Consequences of the Lisbon Treaty

zephyrz

I for one was not old enough to vote at the time of the two referendums held for the lisbon treaty? I remember at the time the two main parties were in favour of it even though the people voted no the first time around! This to me seems very undemocratic!

So, basically what do you think are the consequences of the lisbon treaty for the future of Ireland? Please stay on topic. Cheers

starbelgrade

zephyrz wrote: »

Please stay on topic.

I think Man United will win the Champions League on Saturday.

OutlawPete

zephyrz wrote: »

What do you think are the consequences of the lisbon treaty for the future of Ireland?

If you don't like our answers, will you keeping asking us the same question again until you do?

mikemac

Minimum wage could have been €1.20 or so if we rejected it :eek:

The posters said so and they would not lie

zephyrz

OutlawPete wrote: »

If you don't like our answers, will you keeping asking us the same question again until you do?

I'm open for suggestions

OutlawPete

zephyrz wrote: »

I'm open for suggestions

I'm only kidding, as that's what our Government did, in effect

LighterGuy

zephyrz wrote: »

I for one was not old enough to vote at the time of the two referendums held for the lisbon treaty? I remember at the time the two main parties were in favour of it even though the people voted no the first time around! This to me seems very undemocratic!

communism my friend. To have a vote and for it to be rejected, But to hold another vote to get the right "result" ...

zephyrz

OutlawPete wrote: »

I'm only kidding, as that's what our Government did, in effect

Oh rite yeah, I always wondered how many times they would hold a referendum until we finally submitted!

K-9

I'm head of the European Army.

Consequences of Lisbon? Not much. Sure if Europe had power over Corporation tax they'd just take it, no argument required. If France had lower Corporation tax, we'd have no multi nationals and CT wouldn't be an issue, ever!

Consequences of Globalism and "markets can be controlled?" The rich get richer and the poor, poorer.

Referendums? People get swayed by whoever shouts loudest.

bc dub

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sED3iApAvE

suicide_circus

First time round, no one knew what they were voting and the opposite campaigned hard and used scare tactics while the government and the pro side were complacent and did fook all. The motion.was rejected.

Second time round, no one knew what they were voting for, the opposition stuck to their story while the pro side, government and political elite used immense scare tactics. The electorate, so perplexed by having to vote again and brow beaten by forces abroad and at home, changed their tune.

I am still unsure about the contents of the Lisbon treaty. I'm not stupid or lazy but I have work, family, friends and my life and little time to grapple with a lengthy and deliberately unintelligible legal document.

I dont know what relation the Lisbon treaty has to our present situation but as a casual student of history I will be very interested to learn the place Lisbon earns in the story of modern Irish politics, particularly the question of having to vote twice on the same thing and its impact on this democratic republic of ours.

zephyrz

Is it true the french and Dutch said no to the European constitution, and the EU just renamed it the lisbon treaty, so only Ireland would have to hold a referendum to accept it?

Senna

The first time around people were voting NO because they didn't want their children to be drafted into the army, they didn't want the minimum wage cut to nothing and they thought abortions would be mandatory.

I've no problem with the NO vote, as long as its for the right reasons.

twinQuins

Can someone explain to me how voting is undemocratic?

Guy:Incognito

feelingstressed wrote: »

Minimum wage could have been €1.20 or so if we rejected it :eek:

The posters said so and they would not lie

Was that not what the no side said it would drop to if it was passed?

Senna

twinQuins wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how voting is undemocratic?

Holding new elections again and again until the "correct" side wins is undemocratic.

zephyrz

twinQuins wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how voting is undemocratic?

Voting in itself obviously isn't undemocratic! But ignoring the peoples decision because its not the answer you want to hear is undemocratic! Whether or not the lisbon treaty is good or not, I just have problems with the way it was passed! You know?

starbelgrade

zephyrz wrote: »

Voting in itself obviously isn't undemocratic! But ignoring the peoples decision because its not the answer you want to hear is undemocratic! Whether or not the lisbon treaty is good or not, I just have problems with the way it was passed! You know?

It was still passed by a majority vote. If people actually disagree with something but are stupid enough to be scaremongered into agreeing with it, it's their fault & not the systems.

twinQuins

Senna wrote: »

Holding new elections again and again until the "correct" side wins is undemocratic.

But aren't you free to keep returning whatever verdict you want? It's not anyone was coerced into voting a particular way.

zephyrz

twinQuins wrote: »

But aren't you free to keep returning whatever verdict you want? It's not anyone was coerced into voting a particular way.

That's true, but obviously the strong government backing the second time is what change peoples mind. I wonder if they would have had a second referendum if the first vote was 'yes'? I've been listening to Nigel Farage a lot recently and he has some good points about this if anyone is interested in researching it!

Senna

twinQuins wrote: »

But aren't you free to keep returning whatever verdict you want? It's not anyone was coerced into voting a particular way.

Not the way it works unfortunately, given enough attempts and only two possible results, its only a mater of time before the result changes.

twinQuins

Is it really, though? If people really felt strongly enough about it they'd continue to vote a particular way.
If anything this just shows how apathetic the electorate is.

Short of threatening people with violence or other sanctions I fail to see how, exactly, they're going to overturn their previous decision if not because they want to.

K-9

zephyrz wrote: »

Is it true the french and Dutch said no to the European constitution, and the EU just renamed it the lisbon treaty, so only Ireland would have to hold a referendum to accept it?

Not the same treaty, it had to comply to constitutional requirements.

Farange is a good speaker if you are that way inclined. Many would say hisraising his face in Lisbon 2 swung the vote!

Senna

twinQuins wrote: »

Is it really, though? If people really felt strongly enough about it they'd continue to vote a particular way.
If anything this just shows how apathetic the electorate is.

Short of threatening people with violence or other sanctions I fail to see how, exactly, they're going to overturn their previous decision if not because they want to.

Had vote 2 been NO, they would have found out what a majority of people objected to, then launched a campaign to apprise this point (may not have have changed the point, just tarted it up), then have another vote, if still no, they do the same thing again, what did a large number of people object to.....re-word it. and try again etc etc etc.
The YES vote would win no mater what, seen it was backed by all major parties.

Biggins

zephyrz wrote: »

...Please stay on topic. Cheers

Well seeing as you said please, I hoped for more Jellybabies.

Chips Lovell

We had two divorce referendums too. This was undemocratic. Divorce should still be illegal.

sensibleken

the consequesces were a more streamlined decision making process. Some decissions will now be taken by qualified majority voting at the european council, some such as defence and taxation policy will still require unanimity.

Decissions will have to comply with the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that if legislation can be best done at a member state level then it should be. There have also been more powers to the European Parliament.

The diffence Lisbon made was dramatic but not as exciting as the campaign and fallout would lead you to believe. There is no EU army, minimum wage drop, corporation tax rise, abortion because of the Lisbon treaty. Similarly there have been no extra jobs created.

But it is important to note that if you were missled one way or the other you have nobody to blame but yourself. This was not an election it was a referendum, meaning that you are the legislator, you are the politician. And if you want the power to vote on international treaties between 27 countries then you have a duty to inform yourself very very well on that treaty

Pompey Magnus

feelingstressed wrote: »

Minimum wage could have been €1.20 or so if we rejected it :eek:

The posters said so and they would not lie

Actually it was the Anti Lisbon group, Cóir, which threatened that minimum wage would drop to €1.84 p/h if the treaty was ratified.

They were rightly accused of dishonesty by the Pro Lisbon side, an accusation which has turned out to be well placed as now, under the FAS WP Programme, companies can recruit qualified job seekers for €0.00 p/h, Cóir misled the Irish electorate with their far too generous €1.84.

sensibleken

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Actually it was the Anti Lisbon group, Cóir, which threatened that minimum wage would drop to €1.84 p/h if the treaty was ratified.

They were rightly accused of dishonesty by the Pro Lisbon side, an accusation which has turned out to be well placed as now, under the FAS WP Programme companies can recruit qualified job seekers for €0.00 p/h, Cóir misled the Irish electorate with their far too generous €1.84.

no it isnt. Any drop in minimum wage or FAS training wage has nothing to do with Lisbon

deepsouthtalla

starbelgrade wrote: »

I think Man United will win the Champions League on Saturday.

you must be having a laugh????

Zebra3

Senna wrote: »

The first time around people were voting NO because they didn't want their children to be drafted into the army, they didn't want the minimum wage cut to nothing and they thought abortions would be mandatory.

I've no problem with the NO vote, as long as its for the right reasons.

And the last time round people voted for Lisbon because of scare tactics so let's have another vote then.

evercloserunion

twinQuins wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how voting is undemocratic?

No, no one can. Because it's not.

evercloserunion

Zebra3 wrote: »

And the last time round people voted for Lisbon because of scare tactics so let's have another vote then.

Grand! All you have to do is elect a Dáil that shares your backwards view of Europe. Then they can pass a bill to amend the Constitution and we can have a vote on it.

ilovelamp2000

Lisbon was only one in a series of treaties designed to bring about a federal Europe.

Or in laymans terms it was us bending over a little bit further so the EU could screw us a little bit deeper.

thebigbiffo

the only regrets i have about the Lisbon treaty (and i was a big supporter of it) is that within months the bottom fell out of our financial system. If we had that bargaining chip now, we might be getting their money at a reasonable rate.

ArmaniJeanss

zephyrz wrote: »

I for one was not old enough to vote at the time of the two referendums held for the lisbon treaty?

zephyrz wrote: »

I've been listening to Nigel Farage a lot recently and he has some good points about this if anyone is interested in researching it!

So you are what 18 or 19 years of age? And you are spending your spare time listening to Nigel Farage.

I call bullsh1t on this story.

Pompey Magnus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So you are what 18 or 19 years of age? And you are spending your spare time listening to Nigel Farage.

I call bullsh1t on this story.

You don't think 18 or 19 year olds can take an interest in politics?

Run_to_da_hills

The Pro Lisbon crowd were just as much guilty on scare tactics and spewing out lies as the No crowd were accused of.

We were promised all sorts of Jobs and that the country would turn to ruin if we voted no, We voted Yes and it is now worse than ever.

We were promised that our corporation tax will remain the same as one of the conditions of signing up. It will only be a matter of time before we are blackmailed and bullied by our fascist EU counterparts into having this over ruled to come in par with the rest of the block. This will turn the whole country into an economic wasteland.

melekalikimaka

we should never have been allowed vote on it, thats why we elect people, I'd rather the decision was made my people who have the time to read what they are voting on over voting based on Joe Duffy's opinion or scare mongering from the media

ArmaniJeanss

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

You don't think 18 or 19 year olds can take an interest in politics?

Of course I do, I was quite the political nerd myself at that age.

But this just seems too obvious - new poster claiming quizzical interest in the issue to get a debate going, then making it clear they actually have a rather fixed and unwielding position, then recommending people go and research the teachings of Nigel Farage.

You know what, maybe it is all genuine and I'm just being a cynic. Carry on.

sensibleken

zephyrz wrote: »

That's true, but obviously the strong government backing the second time is what change peoples mind. I wonder if they would have had a second referendum if the first vote was 'yes'? I've been listening to Nigel Farage a lot recently and he has some good points about this if anyone is interested in researching it!

Nigel Farage is a liar.

UKIP's leaflet had the following quote

"Contractors from other member states could provide services at the same rates and conditions of employment as in their country of origin. Depending on the country of origin this could seriously undemine the competitive position of Irish contractors."

LABOUR COURT RULING
Determination NO Rep091, 26.02.2009

The actual ruling said the complete opposite of this. The Labour Court had to release a statement saying that UKIP were being dishonest. The people's movement also circulated this lie on their leaflets

seamus

feelingstressed wrote: »

Minimum wage could have been €1.20 or so if we rejected it :eek:

That's some feat of revisionism there, nice one. I wonder if you'll start claiming now that we were told there'd be mandatory abortions for all if the treaty was rejected.

zephyrz wrote: »

But ignoring the peoples decision because its not the answer you want to hear is undemocratic!

The peoples' decision wasn't ignored. "Ignoring" the people's decision would have involved enacting the treaty anyway. Instead, the government of the time examined the reasons why the treaty was rejected, got legal guarantees from the EU to allay the fears expressed by the "No" voters, and then put it to the people again.
I would be all on the side of "they were taking the piss" if they did nothing and put it to the public again. But to be fair to them, showers of ****es and all as they were, they took the "No" campaigns from the first referendum, obtained all the necessary documentation and proof to show that their objections were unfounded or not possible, and then they asked the people again.

zephyrz wrote: »

Is it true the french and Dutch said no to the European constitution, and the EU just renamed it the lisbon treaty, so only Ireland would have to hold a referendum to accept it?

No. Or at least that's too simplistic a way of looking at it.
The constitution was rejected by those populations, and then the Lisbon treaty was created, strongly using the EU constitution as a basis, because it still contained a massive amount of useful and necessary stuff. It wouldn't have made sense to bin the constitution and start from scratch.

The reason Lisbon only needed a referendum in Ireland is because the powers it granted to the EU over member states is much smaller than what would have been granted in the EU constitution.

In reality the Lisbon Treaty hasn't and won't impact on the day-to-day lives of people. It was a high-level document full of mundane items about the functioning of the EU which should never have been put to referendum.

sensibleken

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

We were promised that our corporation tax will remain the same as one of the conditions of signing up. It will only be a matter of time before we are blackmailed and bullied by our fascist EU counterparts into having this over ruled to come in par with the rest of the block. This will turn the whole country into an economic wasteland.

two referendums, massive debate and still people dont get it.

the corporation tax threat at the moment has nothing to do with Lisbon. You were promised Lisbon would not change the corporation tax rate or provide any new mechanism where corporation tax could be changed. And that was true

darragh16

zephyrz wrote: »

I remember at the time the two main parties were in favour of it even though the people voted no the first time around! This to me seems very undemocratic!

Guarantee's were added and some terms were changed second time out. This wasn't like the Nice treaty where nothing changed and we were asked to vote again...

Undemocratic would be agreeing to it without a vote. The fact that we voted second time out for it doesn't make it undemocratic

Phill Ewinn

Caused a lot of distrust of europe IMO. That and every Irish channel blaming Europe for the treason of Brian Cowen

ilovelamp2000

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Lisbon was only one in a series of treaties designed to bring about a federal Europe.

Or in laymans terms it was us bending over a little bit further so the EU could screw us a little bit deeper.

Yeah.. You're right. The EU never did anything for us. We've just been constantly screwed for the last 20 years, haven't we?

Phill Ewinn

sensibleken wrote: »

Nigel Farage is a liar.

UKIP's leaflet had the following quote

"Contractors from other member states could provide services at the same rates and conditions of employment as in their country of origin. Depending on the country of origin this could seriously undemine the competitive position of Irish contractors."

LABOUR COURT RULING
Determination NO Rep091, 26.02.2009

The actual ruling said the complete opposite of this. The Labour Court had to release a statement saying that UKIP were being dishonest. The people's movement also circulated this lie on their leaflets

Oh God. Lots of popliticians lie. The two Brains lied repeatedly about the bailout fraud. Don't tell me they told the truth about Lisbon. Federalisation won't suit us. Barroso is a puppet that needs to be given out to by the likes of Farage.

Run_to_da_hills

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah.. You're right. The EU never did anything for us. We've just been constantly screwed for the last 20 years, haven't we?

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The EU provided Ireland with finance to construct motorways left right and center across the country. A similar thing happened in Nazi Germany before the war with the Autobahnn, it will only be a matter of time before they walk all over us.

the groutch

every treaty is just another step closer to France & Germany ruling Europe.
at least Hitler just went and did it, instead of this sneakiness.

sensibleken

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Oh God. Lots of popliticians lie. The two Brains lied repeatedly about the bailout fraud. Don't tell me they told the truth about Lisbon. Federalisation won't suit us. Barroso is a puppet that needs to be given out to by the likes of Farage.

I wont. But the OP said he was listening to Farage's opinions on Lisbon and I was pointing out that he was lieing about the effect of Lisbon. If he said he was listening to Cowen I would have done the same. I presume you think its ok to lie if its an anti-EU lie from your arguement

melekalikimaka

the groutch wrote: »

every treaty is just another step closer to France & Germany ruling Europe.
at least Hitler just went and did it, instead of this sneakiness.

i think we can all agree we are not capable of running things ourselves, I for one welcome our new leaders.