nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

why are we voting again

conchubhar1

i question anyone to give one proper democratic reason why we are being asked to vote on a done issue.

really, the irish people voted no.
that should be the end of it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

conchubhar1

so future generations are bound by past treaties and agreements?
the uk for example cant have a referendum to leave the eu?

anything that is added to this will be a good thing - of the items mentioned above
but we will hve to wait and see

PopeBuckfastXVI

K-9 wrote: »

Thing is if it's limited to 27, when Croatia joins and if/as more join we will eventually lose our Commissioner at some stage!

Sorry, I should say 1 commissioner per country.

And yes, it gets more wasteful every time a new country joins.

Conchubar,

Yes you absolutely can break out of the Lisbon treaty, but it involves leaving the EU.

Alternatively you negotiate a brand new treaty which rolls back the changes Lisbon has made and agree that with the other member states.

So while it's correct to say you can't have a straight up 'we roll back Lisbon on our own' referendum, you can still remove Ireland from it's provisions in either of those ways.

conchubhar1

but to have a commissioner, no matter how wasteful can not be worse than not having one

having one now is better than not having one - no matter in the future what may happen

P. Breathnach

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but to have a commissioner, no matter how wasteful can not be worse than not having one

having one now is better than not having one - no matter in the future what may happen

Why?

conchubhar1

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why?

ok - if you insist on that

why not? (it is obvious why it is better to have one)

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why not? (it is obvious why it is better to have one)

It's really not obvious conchubhar, given the role and responsibilities of an EU commissioner.

Edit:

Here look, because I'm such a kind hearted soul, I've gone and got the text of the Oath which each commissioner has taken.

I'm going to bold the bits which make it non-obvious why it's better for any particular member state to appoint a commissioner:

Solemn undertaking before the Court of Justice by the President and the new members of the European Commission wrote:

Having been appointed as a member of the Commission of the European Communities by the Council of the European Union, after the vote of approval by the European Parliament, I do solemnly undertake: to be completely independent in the performance of my duties, in the general interest of the Communities; in the performance of these duties, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties.

I formally note the undertaking of each Member State to respect this principle and not to seek to influence members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.

I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligations arising therefrom and in particular, the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance after I have ceased to hold office of certain appointments or benefits.

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

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

so future generations are bound by past treaties and agreements?
the uk for example cant have a referendum to leave the eu?

anything that is added to this will be a good thing - of the items mentioned above
but we will hve to wait and see

If we pass Lisbon I believe there is a defined mechanism to leave, it's debatable if that's the current scenario, though I believe Greenland did leave the EC.

conchubhar1

but in practice buckfast? yes thats what they swea by and im not sating they are lieing but to say they dont in some way have irelands interest at heart wouldnt be true

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but in practice buckfast? yes thats what they swea by and im not sating they are lieing but to say they dont in some way have irelands interest at heart wouldnt be true

It very much would be true, given that any other country could have them removed from office at the slightest hint of favouritism.

Remember they derive their authority from the European Parliament and the Council, not from the Government that nominated them.

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but in practice buckfast? yes thats what they swea by and im not sating they are lieing but to say they dont in some way have irelands interest at heart wouldnt be true

I don't know about that at all. In the early '90's, Ray McSharry was vilified in Ireland for pushing through much-needed reforms in CAP when he was Commissioner for Agriculture (whatever about CAP now, it was an unmitigated disaster at that time).

And in the '70's, Patrick Hillary is credited with pushing through reforms in equal rights for women when he was Commissioner for Social Affairs (or whatever it was called at the time), reportedly to the consternation of the Government of the time; let's face it, the '70's weren't exactly a time of social equality for women in Ireland.

And what has Charlie McCreevy ever done that indicates he's looking out for Ireland's interests?

One thing that particularly annoys me about the Commissioner issue is that the people who say we need 'our' Commissioner are usually the first people to give out about the amount of legislation from the EU (that's not directed at you specifically, conchubhar1). The one thing that would make me switch to the No side is the fact that the Commission will remain bloated in Lisbon 2.

conchubhar1

they wont be outright and obvious about it

i still maintain having a commissioner from each country is not bad for any country

conchubhar1

yes
but having a commissioner is still not a bad thing - the amunt of eu laws is irrelevant

how they affect countries and whether they are good or bad is what is important

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes
but having a commissioner is still not a bad thing - the amunt of eu laws is irrelevant

how they affect countries and whether they are good or bad is what is important

The amount of EU laws does matter, although for me it's not the sovereignty issue that other posters have. Basically, more Commission-proposed legislation means more work for the Council(s) and parliament, more legislation committees required, or the same committees being over-worked, more time to get legislation passed, etc- this all leads to more cost and a greater potential for poor quality legislation. [Another point here is that more areas moving to co-decision in the Parliament isn't necessarily a good thing in Lisbon either.]

Honestly, the larger Commission is a disaster, imo. Ganley had some cheek to celebrate keeping 'our' Commissioner, while at the same time talking about the inefficient working of the EU.

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

they wont be outright and obvious about it

i still maintain having a commissioner from each country is not bad for any country

They won't do it, no matter what you think about human nature, or nods and winks.

Please use the correct terminology, a country doesn't 'have' a commissioner, they appoint one for approval by the council and parliament.

It's not 'bad' for a country to appoint a commissioner, it's also not 'good' for them at all.

It is, however, bad for everyone to have a bloated and wasteful commission of 27/28, many of whom, are sitting around getting fat salaries for doing what essentially amounts to a made up role, just so they have something to do.

Anyway, like I say, it's not a dealbreaker for me.

conchubhar1

quality over quantity

its the use and application of the laws that is most important

ganley had a lot of cheek in general....

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i still maintain having a commissioner from each country is not bad for any country

Do you think it's bad that there isn't a cabinet secretary from each state in the US government?

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you think it's bad that there isn't a cabinet secretary from each state in the US government?

That's coming uncomfortably close to the Irish view that a constituency "needs" a Minister. And that sort of view underpins the popular contention that Ireland "needs" a Commissioner. In both cases, it is in the expectation that the person will distort business to deliver something for the folks at home.

KINGVictor

I personally did not vote on the Lisbon treaty...but if I did I would have been inclined to vote NO.
My concern is the very undemocratic responce by Brussels and some european powers notably France and Germany towards the decision of the Irish.I recall a French minister going on air after the results were annouced and rained abuses on the Irish...talking about how the Irish were ungrateful and how the EU saved us from poverty and famine..TBH I thought that was very condesending.

The truth of the matter is ..it is stipulated in the EU constitution that if one country rejects the treaty..then the treaty is dead.After the results were announced most people assumed that the treaty was dead until Barroso,Sakorzy etc said it was an Irish problem and the Irish had to find a solution...how ironic!!!.Now lets hypothetically assume that it was the French or the Germans that held a referendum and voted No...we can be sure that the treaty would be dead.

This sort of flagrant disregard for democratic process is exactly why there is so much voter apathy in most EU countries when it comes to european elections... a lot of people can come on boards and justify the second vote for variety of reasons but the truth is Brussels as an institution do not respect Ireland when it comes to inner politics of the EU but neither do our own government...I seriously doubt if Poland or the Czech republic would have accepted such an insult.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

I personally did not vote on the Lisbon treaty...but if I did I would have been inclined to vote NO.
My concern is the very undemocratic responce by Brussels and some european powers notably France and Germany towards the decision of the Irish.I recall a French minister going on air after the results were annouced and rained abuses on the Irish...talking about how the Irish were ungrateful and how the EU saved us from poverty and famine..TBH I thought that was very condesending.

The truth of the matter is ..it is stipulated in the EU constitution that if one country rejects the treaty..then the treaty is dead.After the results were announced most people assumed that the treaty was dead until Barroso,Sakorzy etc said it was an Irish problem and the Irish had to find a solution...how ironic!!!.Now lets hypothetically assume that it was the French or the Germans that held a referendum and voted No...we can be sure that the treaty would be dead.

This sort of flagrant disregard for democratic process is exactly why there is so much voter apathy in most EU countries when it comes to european elections... a lot of people can come on boards and justify the second vote for variety of reasons but the truth is Brussels as an institution do not respect Ireland when it comes to inner politics of the EU but neither do our own government...I seriously doubt if Poland or the Czech republic would have accepted such an insult.

Let's try once again to clarify something - the idea that "it is stipulated in the EU constitution that if one country rejects the treaty..then the treaty is dead" is entirely false.

What is stated is that if all partners have not ratified the treaty by the end of a stated period, then the matter will be further considered by the Council. There is no 'death notice' for a treaty except its voluntary abandonment.

I also have to say I'm impressed that you would have voted No in Lisbon because of how you feel the No vote was treated after Lisbon - I do hope that you apply those powers of foretelling beneficially in other areas of your life. That we were mistreated by France, of all people, is of course particularly terrible, given that by all No campaign accounts, they were treated exactly the same.

cordially,
Scoflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

Scofflaw wrote: »

I also have to say I'm impressed that you would have voted No in Lisbon because of how you feel the No vote was treated after Lisbon - I do hope that you apply those powers of foretelling beneficially in other areas of your life. That we were mistreated by France, of all people, is of course particularly terrible, given that by all No campaign accounts, they were treated exactly the same.

cordially,
Scoflaw

Are you just being sarcastic there ?

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's coming uncomfortably close to the Irish view that a constituency "needs" a Minister. And that sort of view underpins the popular contention that Ireland "needs" a Commissioner. In both cases, it is in the expectation that the person will distort business to deliver something for the folks at home.

Good point, never thought of that, Ganley was appealing to the "parish pump" politics of the typical Irish voter, very smart and very canny. The very fact that Commissioners have to be independent and impartial is incomprehensible to many.

KINGVictor wrote: »

The truth of the matter is ..it is stipulated in the EU constitution that if one country rejects the treaty..then the treaty is dead.After the results were announced most people assumed that the treaty was dead until Barroso,Sakorzy etc said it was an Irish problem and the Irish had to find a solution...how ironic!!!.Now lets hypothetically assume that it was the French or the Germans that held a referendum and voted No...we can be sure that the treaty would be dead.

Could well be the case though the very fact that it took 2 NO Votes in both France AND Holland to stop the Constitution kind of discredits that.

KINKVictor wrote:

This sort of flagrant disregard for democratic process is exactly why there is so much voter apathy in most EU countries when it comes to european elections... a lot of people can come on boards and justify the second vote for variety of reasons but the truth is Brussels as an institution do not respect Ireland when it comes to inner politics of the EU but neither do our own government...I seriously doubt if Poland or the Czech republic would have accepted such an insult.

Hard to know. I've seen plenty on here giving out about the second vote but in fairness it's generally the Usual Suspects. Some actually listened to SF and Libertas and voted No to get a better deal. They now are awaiting the assurances etc. (even SF are doing this) and seeing what is this better deal the Govt. can get.

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's try once again to clarify something - the idea that "it is stipulated in the EU constitution that if one country rejects the treaty..then the treaty is dead" is entirely false.

What is stated is that if all partners have not ratified the treaty by the end of a stated period, then the matter will be further considered by the Council. There is no 'death notice' for a treaty except its voluntary abandonment.

I also have to say I'm impressed that you would have voted No in Lisbon because of how you feel the No vote was treated after Lisbon - I do hope that you apply those powers of foretelling beneficially in other areas of your life. That we were mistreated by France, of all people, is of course particularly terrible, given that by all No campaign accounts, they were treated exactly the same.

cordially,
Scoflaw

I dont understand how my inclination to vote NO to the referendum would have affected other areas of my life...no need to get personal( I could have been out of the country or I was busy).I would have voted no during the previous referendum and I would probably vote No again but that is my personal choice because it has been imposed on me and the other Irish people to vote again.You have not answered my question...if the referendum was carried out in France or Germany or Poland ...do you honestly think Brussels would suggested another vote....Simple answer NO!!!!

In 2005 ,the French and the dutch voted No to a treaty and it was considered dead immediately.Brussels then devised a method where Governments would pass the treaty without consulting thier poplulace,only Ireland ...constitutionally had such privileges but after they voiced their opinion...it was not accepted.

52% of the Irish that voted No are not a bunch of idiots that were cajoled by libertas to express themselves.A lot of unions advised their members to vote no because they felt that the treaty was not going to be beneficial to them.

What the second Irish vote suggests is...we as a government and the EU establishment know far more than you citizens....we are smart and you are short-sighted..we know the best for you.If not,let them put the treaty as a referendum to all citizens just like the elections....

If there was referendum in all EU countries...it is absolutely definite that 80% of countries would reject it..that is precisely why a lot of people are disillusioned about the whole EU concept.We are not the USA...we cannot be...we are far more complex and convoluted.

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

In 2005 ,the French and the dutch voted No to a treaty and it was considered dead immediately

So the French where not important enough, it needed the Dutch too?

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

I dont understand how my inclination to vote NO to the referendum would have affected other areas of my life...no need to get personal( I could have been out of the country or I was busy).I would have voted no during the previous referendum and I would probably vote No again but that is my personal choice because it has been imposed on me and the other Irish people to vote again.You have not answered my question...if the referendum was carried out in France or Germany or Poland ...do you honestly think Brussels would suggested another vote....Simple answer NO!!!!

In 2005 ,the French and the dutch voted No to a treaty and it was considered dead immediately.Brussels then devised a method where Governments would pass the treaty without consulting thier poplulace,only Ireland ...constitutionally had such privileges but after they voiced their opinion...it was not accepted.

52% of the Irish that voted No are not a bunch of idiots that were cajoled by libertas to express themselves.A lot of unions advised their members to vote no because they felt that the treaty was not going to be beneficial to them.

What the second Irish vote suggests is...we as a government and the EU establishment know far more than you citizens....we are smart and you are short-sighted..we know the best for you.If not,let them put the treaty as a referendum to all citizens just like the elections....

If there was referendum in all EU countries...it is absolutely definite that 80% of countries would reject it..that is precisely why a lot of people are disillusioned about the whole EU concept.We are not the USA...we cannot be...we are far more complex and convoluted.

Whenever one country has been the only country not to ratify an EU treaty (by whatever method it uses), a way around the impasse has always been put forward, and the ratification tried again. We weren't even the first to do it - the Danes were.

Whether countries use referendums or parliamentary ratification isn't in the power of the EU, but is up to the constitutional rules of the countries. Even if you consider every other nation in Europe an undemocratic sham for not ratifying the way we do, you're just going to have to put up with the fact that other countries have chosen to do things differently., and that it is up to the citizens of those countries to change their constitutions if they so wish, just as we are the only people allowed to change ours.

Finally, what the second vote suggests is that, stripped of the 'I have a problem with authority' bit, the government does indeed think the treaty is a good deal, and it and the rest of the EU think the EU needs the reforms contained in Lisbon. While there are valid arguments against some of those proposed reforms, they don't consist of "it can't work anyway", because it's been working longer than either I or you (I presume) have been alive.

As a sort of postscript, I have to point out that, unless you really know how the rest of Europe would actually vote, presuming to vote on anybody else's behalf is extraordinarily arrogant. If you have such knowledge, you should make it known to all - if you do not, then you are imposing either your Yes or your No arbitrarily on the rest of Europe, while claiming to be voting for them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

oscarbravo i am not an american citezen

so to not be harsh, i couldnt care less if they do or dont - that comment only had a slight relevance - i see your point but it has small relevance here

lads this is on lisbon 1/2 not the constitution - which any right minded person would have voted down
that is if it contained the flag and anthem as i am unaware as i didnt read it for obvious reason
please keep it on topic

scofflaw made a good point - relevant the only one on the page nearly - that sinn féin and others are awaiting to see what concessions were got

and all along this was touted as the best deal possible
if it just the stating of items that were implicit alone - abortion military etc - then i will be voting no again
as will most who voted no the first time - except those who will fall victim to scaremongering as result of the economic crisis

PopeBuckfastXVI

KINGVictor wrote: »

My concern is the very undemocratic responce by Brussels and some european powers notably France and Germany towards the decision of the Irish.I recall a French minister going on air after the results were annouced and rained abuses on the Irish...talking about how the Irish were ungrateful and how the EU saved us from poverty and famine.

Hi KINGVictor, I'd be interested in hearing that too, have you got a link to the radio or television broadcast you are referring to?

KINGVictor wrote: »

The truth of the matter is ..it is stipulated in the EU constitution that if one country rejects the treaty..then the treaty is dead.

I'd be really interested in seeing this part of the EU Constitution, it was my understanding that after the EU Constitution was rejected by the French and Dutch electorates it didn't actually enter into force. I can't find any reference to it online, so it would be great if you could proved a link to the article of the EU Constitution to which you are referring.

KINGVictor wrote: »

After the results were announced most people assumed that the treaty was dead until Barroso,Sakorzy etc said it was an Irish problem and the Irish had to find a solution...how ironic!!!.

I'd be very interested in hearing Barroso and Sarkozy's statements on the matter, can you please provide a link to where they said this?

KINGVictor wrote: »

Now lets hypothetically assume that it was the French or the Germans that held a referendum and voted No...we can be sure that the treaty would be dead.

Well given it's a hypothetical, we can also be sure that the treaty would be very much alive, hypothetically speaking, no?

KINGVictor wrote: »

This sort of flagrant disregard for democratic process is exactly why there is so much voter apathy in most EU countries when it comes to european elections...

I hadn't heard about this study linking a flagrant disregard for democratic process to voter apathy, I'd love to see it, do you have a link?

In fact I hadn't heard about a flagrant disregard for democratic process either, it'd be fantastic if you could provide more details on what exactly was implemented, disregarding democratic process, including any links if possible?

KINGVictor wrote: »

a lot of people can come on boards and justify the second vote for variety of reasons but the truth is Brussels as an institution do not respect Ireland when it comes to inner politics of the EU but neither do our own government...

Wow, I wasn't aware of this at all, I'd be really interested to hear of examples of Brussels as an institution not respecting Ireland when it comes to inner politics of the EU, a quote or two from Brussels as an institution demonstrating this, with links to the source, would be great. The same regarding the Irish government would be great also, of course.

KINGVictor wrote: »

I seriously doubt if Poland or the Czech republic would have accepted such an insult.

Can you please provide a link or source on the insult, I haven't heard it myself, and I'd be really interested to read it?

I can't really speak for Poland or the Czech Republic, and neither can you, so I suppose that's just your opinion right?

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

lads this is on lisbon 1/2 not the constitution - which any right minded person would have voted down
that is if it contained the flag and anthem

In fairness conchubhar, you don't hold a monopoly on right mindedness, I would have voted yes to the constitution, and my opinion is no less valid than yours.

conchubhar1

links for all your claims bucky? and others - me too. where do we stop?

no thought so - stay on topic as i stated above. most of what people say here is opinion
vbulletin and boards is a discussion board.......

conchubhar1

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

In fairness conchubhar, you don't hold a monopoly on right mindedness, I would have voted yes to the constitution, and my opinion is no less valid than yours.

no i dont - but if it had the flag and anthem in, why would you vote for it never mind the fact it was called a constitution.....

your opionion is no less valid then mine :cool:

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

links for all your claims bucky? and others - me too. where do we stop?

no thought so - stay on topic as i stated above. most of what people say here is opinion
vbulletin and boards is a discussion board.......

What claims would you like links for?