agree with

Same as if the BNP were in an election and I was standing at the post office with a pro BNP person only because he has been told it will be good for him to vote Yes for BNP.....I would make sure I voted No.....

The man was misinformed to Vote No so as he could save money on animal welfare....
I was informed enough to vote Yes....

His and others research and opinions allowed me to make an informed decision....

His words sealed the deal......

I also mentioned Human Rights as a reason to vote Yes....

Économiste Monétaire

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Hi Markk, I’m gonna try and quickly answer this one for ya, just a very basic lesson in basic centralised private banking/fractional reserve banking, based on the fiat currency we use nowadays (money out of thin air, blips on computer screens), as opposed to other forms of money which were based on precious metals, gold, silver etc:

I have a bank in centralised Frankfurt. You have a country called Ireland. I lend you, say €1,000,000 (keep it simple) at 5% interest. You put up say, you’re railway system as collateral on the loan.

End of the year, how will you pay me back both the capital and the interest?

You can’t. €1,000,000 is all the money you have in circulation.

So I lend you another €1,000,000 at 5% interest.

End of that year. How will you pay me back both the capital and the interest?

You can’t. €2,000,000 is all the money you have in circulation.

So I lend you another €1,000,000 at 5% interest. And on, and on, and on, a downward spiral of ever-increasing debt. And the more money coined, the more your money diminishes in value, and the more you need to borrow from me each year.
Until, I threaten and/or shut off your money supply and cry, enough! I’m in trouble here! You owe me all this money, I’m going bust, bail me out!

Total bolocks of course, I’m not in trouble. Nothing could be further from the truth. I coined the money out of thin air in the first place; it’s worthless, money is the last thing I want, even if you did have it.

So how do you pay me?

With whatever you put up as collateral for the loan. In this case, your country’s railways. Real wealth.

Good. I open up for business again. How much do you need, and what are you going to put up as collateral this time...

Scale it up, and you have the basic principle of the world-banking scam, I mean ‘system’ – same thing. It's a form of slavery.

In a nutshell, there will not be an economic recovery until I, Frankfurt, says they’ll be.

Zeitgeist economics strikes again! None of what you're saying is based on reality.

mangaroosh wrote: »

As Jobs are inversely related to profit, because jobs give rise to cost, which reduces profit, how will it benefit the economic recovery of the peolpe of Europe?

And hiring someone brings no advantage to firms, ergo firms should fire everyone and maximise profit...

scaredoflisbon

I am voting No in the referendum.
I just learned today that Mr Barroso (on his recent trip to Ireland) intends to provide 14 million euro to compensate the loss of jobs to the Dell workers. If that is'nt a bribe for votes I don't know what is....
A No vote is a vote for democracy. Please lets not give away our hard fought independence and Constitution.
Has everyone forgotten? Power. Germany. 1930's recession. Nazis. 2nd World War..... anyone?
This Treaty is a power grab. A step to United States of Europe.
Don't be fooled. Recessions come and go, the economy WILL recover but the Lisbon Treaty is FOREVER. There is no going back. We won't be asked for our opinion next time.
Is scares the bejesus outta me.:eek:

MarkK

mangaroosh wrote: »

How do you mena its not true? Do you mean that the scheduled changes that have been due to come into effect for years will actually come into effect?

In an EU of 27 countries with so many things requiring unanimous decisions it will be increasingly difficult to get agreement and progress in the EU.
I believe we will have less effective and less democratic EU, one country could elect a very anti EU government which would block all EU progress out of spite.

mangaroosh wrote: »

I don't have an agenda! I don't gain anything either way. I just personally want people to consider all of the ramifications when they vote, because there is worrying attempt by the political powers of Europe and Ireland to con the people.

I meant that "if you're not sure, you should vote no" is your agenda.
I agree there is an attempt to con people.
Such as saying that it's a fact that the outcome will have no real bearing on recovery, when that's just an opinion.

mangaroosh wrote: »

It was implied that in order to keep up with a changing world, that we need Lisbon. If you didn't mean to imply it, then I apologise for the interpretation, but that is the way it came across.

I meant that the future will be different either way. We have not had a 27 country EU for long.

IrelandSpirit

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Zeitgeist economics strikes again!

Oh man, please don't - I hated that documentary! I was only trying to explain it as simple as possible... jeez…:(

IrelandSpirit

scaredoflisbon wrote: »

I am voting No in the referendum.
I just learned today that Mr Barroso (on his recent trip to Ireland) intends to provide 14 million euro to compensate the loss of jobs to the Dell workers. If that is'nt a bribe for votes I don't know what is....
A No vote is a vote for democracy. Please lets not give away our hard fought independence and Constitution.
Has everyone forgotten? Power. Germany. 1930's recession. Nazis. 2nd World War..... anyone?
This Treaty is a power grab. A step to United States of Europe.
Don't be fooled. Recessions come and go, the economy WILL recover but the Lisbon Treaty is FOREVER. There is no going back. We won't be asked for our opinion next time.
Is scares the bejesus outta me.:eek:

Yeah, me too! There’s good reason to be scared:


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100003428/hail-tony-blair-president-of-europe-by-the-grace-of-gordon/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/02/world.politics

All Hail Tony Blair, Supreme Commander of Europe!

Daftendirekt

scaredoflisbon wrote: »

I am voting No in the referendum.
I just learned today that Mr Barroso (on his recent trip to Ireland) intends to provide 14 million euro to compensate the loss of jobs to the Dell workers. If that is'nt a bribe for votes I don't know what is....
A No vote is a vote for democracy. Please lets not give away our hard fought independence and Constitution.
Has everyone forgotten? Power. Germany. 1930's recession. Nazis. 2nd World War..... anyone?
This Treaty is a power grab. A step to United States of Europe.
Don't be fooled. Recessions come and go, the economy WILL recover but the Lisbon Treaty is FOREVER. There is no going back. We won't be asked for our opinion next time.
Is scares the bejesus outta me.:eek:

You do realise the EU was created after WWII to ensure nothing that awful would ever happen in Europe again?

And incidentally what drastic new power does Lisbon give the EU?

Creation of a Common Energy Policy doesn't seem all that scary to me.

Amberman

ei.sdraob wrote: »

wallowing in your own ignorance

and people wonder why the likes of Dell are leaving Ireland




no wonder so

considering you have shown in this thread to have a very closed mind, and whats worse are proud of it


/

Vote NO = Closed mind and Shamefully proud
Vote Yes = Open mind and Rightfully proud

Got it.

IrelandSpirit

Daftendirekt wrote: »

You do realise the EU was created after WWII to ensure nothing that awful would ever happen in Europe again?

And incidentally what drastic new power does Lisbon give the EU?

Creation of a Common Energy Policy doesn't seem all that scary to me.

Emmm, wasn't that the UN? Either way, any further centralisation of power IS an increase of power. And I apologise in advance 'cos I've gone on about it a couple of times now and I've already upset one Tony Blair Fan, but anywhere Tony Blair is, I personally wouldn't want to be anywhere near:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100003428/hail-tony-blair-president-of-europe-by-the-grace-of-gordon/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/02/world.politics

All Hail Tony Blair, Supreme Commander of Europe!

Daftendirekt

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Emmm, wasn't that the UN?

Well, that too, but the precursor to the EU, the European Coal and Steel Community was originally set up to bring closer economic integration between the European countries, in an attempt to end the wars that they frequently waged between one another. Still though, it has evolved since then. I just can't stand these Nazi references that are thrown around when discussing the EU.

Either way, any further centralisation of power IS an increase of power. And I apologise in advance 'cos I've gone on about it a couple of times now and I've already upset one Tony Blair Fan, but anywhere Tony Blair is, I personally wouldn't want to be anywhere near:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100003428/hail-tony-blair-president-of-europe-by-the-grace-of-gordon/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/02/world.politics

All Hail Tony Blair, Supreme Commander of Europe!

But so far, I've seen zero evidence of this further centralisation of power in Brussels. In fact, Lisbon seems to do the opposite.

As for Tony Blair, I couldn't really give a toss. He's as entitled to run for President of the European Council (not President of Europe, since that position doesn't exist) as anyone else.

K-9

scaredoflisbon wrote: »

I am voting No in the referendum.
I just learned today that Mr Barroso (on his recent trip to Ireland) intends to provide 14 million euro to compensate the loss of jobs to the Dell workers. If that is'nt a bribe for votes I don't know what is....
A No vote is a vote for democracy. Please lets not give away our hard fought independence and Constitution.
Has everyone forgotten? Power. Germany. 1930's recession. Nazis. 2nd World War..... anyone?
This Treaty is a power grab. A step to United States of Europe.
Don't be fooled. Recessions come and go, the economy WILL recover but the Lisbon Treaty is FOREVER. There is no going back. We won't be asked for our opinion next time.
Is scares the bejesus outta me.:eek:

Except the EU approved over €50 Million in State Aid to Poland to entice Dell there.

No doubt that will mean,

This is a bribe to vote No.

sdanseo

Here's a question for the yes side: do you really believe that the EU will eject us from the union, or form a new one around us as the rules may require, just because we reject this? COurse they won't. Will EU business be afraid to invest in Ireland or be otherwise dissuaded from doing so, and if so, why?

People seem to think that a no vote is a vote against the EU and a vote for us to leave it. In some ways I don't think that's a half bad idea, but the truth is that we would be in the dark without it. The truth is also though, that we are still going to be in the union if we vote no. My question is, do people reckon that'll last? Will we really be ousted eventually?