LISBON CONSPIRACY MEGA THREAD - threads merged

The Big Red Button

Fair play on posting this in the correct forum anyways :rolleyes:

Mahatma coat

so the 'Guarantees' Guarantee Nothing

the treaty has not been altered in any way since the last time

what happens if Ireland votes NO, AGAIN, do you think we'll be taken seriously and have our vote respected :rolleyes:


Lets take a pool on reasons the Government will want to run a third refferendum

roosh

humanji wrote: »

That's hardly a fair analogy at all. I think it's quite simple. People voiced fears over subjects that weren't in the treaty. Guarantees were made that these subjects weren't in the treaty. Now, regardless of whether the guarantees are legally binding or not, what do you think is going to happen?

If the EU suddenly turns around after a yes vote and says "Abortions for all!" we're still going to have to have a referendom on it as it's against our constitution. The treaty doesn't change that at all. And think of it this way, if the EU did suddenly turn round and go back on the guarantees, why would Ireland let them? If they told us that abortions are now legal in Ireland, we'd tell them to f*ck off.

The guarantees are a red herring. They've nothing to do with the treaty itself and are used to direct attantion away from it.

If you want to use an analogy, imagine you've been working in your company for a few years. You boss tells you that they are renewing your contract. There are two lines in this contract: one says that you work for the company, and the other says you earn X amount of money (for comedy's sake let's say €1.84 per hour). You're asked to sign it, but someone comes along and tells you that you'll be forced to have an abortion if you sign it. Even though you read the contract and don't see where it says you'll be forced to have an abortion, you don't see it say you won't be forced to have an abortion. You bring the contract back to your boss who gets the company lawyer to give you signed and notorised letter pointing out that you won't be forced to have an abortion if you sign the contract.

That's the gist of it. You can either sign the contract, knowing what's in it, or you can worry about things that aren't in it and don't come under the remit of the contract.

Come on lets try and think at least some way pragmatically. It is not going to be a case of the EU announcing abortions for all.

There will be cases tried in the irish courst and appealed to the European courts and precedents will be set - as Ireland is a common law country.

All this won't happen over night, just as we won't arrive at full military capabilities overnight, but over a period of time.

If Ireland does decide to challenge the EU on the legal guarantees, it will have to take the case to the UN, who can only enforce what is in law.

It would be the exact same as me signing a contract with you, guaranteeing you that I will give you €1,000,000 the next time I win the lottery, in exchange for a brand new car right now. I would be very willing to lodge this with the UN also, and request that they make sure it is enforced. The thing is, I get your car and am legally obliged to give you €1m the next time I win the Lotto, however I am under no legal obligation to buy a Lotto ticket ever, meaning that I may never have to give you the €1m.

Then asking the UN to enforce it.

The world isn't going to go into meltdown on Saturday if we vote Yes or No. We will merely be setting the course we intend to follow.

One will be follow on from:
-the speculation about possible short-term, economic recovery, based on pre-downturn policies

-the intimidation about being cast adrift from the rest of Europe?(when our Democratic neighbours the French and the Dutch were not cut off after rejecting, in effect, the exact same thing)

-the legal requirement of increased militarisation throughout Europe, driven by the armaments industry

-the obvious conflict of interest that that gives rise to

-the clearly anti-democratic attempt to get this treaty ratified

-the legal chicanery to avoid the constitutional rights of the people of
Europe

-the seriously weakened say that Ireland will have under the new QMV rules (particularly with regard to the 35% population blocking rule, which was conveniently left out of the [supposedly] Independent Referendum Commission Booklet – remember we have 0.8% of the population – bang goes our power to veto, and our status as a worthwhile negotiating partner – that puts us, not central to the decision making process in Europe, but right to the back of the class. With such little say, one wonders would it even be worth the politicians time bothering turning up? Perhaps going to the EU will become a well earned holiday

- Europe, like it or not, having painted itself as wholly undemocratic - how is this going to look to the wider world, especially to Iran, when we try and negotiate peaceful settlements - as we are doing at the moment. Espeically when we are creating a legal requirement to increase military capabilities, and granting the power to act on a "threat of War", just as the US and Briatain did when starting the Iraq "war"

That will be the Yes Vote

The other will be follow on from:
- a rejection of all of the above

- a stand for all the democratic rights of all the people of Europe

- Ireland retaining a uniquely strong position in Europe, as we are the only country that requires a referendum when it comes to granting the EU “leaders” the power they are looking for

- Ireland as a strong negotiating partner, due to our unique position, when it comes to granting the EU “leaders” the power they are looking for.

- Ireland as the last bastion of democracy in an EU that has, like it or not, painted itself as wholly undemocratic.

- an Ireland who retains a strong voice in Europe, by making a stand, and giving the voice to the people, instead of being relegated to mere bystanders, as would happen under the new QMV rules.

- an Ireland that actually will remain central to the decision making process in Europe, one that will be more democratic for the people and not just the politicians

Now, if you will all [particularly the ladies] excuse the expression,

but seriously, lets all grow a ****ing pair, Vote No and make sure that Ireland actually leads the way in Europe instead of being sent to the back of the class

VOTE NO!

tell your family to VOTE NO, tell your friends to VOTE NO, tell anyone who wants to retain a say, in the things that affect them to
VOTE NO, VOTE NO, VOTE NO

This is a conspiracy theory, but it is one in the scientific sense of the word, just like Newton's Theory of Gravity and Einstein's Theory of relativity (I am referencing the concept of a scientific theory)

dRNk SAnTA

Here are a few good reasons to vote YES:

The No campaigners represent the dredges of Irish political life. Sinn Fein (who have campaigned against all previous EU treaties as well as our entry to the EU), Coir and a few headbanger independents. Declan Ganley has conducted himself well through the campaign but he is simply 1 wealthy individual.

The Lisbon Treaty "Yes" side comprises every major political party bar Sinn Fein. All the major trade unions, the Catholic Church, and groups representing businesses large, medium and small.

If you think that these groups would support a treaty that erodes worker's rights or has anything to do with abortion then you must be one hell of a conspiracy theorist (ala "No" supporter Jim "new world order I tells ya!!!" Corr).

roosh

humanji wrote: »

A pack of lying fukkers is the reason we had to get guarantees in the first place. But if they do ignore them, what do you think will happen? How will they force these things on us without us knowing?

also, they will be able to do it, in the same way they managed to circumvent the constitutional right to referenda in the 26 other counrtries, and by the same means they managed to sell us bogus guarantees. by very adept legal manoeuvring from the best legal minds in Europe, the same people who draft these constitutions.


remember, it will be our politicians who will be fighting our corner on our behalf in the future, and we have seen how capable they are.


This won't happen overnight, but 10yrs down the line when the arms industry have dictated our militarisation, and the market is at saturation point for arms and new demand needs to be created. When Iran are considered enough of a "threat of war", with Germany and France holding all the sway when it comes to making the decision, and our politicians already having shown their willingness to play on our fears to get us to do what they want.

Don't just jump to 10yrs down the line though, think about the gradual development of military capabilities, with a legal requirement for a meeting to monitor progress every two years.

The decision we make on Friday, sets the course of direction that the EU is going to take.

But it all boils down to one simple question.

Do you want to retain some say in the matters that affect you?

If you do, then you must VOTE NO

roosh

meglome wrote: »

I'm too tried for this shíte. You're voting No and you decided that long before you tried to confirm the details. And nothing will change your mind as you're not interested in the facts. Why keep up the bullshít discussion?

I have always maintained that I was a No voter by default, but that I had not fully and completely made up my mind, about which way I would actually vote on the day - and I challenge your ability to know my mind, despite the contents of my posts.

It was not until around 4 days ago that I finally made up my mind, to Vote No. The reason I was not 100% definite, was because I had this little nagging doubt about whether or not a No vote would be damaging for the economy. It was then it hit me, the empty rhetoric that the Yes campaign had been using was actually working, it had planted that little seed of doubt, that lead me to believe that if I voted yes, I would actually be doing something about the economy - even though I knew in my heart of hearts it was just a sham, a fear, that was based on the scaremongering of the Yes campaign.

That is the exact same ploy the Nazis used to rise to power, and all of a sudden it is acceptible? It is an unfortunate comparison but one that lends itself far, far too easily.

Consider this along with the the call for increased militarisation, and the new QMV voting rules that clearly favour the very real Franco-German alliance in Europe. Cross reference this with a junior cert history book, and the potential future projection based on historical data, is as reliable as the claims about economic recovery and job creation.

As I have said, we can of course take a roll of the dice, close our eyes and hope for the best, or we can make sure that this does not, and cannot happen.

The choice is ours!

roosh

humanji wrote: »

I've said it already, the guarantees are red herrings to trick you into ignoring the treaty. And it's worked. Hundreds if not thousands of people actually believe that they are important. The EU cannot, and I repeat CANNOT pass anything that is against our constitution without us voting on it.

Tell that to the French and the Dutch. They were able to ratify the EU Constitution in 26 out of the 27 member states, without a referendum, simply by changing the name of the document to the Treaty of Lisbon and by changing a few of the legal terms in it. This meant that it no longer clashed with the constitutions of those countries and could therefore be ratified in the parliament. This happened in France and the Netherlands, after the people had voted No.

humanji wrote: »

the fictional "self-amending treaty", but they're all lies designed to stop you thinking about what is actually important, ie the actual contents of the treaty.

The very real self-amending clause, I think you mean

Article 48


1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html

humanji wrote: »

This is the conspiracy that I find it hard to believe that so few here can see. Everyone seems so eager to condemn the EU and the government, but when groups of shadowy figures blatantly manipulate democracy for their own gain, you applaude them because they currently want the same immediate goal, regardless of their future purposes. I hate the term sheeple, but it's very apt in this situation. People are just being led astray and not even questioning why.

Honestly, you have to realise by now, that it is the governements of the EU that are seeking to manipulate democracy, see the circumnavigation of constitutional referenda simply by renaming the EU Constitution the Treaty of Lisbon, and changing a few words; see the decision taken by EU "leaders" not to respect the result of the first Irish referendum, ever beofre we went to the polls - possibly because they expected the same result as the French and the Dutch returned.

If this is not clear by now, or indeed if you are in any doubt whatsoever (which logically you must given the statement above about the "fictional" 'self-amending' treaties"), then I strongly urge you to VOTE NO.

Because there will be no going back otherwise, and fears for the economic future are not a rational reason, and indeed it appears to be the only reason.

I stand to gain nothing by telling you this, other than retaining the right to vote in future on issues that concern me, I will give you my facebook details if you want to see who I am.

meglome

Voltwad wrote: »

Ah hello referendum commission *waves*

Seemingly the Independent Referendum Commission is biased. And strangely almost every other organisation that has an opinion is also biased as they want a Yes vote. Everyone is biased against the No campaign. You'd almost think the No campaign got it wrong or something.

roosh

gerrycollins wrote: »

even though I'm a committed yes voter(dont hate me) ill quote you a most famous guarantee of all time.

"peace in our time" by Prime Minister Chamberlain of Great Britain in 1938 when he went to speak to Hitler to put his countries fears of a german army and potential war at ease. What happened next?

On a little side note arent we lucky to have in our constitution the right to vote on this matter not many countries are getting the chance. at least get out and vote.

Are you sure we will get the right to vote? If we ratify this treaty then it will be up to the European Courts to interpret, just exactly what it is that we have agreed to. We cannot simply say, err, no, that wasn't what we thought we were agreeing to.

Remember, that it will be our politicians who will be fighting our case.

Look at what the EU "leaders" did to avoid a constitutional conflict in France and the Netherlands, they changed the name of the document from the EU Constitution to the Treaty of Lisbon and got it ratified through the parliaments, all this despite the fact that the people had voted it down in what was to be their last democratic say on the issue.

Do you honestly think that the very same will not be done, if the time comes to go to war? Do you honestly believe that our leaders will not lay it on thick about how much we owe the EU, after all they have done for us? Surely we cannot turn our backs on them at the hour of need, if we do it will be taken as a clear sign that we intend to move in the opposite direction, we will be cast adrift.


Of course we can risk it all for a biscuit (or the speculation on the possibility of economic recovery, based on no concrete data whatsoever), or we can actually take the only step that will guarantee our right to a say on the matters that concern us, especially the decision to go to war.

Vote NO and guarantee yourself that you will retain your democratic right to vote on the matters that affect you, otherwise you are taking the risk that the EU leaders will value your opinion so much that they will request it in future.

If it happened to the French and the Dutch do you honestly believe it won't happen to us, with our whopping 0.8% of the population?

roosh

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so the 'Guarantees' Guarantee Nothing

the treaty has not been altered in any way since the last time

what happens if Ireland votes NO, AGAIN, do you think we'll be taken seriously and have our vote respected :rolleyes:


Lets take a pool on reasons the Government will want to run a third refferendum

and if they do we will vote No again.

that is of course if the British don't reject it in the meantime nor the Czechs.

If we vote No, then the Euroskeptic Czech PM will not sign off on the ratification of the Treaty, and it won't matter if they want a third referendum - do you honestly believe that anyone could take them seriously?

just because thy might put it to a third referendum, that is absolutely no reason to just hand over your democratic right to vote.

apologies, I'm just a bit tired at the moment

meglome

humanji wrote: »

I've said it already, the guarantees are red herrings to trick you into ignoring the treaty. And it's worked. Hundreds if not thousands of people actually believe that they are important. The EU cannot, and I repeat CANNOT pass anything that is against our constitution without us voting on it. It will be like that until either the EU crumbles apart like history has taught us, or until the Irish people hold a referendum to stop having referendums. Anyone can claim that they can creep in bits and pieces of changes and they can harp on about the fictional "self-amending treaty", but they're all lies designed to stop you thinking about what is actually important, ie the actual contents of the treaty.

This is the conspiracy that I find it hard to believe that so few here can see. Everyone seems so eager to condemn the EU and the government, but when groups of shadowy figures blatantly manipulate democracy for their own gain, you applaude them because they currently want the same immediate goal, regardless of their future purposes. I hate the term sheeple, but it's very apt in this situation. People are just being led astray and not even questioning why.

You're spot on the mark there humanji, there are so many shadowy organisations involved in looking for a No vote. We don't know who funds them, I mean where do small fringe groups get hundreds of thousands of Euro?

I just can't get my head around that the conspiracy theorists are completely ignoring these shadowy characters. Ganley is linked six ways from Sunday to the American military and there's not a peep about the man.

I think you're all being fooled and it isn't by the EU. Think about it.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so the 'Guarantees' Guarantee Nothing

the treaty has not been altered in any way since the last time

what happens if Ireland votes NO, AGAIN, do you think we'll be taken seriously and have our vote respected :rolleyes:

Lets take a pool on reasons the Government will want to run a third refferendum

The funny thing is the guarantees are mostly to say that stuff isn't in the treaty in the first place. So bizarrely they are guarantees over mostly nothing but are also legally binding. :eek:
But hey the Irish people were fooled into thinking these things were a problem.

If our vote wasn't respected the Lisbon treaty would be ratified but it obviously isn't since we're voting on it again.

And it wouldn't be the first time we held three referendums on something. Of course it was Cóir that brought that on, the same Cóir that claim to love our constitution.

Here's how normal it actually is for us to have multiple votes.

sceptre wrote: »

Well, first we did it with the Treaty plebiscite, which was really a re-run of the 1918 election. So we were really founded on a re-run. Then we sort of did it again in 1937. We declared ourselves formally a republic pretty quietly 12 years later and since then we've had double referendums on abandoning PR-STV (in 1958 and 1968), bringing in divorce (1986 and 1995), Nice (2001 and 2002), Lisbon (2008 and 2009). And I left out the granddaddy of them all: abortion, where much of the same people now in Cóir forced through a nastily worded referendum in 1983 that has led to three more referendums in 1992 and one in 2002. That's five related to abortion in one way or another. Though if you include all the EEC/EC/EU votes we've had, this Friday will be our eighth (1972/1987/1992/1998/2001/2002/2008/2009). More times than we've won Eurovision, that.

All I'll can say people is don't be fooled. You may not like the EU, you may be suspicious of the EU but don't be tricked by people who don't have your best interests at heart into voting against something that is actually good for the country.

meglome

sink wrote: »

The Official Yes campaigns last referendum were pathetic, they relied on empty catch phrases from empty politicians who had lost public confidence long ago. The entire campaign was almost vacant of any mention of what was actually in the Treaty of Lisbon and why it is good; you know the real reasons for voting Yes! Due to this massive oversight and the utter contempt I have for the main political campaigns I decided to gather together the reasons I voted yes to Lisbon and will do so again next time. Here are my top 10.


1. Increase of power to the European Parliament

The European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the EU and as such is the most democratic; the Treaty of Lisbon will increase the power of the European Parliament. The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Treaty of Lisbon increases this to 95%; this is known as the ordinary legislative procedure.[Many Articles, TFEU] The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget; this will be increased to 100%.[Article 314, TFEU]

2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]

The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the roll; this can cause the President to push his/her countries national agenda often against the will of other states. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with a more permanent position elected by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state and will act on direction from the European Council. The president has no formal powers beyond co-ordinating the affairs of the European Council.

3. The Council will meet in the open [Article 16, TEU]

At present the Council of Ministers meets behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open when deliberating on draft legislative acts providing valuable transparency. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of engaging the public conscious, giving greater insight to EU affairs and raising the level of knowledge.

4. New powers of oversight for national parliaments [Article 12, TEU]

National parliaments are to be provided with all draft legislation and other documents produced by the Commission at the same time as they are provided to the Council of ministers and the European Parliament. There will be a period of 8 weeks before any decision can be taken by the Council and EP to allow national parliaments to provide input. They must also be provided with the Councils agendas and decisions. This enables the parliamentary opposition a chance confront the government on its activities at the EU.

5. More clearly defines the competences of the Union & Enshrines the principal of subsidiarity [Article 5, TEU]

The treaty for the first time clearly defines and sets limits on the competences held by the European Union. Under the principle of conferral only those competencies explicitly conferred by the member states in the treaties can be dealt with at EU level. All other areas are off limits and remain under the sole jurisdiction of the national governments e.g. family law (abortion, divorce), direct tax (corporate tax, income tax).

The treaty introduces the principle of subsidiarity. This means that legislation which falls under the competence of both the EU and national governments will only be enacted at EU level if individual states can’t do so as efficiently or effectively on their own. The national parliaments will be able to interject if it is felt that any legislative proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If 1/3 of national parliaments do so the proposal has to be reviewed (1/4 for proposals in the area of Justice & Policing).

6. Introduces simplified revision procedure [Article 47, TEU]

The treaty introduces a new simpler method of amending the treaties in areas of internal EU policy (i.e. concerning the functioning of the EU’s institutions). This method allows for individual amendments to be passed separately without the need to hold an Intergovernmental Conference and draft an entire new international treaty, which is extremely time consuming and expensive. The new procedure still requires the amendments to be ratified by each nation in accordance with their constitutional requirements, which still will require a referendum in this country if it’s not compatible with our constitution. Hopefully this will cut down the complexity of future EU referenda as rather than having to vote on a huge number of changes at once, it will enable us to vote on individual treaty amendments. The simplified revision procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the EU that will still require a entire new treaty.

7. Increase the Unions foreign policy ability

The Treaty creates a new role known as the ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs’ [Article 18, TEU]. It merges many existing positions including the 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' and the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy' into one position. This is to provide a more coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, foreign governments are confused about who to contact in regards to specific areas and the unions’ voice is disjointed and less coherent. The Lisbon treaty also creates an EU diplomatic corps know as the External Action Service to better facilitate the EU’s foreign policy.[Article 27, TEU]

8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]

The Treaty creates a new avenue for citizens from across the EU to have their voice heard. An initiative requires one million signatures (0.2% of the EU’s population) and then the Commission will, if it is within its competence and in keeping with the treaties, draft legislation for consideration by the Council and the Parliament. The Commission can only draft legislation if the initiative is within the competence of the EU and is fully compatible with the treaties, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legislation will then have to be passed by the ordinary legislative procedure in both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for it to become a directive.

9. Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding [Article 6, TEU]

For the first time all EU legislation will have to be legally compatible with a charter protecting the fundamental rights of EU citizens. The CFR will apply to all EU directives and national legislation which implements EU directives. It will not apply to legislation instigated by national legislatures i.e. all non-EU Irish Law. The CFR does not expand or create new areas of competencies for the EU. It only binds EU from enacting legislation which is contrary to the fundamental rights laid down.

10. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies [Article 4 & 194, TFEU]

Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own. Russia, Europe’s main gas supplier consistently takes advantage of the divided energy market, playing one country against another, cutting off supplies and effectively bullying individual states. Russia will have a much more difficult time if it faces a united EU energy policy, the EU will be the one dictating the terms. The treaty also affirms that combating climate change is a major objective of the Union, which was actually negotiated for by the Irish delegation.

Maybe the reason that the actual changes the Treaty of Lisbon makes garner so little attention is due to the fact that they are pretty mundane, but then Lisbon is a fairly tame treaty in comparison to previous ones such as Maastricht. So I guess my best advice is don’t listen to the media hype who are only interested in selling newspapers and don’t listen to the political campaigns who are only interested in promoting their own political ambitions, read the white paper on Lisbon and refer to the treaty to arbitrate on any contentious issues.

All references refer to the consolidated treaties as amended by Lisbon which can be found here.
*TEU = Treaty on European Union
*TFEU = Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

For further reading and more detailed information I recommend the 'White paper on Lisbon' prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs which can be found here.

Regards,
Sink

Things that are actually in the treaty.

roosh

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

I stopped reading when you tried to defend the €1.84 minimum wage posters.

And you started off with "In order to get this treaty passed, [the yes side] have sought to play on our fears...". How painfully hypocritical!

fair play for giving it due consideration.

if you didn't get the subtleties behind the €1.84 poster then I suggest you read on. it is a simple english construct known as a question (as indicated by the question mark).

Also, if you take my comment about the Yes side in context, which you haven't done, you will realise that I say that our political leaders should be held to a higher standard than the likes of Cóir, and Libertas - I hope you would agree, because it would be naiive to even contemplate otherwise.

I choose my words carefully, it is a pity you do not take the same care when reading, because then you would realise that there is absolutely no rational justification for voting Yes, well unless you agree with the anti-democratic manner that has been used thus far to attempt to get this treaty passed.

That, or you have been taken hook-line-and ****ing sinker mate!

EDITED: to remove unintentional Irony

roosh

meglome wrote: »

Things that are actually in the treaty.

Now, I challenge you to interpret what it is you have posted, and the actual implications that those provisions will have. Please display you're understanding.

Also, are you suggesting that what you have posted is the entire Treaty, word for word. No? Didn't think so.

Something else that is actually in the Treaty by the way:

Article 48


1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.

That is the very real, very [would be] legally binding "self-amending clause".

Seriously, what do you personally stand to gain, by trying to mislead people? There must be something in it for you.

meglome

mangaroosh wrote: »

That is the very real, very [would be] legally binding "self-amending clause".

Seriously, what do you personally stand to gain, by trying to mislead people? There must be something in it for you.

I read the treaty, not fun but doable. If I thought it was self amending or took away our 'sovereignty' I'd be first in the door to vote No but it doesn't so I'll be voting Yes.

I'm interested in evidence based fact, I'm sure your opinion is great but unless you can prove your assertions then they remain just your opinion. You got banned from the EU for continually saying things that were not true. I can see you really believe what you post, that's great and I respect that. However basically every Irish organisation with an opinion on Lisbon disagrees with you, and I disagree with you.

I would NEVER do anything to hurt this country so I really don't like your implication.

dRNk SAnTA

mangaroosh wrote: »

fair play for giving it due consideration.

if you didn't get the subtleties behind the €1.84 poster then I suggest you read on. it is a simple english construct known as a question (as indicated by the question mark).

Also, if you take my comment about the Yes side in context, which you haven't done, you will realise that I say that our political leaders should be held to a higher standard than the likes of Cóir, and Libertas - I hope you would agree, because it would be naiive to even contemplate otherwise.

Do yourself a favour and stop defending the Cóir posters. I understand that the question marks and quotation marks were shallow attempts by coir to get away with printing bull**** on their posters.

Political leaders should be held to a higher standard? That is handy enough for you since not a single major political party other than anti-EU Sinn Fein is even on the No side. "The likes of Cóir, and Libertas" are all you've got!

Could you please explain to me why almost every single major public figure and organisation in public Irish life is on the yes side? What conspiracy are IBEC/SIPTU/the Catholic Church and all the political parties engaging in?

Maybe Dan Brown will write a novel about it.

roosh

meglome wrote: »

I'm interested in evidence based fact, I'm sure your opinion is great but unless you can prove your assertions then they remain just your opinion.

Ditto

roosh

Let me give you a helping hand,before I turn in for the night:

1. Increase of power to the European Parliament

The European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the EU and as such is the most democratic; the Treaty of Lisbon will increase the power of the European Parliament. The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Treaty of Lisbon increases this to 95%; this is known as the ordinary legislative procedure.[Many Articles, TFEU] The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget; this will be increased to 100%.[Article 314, TFEU]

Number of MEPs
Ireland 12
Germany 96
France 74

Remember also, that the people will lose their right to referenda, so we will have the very real scenario, where the politicians decide amongst themselves what is right for us - see the avoidance of Referenda in 26 out of 27 Countries in Europe

This favours Germany possibl

2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]

The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the roll; this can cause the President to push his/her countries national agenda often against the will of other states. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with a more permanent position elected by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state and will act on direction from the European Council. The president has no formal powers beyond co-ordinating the affairs of the European Council.

mmmm wonder who have the clear advantage when it comes to voting in the Council of Ministers - it sure as hell aint us.

The president will be "obligated to do what is best for everyone", excellent, no democratic right to vote for the people of Europe seems to be considered as being right for everyone.

So the council will elect the president, i.e. choose who they want the president to be, and he will be accountable to them, or he will act on their direction - he will be their puppet so to speak. Also, he/she will have no formal powers other than to co-ordinate the affairs of the European Council.

Perhaps Mary MacAlese will keep him/her a seat on all-ireland final day. What an utterly pointless role by the sounds of things, well marginally less pointless than it is now.

But wait a sec, the president gets to decide on the agenda for the council of ministers, while acting under their direction? The line from the song, "we're on the road to nowhere" springs to mind

Right, I'll leave the rest in your very capable hands, because I really should get some sleep.

I expect a 100 word essay on my desk by 10am, detailing your understanding of the provisions, of the Treaty of Lisbon, that you just posted.

Run_to_da_hills

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Here are a few good reasons to vote YES:

The No campaigners represent the dredges of Irish political life

How dare you!!


If these are the "dredges of political life" what do you call those bafoons that have sank our country down the toilet with countless through corruption while wining and dining with fatcat property developers receiving back handers to beat the band and now at the same and then forcing the tax payer to fork out the bill for generations to come and then trying to make us believe that it will be all right again if we join up with this up and coming police super state. Well I can tell you absolutly NOTHING will change.

Do you think a YES vote will help with jobs and get the country up and running again? Think again. The EU sanctioned the Polish Government with a E54.4 million grant to set up a factory in Lotz Poland displacing over 10,000 Irish jobs including spin offs in the Limerick Region. This is how the EU will care for us, we are no more than a wart on the back of the an ar*se of Europe and wait until Turkey joins :eek:

No thanks, mate, I think you got the "dreges of political life" in the wrong order. :rolleyes:

At least a NO Vote will get rid of them.

meglome

mangaroosh wrote: »

Ditto

List of organisations seeking a Yes vote. Do you not wonder if you're wrong?

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If these are the dredges of political life what do you call those that have sank our country with countless billions wining and dining with fat cat bankers at the same and then forcing the tax payer to fork out the bill for generations to come. No thanks, I think you got the "dreges of political life" in the wrong order. :rolleyes:

At least a NO Vote will get them out.

Hey Rtdh would you take a €50 bet with me now that a No vote will not get them out?

Couldn't we vote on the treaty for some reason that's is in the treaty? And if only Fianna Fail were the only people seeking a Yes vote.

dRNk SAnTA

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If these are the dredges of political life what do you call those that have sank our country with countless billions wining and dining with fat cat bankers at the same and then forcing the tax payer to fork out the bill for generations to come. No thanks, I think you got the "dreges of political life" in the wrong order. :rolleyes:

At least a NO Vote will get them out.

The Yes campaign has almost every major Irish public group supporting it. I hate Fianna Fáil but they're right about Lisbon. The treaty is supported by the opposition as well as the government, the trade unions and the business community.

Who is the bastion of politics on the No side? Sinn Féin?

Run_to_da_hills

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

The Yes campaign has almost every major Irish public group supporting it. I hate Fianna Fáil but they're right about Lisbon. The treaty is supported by the opposition as well as the government, the trade unions and the business community.

Who is the bastion of politics on the No side? Sinn Féin?

Like Michael O Leary, Intel and the rest, :rolleyes:

BTW Both my current and former Union TEEU have recommended me to vote NO in this referendum.

The main reason they are following it is because they are opportunists and have their own arse pocket in mind with cheap foreign immigrant labour as they have done in the past with Nice..

Just wait until Turkey gets in, we will have phase two of the country flooded cheap unchecked immigration. I am afraid that Lisbon will do absolutely nothing for the ordinary Irish worker except hit them in the pocket and cost them dearly with privatization of public services. Lisbon is a rich mans club to help those feather their own nests.

roosh

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Do yourself a favour and stop defending the Cóir posters. I understand that the question marks and quotation marks were shallow attempts by coir to get away with printing bull**** on their posters.

No bother, that is merely one reason, in a very, very, very long list of reasons. The main one, believe it or not relates to the anti-democratic nature of this whole farcical process. Do you not agree?

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Political leaders should be held to a higher standard? That is handy enough for you since not a single major political party other than anti-EU Sinn Fein is even on the No side. "The likes of Cóir, and Libertas" are all you've got!

So just because all the major political parties want the same thing, they should be allowed to stoop to a lower level?????????

I have explained rationally, and it is highly rational and logical, the defence of both the Cóir and Libertas posters - but I will drop it, because it is largely immaterial agianst the overall anti-democratic process orchestrated by the european leaders.

How about we look at the "Ireland for Europe" poster, with the signpost with "recovery" (which actually points back at the person looking at it, suggesting that recovery is actully to turn back) and "ruin" being indicated in the direction away from the viewer - althought the attempt at perspective is cute. What kind of horse**** is that? IF Cóir and Libertas are valid reasons to vote Yes, then that is valid reason to vote no - but none of them are - the wider issues are the reson to vote no.

Also, the one poltical party on the No side has covered itself in glory compared to all the rest of the jokers. None of the yes campaign rhetoric has any grounding in fact whatsover, it is all based on speculation, unless of course there is collusion going on, which would just be another reason to vote No.

Every single one of the No campaing posters and claims, all reference, either directly, or indirectly, facts - there is no escaping that.

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Political leaders should be held to a higher standard? That is handy enough for you since not a single major political party other than anti-EU Sinn Fein is even on the No side

Do you know why it is handy?? Because it is so ****ing basic, common sense that it is true, that is why it is so ****ing handy. You do realise that you are implying that political leaders shouldn't be held to a higher standard don't you, you are implying it by questioning its validity. Its no wonder you are willing to accept (or fall for) the subterfuge of the political leaders in their attempt to get this final piece of the jigsaw pushed through. I would give you the benefit of the doubt, and say you didn't realise it, but its gone way beyond that now.

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Could you please explain to me why almost every single major public figure and organisation in public Irish life is on the yes side? What conspiracy are IBEC/SIPTU/the Catholic Church and all the political parties engaging in?

Maybe Dan Brown will write a novel about it.

Are you serious, you cannot work this out? If I tell you, then you have to agree to see reason, you have to, there is only so much hiding ones head in the sand a person can do, before they have to stand up and admit they didn't realise the truth. I didn't realise it until someone told, me and I spent nearly every waking hour of the past 2 weeks looking into it.

The Church should be the most obvious, as it wasn't too long ago that the government agreed that the irish taxpayer should shoulder the burden of the very expensive legal fees, pertaining to the child sex abuse cases. If you had any doubt about those who were negotiating on your behalf to broker the best deal possible for the people of this country, during the Lisbon (EU Constitution) negotiations, if you had any doubt about their ability to get the best deal, or even had your best interests at heart, then this should set alarm bells ringing.

Both IBEC and ICTU will be involved in round table talks witht the government, if either of them were to come out and publicly back a NO vote, I dare say a little bit of favouritism would be played. Therefore it was in both their interests to come out and publicly back a Yes vote, even if it is not in the best interests of their members.

It was probably more in IBECs favour to actually back a Yes vote, because of the EUs clear policy of favouring business over workers - see the Laval case (and reference point of the €1.84 poster), although its failure to protect indigenous businesses would have been a matter for concern, given that businesses from abroad could come in and undercut irish companies, not by going below the minimum wage, but by undercutting.
Still IBEC could not be seen to oppose the Yes vote, and indeed had to be quite vocal in doing so, to curry favour with the current govt. and the next one - which will be coming from the yes camp.

They may also, just get a slice of the pie if the treaty gets ratified, at the very least they may get to influence govt. policy by offering their expertise on the economy - just as the armaments industry will be offering their expertise on the militarisation of europe

Intel have a case on appeal with the EU courts for anti-competitive behaviour fines, which will now be droped most likely, plus they also stand to gain massively with the legally binding requirement to increase military capabilities. If you think that this will lead to jobs in ireland, then remember that theri concern is for profit, first and foremost, also the propensity for tech companies to relocate to countries that offer a lower cost base.

Michael O'Leary - Aer Lingus takeover was blocked by the EU, lets see if they are willing to reconsider


If you are considering track records, in particular that of the EU's generosity to Ireland, it might also be woth considering the EUs track record in trying to get this treaty ratified. The anti-democratic circumnavigation of the consititutional right to referenda in 26 of 27 countries, after 2 of those countries had already rejected it. Then the decision taken by EU ministers, not to accept the decision of the people of Ireland in the last referendum - long before we ever went to the polls, and now their track record in giving us bogus guarantees that may never become legal. What part of that actually sounds OK to you?

One other track record one might do well to consider, is the last time political leaders used peoples fear of economice recovery to gain control over the people, against a backdrop of increased militarisation. That time it was despotic little austrian, this time it is the political leaders of the EU. The funny (or perhaps worrying) thing, is that it will be France and Germany that will be hihgly influential in directing EU policy, given their clear advantage with the new QMV rules and in the European Parliament.

Tie in the arms industry drivng the militarisation, and the power that Lisbon would give to act on the "threat of war". Remember that our leaders are very open to playing on our fears when it comes to getting us to do with what they want. When the time comes to act on a "threat of war", my money isn't on the Germans to back down - and I think world history is on my side.

Of course, this remains specultion at this point, and we could keep our fingers crossed that this won't materialise, or we could take action, and vote No and make sure it doesn't.

In the process we would retain our democratic right to a vote on the things that really concern us, we woudl keep Ireland central to the decision making process of the EU with our uniquely strong position of requiring a national referendum on important treaties, espeically those granting the kind of power that the EU leaders are looking for - you can be pretty sure they are going to be certain to have us on side, in the future.

Our right to Veto is what give us this strong voice at present, if we ratify this treaty we can pretty much kiss that goodbye -under the new QMV rules and parliamentary process. Remember too that the council of ministers has the final say on legislation.

If we take this stand for the democratic rights of the people of Europe, then Britain and the Czechs will likely follow, and I dare say that so will most other countries, because this will all be out in the open, and there will be closer scrutiny all round. If we vote No, we will be leading the way in Europe, not being shunted to the outside.

And if you're worried about economic recovery, you'll be happy to know that Germany is turning things around, the G8 and G20 leaders have been meeeting to come up with some real plans for economic improvement, not just empty campaign promises, based on speculation of a future situation beofre all things are known, and with no basis in reliable, concrete financial evidence.

Also, an Ireland leading the way in Europe, and with a real say in the decision making process, will be an infinitely more attractive place for investors looking to enter the european market and influence Irish, and by extension, european policies.

As opposed to one one with a vastly reduced say on account of the new QMV 35% population blocking rule.

A No vote would actually be better in the long-term economic interests of Ireland.


either way it quite simply boils down to, do you want to retain a say in the issues that concern you. if you do, then your only option is to vote NO

bear in mind that it is the people of Europe, who pay their taxes that we owe our debt of gratitude to

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

List of organisations seeking a Yes vote. Do you not wonder if you're wrong?

Fail, the entire argument fails with a statement like this, seriously, is this the best they can do?

'hey look all these other people are voting yes, you dont want to feel left out do you' it wouldnt have anything to do with Eurocrats buying the support of these people with Legislation or Grants or just good old fashionde Cash Bribes in the case of Fianna failure now would it?

'Come to the Darkside We have Cookies'



Did no one ever sit you down as a kid and have the

If Everyone else was jumpin off a bridge to their certain death......Talk???

Penn

Does it matter who supports the treaty? Does it matter what they say on their posters?

All that matters, is the content of the treaty itself. THAT is what we are being asked to vote on. We can nitpick about posters or organisations til next saturday, but by then it'll be too late.

As far as I can see, and by following what other people have posted on boards over the past few weeks, I see nothing wrong with the treaty.

Run_to_da_hills

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Does it matter who supports the treaty? Does it matter what they say on their posters?

All that matters, is the content of the treaty itself. THAT is what we are being asked to vote on. We can nitpick about posters or organisations til next saturday, but by then it'll be too late.

As far as I can see, and by following what other people have posted on boards over the past few weeks, I see nothing wrong with the treaty.

There may be nothing to worry about its contents now but you must understand that this is a self amending document. What you see today may be changed tomorrow and you can do absolutely nothing about it. This is a frightening aspect and can well lead us down the slippery slope just like our predessors did in Europe. Be prepared for the manditory roll out of viral detection microchipping., cumpulsory isolation, detention and the introduction of EU wide Martial law. :eek:

6th

This is NOT the politics forum. Nor is it Politics-Lite.

I will not "Spot the Conspiracy" if there is one there point it out. If there is already a trhead suitable to your posts - use it!

humanji

I'm sorry, but you're just searching for a conspiracy. If you look at what you're claiming, you've nothing against the treaty itself, because all the things you claim are in the treaty simply aren't. All the things you claim will happen in 10 years time, aren't in the treaty. All the things you claim will be secretly put into law, piece by piece aren't in the treaty. There isn't even the facility to put these things into the treaty, no matter what way they are phrased. These are the lies spread by the No campaign. I say again that they have completely blinded you to the actual contents of the treaty. You're so terrified about what "could" happen that you don't even realise that the treaty has nothing to do with it.

And again, with the guarantees, they simply can't be made piece by piece over time. They simply can't. If it meddles with our constitution, we vote. It's that simple. What you claim will happen (over a period of time) will only happen if we have another treaty and make the changes in that.

You keep pointing out what you see as dishonesty in the Yes campaign, but what you don't seem to be doing is reading the treaty and figuring out what htat means. Don't listen to the Yes campaign, and sure as f*ck don't listen to the No campaign. The treaty isn't easy to read, but it's not impossible. It can be understood.


As for the "self-amending treaty":

Lisbon Article 48 Paragraph 4 wrote:

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Lisbon Article 48 Paragraph 7 wrote:

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

The only things that can be changed are what are already in the treaty. They cannot increase the EU's competencies (be thankful that the treaty is written in such a way that this cannot be misinterpreted, only ignored by some who want you to vote their way). And any change must be made in line with out constitution. If it needs a referendom before Lisbon, it'll still need one after, no matter what anyone tells you. And the beautiful part is that if anyone in Ireland feels that one of the small changes in the treaty is more significant that is claimed, they can bring it up in the Irish Supreme Court (ie, like Crotty).

The theories of relativity and gravity have a basis in reality. The theory that the EU is trying to trick Ireland has no basis at all. It's just a load of hearsay and a general misunderstanding of what the treaty actually says.

Scofflaw

mangaroosh wrote: »

the “legal guarantees”
What we have is a single guarantee, that the EU will make legal, the guarantees we actually asked for, at the ratification of the next accession treaty. The thing is though, that under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU will be able to amend existing treaties, including the accession ones, so no new treaty need actually be ratified. Meaning that we still have a guarantee to make the guarantees legal, but that the actual guarantees directly concerned with taxation, abortion, etc. are not legally binding.

Sigh. No, the guarantees are legally binding - both the content, and the agreement to turn them into protocols.

mangaroosh wrote: »

It took me fooking ages to get my head around it, until someone gave me this analogy:
It would be like agreeing a pay-rise with my employer, which states that they will be legally bound to give me a pay-rise at the time of the next blue moon. Here we have a legally binding agreement to give me a pay-rise, but I have to wait until the next blue moon to actually get the pay rise.

Nope. What we have is a situation where you're being asked to sign up to a new partnership agreement, and you've refused to sign it once (even though all your partners have) because you're afraid it means they'll be able to use you for medical testing. What you've got is a legally binding agreement that says "nothing in this contract means that mangaroosh can be used for medical testing, because that's not in the contract" - and that a contract clause saying "nothing in this contract means that mangaroosh can be used for medical testing" will be inserted in the partnership agreement next time a partner joins.

cordially,
Scofflaw