O'Leary v. Ganley - The Reckoning.

Sam Vimes · 25-09-2009 2:03pm

badinfleunce wrote: »

No enlighten me? This comparison is a bit lame. The Good Friday Agreement is an international agreement between the British and Irish governments. Not an agreement between EU states and the constitution of Ireland was changed to reflect the agreement making it Law.

You are saying the guarantees are not binding even though they've gone through the same procedure as the unquestionably legally binding good Friday Agreement. In fact they've gone through much more because they were passed in all 27 parliaments of the EU.

badinfleunce wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty is still the same and Article 28(c)(3) states ‘Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.’

Nothing has changed here. The thing to note here is making "Civilian" capabilities available to the Union. This means providing our people, the people of Ireland, for military operations whatever those operations may be.

Yes that is the interpretation that the no side have taken of the text. however the guarantees, ahem, guarantees that their interpretation of the text is incorrect, that that is not what it means and that it actually means:

The Union's common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy and provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.

It does not prejudice the security and defence policy of each Member State, including Ireland, or the obligations of any Member State.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements, whether or not to adopt a common defence.

Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.

It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured cooperation or the European Defence Agency.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

Seriously mate, we're not trying to dupe you. I don't work for a sooper sekrit government organisation, I have just looked at the facts and accepted them. The people who are saying that Lisbon ends our neutrality are the same people who said that Nice would end our neutrality. They are liars

ei.sdraob · 25-09-2009 2:04pm

badinfleunce wrote: »

ARTICLE 28 (c) 3 - Read it!

done

“member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.”

Ireland is spending 700,000 over 3 years in order to research bulletproof vest technologies for our soldiers in the field

if this saves the lives of out peacekeepers then this is money well spend

next :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes · 25-09-2009 2:05pm

badinfleunce wrote: »

ARTICLE 28 (c) 3 - Read it!

Look, I don't give a sh!t what article 28 (c) says and I don't care what Sinn Fein says it means. I have a legally binding guarantee that it does not do what Sinn Fein says it does and that's more than I ever needed because I knew from the start that our neutrality was not at risk. If I read it and interpret it to mean that we would have to send our children to war, I will know I have interpreted it wrongly.

ei.sdraob · 25-09-2009 2:11pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Look, I don't give a sh!t what article 28 (c) says and I don't care what Sinn Fein says it means. I have a legally binding guarantee that it does not do what Sinn Fein says it does and that's more than I ever needed because I knew from the start that our neutrality was not at risk. If I read it and interpret it to mean that we would have to send our children to war, I will know I have interpreted it wrongly.

SF have been claiming since before we joined EU and at every single Treaty

that our neutrality is at risk

and they are still at it

a bit hypocritical coming from Sinn Fein knowing that some of the people they represent and defend (ahem ahem) have no problems killing people and police

nattyguest · 25-09-2009 2:15pm

Whatever people vote, I think many from either side agree that Michael O'Leary didn't communicate the yes case very well last night.

I've been reading through and reading through, I'm still undecided and my views don't match up entirely with either camp. Neutrality seems to be coming up time and again. I think neutrality sounds nice and moral on paper but in reality if another member state was attacked, I think we should play our part. I guess the issue would then become whether playing our part would result in having an Irish army in Afghanistan, etc.. which mires things further.

There's so much to consider. I just hope people get off their arses and vote rather than stay at home then moan about the result which they didn't contribute to, in traditional Irish fashion.

Sam Vimes · 25-09-2009 2:17pm

badinfleunce, put it this way: On the one hand I have the European Union, the government, the referendum commission and every impartial source telling me that our neutrality is not now nor ever was at risk.

And on the other hand I have Sinn Fein, Coir (fundamentalist christians who would like to see us back inthe 1930's) and a few other misfits telling me our neutrality is at risk, the same people who've been saying we would lose it for every treaty over the last ten years. Basically, I don't care how convincing an argument they put forward because I wouldn't trust these people to tell me the time. They are adept at putting forward very convincing arguments for their lies, often by quoting the treaty and telling you what they think it means so I just ignore them. These people do not have your best interests at heart, they are trying to further their extremist agendas and will do and say whatever it takes to fool people into giving them what they want

badinfleunce · 25-09-2009 2:25pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You are saying the guarantees are not binding even though they've gone through the same procedure as the unquestionably legally binding good Friday Agreement. In fact they've gone through much more because they were passed in all 27 parliaments of the EU.

Yes that is the interpretation that the no side have taken of the text. however the guarantees, ahem, guarantees that their interpretation of the text is incorrect, that that is not what it means and that it actually means:

Seriously mate, we're not trying to dupe you. I don't work for a sooper sekrit government organisation, I have just looked at the facts and accepted them. The people who are saying that Lisbon ends our neutrality are the same people who said that Nice would end our neutrality. They are liars

Ok you have your views and I have mine - fine! But if our views differ so much and the Judges in a European court have their opinions on the Lisbon Treaty and their interpretations arent the same we cannot gaurantee the outcome or judgement. I can't gaurantee it and you can't gaurantee it and for this reason I am voting No.

Its just not watertight and if it was watertight the treaty would be changed in body to reflect this. The treaty as it stands has not changed one word. Its the same treaty. The transfer of so much power to Europe is too much and I feel we are far removed from Europe. We will end up being inadvertently governed by Germany and France and losing our independence. This treaty sets the path to EU enlargement and the erosion of our independence.

ei.sdraob · 25-09-2009 2:30pm

badinfleunce wrote: »

Ok you have your views and I have mine - fine! But if our views differ so much and the Judges in a European court have their opinions on the Lisbon Treaty and their interpretations arent the same we cannot gaurantee the outcome or judgement. I can't gaurantee it and you can't gaurantee it and for this reason I am voting No.

Its just not watertight and if it was watertight the treaty would be changed in body to reflect this. The treaty as it stands has not changed one word. Its the same treaty. The transfer of so much power to Europe is too much and I feel we are far removed from Europe. We will end up being inadvertently governed by Germany and France and losing our independence. This treaty sets the path to EU enlargement and the erosion of our independence.

dude whats up with all the fear mongering today?

thats exact same arguments we heard in 73 when joined EU

and maastrich

and nice

and now lisbon

im still waiting for the sky to fall

here read this and ask yourself have these people ever been right about anything

/

Sam Vimes · 25-09-2009 2:30pm

badinfleunce wrote: »

Ok you have your views and I have mine - fine! But if our views differ so much and the Judges in a European court have their opinions on the Lisbon Treaty and their interpretations arent the same we cannot gaurantee the outcome or judgement. I can't gaurantee it and you can't gaurantee it and for this reason I am voting No.

Its just not watertight and if it was watertight the treaty would be changed in body to reflect this. The treaty as it stands has not changed one word. Its the same treaty. The transfer of so much power to Europe is too much and I feel we are far removed from Europe. We will end up being inadvertently governed by Germany and France and losing our independence. This treaty sets the path to EU enlargement and the erosion of our independence.

No, this is what you don't seem to be grasping. There are two interpretations on this:

The correct one
The extremist one

There is absolutely no chance in any way whatsoever that the European court will rule in a way that contradicts the guarantees. I can guarantee you that with 100% certainty. It is watertight. This is not a case where we both have our opinions and they are equally valid, I have the facts and you have the lie that you have unfortunately been led to believe. You may as well be saying that we each have our opinions on the colour of an orange and that because you think I can't guarantee that it's orange it's ok to believe it's blue. If you vote no on this matter you will be justifying a third Lisbon vote because you will again be voting because of misconceptions and lies, which was the justification for the second vote.

badinfleunce · 25-09-2009 2:44pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

badinfleunce, put it this way: On the one hand I have the European Union, the government, the referendum commission and every impartial source telling me that our neutrality is not now nor ever was at risk.

And on the other hand I have Sinn Fein, Coir (fundamentalist christians who would like to see us back inthe 1930's) and a few other misfits telling me our neutrality is at risk, the same people who've been saying we would lose it for every treaty over the last ten years. Basically, I don't care how convincing an argument they put forward because I wouldn't trust these people to tell me the time. They are adept at putting forward very convincing arguments for their lies, often by quoting the treaty and telling you what they think it means so I just ignore them. These people do not have your best interests at heart, they are trying to further their extremist agendas and will do and say whatever it takes to fool people into giving them what they want

The thing is Sam the Yes camp are still fighting this campaign on the back foot with nothing concrete or positive for the electorate. Its constantly defending the position of Lisbon without any positives or real benefits that the treaty embodies. Nobody is fooling anyone. As I already said it clear in Black and White in the lisbon treaty.

By the way I am not Sinn Fein or or that way swayed. This treaty is a huge worrying leap for Ireland and the Government has done little to convince me or the people that already voted on this treaty. They are not considering the future implications of this treaty and are hell bent on getting this passed.

They are not representing the majority and are damaging the core values of Democracy, Ireland and Europe.

No means No - I have read and I understand the Lisbon treaty. It took me a while as it is not in plain English. This is more than what our leader Brian Cowan did in the last election. So the arguement that we didnt understand the treaty is an insult to the people of this country effectively stating that we are all incapable of making a decision based on the information provided.

The only ones trying to fool the electorate is the Yes camp by implying by voting Yes will get us out of the mess this government got us into. This is just lies as there is nothing contained in the Lisbon Treaty to back this up.

Im sick of this Government and their lies and I will be Voting No again.

Dinner · 25-09-2009 2:48pm

badinfleunce wrote: »

Its constantly defending the position of Lisbon without any positives or real benefits that the treaty embodies.

What else can they do! Every time there is a debate, yes camp spend the whole time debunking the absolute lies spread by the no camps. There just isn't enough hours in the day to both debunk the no camps lies and say why the treaty is good.

badinfleunce · 25-09-2009 2:49pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, this is what you don't seem to be grasping. There are two interpretations on this:
The correct one

The extremist one

There is absolutely no chance in any way whatsoever that the European court will rule in a way that contradicts the guarantees. I can guarantee you that with 100% certainty. It is watertight. This is not a case where we both have our opinions and they are equally valid, I have the facts and you have the lie that you have unfortunately been led to believe. You may as well be saying that we each have our opinions on the colour of an orange and that because you think I can't guarantee that it's orange it's ok to believe it's blue. If you vote no on this matter you will be justifying a third Lisbon vote because you will again be voting because of misconceptions and lies, which was the justification for the second vote.

Maybe you are Orange but I am Green and I will always have my country at heart!

Sam Vimes · 25-09-2009 3:00pm

badinfleunce wrote: »

Maybe you are Orange but I am Green and I will always have my country at heart!

Then you should be voting yes

badinfleunce wrote: »

The thing is Sam the Yes camp are still fighting this campaign on the back foot with nothing concrete or positive for the electorate. Its constantly defending the position of Lisbon without any positives or real benefits that the treaty embodies. Nobody is fooling anyone. As I already said it clear in Black and White in the lisbon treaty.

By the way I am not Sinn Fein or or that way swayed. This treaty is a huge worrying leap for Ireland and the Government has done little to convince me or the people that already voted on this treaty. They are not considering the future implications of this treaty and are hell bent on getting this passed.

They are not representing the majority and are damaging the core values of Democracy, Ireland and Europe.

No means No - I have read and I understand the Lisbon treaty. It took me a while as it is not in plain English. This is more than what our leader Brian Cowan did in the last election. So the arguement that we didnt understand the treaty is an insult to the people of this country effectively stating that we are all incapable of making a decision based on the information provided.

The only ones trying to fool the electorate is the Yes camp by implying by voting Yes will get us out of the mess this government got us into. This is just lies as there is nothing contained in the Lisbon Treaty to back this up.

Im sick of this Government and their lies and I will be Voting No again.

That post is so depressing. I've tried my best but you're determined to vote down a benign and beneficial treaty that's necessary for the union because of the lies of extremists and the hatred of our government. I started to reply to it but I was just saying the same thing I've said literally hundreds of times before. It honestly makes me wish Ireland would follow Germany and The Netherlands in making referendums illegal so that things like this could go through on their merits and not on who has the most convincing lies. Vote no if you want but you will be damaging Ireland and the European Union for years to come over nothing more than misconceptions, lies and paranoia. The EU would be better off without Ireland as a member as long as the Crotty judgement stands

badinfleunce · 25-09-2009 3:20pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then you should be voting yes

That post is so depressing. I've tried my best but you're determined to vote down a benign and beneficial treaty that's necessary for the union because of the lies of extremists and the hatred of our government. I started to reply to it but I was just saying the same thing I've said literally hundreds of times before. It honestly makes me wish Ireland would follow Germany and The Netherlands in making referendums illegal so that things like this could go through on their merits and not on who has the most convincing lies. Vote no if you want but you will be damaging Ireland and the European Union for years to come over nothing more than misconceptions, lies and paranoia. The EU would be better off without Ireland as a member as long as the Crotty judgement stands

"Vote no if you want but you will be damaging Ireland and the European Uion for years to come"

This is the scaremongering tactics that the Yes side are offering. We are part of europe and thats that. We're not going anywhere in the event of a No vote. You cannot get expelled for democratically voting. So stop misleading the electorate.

Concentrate on the Lisbon Treaty and whats contained in it. There is very little in terms of positivity for Ireland.

Dr Pepper · 25-09-2009 3:32pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The EU would be better off without Ireland as a member as long as the Crotty judgement stands

I whole-heartedly agree. Any other Yes voters secretly kind-of-half-ish hoping for a No vote for the benefit of the EU? (i.e. a No vote perhaps allowing the rest of Europe to progress without the nonsensical Irish referendum 'roadblock' every few years).

Sam Vimes · 25-09-2009 3:37pm

badinfleunce wrote: »

"Vote no if you want but you will be damaging Ireland and the European Uion for years to come"

This is the scaremongering tactics that the Yes side are offering. We are part of europe and thats that. We're not going anywhere in the event of a No vote. You cannot get expelled for democratically voting. So stop misleading the electorate.

I spent multiple pages engaging you in rational debate and you made it clear you will not change your position regardless of how thoroughly I prove that you've been lied to. At no point did I say we would get expelled so stop putting words in my mouth. I said it would damage Ireland because it shows us to be isolationist, it makes us look like we're not committed to the EU and, frankly, it shows us to be a bunch of ignoramuses who won't accept the facts because we'd rather believe terrorists and fundamentalist christians.

And it will be damaging for the EU because they didn't spend 5 years and millions writing it for the craic. The EU will probably continue under Nice rules but will be crippled by the bureaucracy and inefficiencies that Lisbon is meant to address.

Sam Vimes · 25-09-2009 3:38pm

Dr Pepper wrote: »

I whole-heartedly agree. Any other Yes voters secretly kind-of-half-ish hoping for a No vote for the benefit of the EU? (i.e. a No vote perhaps allowing the rest of Europe to progress without the nonsensical Irish referendum 'roadblock' every few years).

Not really because a no vote won't allow that. I'm confused

Dr Pepper · 25-09-2009 3:49pm

Do you think that the EU will really be stopped in it's tracks by an (IMO irrational) Irish No vote? I don't know but I doubt it. I'm confused too! Surely there is a way!

It wouldn't be much of an organisation if it couldn't overcome this bunch of "unemployable headbangers" and the people who choose to believe them (i.e. most of the population).

/edit - added IMO before irrational

Stark · 25-09-2009 3:52pm

They could offer Irish opt-outs on specific issues to allow the EU to proceed with the bits Ireland doesn't like on its own, and allow Ireland to ratify the rest of the Treaty. Oh wait, they already did that...

moondogspot · 25-09-2009 3:54pm

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Do you think that the EU will really be stopped in it's tracks by an (irrational) Irish No vote? I don't know but I doubt it. I'm confused too! Surely there is a way!

Regardless of our vote, Lisbon will be stopped in its tracks when President Vaclav Klaus of the

Czech Republic doesn't sign allowing Britain enough time to have a referendum to vote it down.

Sam Vimes · 25-09-2009 3:58pm

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Do you think that the EU will really be stopped in it's tracks by an (irrational) Irish No vote? I don't know but I doubt it. I'm confused too! Surely there is a way!

It wouldn't be much of an organisation if it couldn't overcome this bunch of "unemployable headbangers" and the people who choose to believe them (i.e. most of the population).

Yes there is a way, they could opt us out of future treaties where possible and/or only put through the things that don't require a referendum but that wouldn't be made any easier by a no vote. Tbh I think they'll do that anyway, I know I would. There's literally no way of knowing what they can put in a treaty and what they can't because we're not voting on anything that's in the treaty. So either they opt us out entirely or they only include things that don't need a referendum or they take their chances. If they want changes that require a referendum they'd be best off putting those issues in a mini-treaty on their own but I wouldn't hold out much hope if I was them

Sam Vimes · 25-09-2009 4:02pm

moondogspot wrote: »

Regardless of our vote, Lisbon will be stopped in its tracks when President Vaclav Klaus of the

Czech Republic doesn't sign allowing Britain enough time to have a referendum to vote it down.

If the Czech Republic refuses to sign why would Britain have a referendum? It can't go through unless everyone signs so it would just be a waste of money

Spiritoftheseventies · 25-09-2009 4:05pm

Yes listened to O Leary on Last word debate yesterday. Incredibly arrogant and like Ganley shows little respect for elected representatives. The way O'Leary put down Higgins and McKenna was outragous in my opinion.
End of the day Higgins made a very good point. O Leary is anti union yet is in favour of a treaty that is in favour of workers rights or purports to be.
How much of that charter on workers rights will O Leary be adhering to at the end of the day.

Sam Vimes · 25-09-2009 4:07pm

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes listened to O Leary on Last word debate yesterday. Incredibly arrogant and like Ganley shows little respect for elected representatives. The way O'Leary put down Higgins and McKenna was outragous in my opinion.

Not as outrageous as their deliberate and blatant lies but there ya go. I think they should be jailed tbh.

oscarBravo · 25-09-2009 4:13pm

moondogspot wrote: »

Regardless of our vote, Lisbon will be stopped in its tracks when President Vaclav Klaus of the

Czech Republic doesn't sign allowing Britain enough time to have a referendum to vote it down.

Yay for democracy, when one man can single-handedly overrule his country's parliament.

bayviewclose wrote: »

How much of that charter on workers rights will O Leary be adhering to at the end of the day.

Presumably as much as will be required by law, same as every other employer.

Stark · 25-09-2009 4:29pm

bayviewclose wrote:

O Leary is anti union yet is in favour of a treaty that is in favour of workers rights or purports to be.

I'm anti-union but in favour of workers' rights. I am after all a worker myself and prefer to see policies that benefit everyone and not just those in a few select clubs.

25-09-2009 5:10pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yay for democracy, when one man can single-handedly overrule his country's parliament.

LOL
******IRONY ALERT********

Yay for democracy when we get the same treaty (which is the recyled EU constitution rejected by the Dutch and French) thrown back at us and told to vote again!

Sam Vimes · 25-09-2009 5:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

LOL
******IRONY ALERT********

Yay for democracy when we get the same treaty (which is the recyled EU constitution rejected by the Dutch and French) thrown back at us and told to vote again!

Link

Dinner · 25-09-2009 5:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

LOL
******IRONY ALERT********

Yay for democracy when we get the same treaty (which is the recyled EU constitution rejected by the Dutch and French) thrown back at us and told to vote again!

You forgot to mention the small factor of addressing the concerns and then putting it to vote again.

Sorry to split hairs.

drkpower · 25-09-2009 5:12pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yay for democracy, when one man can single-handedly overrule his country's parliament.

Presumably as much as will be required by law, same as every other employer.

Isnt Klaus entitled, under his country's rules, to delay the signing of Lisbon? And arent the UK entitled to ratify/not ratify according to their own rules/views?

I wouldn't be happy about it, but if we in Ireland are entilted to follow our rules to have a referendum (once, twice or more times), how can we give out if other nations are using their own national rules as they see fit?

Isnt the whole point that each nation ratifies according to their own rules, whatever they may be?

O'Leary v. Ganley - The Reckoning.

Comments