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

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

darkman2

October 2nd is the date - how do you intend to vote?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

tmdsurvey

I am voting No to the Lisbon Treaty (re-visited). The Government in power should learn to respect the vote of the people first time around. "Guarantees" or no "guarantees" a large proportion of people will vote no simply because the government are trying to get the yes vote by attrition. Maybe if they did not have such a cock sure attitude the first time around and tried to stay somewhat impartial we would not be in this position.

humanji

bijapos wrote: »

OP: That poll is swinging dangerously towards a 55:45 NO vote. Might need to scrap it and have a new poll(s) till we get the 'correct' result.:D

Well some of the no voters voted no because of something that happened in the Scuba Diving forum so I think it evens out...

dresden8

humanji wrote: »

Well some of the no voters voted no because of something that happened in the Scuba Diving forum so I think it evens out...

No, it was because we couldn't understand the OP, apparently.

tonycascarino

I'll be voting NO and there's nothing that Robbie Keane & The Edge can do to change that!

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Then why does Commissioner Kovacs claim to have the support of 2/3rds of member states for it?

Perhaps because Commissioner Kovacs wanted it, and needed to claim support for it - although the article you reference is from 2007 (that's two years ago, I know you have trouble with these things), with Kovacs making claims about having CCCTB on the road by early 2008. It seems his timetable was unrealistic, so there's no particular reason to believe his other claims either.

It's worth pointing out, since you're probably unaware, that CCCTB has been bubbling over a low flame since 2001, and hasn't yet got beyond reports and working groups. It's unlikely to be popular right now, with the recession, the originally interested states (Germany/France) are now lukewarm on it, and it's unknown whether anyone in the incoming Commission will adopt it as Kovacs did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Then why does Commissioner Kovacs claim to have the support of 2/3rds of member states for it?

2/3rds does not equal unanimity.

skearon

darkman2 wrote: »

October 2nd is the date - how do you intend to vote?

A definate Yes, there are no logical reasons to vote No, only ones that damage the country and its future.

FutureTaoiseach

Hitman Actual wrote: »

2/3rds does not equal unanimity.

True but it would be more than enough to activate CCCTB under Enhanced-Cooperation, which Kovacs has repeatedly threatened to do.

skearon

free to prosper wrote: »

We're having a rerun of the vote on the exact same Lisbon Treaty on October 2 - what a travesty of democracy.

Wrong, you are voting on the treaty along with the legal guarantees.

free to prosper wrote: »

I'm voting NO for the democratic good of Ireland and of Europe.

Voting No actually prevents democratic reform of the EU.

Perhaps you should trying reading the treaty before posting such misinformation.

skearon

bijapos wrote: »

OP: That poll is swinging dangerously towards a 55:45 NO vote. Might need to scrap it and have a new poll(s) till we get the 'correct' result.:D

Don't worry, the people of Ireland will vote in favour of their collective future on October 2nd.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

True but it would be more than enough to activate CCCTB under Enhanced-Cooperation, which Kovacs has repeatedly threatened to do.

And which has been possible since Nice. All Lisbon does is raise the bar from 8 member states needed for an enhanced cooperation group to 9. Lisbon has no impact, and CCCTB is not relevant to Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

8.I oppose the abolition of the rotating-presidency of the European Council in favour of a person chosen by QMV. That gives 4 Big States an absolute veto on candidates, making it unlikely Ireland will get to preside over Council business again.

The 6-month rotating presidency of the Council (of Ministers), i.e. the one that counts, is still in existence. Ireland will have the Presidency again in Jan-Jun 2013. The new 2.5 year position of President of the European Council has no powers of any worth (just a load of supervisory roles), and simply represents the EU on the International stage (along with the High Rep for foreign affairs).

This new position is a good thing, imo, as it gives some continuity to the progress of the EU, and a long-term, stable figure on the world stage, rather than with the current stop-start nature. As pointed out in a different thread, the only potential issue is getting the right person for the job.

skearon

tmdsurvey wrote: »

I am voting No to the Lisbon Treaty (re-visited). The Government in power should learn to respect the vote of the people first time around.

It did and carried out extensive reseach to understand the people's vote.

tmdsurvey wrote: »

"Guarantees" or no "guarantees" a large proportion of people will vote no simply because the government are trying to get the yes vote by attrition.

Wrong, the legal guarantees answer the people's concerns, and disprove once and for all the lies of the No side, especially the unelectable Libertas and the Shinners.

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

True but it would be more than enough to activate CCCTB under Enhanced-Cooperation, which Kovacs has repeatedly threatened to do.

And to add to what Scofflaw said, Ireland are not compelled to take part in any Enhanced Cooperation mechanism i.e. they won't be forced to change their rates against their will. I know you know that, FT, but other posters might not, and I still recall Ganley saying in the original referendum campaign that we would be forced to change our corpo tax rates through enhanced cooperation (the stinking liar).

Edit to add: Also, when I researched a lot of the CCCTB stuff early on this year, there were a lot of indications that the criteria for 8 member states was unlikely to be met, let alone the 9 under Lisbon.

jhegarty

I voted no last time. Not one word of the treaty has changed.

Why would I change my vote ?

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

True but it would be more than enough to activate CCCTB under Enhanced-Cooperation, which Kovacs has repeatedly threatened to do.

How would 9 or more other countries activating CCTB under Enhanced Co-operation affect us?

patchybaby

i shall vote like i voted last time.....no

netron

i am voting No and am encouraging my family and relatives to also vote No.

not a single line of the Treaty has been changed.

do you think for one minute, that if we now Vote "yes" that they'll ask us for another vote in a years time? of course not.

this smacks of totalitarian behaviour - we'll keep putting it to a vote until you provide the "right" answer.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

How would 9 or more other countries activating CCTB under Enhanced Co-operation affect us?

And what relevance does it have to Lisbon?

cordially,
Scofflaw

netron

skearon wrote: »

A definate Yes, there are no logical reasons to vote No, only ones that damage the country and its future.

that was also the argument against independence from the British Empire.

read your history.

skearon

jhegarty wrote: »

I voted no last time. Not one word of the treaty has changed.

Why would I change my vote ?

a) The treaty was good for Ireland and the EU then, and still is

b) You're not just voting on the treaty, but the treaty and the legal guarantees

c) World and Irish economic situation has utterly changed

P. Breathnach

jhegarty wrote: »

I voted no last time. Not one word of the treaty has changed.

Why would I change my vote ?

Because you were wrong last time, and you should be grateful for the opportunity to redeem yourself.

skearon

netron wrote: »

that was also the argument against independence from the British Empire.

read your history.

I do read history, and await the proof of your statement.

Also this is 2009, not 1909, what on earth has a failed Empire got to do with Ireland's future in the 21st century

jhegarty

skearon wrote: »

a) The treaty was good for Ireland and the EU then, and still is

b) You're not just voting on the treaty, but the treaty and the legal guarantees

c) World and Irish economic situation has utterly changed

a) I disagree

b) No , we are just voting on the treaty. In court the wording of the treaty will always take preference over these legal guarantees.

c) I don't see a point here. Yes the euro has saved us from another Iceland. But we are not voting on maastricht* , we are voting on Lisbon.

* Which I would have voted yes for

Hitman Actual

jhegarty wrote: »

b) No , we are just voting on the treaty. In court the wording of the treaty will always take preference over these legal guarantees.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If Lisbon is ratified, the guarantees become legally-binding in International Law. At the next Treaty (probably an Accession Treaty), three of the guarantees (right to life, family and education; taxation; security and defence) are annexed to the Treaties as Protocols, which have the same legal value as Articles in the Treaties. The last guarantee is written in as a Declaration (not legally-binding as such, but more of a guideline to how the particular section should be interpreted). But the three Protocols will have the same legal value as the rest of the treaty.

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

And what relevance does it have to Lisbon?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed. I wonder why FT voted Yes to Nice when this would have been a new issue and why he is introducing it now?

Surely if it is such a hugely significant area for Irelands Corporation Tax policy now, it was then, if anything more so then?

jhegarty

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If Lisbon is ratified, the guarantees become legally-binding in International Law. At the next Treaty (probably an Accession Treaty), three of the guarantees (corporation tax, abortion, neutrality) are annexed to the Treaties as Protocols, which have the same legal value as Articles in the Treaties. The last guarantee is written in as a Declaration (not legally-binding as such, but more of a guideline to how the particular section should be interpreted). But the three Protocols will have the same legal value as the rest of the treaty.

Simple question :

A matter comes up in court where the treaty and guarantees are in conflict. Which one will the court side with ?

Hitman Actual

jhegarty wrote: »

Simple question :

A matter comes up in court where the treaty and guarantees are in conflict. Which one will the court side with ?

No idea, but it's not something I'm paranoid about. Have you read the Irish EC Decision? What looks so sinister about it that it might be challenged? The guarantees have been expertly written by, amongst others, the Council of Minsters legal team and Irish AG so as to be as specific to Ireland as possible, and not be in conflict with relevant Articles in the Treaties. There is no precedent for Protocols written specifically for member states to be challenged by other member states or by another EU institution. And the guarantees cover issues that are already protected in any case- why would two pieces of text which essentially say the same thing be in conflict? Worrying over the guarantees is pointless, imo.

Scofflaw

jhegarty wrote: »

Simple question :

A matter comes up in court where the treaty and guarantees are in conflict. Which one will the court side with ?

The treaties will take precedence, which is why the guarantees will be turned into Protocols. Once they're Protocols, they have exactly the same standing as the treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jhegarty

Scofflaw wrote: »

The treaties will take precedence, which is why the guarantees will be turned into Protocols. Once they're Protocols, they have exactly the same standing as the treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Will be turned into protocols before we vote and Lisbon is ratified ?