To the NO side .....

johnathan woss

I'm 99% sure I'm going to vote YES tomorrow, but 1% of me still has a nagging doubt.

So here's your chance ..... give me some reasons (backed up with actual LOGIC and FACTS) to vote NO.......

starbelgrade

If you vote "yes", you will spontaneously combust. Fact.

I dunno dude, sounds like you made up your mind already - what did you vote last time?

PrivateEye

Two quick points:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6857807.ece

^READ THIS


The text below is taken from IBECs submission to the Forum on Europe, calling for a Yes vote. The entire text can be found online without any hassle:

The Lisbon Reform Treaty creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest (Art. 106).

A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment.

I hope you decide to go with No on the day. As a No campaigner, I'm more than sympathetic to people who feel so enraged towards Youth Defence/Coir that they're tempted to go with Yes, but in the long term this is not a good idea whatsoever. They won't vanish with a Yes vote, the religious right will always exist in Ireland. Look beyond them, to key issues like the points I've raised above. Every vote will count tomorrow, more than ever.

marco_polo

PrivateEye wrote: »

Two quick points:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6857807.ece

^READ THIS


The text below is taken from IBECs submission to the Forum on Europe, calling for a Yes vote. The entire text can be found online without any hassle:



I hope you decide to go with No on the day. As a No campaigner, I'm more than sympathetic to people who feel so enraged towards Youth Defence/Coir that they're tempted to go with Yes, but in the long term this is not a good idea whatsoever. They won't vanish with a Yes vote, the religious right will always exist in Ireland. Look beyond them, to key issues like the points I've raised above. Every vote will count tomorrow, more than ever.

He said facts, i presume like stuff in the treaty. Google reveals that alledged IBEC text seems to only exist on no campaign sites? Regardless of whether they said it or not, Health and Education are not an EU competence.

@OP there is a chance that Tony Blair may become President of the European Council. That seems to be the latest hot reason to vote no on a treaty that has been eight years in the making.

Mrmoe

The decision to move from unanimity to QMV would be a good reason to reject this. There can easily be a situation where a measure is introduced that is not necessarily in the interest of our country. You could counter this argument by saying that it would make it easier to introduce measures that would benefit us. However, I think it is more detrimental to lose our veto than to gain from making certain measures easier to introduce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_to_qualified_majority_voting_under_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon

Either way I hope you vote, no matter what your vote will be. Good luck.

Rb

Don't worry OP, the No campaigners here have yet to put forward one factual, treaty based reason to vote against the document that hasn't been instantly debunked by some of the many superb posters here in the many months these debates have been running. So as opposed to sitting here questioning whether you're going to do the right thing, either enjoy a good nights sleep and go vote well rested tomorrow or find something entertaining to do because the the facts sure aren't going to come

meglome

PrivateEye wrote: »

I hope you decide to go with No on the day. As a No campaigner, I'm more than sympathetic to people who feel so enraged towards Youth Defence/Coir that they're tempted to go with Yes, but in the long term this is not a good idea whatsoever. They won't vanish with a Yes vote, the religious right will always exist in Ireland. Look beyond them, to key issues like the points I've raised above. Every vote will count tomorrow, more than ever.

I fairness almost the entire no campaign wouldn't inspire you with confidence. Not that the Yes campaign is great, they just tell less lies.

Take your sig for example. I read the full text of what Michael O'Leary said it wasn't what your sig implies.

starbelgrade

PrivateEye wrote: »

I'm more than sympathetic to people who feel so enraged towards Youth Defence/Coir that they're tempted to go with Yes

Not to mention Sinn Fein & the very unpopular Declan Ganley.

Yet who do we have on the "yes" side...? Cowen & his corrupt cohorts, the opposition who are just waiting in the wings, jealousy wishing they were in FF's position & big business interests - who are only interested in one thing.. making money.

Between a rock & a hard place, I reckon (sadly), that most of the electorite will be swung by better the devil they know.

(Apologies for the cliches... so back to facts. Vote "yes" & your house will be hit by a tsunami).

marco_polo

Mrmoe wrote: »

The decision to move from unanimity to QMV would be a good reason to reject this. There can easily be a situation where a measure is introduced that is not necessarily in the interest of our country. You could counter this argument by saying that it would make it easier to introduce measures that would benefit us. However, I think it is more detrimental to lose our veto than to gain from making certain measures easier to introduce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_to_qualified_majority_voting_under_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon

Either way I hope you vote, no matter what your vote will be. Good luck.

Rb wrote: »

Don't worry OP, the No campaigners here have yet to put forward one factual, treaty based reason to vote against the document that hasn't been instantly debunked by some of the many superb posters here in the many months these debates have been running. So as opposed to sitting here questioning whether you're going to do the right thing, either enjoy a good nights sleep and go vote well rested tomorrow or find something entertaining to do because the the facts sure aren't going to come

Well this one is a valid reason in fairness, if you feel that these are areas that are moving to QMV are absolutely unacceptable. Personally they are fine by me, the majority of business is already done that way in the EU anyway.
More detailed thread on the changes here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62202241&postcount=2

moondogspot

starbelgrade wrote: »

Yet who do we have on the "yes" side...? .

White-collar crooks and the Golden Circle.

Scofflaw

Mrmoe wrote: »

The decision to move from unanimity to QMV would be a good reason to reject this. There can easily be a situation where a measure is introduced that is not necessarily in the interest of our country. You could counter this argument by saying that it would make it easier to introduce measures that would benefit us. However, I think it is more detrimental to lose our veto than to gain from making certain measures easier to introduce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_to_qualified_majority_voting_under_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon

You can also counter it by asking whether it's ever happened, and why the rest of the member states would agree to it when any one of them could be outvoted too.

Mrmoe wrote: »

Either way I hope you vote, no matter what your vote will be. Good luck.

Seconded.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebman

PrivateEye wrote: »

Two quick points:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6857807.ece

^READ THIS


The text below is taken from IBECs submission to the Forum on Europe, calling for a Yes vote. The entire text can be found online without any hassle:

The Lisbon Reform Treaty creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest (Art. 106).

A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment.

I hope you decide to go with No on the day. As a No campaigner, I'm more than sympathetic to people who feel so enraged towards Youth Defence/Coir that they're tempted to go with Yes, but in the long term this is not a good idea whatsoever. They won't vanish with a Yes vote, the religious right will always exist in Ireland. Look beyond them, to key issues like the points I've raised above. Every vote will count tomorrow, more than ever.

Well that isn't automatically a bad thing. I'm sure there are aspects of Health, Education, Transport and Energy and the environment that could be performed by the private sector without any problems. I'm sure some things are already outsourced to private companies.

Mrmoe

Scofflaw wrote: »

You can also counter it by asking whether it's ever happened, and why the rest of the member states would agree to it when any one of them could be outvoted too.

I am not 100% sure if this has ever happened before but if I was to hazard a guess I would say that it hasn't.Why do we need QMV if we all get along so wonderfully and vote with unanimity all the time? With unanimity governments are forced to work together to make a solution that is acceptable to all countries. It requires them to work harder. QMV I believe will give them an easier way out.

starbelgrade

moondogspot wrote: »

White-collar crooks and the Golden Circle.

Nicely summarised.

Scofflaw

Mrmoe wrote: »

I am not 100% sure if this has ever happened before but if I was to hazard a guess I would say that it hasn't.Why do we need QMV if we all get along so wonderfully and vote with unanimity all the time? With unanimity governments are forced to work together to make a solution that is acceptable to all countries. It requires them to work harder. QMV I believe will give them an easier way out.

Essentially, because nobody needs to negotiate if they have a veto. If there could be a majority vote, the countries have to negotiate - it's better to reach an agreed solution than be outvoted, even if "being outvoted" is more theoretical than real (votes only happen about 15-20% of the time).

It's more or less the reverse of what you're saying - QMV means more work, because every country is under pressure to negotiate an acceptable solution, whereas unanimity means you can just sit back and say No - which is the easy option.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

I believe I gave a reason here to vote no.

drunkmonkey

I havent paid much intrest to the whole debate this time, i voted no last time because i didnt understand the treaty, i still dont, its not worded for the ordinary man in the street, i belive its the goverment duty to give us both sides of the picture rather than just tell us to vote yes. The yes campaign have been very smart this time branding a no vote as a vote for sinn fein, ive never voted sinn fein but i do have great respect for gerry adams and i dont like the way the yes campaign has used him as a reason to vote yes.
As i said im still undecided but ive decided if there's the slightest chance that tony blair could be president of the eu im voting no, i consider him a war criminal responsible for a lot of deaths. If he could be at the heart of europe its not something i want any part in...could somebody give me some information on this or is it just something the no side have made up..

marco_polo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I havent paid much intrest to the whole debate this time, i voted no last time because i didnt understand the treaty, i still dont, its not worded for the ordinary man in the street, i belive its the goverment duty to give us both sides of the picture rather than just tell us to vote yes. The yes campaign have been very smart this time branding a no vote as a vote for sinn fein, ive never voted sinn fein but i do have great respect for gerry adams and i dont like the way the yes campaign has used him as a reason to vote yes.
As i said im still undecided but ive decided if there's the slightest chance that tony blair could be president of the eu im voting no, i consider him a war criminal responsible for a lot of deaths. If he could be at the heart of europe its not something i want any part in...could somebody give me some information on this or is it just something the no side have made up..

There is a chance he could be. I imagin that there is a very good chance that enough countries would be totally opposed to the notion of Tony Blair as Council President to make it a non runner, but I cannot prove this. The real negotiations, where countries show their hands on the contenders, will not even start until after Lisbon comes into force if it ratified.

All I can say is that anyone who says he definately will is not telling the truth, as is anyone who says he definately won't.

Given the terms of you stated I suppose that is a No for you.

Before you decide for sure is worth bearing in mind that the president of the Council is really just a chairman position, and has no voting or real powers. The position is mainly a link between the Council and the other institutions of the EU

6. The President of the European Council:

(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;

(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;

(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;

(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.

The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

moondogspot

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I havent paid much intrest to the whole debate this time, i voted no last time because i didnt understand the treaty, i still dont, its not worded for the ordinary man in the street, i belive its the goverment duty to give us both sides of the picture rather than just tell us to vote yes. The yes campaign have been very smart this time branding a no vote as a vote for sinn fein, ive never voted sinn fein but i do have great respect for gerry adams and i dont like the way the yes campaign has used him as a reason to vote yes.
As i said im still undecided but ive decided if there's the slightest chance that tony blair could be president of the eu im voting no, i consider him a war criminal responsible for a lot of deaths. If he could be at the heart of europe its not something i want any part in...could somebody give me some information on this or is it just something the no side have made up..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/blair-steps-up-fight-to-be-crowned-first-president-of--eu-1662928.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/sep/04/irish-support-slumps-lisbon-treaty

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6837624.ece

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euro-star-could-tony-blair-become-the-first-eu-president-1792117.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d5313c12-7145-11de-877c-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d5313c12-7145-11de-877c-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055697018

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/15/blair-european-president

http://www.theage.com.au/world/tony-blair-backed-for-eu-presidency-20090716-dmvs.html

Here are a few articles in various newspapers etc. for you regarding it, as proof that it's definitely not made up.

drunkmonkey

Thats enough information for me, he should be tried for his crimes, latest scandal with bea just reinforces what i think of the man...i like the idea of a floating president as we have it...

Ill be voting no again. Thanks for the links..

robbie_998

they say a yes vote will mean an opportunity for more business's to come to ireland BUT it also means business's currently in Ireland have more freedom to move their companies else where and also lose more jobs,

at the moment plenty of jobs are already being created and the recession is already bottoming out, so why break it if it isint broken ?

a yes vote means turkey also join the EU, (anybody order a terriost with your fries ?)

a yes vote means that the EU can change the Law here in Ireland, they say things like abortion and all that jazz will be untouched but there are many other things to mess around with,

the list can go on,

a no vote is good at the moment, nothing will change if we vote no, a yes vote only means bad things happen to us,

also our tax's will remain untouched, that means that the EU can add more tax's without changing our current one's.

marco_polo

moondogspot wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/blair-steps-up-fight-to-be-crowned-first-president-of--eu-1662928.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/sep/04/irish-support-slumps-lisbon-treaty

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6837624.ece

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euro-star-could-tony-blair-become-the-first-eu-president-1792117.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d5313c12-7145-11de-877c-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d5313c12-7145-11de-877c-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055697018

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/15/blair-european-president

http://www.theage.com.au/world/tony-blair-backed-for-eu-presidency-20090716-dmvs.html

There's a few articles in various newspapers for you regarding it, so it's clearly not made up.

Any non British Paper Sources?

I notice that the lack of euroskeptic Conservative Party papers such as the Mail, Telegraph etc in there. Could it be that one side is building him up and the other down playing it. It is ultimately up to the heads of 27 member states as to who will be the President, not the british press.

moondogspot

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Thats enough information for me, he should be tried for his crimes, latest scandal with bea just reinforces what i think of the man...i like the idea of a floating president as we have it...

Ill be voting no again. Thanks for the links..

No problem at all. Glad to help

Scofflaw

robbie_998 wrote: »

they say a yes vote will mean an opportunity for more business's to come to ireland BUT it also means business's currently in Ireland have more freedom to move their companies else where and also lose more jobs,

at the moment plenty of jobs are already being created and the recession is already bottoming out, so why break it if it isint broken ?

a yes vote means turkey also join the EU, (anybody order a terriost with your fries ?)

Turkey can join under Nice. There's no cap on numbers, there's just a protocol on enlargement that changes the rules when there are 27 members. That means that a No vote doesn't preserve the status quo - we lose our Commissioner, for example.

wearily,
Scofflaw

meglome

moondogspot wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/blair-steps-up-fight-to-be-crowned-first-president-of--eu-1662928.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/sep/04/irish-support-slumps-lisbon-treaty

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6837624.ece

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euro-star-could-tony-blair-become-the-first-eu-president-1792117.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d5313c12-7145-11de-877c-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d5313c12-7145-11de-877c-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055697018

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/15/blair-european-president

http://www.theage.com.au/world/tony-blair-backed-for-eu-presidency-20090716-dmvs.html

Here are a few articles in various newspapers etc. for you regarding it, as proof that it's definitely not made up.

The UK newspapers are heavily pushing for it or heavily having a go depending on their stance. I personally wouldn't like him in the role, too much baggage and I can see enough countries feeling the same about him. At the end of the day the role has little power so I'll go with the democratic decision, even if I can't see it actually happening.

robbie_998

Scofflaw wrote: »

Turkey can join under Nice. There's no cap on numbers, there's just a protocol on enlargement that changes the rules when there are 27 members. That means that a No vote doesn't preserve the status quo - we lose our Commissioner, for example.

wearily,
Scofflaw

ok turkey can join under nice but will they be fully in the EU with Ireland and so on, and if so then why did they need the Lisbon Treaty in the first place to join ?

we lose our commissioner, please explain why we have to lose that if we had it for donkey's years now ?

moondogspot

marco_polo wrote: »

Any non British Paper Sources?

I notice that the lack of euroskeptic Conservative Party papers such as the Mail, Telegraph etc in there. Could it be that one side is building him up and the other down playing it. It is ultimately up to the heads of 27 member states as to who will be the President, not the british press.

It's clear enough for anyone that Tony Blair is in with a great chance of becoming Council

President.

Scofflaw

robbie_998 wrote: »

ok turkey can join under nice but will they be fully in the EU with Ireland and so on, and if so then why did they need the Lisbon Treaty in the first place to join ?

Yes, they'd be fully in the EU under Nice, if Nice is what the EU has. Lisbon is not legally needed for enlargement - it just reduces the political headaches involved, because it cuts out a certain amount of haggling.

robbie_998 wrote: »

we lose our commissioner, please explain why we have to lose that if we had it for donkey's years now ?

Because Nice contains the following, in the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union:

2. When the Union consists of 27 Member States, Article 213(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 126(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community shall be replaced by the following:

‘1. The Members of the Commission shall be chosen on the grounds of their general competence and their independence shall be beyond doubt.

The number of Members of the Commission shall be less than the number of Member States. The Members of the Commission shall be chosen according to a rotation system based on the principle of equality, the implementing arrangements for which shall be adopted by the Council, acting unanimously.

The number of Members of the Commission shall be set by the Council, acting unanimously.’

If we ratify Lisbon, the Commission remains a full Commission. If we stick with Nice, it has to be less than a full Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

moondogspot wrote: »

It's clear enough for anyone that Tony Blair is in with a great chance of becoming Council

President.

If you don't understand how the EU works, yes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1577695/Stop-Blair-campaign-gathers-pace-in-Europe.html

Brussels diplomats and officials suggest that it is likely that neither Mr Blair or Mr Juncker are really serious contenders for the job, to be decided at a special Brussels summit in October.
"They both cancel each other out. The Europhiles will oppose Blair and back Juncker. The Euro-realists will back Blair and oppose Juncker allowing another consensus candidate to emerge," said one.

vanla sighs

Scofflaw wrote: »

If we ratify Lisbon, the Commission remains a full Commission. If we stick with Nice, it has to be less than a full Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But Ireland can keep its Commissioner whether we vote yes or No, FACT.

Scofflaw

vanla sighs wrote: »

But Ireland can keep its Commissioner whether we vote yes or No, FACT.

No, Ireland can't. A full Commission cannot be constituted under the Nice enlargement rules, because it would be in breach of the Treaty provisions, and thus illegally constituted. That in turn would render all the legislation it produced illegal.

regards,
Scofflaw

vanla sighs

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, Ireland can't. A full Commission cannot be constituted under the Nice enlargement rules, because it would be in breach of the Treaty provisions, and thus illegally constituted. That in turn would render all the legislation it produced illegal.

regards,
Scofflaw

As I said, Ireland can keep a Commissioner whether we vote yes or No, and that is true. The Commission will have to be reduced but that does not automatically mean Ireland loses its Commissioner. Maybe Germany or France would lose theirs?

Scofflaw

vanla sighs wrote: »

As I said, Ireland can keep a Commissioner whether we vote yes or No, and that is true. The Commission will have to be reduced but that does not automatically mean Ireland loses its Commissioner. Maybe Germany or France would lose theirs?

Everybody would lose them in turn. The most likely agreement is the two-thirds Commission that was originally in Lisbon, and Ireland was on the first list for that one.

regards,
Scofflaw

drunkmonkey

if we vote yes do you think our comissioner will vote for blair?, i think they will because of our close ties with the uk, whats good for them could be good for us...
Blair is bad for europe and it would be a disgrace to have him as our first sitting president.. Its even a disgrace that he could be considered for the position.
He has blood on his hands, when a dog gets a taste for blood there usually put down.

I'd like to see mary robinsons name put forward by the irish media, would be great for them to start suggesting it if the yes vote wins..

Scofflaw

drunkmonkey wrote: »

if we vote yes do you think our comissioner will vote for blair?, i think they will because of our close ties with the uk, whats good for them could be good for us...
Blair is bad for europe and it would be a disgrace to have him as our first sitting president.. Its even a disgrace that he could be considered for the position.
He has blood on his hands, when a dog gets a taste for blood there usually put down.

It's not the Commissioners who vote, it's the governments. I couldn't really predict who we'd back - Fianna Fáil might back Blair.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'd like to see mary robinsons name put forward by the irish media, would be great for them to start suggesting it if the yes vote wins..

That's a very interesting suggestion. I'd like that. Also, COIR would explode.

cordially,
Scofflaw

vanla sighs

Scofflaw wrote: »

Everybody would lose them in turn. The most likely agreement is the two-thirds Commission that was originally in Lisbon, and Ireland was on the first list for that one.

regards,
Scofflaw

Great word there......"agreement", ALL member States would have to agree, every member State would have the right to veto if they felt their interests were not best served.

Scofflaw

vanla sighs wrote: »

Great word there......"agreement", ALL member States would have to agree, every member State would have the right to veto if they felt their interests were not best served.

It doesn't actually matter how you spin it - a Commission constituted under the Nice enlargement rules cannot be a full Commission, and there has to be a Commission. Ireland has one veto out of 27 - and would have nobody's goodwill. Do the arithmetic.

regards,
Scofflaw

vanla sighs

Scofflaw wrote: »

It doesn't actually matter how you spin it - a Commission constituted under the Nice enlargement rules cannot be a full Commission, and there has to be a Commission. Ireland has one veto out of 27 - and would have nobody's goodwill. Do the arithmetic.

regards,
Scofflaw

And Germany has 1 veto....and France has 1 veto.....and Malta has 1 veto.....every State has a veto if Lisbon falls again....and that is imho a very good thing. I wonder, why did the EU enlarge when it didn't have the correct treaties in place to ensure such an enlargement would be practical further down the road? :rolleyes:

drunkmonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not the Commissioners who vote, it's the governments. I couldn't really predict who we'd back - Fianna Fáil might back Blair.



That's a very interesting suggestion. I'd like that. Also, COIR would explode.

I think most europeans would also like it, along with cheri blair, michelle obama, the german one and hillary clinton...

now all we need is for an piece to appear in tomorrows hearld where mary robinson makes no comment on rumours she may run for eu president...

Ill leave my vote until tomorrow night just in the off chance it appears, but im not giving a yes with blairs name in the running...

meglome

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ill leave my vote until tomorrow night just in the off chance it appears, but im not giving a yes with blairs name in the running...

I think it's unlikely and the position has little power of any kind so I'm not sure if it would really matter to anything. Now don't get me wrong I'd hate him to get the job too.

drunkmonkey

He could possibly walk us into a world war, he will be our offical on the world stage and the wrong word in the wrong place could spell serious trouble, he's 2 cosy with big business and the arms industry....and we all know there's no profit in peace, wouldnt surprise me if he has shares in blackwater..

You could say im being a little paranoid but at the same time id rather not take the chance...

vanla sighs

The European Project turns into the Blair Witch Project......:eek:

meglome

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He could possibly walk us into a world war, he will be our offical on the world stage and the wrong word in the wrong place could spell serious trouble, he's 2 cosy with big business and the arms industry....and we all know there's no profit in peace, wouldnt surprise me if he has shares in blackwater..

You could say im being a little paranoid but at the same time id rather not take the chance...

Well I was going to say I think you're being paranoid.

I just can't see him getting the votes. They'll have to find a more neutral candidate. Funny thing is Blair is a good politician even if you or I disagree with some of the things he's done or who he's been involved with.

zenno

the independant quote: Ireland looks set to endorse the Lisbon Treaty on the future of Europe tomorrow, an outcome which will come as a huge relief to the establishments in Dublin and Brussels. Tomorrow's referendum is likely to endorse the ratification of the treaty, reversing the result of last year's vote. Much has changed in Ireland since June 2008, including the state of the economy. The disastrous slump in the past year may convince many voters... what sort of waster from the indo is this. he/she already knows the treaty will be passed lol. whoever it is is not keeping up with the days. my poll 56% no.

free-man

meglome wrote: »

Well I was going to say I think you're being paranoid.

I just can't see him getting the votes. They'll have to find a more neutral candidate. Funny thing is Blair is a good politician even if you or I disagree with some of the things he's done or who he's been involved with.

You talking about the same Blair who effectively lied to the World about WMD and to this day won't admit he was wrong? That guy? Yeh great politician.

Oh and this talk of the president having no powers and the fact that Blair would really be a figurehead. Interesting. Until you consider Article 48 where the EU could grant him a much bigger role in the EU without the need for a referendum in Ireland.

free-man

meglome wrote: »

Funny thing is Blair is a good politician even if you or I disagree with some of the things he's done or who he's been involved with.

I wonder if the majority of the yes posters here agree with you?

Scofflaw

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He could possibly walk us into a world war, he will be our offical on the world stage and the wrong word in the wrong place could spell serious trouble, he's 2 cosy with big business and the arms industry....and we all know there's no profit in peace, wouldnt surprise me if he has shares in blackwater..

You could say im being a little paranoid but at the same time id rather not take the chance...

You're being a little paranoid - he wouldn't have the necessary powers to "walk us into war", and there's no possibility whatsoever of getting the 27 countries to agree on something like Iraq - they didn't even agree first time, when it wasn't obvious that it was all lies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boskowski

Rb wrote: »

Don't worry OP, the No campaigners here have yet to put forward one factual, treaty based reason to vote against the document that hasn't been instantly debunked by some of the many superb posters here in the many months these debates have been running. So as opposed to sitting here questioning whether you're going to do the right thing, either enjoy a good nights sleep and go vote well rested tomorrow or find something entertaining to do because the the facts sure aren't going to come

Actually it's quite the opposite. It seems you just happen to ignore/black out genuine reasons. But I think the word we're looking for is....


...anyway

free-man

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're being a little paranoid - he wouldn't have the necessary powers to "walk us into war", and there's no possibility whatsoever of getting the 27 countries to agree on something like Iraq - they didn't even agree first time, when it wasn't obvious that it was all lies.
cordially,
Scofflaw

Funny I would have said the same thing about him before he walked the British into an unjust and unfounded war.

I'd be more comfortable if not for Article 48 of the treaty where the EU could in theory change his job description by voting between themselves without the need to go back to the electorate.

Sam Vimes

johnathan woss wrote: »

I'm 99% sure I'm going to vote YES tomorrow, but 1% of me still has a nagging doubt.

So here's your chance ..... give me some reasons (backed up with actual LOGIC and FACTS) to vote NO.......

And that 1% is what these people feed on :mad:

MavisDavis

johnathan woss wrote: »

I'm 99% sure I'm going to vote YES tomorrow, but 1% of me still has a nagging doubt.

So here's your chance ..... give me some reasons (backed up with actual LOGIC and FACTS) to vote NO.......

I can give you a good reason to vote YES: it'll piss off that smarmy git Declan Ganley. And the Shinners.