Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anyone for the last few red herrings?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    mickdw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,293 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    It is explained to us that we are giving away some decision making but we are keeping a direct veto in other areas due to the requirement of unanimous decision from all member states. Now this is great voting yes safe in the knowlefge that we can stop certain actions by using our veto but realistically when it comes down to it, it is obvious that should ireland try to veto something in the future (kinda like lisbon at the minute), much pressure might come from europe threatening all sorts against ireland and proposing to 'move on' without ireland. IMO this vote makes a mockery of the whole unanimous decision idea. They might as well have just said in the treaty that from now on, majority wins.
    Also, would it not be true to say that if for example we vote no tomorrow and if as has been said the remainder of the member states would wish to move ahead anyway on this, wouldnt each & every member state have to be given the option to sign up to any new agreement even if it was again practically identical to the lisbon treaty but by some means not requiring agreement from all member states.
    On a seperate point, I would love to know the true figures in relation to value of fish stocks given to europe compared to funding coming into the country as there is alot of false info going around on this. It is an important point though I think


  • Options
    #33
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    mickdw wrote: »
    It is explained to us that we are giving away some decision making but we are keeping a direct veto in other areas due to the requirement of unanimous decision from all member states. Now this is great voting yes safe in the knowlefge that we can stop certain actions by using our veto but realistically when it comes down to it, it is obvious that should ireland try to veto something in the future (kinda like lisbon at the minute), much pressure might come from europe threatening all sorts against ireland and proposing to 'move on' without ireland. IMO this vote makes a mockery of the whole unanimous decision idea. They might as well have just said in the treaty that from now on, majority wins.

    It's entirely up to the Irish government to use any existing vetoes - but nobody actually uses vetoes. Instead, nobody ever proposes anything but the most inoffensive legislation in those areas, just in case.
    mickdw wrote: »
    Also, would it not be true to say that if for example we vote no tomorrow and if as has been said the remainder of the member states would wish to move ahead anyway on this, wouldnt each & every member state have to be given the option to sign up to any new agreement even if it was again practically identical to the lisbon treaty but by some means not requiring agreement from all member states.

    That we have no idea about, really, and neither does anyone else.
    mickdw wrote: »
    On a seperate point, I would love to know the true figures in relation to value of fish stocks given to europe compared to funding coming into the country as there is alot of false info going around on this. It is an important point though I think

    There are good figures here - click the link that says "Show tabular data". The real figures for fish caught in Irish waters is about €8.5 billion, of which we've had about €2.9 billion. We've also had about €2.8 billion from UK waters courtesy of the EU (UK figures are here), so it's hardly a case of Ireland being always on the receiving end.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #34
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    OK - so far today, we've had the EDA, the "vote No for our fellow Europeans", and "EU INTRODUCES DEATH PENALTY!!" (deleted). I haven't seen "vote No to end NAMA" or "vote No to remove Cowen" yet, but I'm sure we'll get them today.

    Is there anything left to debate that's actually in the Treaty or guarantees (or amendment) we're actually voting on?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Well, here's a novel thought. The whole point of the Supreme Court ruling in Crotty was that it was the competence changes in the SEA on CFSP that required the SEA referendum (as these effected sovereignity).

    Therefore, the relevant parts of the Treaty we could concentrate on are the ones where sovereignity is actually effected due to competence changes in Lisbon.

    If I recall correctly, the 3 areas identified by the DFA where competences are changed by Lisbon are - wait for it - Administrative Cooperation, Space Policy (formulation) and Sport (again policy formulation, I presume).

    Perhaps, we could have a thread where the No posters here can outline why it is a bad idea to give the EU more competence in these areas and the Yes posters could then respond (or vice versa)?


  • Options
    #35
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Ritchi wrote: »
    There was a guy walking down Grafton Street yesterday, handing out leaflets, and shouting out "No to NAMA, no to Lisbon".

    Are people not allowed hold a position on multiple issues now?


  • Options
    #36
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Are people not allowed hold a position on multiple issues now?

    Relevant question is is it ok to hold different positions on the two issues?

    For instance, I am against NAMA, I'll let you guess how I feel about Lisbon...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    there was a proper bat**** crazy ad in the independant today from some bloke. well worth a read if your up for a laugh. it was mostly incoherent but it was all

    vote no to the anti- catholic freemason silly lisbon treaty. it then goes on to say that ex nazis are gonna be in a european police force, i would have thought theyd be a bit past retirement age. then theres lots of rambling incoherently

    seriously funny stuff. it actually makes coir look like a bastion of sanity


  • Options
    #38
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Scofflaw: am I right in thinking that Ireland only used its veto once since it joined the EU?


  • Options
    #39
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    turgon wrote: »
    Scofflaw: am I right in thinking that Ireland only used its veto once since it joined the EU?

    "It was used once, in 1983, in respect of the milk quota."

    Source

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #40
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    turgon wrote: »
    Unfortunately there are no more herrings in Ireland as the EU Elite took our €200 billion worth of fish. For nothing in return. Anyone with a conscience will vote No.


    Anyone with a conscience would not blatantly lie about the value of fish the EU Elite "took" from Irish waters as €200 billion.

    The true value of fish that Ireland sacrificed was for something in return, not for nothing as you say. We have received €70 billion in transfers since we joined, we have even received millions to upgrade our fishing fleet and processing facilities over the years.

    Also anyone with a conscience will vote as their concience dictates, not as you demand.

    Whatever about red herrings your arguments have turned out to be a damp squib.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #41
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Anyone with a conscience would not blatantly lie about the value of fish the EU Elite "took" from Irish waters as €200 billion.

    The true value of fish that Ireland sacrificed was for something in return, not for nothing as you say. We have received €70 billion in transfers since we joined, we have even received millions to upgrade our fishing fleet and processing facilities over the years.

    Also anyone with a conscience will vote as their concience dictates, not as you demand.

    Whatever about red herrings your arguments have turned out to be a damp squib.

    I think turgon may have been a little bit sarcastic there?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Anyone with a conscience would not blatantly lie about the value of fish the EU Elite "took" from Irish waters as €200 billion....

    :pac: SafeSurfer meet turgon, turgon meet SafeSurfer... :pac: It was a joke! One of the red herrings some on the no side like to throw about.


  • Options
    #43
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Got a big shiny paper in today telling me that Lisbon is a front for the drug and oil cartels.


  • Options
    #44
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Is there any truth whatsoever in the rumor that the new powers of the EU for energy policy could force states to go nuclear, in terms of either using nuclear power or actually hosting nuclear power stations?

    I'm almost certain something like that wouldn't have made it into the treaty but one must check up on all the rumors...

    As well as the sections linked to by others responding to your post, this may also refer to the Euratom treaty which Ireland has been a member of since the 1970's.

    Either way it is not true.


  • Options
    #45
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    One more red herring lads if you wouldn't mind ;)
    (36) Member States whose currency is the euro, common position and unified
    representation on the international scene (article 115C FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 138]

    Description: When acting in an international context member states whose currency is the euro shall adopt positions on international matters of common interest vias QMV.

    When they say areas of common interest, what does this refer to? Economic, political, military, etc? The foreign policy is still unanimous, so what here is being moved to QMV instead?


  • Options
    #46
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    When they say areas of common interest, what does this refer to? Economic, political, military, etc? The foreign policy is still unanimous, so what here is being moved to QMV instead?
    I don't know where you got the text from - got a source?

    Article 138 in my copy of the consolidated TFEU says this:
    1. In order to secure the euro's place in the international monetary system, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt a decision establishing common positions on matters of particular interest for economic and monetary union within the competent international financial institutions and conferences. The Council shall act after consulting the European Central Bank.

    2. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt appropriate measures to ensure unified representation within the international financial institutions and conferences. The Council shall act after consulting the European Central Bank.

    3. For the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, only members of the Council representing
    Member States whose currency is the euro shall take part in the vote.

    A qualified majority of the said members shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(a).
    I think it's clear from this that the "unified representation" is only on matters directly pertaining to the Euro.

    It's possible we're talking about different things here, so I'd like to see your source.


  • Options
    #47
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    It was the "QMV changes in Lisbon" thread here:
    http://www.face.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62202241


  • Options
    #48
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    It was the "QMV changes in Lisbon" thread here:
    OK - that seems to be an "executive summary" sort of thread. My quote is from the treaty, and is more authoritative. Does it answer your question?


  • Options
    #49
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Yes indeed, thanks!


  • Options
    #50
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Well? Did I turn you from the Dark Side at the eleventh hour?

    ;)


Advertisement