Declan Ganley wants a United States of Europe

My name is URL

ei.sdraob wrote: »

no need im used to them nitpicking on punctuation and grammar instead of addressing the big white elephant in room

There's that generalisation again.. them!

Look I'm not trying to nitpick, and the only white elephant in the room is made of straw and built by you

The fact is that Ganley's own views have no bearing on the treaty at all, and I've seen posts by you asking for others to stick to the facts of the treaty for their arguments

ei.sdraob

Plotician wrote: »

Hey ei,

Thought i'd help you out a bit. Here's the link to where Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, likens the EU to an empire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I8M1T-GgRU

It's fairly easy to follow (specifically tailored for normal people) and is where the whole 'empire' thing started from. As such i would recommend that you refer anyone who happens to mention the 'empire' word to this link.

Everyone can then form their own interpretation of it independently of the opinions of individuals here.

Happy to be of service.

sigh some of the comments on that page

We're Screwed. Even ****ing Youtube are forcing "yes" ads down our throat now. If the thick Irish ***** are fooled by the bull**** lies and promises, then they deserve the **** they're going to get. THEY IGNORED OUR FIRST VOTE AND MADE US DO IT AGAIN. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT OUR NEW DEMOCRACY ?????. VOTE NO FOR **** SAKE !!!!

ei.sdraob

My name is URL wrote: »

There's that generalisation again.. them!

Look I'm not trying to nitpick, and the only white elephant in the room is made of straw and built by you

The fact is that Ganley's own views have no bearing on the treaty at all, and I've seen posts by you asking for others to stick to the facts of the treaty for their arguments

Fair enough

i made this post to address SOME of the same bull**** being brought up

by SOME members

over and over

Plotician

ei.sdraob wrote: »

sigh some of the comments on that page

Well bully for you - how about actually listening to Barroso?

(It's better to be informed, rather than resort to the rhetoric as a sidestep don't you think).

ei.sdraob

Plotician wrote: »

Well bully for you - how about actually listening to Barroso?

(It's better to be informed, rather than resort to the rhetoric as a sidestep don't you think).

i did his (bad) analogy is being taken out of context and twisted

Declan on other hand is being quite clear


if you listen to whole thing he clearly describes

"EU is not a United States of Europe"

and calls it

a "a Unique Construct in history"

BlitzKrieg

sigh some of the comments on that page

I'm still trying to work out if this is a pisstake or not

EU is the only thing that can save europe and its white population


/watch?v=7HsgqvJmKAw&feature=p layer_profilepage#t=12


us whites/europeans are dying out like crazy and are being killed by others all over the world, EVEN IN OUR OWN COUNTRIES ****ING NON EUROPEANS ARE KILL OUR EUROPEAN BROTHERS... how the **** can u dick sucking mother ****ers allow that ****
shame on u!! ALL WHITE people deserve to die!!! for not helping their race EXCEPT THE MOST RACIST NAZIS.. they deserve to live

I thought the racist remark at the end confirmed it as a p*sstake but his profile is equally horrid

On the video itself, he does explain his comment quite well I thought. It is like an empire in its size, but unlike an empire in that its not a imperial rule (which is a core aspect of empires). It also helps that he spent 4 minutes before the comment emphasizing how unique the EU is.

When you consider historically how empire's work and the era they come from (where instead of nations it was mostly kingdoms and ethnic groups) its a logical comment if somewhat unwise in his wordings. Consider the wiki on the holy roman empire as a comparison maybe?

Plotician

ok, some concensus on one thing at least. So remember, just point people commenting on the empire aspect to the video. Will save you a lot of energy!

IgnatiusPop

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lets not forget Jens-Peter Bonde from Denmark

and his false advertising campaign targeting Irish voters

is another "advisor" to the man

the whole thing is so dodgy it smells


/

What you are talking about has nothing at all to do with the Lisbon II Treaty. So stop spouting this conspiracy theory BS. Personally I couldnt care less where Ganley comes from -despite his accent he is an Irishman. I dont think its very clever to attack a man based on hearsay that is only backed up with sources that are no more credible than wikipedia. I would also like to point out that it is the Lisbon treaty that would open the doors to a federal system , or a "United States of Europe", and Declan Ganley is not supporting it, he is OPPOSING it, otherwise he'd be in the Yes camp.:mad:

The fact of the matter folks is that we have a very dangerous situation on our hands with this Lisbon Treaty and people are not taking it seriously enough. Many people are not doing any proper research into the RELEVENT issues, but rather into gossip and slander regarding the politicans on both sides of the debate. We need to move past this and fast because October the 2nd is only around the corner - and we need another No vote if we are ever to have any hope of restoring our economy, and our country, to what it was before January 2009.

I understand that many people are scared about what might happen if we vote No a second time- that it might mean more job losses, or higher taxes, but think about it; We are a full member state of the EU. We cannot be kicked out. Therefore voting No to Lisbon is not the same as saying No to Europe. Saying No will not prevent us from trading with Europe as we have always done, and we can continue to get money as we need it from the European Central Bank. These things wont change.

We are in the middle of the biggest recession in nearly 100 years - so of course people are going to loose their jobs, and of course taxes are going to be raised, as countries try to recoup their losses. But this will not last forever! Already many countries are showing signs of recovery. But the Lisbon Treaty is NOTHING to do with any of these issues. The treaty has one aim only - to open the door to a far more socialist and federalised europe, so that politicians in Brussells can gain greater control of the trillions of tax euros floating around the EU, and can have greater control on spending - and its not spending on stuff we want! Countries like Germany and France - which have the biggest populations, who effectivly control the EU, and who have FORCED our country to hold a wholly un-democratic second referendum, have thought for a long time that our low corporate tax rate is unfair, because of its attractivness to foreign companies. One of the items that the Lisbon treaty will allow for - not directly - but it will open the legal doors in Brussells to get this pushed through - is a flat rate for Taxation. Now when you consider that Germanys corporate tax currently stands at 15% and that of France is just over 33%, you can see that a flat rate would undoubtedly raise our own to be more in line with these and other EU countries. You can also see why foreign investors like Ireland so much, as our corporate tax stands at just 12.5%. Companies that come to the Republic save millions in taxes compaired to those that go to France or Germany. To say that the loss of our low corporate tax rate would be a catastrophy for our efforts to pull the country out of recession is an understatement - particularly when you consider that multinationals (the ones that are left anyway) currently employ one hundred and fifty thousand workers in the Republic.


The biggest thing that we, as a country, prepairing for this referendum should be concerned with is this: That the so called assurance and guarentees that Brian Cowen and the YES camp have been pushing are NOT LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENTS. I appologise for the cap's but this point cannot be stressed hard enough. These guarentees are not part of the treaty, and therefore do not carry any legal weight whatsoever. If you doubt that, then consider that the Treaty has not been re-ratified to include them - not a coma has changed since 2008 so our "Assurances" dont carry any weight at all in an EU court. What these "assurances" amount to are basically an I.O.U from the European Council, that states that if we vote yes to Lisbon, (a move that will put our current low corporate tax rate at risk of being called anti-competitive and theirefore illegal by the EU), after an indeterminant amount of time they promise that they will make the "Guarentees" they gave our government into EU Protocols, or EU laws. Anyone else see the problem there? We have to give control of our taxes, border control and foreign policy AWAY, BEFORE the EU plan on making their "guarentees" Legal.

Guys, it is very, very easy to give up control of something, but in the case of our control over our OWN taxation, it will be impossible to get it back from the EU if we vote Yes to Lisbon. And lets be very clear on this - if we are no longer allowed to keep our 12.5% corporate tax rate then the job situation in Ireland will very quickly resemble the Ireland of the 1950's.

If any of you are in any doubt about this, the Referendum Commission have even alluded to it in the "Lisbon Treaty:Your Guide" pamphlet that they pushed through everyones letterboxes. On page 6, there is a Blue Panel and it refers to the assurances that the EU gave to our government. They cover Taxation, Social Issues, Defence and Foreign Policy, and Workers Rights. They say in the last paragraph that the assurances "...will be added to a future EU Treaty as a protocol. This would make the decision part of EU Law.".

We are all intelligent people here, so Surely we can all smell a rat. We are expected to give up control of these crucial issues to the European Council FIRST, and then expect them to just give us back control like they have "assured" us - even though at that point they would have NO Legal Obligation whatsoever to do so. Giving the European Council the benifit of the doubt: If the council intend to allow us to retain our control over our own corporate (and other) taxation, then why ask us to vote Yes to Lisbon first? Why not make the "Assurances" the law before we vote in the first place?

I am not Anti-Europe. I love Ireland, and excusing a gap year or two, I would never live anywhere else, and I recognise that without Europe we would have had a very hard time developing the infrastructure we now have, and the jobs that most of us enjoyed up until recently. But the country must stand together and oppose this farce for what it is - an attempt to hoodwink a country so a handfull of Euro-Politicians can have greater access to money and jobs for Their constituants, at ours and other countries expense. Thats all this is about, and if Lisbon is ratified it will be done at our expense.

Consider that we are now 10 days away from holding a SECOND referendum on an issue that we have already said no to. This is not democracy,this is bullying, and as a people we need to rise above it. If we allow a Yes vote, then the political and economic landscape of this country will be irreversably changed.

Please consider this when you vote on October 2nd.

roosh

sceptre wrote: »

You keep saying this on unrelated threads. As my time is too limited to meander around pointing out that I'm being asked to vote on a particular treaty rather than whether I like the colour of Brian Cowen's underwear or how he manages or mismanages the country or manages a treaty proposal, I'll simply point it out here. Even though it's off-topic really but that hasn't stopped you from dropping it around like cheap confetti.

We're being asked to vote on whether we approve the Lisbon Treaty or not. Fun and all as it is to play a game of amateur dominos, where one hopes that a Lisbon refusal may lead to a NAMA refusal or Brian Cowen being driven out of the country like the snakes of yore, I don't play amateur dominos much, I don't pretend that I'm being asked question X when it's really question Y (which makes life much simpler in nightclubs and when ordering lunch) and when the question arises about whether to get rid of the government, revoke citizenship from Coir members for stupidity, criticise either camp in this oft-childishly run debate where no-one can manage to stay on-topic without making things up or take each piece of legislation individually, you can be sure I'll have an opinion on all that.

But as I've said before, voting yea or nay based on an unrelated question is plain stupid. I might have used the word retarded, I'm not sure. But either way, it's the sticky end of the stupid stick. And whether this is "letting them know it's acceptable" is an unrelated question. Definitely the sticky end of that stick. Is the Lisbon treaty good or bad for Europe, for Ireland or for you? You get to make up your own mind on that. But answer that question when you're voting, don't all crowd around the sticky end of the stupid stick answering an unrelated question like people voting in "You're A Star" based on location rather than talent. I've definitely said this before, but doing that and touting that (pimping it even) makes me wonder about the education system in this country. It makes me fearful for the future of this country if that's the limit set by those emerging from that education system. And that's worrying. Very worrying.

The question on October 2 is very important. Take the time to answer that question, regardless of which way you vote. Not some unrelated question you'd prefer they asked instead. Anything else is a waste of your time, vote and presumably education.

The problem is, this isn't a simple question of whether or not we think Lisbon is good. It is first a question of whether we think that everything about the Lisbon Treaty is the right thing for Europe? I most certainly do not think that everything in it is positive for Europe, not least a call to increased arms being directed by the arms industry.

Secondly, this is a vote on the kind of politics we are willing to accept in this country and not just fromt the current government, but from all the major political parties. Your can fantasize about wearing Brian Cowens underwear on your head for all I care. Here we have all of the major political parties of this country, happy to fob us off with empty rhetoric and an appeal to empotion to get us to pass a Treaty that quite clearly means something.

On the other hand we have a European Union that is quite happy to ratifiy legislation without consulting the people that it is supposed to represent. Ironically, it is attempting to hoodwink us with a piece of legislation that it claims will lead to greater openess and transparency. I would find the Irony mildly amusing if it wasn't such a serious issue. If we vote Yes, not only do we say that it is OK for the EU to continue to do this, we give them more actual power to do so.

I also find it worrying that those who vote Yes, seem unwilling to consider the potential wider ramifications of the vote, simply choosing to believe what they see on paper, that rarely translates to be as simple as it appears. Instead opting to consdescend and questions peoples levels of intelligence, when perhaps they should be questioning their own self interest and indeed motivation.

On October 2nd, when you are casting your vote, why don't you consider what kind of politics you are willing to accept in Ireland and in Europe, one where the people get to vote, or one where the politicians that prove themselves over and over to be incompetent, get to decide.

nr147

you have taken declan ganleys quote out of context. he may not have articulated what he was trying to say in the way that he meant to. what he meant was that a TRULY DEMOCRATIC United States of Europe is the way to go and not a right-wing, militarised E.U. that is run by the multi-nationals. it is a race to the bottom, the lower the rates of pay the more these multi-nationals make. we all now who they are.
A yes vote will be followed by Turkey joining the E.U. in a few years and an influx of even more immigrants, more money being spent on militarising each member state to the detriment of health, education and so on.
If the treaty is ratified it will have grave repercushions for generations to come.
In short we are all F****d. And no i am not employed by any NO campaigners. I am an ordinary Dubliner with a wife and 3 kids and doing a FAS course bacause i got laid off.
I can see through all their propaganda bull****. The YES side are relying on the publics ignorance by scaremongering them into voting yes. Dont be fooled. they are a shower of slimey, self-serving bastards with 4 pensions when they retire and so on. VOTE NO or your children and their children will ask you why you didn't.

Sam Vimes

nr147 wrote: »

you have taken declan ganleys quote out of context. he may not have articulated what he was trying to say in the way that he meant to. what he meant was that a TRULY DEMOCRATIC United States of Europe is the way to go and not a right-wing, militarised E.U. that is run by the multi-nationals.

Regardless, he wants the US of E that so many dread

nr147 wrote: »

it is a race to the bottom, the lower the rates of pay the more these multi-nationals make. we all now who they are.

While that is logically true, I see no connection between that and the treaty.

nr147 wrote: »

A yes vote will be followed by Turkey joining the E.U. in a few years and an influx of even more immigrants,

No it won't, the treaty has zero to do with Turkey

nr147 wrote: »

more money being spent on militarising each member state to the detriment of health, education and so on.

We have a legally binding guarantee that the treaty "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"

nr147 wrote: »

I can see through all their propaganda bull****. The YES side are relying on the publics ignorance by scaremongering them into voting yes. Dont be fooled. they are a shower of slimey, self-serving bastards with 4 pensions when they retire and so on. VOTE NO or your children and their children will ask you why you didn't.

I'm afraid my friend that you are the one who has been fooled. I can perfectly understand why you would be inclined to believe these things but none of them are true. You have been lied to, but not by the people you think. Just some of the lies that have been told in this referendum by the no side:

€200 billion in fisheries
€1.84 minimum wage
Forcing us to engage in military action in a terrorist attack
European superstate
Abortion, gay marriage and EUthanasia
Death penalty
Massive conspiracy to pretend the guarantees are binding
Corrupt surveys to make up fake issues and pretend to address them
Keep voting until you give the right answer
Ryanair allowed buy Aer Lingus in exchange for the campaign
Rigged polls to make it look like the yes side are ahead
Lisbon allows Turkish accession (with fake video)
Lisbon makes EU law superior to Irish law
Losing the right to referendums
Self-amending and escalator clause
Privatisation of healthcare and education
More military spending
Lavelle case could happen here
Charter of human rights allows the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
Voting weight halved
Loss of veto in all areas
Allows EU to raise our corporation tax
Conscription into a non-existent EU army
EU commission diverted €10 million to yes campaign
Treaty is the same as the constitution dressed up to avoid referendums
Fake polls made up by Coir

prinz

IgnatiusPop wrote: »

What you are talking about has nothing at all to do with the Lisbon II Treaty. So stop spouting this conspiracy theory BS. Personally I couldnt care less where Ganley comes from -despite his accent he is an Irishman. I dont think its very clever to attack a man based on hearsay that is only backed up with sources that are no more credible than wikipedia.

Er no. Have you looked at who sits on the boards of his companies? Who contributes money to his groups? etc etc.

IgnatiusPop wrote: »

I would also like to point out that it is the Lisbon treaty that would open the doors to a federal system , or a "United States of Europe", and Declan Ganley is not supporting it, he is OPPOSING it, otherwise he'd be in the Yes camp.:mad:

Have you read his 2003 paper? Written and submitted to a body which is tasked with promoting American interests.

IgnatiusPop wrote: »

Consider that we are now 10 days away from holding a SECOND referendum on an issue that we have already said no to. This is not democracy,this is bullying, and as a people we need to rise above it. If we allow a Yes vote, then the political and economic landscape of this country will be irreversably changed.

A second referendum is nothing new, and in no way undemocratic. SO we vote again, and we could still vote no. What's the problem?

marco_polo

IgnatiusPop wrote: »

What you are talking about has nothing at all to do with the Lisbon II Treaty. So stop spouting this conspiracy theory BS. Personally I couldnt care less where Ganley comes from -despite his accent he is an Irishman. I dont think its very clever to attack a man based on hearsay that is only backed up with sources that are no more credible than wikipedia. I would also like to point out that it is the Lisbon treaty that would open the doors to a federal system , or a "United States of Europe", and Declan Ganley is not supporting it, he is OPPOSING it, otherwise he'd be in the Yes camp.:mad:

The fact of the matter folks is that we have a very dangerous situation on our hands with this Lisbon Treaty and people are not taking it seriously enough. Many people are not doing any proper research into the RELEVENT issues, but rather into gossip and slander regarding the politicans on both sides of the debate. We need to move past this and fast because October the 2nd is only around the corner - and we need another No vote if we are ever to have any hope of restoring our economy, and our country, to what it was before January 2009.

I understand that many people are scared about what might happen if we vote No a second time- that it might mean more job losses, or higher taxes, but think about it; We are a full member state of the EU. We cannot be kicked out. Therefore voting No to Lisbon is not the same as saying No to Europe. Saying No will not prevent us from trading with Europe as we have always done, and we can continue to get money as we need it from the European Central Bank. These things wont change.

We are in the middle of the biggest recession in nearly 100 years - so of course people are going to loose their jobs, and of course taxes are going to be raised, as countries try to recoup their losses. But this will not last forever! Already many countries are showing signs of recovery. But the Lisbon Treaty is NOTHING to do with any of these issues. The treaty has one aim only - to open the door to a far more socialist and federalised europe, so that politicians in Brussells can gain greater control of the trillions of tax euros floating around the EU, and can have greater control on spending - and its not spending on stuff we want! Countries like Germany and France - which have the biggest populations, who effectivly control the EU, and who have FORCED our country to hold a wholly un-democratic second referendum, have thought for a long time that our low corporate tax rate is unfair, because of its attractivness to foreign companies. One of the items that the Lisbon treaty will allow for - not directly - but it will open the legal doors in Brussells to get this pushed through - is a flat rate for Taxation. Now when you consider that Germanys corporate tax currently stands at 15% and that of France is just over 33%, you can see that a flat rate would undoubtedly raise our own to be more in line with these and other EU countries. You can also see why foreign investors like Ireland so much, as our corporate tax stands at just 12.5%. Companies that come to the Republic save millions in taxes compaired to those that go to France or Germany. To say that the loss of our low corporate tax rate would be a catastrophy for our efforts to pull the country out of recession is an understatement - particularly when you consider that multinationals (the ones that are left anyway) currently employ one hundred and fifty thousand workers in the Republic.


The biggest thing that we, as a country, prepairing for this referendum should be concerned with is this: That the so called assurance and guarentees that Brian Cowen and the YES camp have been pushing are NOT LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENTS. I appologise for the cap's but this point cannot be stressed hard enough. These guarentees are not part of the treaty, and therefore do not carry any legal weight whatsoever. If you doubt that, then consider that the Treaty has not been re-ratified to include them - not a coma has changed since 2008 so our "Assurances" dont carry any weight at all in an EU court. What these "assurances" amount to are basically an I.O.U from the European Council, that states that if we vote yes to Lisbon, (a move that will put our current low corporate tax rate at risk of being called anti-competitive and theirefore illegal by the EU), after an indeterminant amount of time they promise that they will make the "Guarentees" they gave our government into EU Protocols, or EU laws. Anyone else see the problem there? We have to give control of our taxes, border control and foreign policy AWAY, BEFORE the EU plan on making their "guarentees" Legal.

Guys, it is very, very easy to give up control of something, but in the case of our control over our OWN taxation, it will be impossible to get it back from the EU if we vote Yes to Lisbon. And lets be very clear on this - if we are no longer allowed to keep our 12.5% corporate tax rate then the job situation in Ireland will very quickly resemble the Ireland of the 1950's.

If any of you are in any doubt about this, the Referendum Commission have even alluded to it in the "Lisbon Treaty:Your Guide" pamphlet that they pushed through everyones letterboxes. On page 6, there is a Blue Panel and it refers to the assurances that the EU gave to our government. They cover Taxation, Social Issues, Defence and Foreign Policy, and Workers Rights. They say in the last paragraph that the assurances "...will be added to a future EU Treaty as a protocol. This would make the decision part of EU Law.".

We are all intelligent people here, so Surely we can all smell a rat. We are expected to give up control of these crucial issues to the European Council FIRST, and then expect them to just give us back control like they have "assured" us - even though at that point they would have NO Legal Obligation whatsoever to do so. Giving the European Council the benifit of the doubt: If the council intend to allow us to retain our control over our own corporate (and other) taxation, then why ask us to vote Yes to Lisbon first? Why not make the "Assurances" the law before we vote in the first place?

I am not Anti-Europe. I love Ireland, and excusing a gap year or two, I would never live anywhere else, and I recognise that without Europe we would have had a very hard time developing the infrastructure we now have, and the jobs that most of us enjoyed up until recently. But the country must stand together and oppose this farce for what it is - an attempt to hoodwink a country so a handfull of Euro-Politicians can have greater access to money and jobs for Their constituants, at ours and other countries expense. Thats all this is about, and if Lisbon is ratified it will be done at our expense.

Consider that we are now 10 days away from holding a SECOND referendum on an issue that we have already said no to. This is not democracy,this is bullying, and as a people we need to rise above it. If we allow a Yes vote, then the political and economic landscape of this country will be irreversably changed.

Please consider this when you vote on October 2nd.

It is hard when there is so much misinformation around. Like the contents of your post for example. I sincerly hope it is just a honest misunderstanding of international and EU law rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Your points about the guarantees and taxation are fatally flawed.

major bill

ei.sdraob wrote: »

We keep hearing over and over quotes such as "European constitution", "empire", "USE" and "elites", "forced on the people" thrown by the NO side


Now how do you explain the top (unelected) spokesman for the NO campaign

wanting a Federal United States of Europe

Declan Ganley


source

http://federalunion.org.uk/quotebank/?p=76

http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html


i will point to this thread, everytime i hear a NOooer talk about European empire etc

the hypocrisy of it all is amazing

as i have said before declan ganley is a idiot who does not speak for me as a no voter.

Blazer

[QUOTE=prinz;62313934
A second referendum is nothing new, and in no way undemocratic. SO we vote again, and we could still vote no. What's the problem?[/QUOTE]

Because the EU won't accept this and come back to us again with a 3rd vote.
I wouldn't mind if they scratched the treaty and did a new one, address some of the concerns that people have and then put it to a vote in every country of the EU.. but of course us common people are incapable of thinking for ourselves.

Sam Vimes

Berkut wrote: »

Because the EU won't accept this and come back to us again with a 3rd vote.
I wouldn't mind if they scratched the treaty and did a new one, address some of the concerns that people have and then put it to a vote in every country of the EU.. but of course us common people are incapable of thinking for ourselves.

Berkut, when 3 independent surveys find that most of the reasons for rejection aren't in the treaty, which parts should they change?


Also the EU has no power to make other countries have referendums any more than they have the power to make us not have one.

marco_polo

Berkut wrote: »

Because the EU won't accept this and come back to us again with a 3rd vote.
I wouldn't mind if they scratched the treaty and did a new one, address some of the concerns that people have and then put it to a vote in every country of the EU.. but of course us common people are incapable of thinking for ourselves.

What are the missing elements of concern that would be addressed in this new treaty?

Also we would need another treaty before this happens that gives the EU the power to compel the member states to hold referendums when ratifying EU treaties.

prinz

Berkut wrote: »

Because the EU won't accept this and come back to us again with a 3rd vote.

They didn't come back to us with a second vote.

Berkut wrote: »

I wouldn't mind if they scratched the treaty and did a new one, address some of the concerns that people have and then put it to a vote in every country of the EU...

You wouldn't mind the EU over-riding constitutional law, and the democratic process of most of the member states of the EU? :eek:

sensibleken

mangaroosh wrote: »

I don't necessarily support the No campaign, but the onus is on the Yes side to show me why it is necessary to vote Yes. They haven't done this.

If we vote Yes, then we are sending a message to all the major political parties in this country, that this kind of politics is acceptible.

no, the onus is not on them. this is a democracy, the onus is on the voter to make themselves knowledgable on the subject.

if we want to vote on international treaties between 27 countries we have a huge responsibility to educate ourselves.

Sam Vimes

That's very sensible ken

Blazer

prinz wrote: »

They didn't come back to us with a second vote.



You wouldn't mind the EU over-riding constitutional law, and the democratic process of most of the member states of the EU? :eek:

Bull****...ask any EU country population and they all want a referendum on Libson. The fact that is their governments and the EU deny them this.

marco_polo

Berkut wrote: »

Bull****...ask any EU country population and they all want a referendum on Libson. The fact that is their governments and the EU deny them this.

The EU have absolutely no authority to dictate to member states how to ratify treaties.

Tarobot

Berkut wrote: »

Bull****...ask any EU country population and they all want a referendum on Libson.

I'm afraid a few "planted" Swedish, Polish and French do not represent the entire population of their country. Do you have any stats of research to back this up because I'm really getting tired of the "just so" arguments.

Berkut wrote: »

The fact that is their governments and the EU deny them this.

The EU has nothing to do with the ratification processes of each individual member state.

namloc1980

Berkut wrote: »

Bull****...ask any EU country population and they all want a referendum on Libson. The fact that is their governments and the EU deny them this.

There is nothing undemocratic about Governments ratifying international treaties through parliament. Members of parliament are elected by the people and represent the people. Seems fairly democratic to me. The US constitution has never been put before the people of the USA nor have any of the amendments made to it been put before the people.....is that undemocratic???

meglome

Berkut wrote: »

Bull****...ask any EU country population and they all want a referendum on Libson. The fact that is their governments and the EU deny them this.

But we can't ask them it's none of our business. We in Ireland are the ones who do these things the odd way.

Do you really think the vast majority of the Irish people will actually read a huge treaty full of legal language? Yet these same people are expected to make an informed decision on it. Do you wonder why legally binding referenda are banned in some country's?

Blazer

Guys..I'm a yes voter but the lies peddled by both sides of the treaty sicken me..
From the bull**** about minimum wage/ military funding on the NO side to the lies on the YES about saying NO will outcast Ireland etc and that we need a YES vote for economic recovery...all bloody lies.

meglome

Berkut wrote: »

Guys..I'm a yes voter but the lies peddled by both sides of the treaty sicken me..
From the bull**** about minimum wage/ military funding on the NO side to the lies on the YES about saying NO will outcast Ireland etc and that we need a YES vote for economic recovery...all bloody lies.

It may well be splitting hairs but... Rubbish slogans that might happen are not lies - Yes Campaign. Rubbish slogans that are also utter lies are far worse - No Campaign. The whole campaign is a disgrace but there is a difference.

My name is URL

Tarobot wrote: »

The EU has nothing to do with the ratification processes of each individual member state.

To me that just cements the feeling of an undemocratic entity that is the 'new' EU

They also don't want anything to do with the ratification processes of each individual member state.

They only care about how they can make semi-detached decisions on the future of each individual member state

How is that a good thing?

Tarobot

My name is URL wrote: »

To me that just cements the feeling of an undemocratic entity that is the 'new' EU

They also don't want anything to do with the ratification processes of each individual member state.

What? So the fact that the EU doesn't interfere with the sovereign ratification process of each individual member states means the EU is more undemocratic? I'm sorry that makes no sense at all.

My name is URL wrote: »

They only care about how they can make semi-detached decisions on the future of each individual member state

Where on earth are you getting this? First of all, what exactly is a semi-detached decision? I don't even know what that means.

marco_polo

My name is URL wrote: »

To me that just cements the feeling of an undemocratic entity that is the 'new' EU

They also don't want anything to do with the ratification processes of each individual member state.

They only care about how they can make semi-detached decisions on the future of each individual member state

How is that a good thing?

Incorrect. The member states do not want the EU to have anything to do with their ratification processes. Or any other countries for that matter.

The EU exists solely to futher the shared interests of the member states, and they have mutually and voluntarly conferred on the EU the compatencies required to achieve those aims, no more no less. The member states are firmly behind the wheel of the European project and not the other way around as you seem to imagine.