RandomName2 wrote: » Comparable perhaps to the electorate who voted yes because they were afraid of Ireland being forced out of the eu - another "untouchable" issue.
K-9 wrote: » I wouldn't discount them. Abortion is the "untouchable" issue in Irish politics and even the fear of the EU bringing it in touches a substantial conservative base. Despite everything, there is still a hard core religious conservative base here. It's hard to quantify, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 10% of the electorate.
RandomName2 wrote: » Equally, just because my politician is a yes-man does not mean I am.
RandomName2 wrote: » Abortion is and is not an issue. Individually it has no importance, just like any theoretical motion, particularly now with the promised guarantees. The issue in reality is the manner in which the EU can override national law - which it already has the ability to do. The streamlining of the legislative process in the eu gives it greater breadth in the practical application of its capacity to override national law - which personally I do not see any justtification for.
RandomName2 wrote: » Two words. Dick Roche.
Hitman Actual wrote: » I think Coir and people like Richard Greene just push more marginal voters towards the Yes side. They're no real threat. Complete whack-jobs, though.
skearon wrote: » No Irish person should, as a No vote will only damage Ireland's future. The two main figures of the No side, Ganley and Mary Lou, have been defeated by the people, their lies have been found out and they have no mandate what so ever. If you are Irish and wish to support your Country, then the only logical way to vote is Yes.
K-9 wrote: » There really is no debating with people like that. It doesn't matter how many protocols and assurances you get, they are convinced them foreigners will force Abortion on us.
Scofflaw wrote: » The real world is a complicated place, and the simplistic battle-lines our No posters seek to draw don't follow any real-world divisions.
BlitzKrieg wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6W1cP_tW_U just thought I'd put this up since it just happened the weekend that passed. you have to laugh. but I guess it makes sense if you cannot read this the first time around what is article 40.3.3 well its This is not the assurances that we have just got from the EU, this is a protocol attached to lisbon, has been since 9/05/2008 at least [thats when the version of the treaty I am pasting it from was written up (consolidated version)] And I just love that he throws in those urban legends in at the end with the whole straight banana etc. Its pathetic.
Ellie The Mess wrote: » So I'm asking you, people of Ireland, why should an Irish person go and vote no in October even when the protocol is passed?
PROTOCOL (No 35) ON ARTICLE 40.3.3 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community: Nothing in the Treaties, or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.
3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
RandomName2 wrote: » What conspiracy theory? That there tends not to be referenda on eu treaties? When's the last time Germany got a direct vote on Europe? Their capacity to do so is to a large extent determined by the stance of the main Reichstag parties on whether there should be referenda. There seems to be no major party in europe which is in favour of constitutional guarantees of public votes on eu treaties. That's pretty simple - indeed, many of the arguments in this thead are in favour of this.
K-9 wrote: » You should check out the Conspiracy Theory forum while your on Boards.
RandomName2 wrote: » Wow wow wow. I ask how are constitutions changed? Answer - through political parties. Indeed, many yes voters are opposed to the public having an undue direct influence on constitutional changes. Maybe you are unaware of how 95% of both our, and eu politicans in general, feel about the necessity of an Irish referendum. Wow, just, like wow!
molloyjh wrote: » Are you serious? Do you really think this could happen? Wow, just wow!
RandomName2 wrote: » I seriously doubt there will ever be another referendum. If both major parties in the Dail is against Crotty, the Senate is against Crotty, the whole political establishment of the Eu is against Crotty, I can hardly imagine it is going to last terribly long after two eu treaty defeats [nice I and lisbon I] on october 2, say hello to what will probably be the last ever public vote on the structure of the EU.
Scofflaw wrote: » All of which relies on the idea that our politicians are merely waiting to "sell us out", and that "review" doesn't mean review, but "blindly agree to". In which case, there was no need for the opt-out in the first place, even as a PR exercise, since it now appears explicitly and separately on the amendment instead of being 'hidden'. Alternatively, the government might have negotiated opt-outs because there are genuine concerns over whether our legal system fits in with what is proposed, and that they will actually be reviewed with those concerns in mind - and that review will come up around the time of the next general election, too, quite possibly under a completely different government. Despite the Irish government's poor track record, you cannot simply assume whatever you like in order to make your point. somewhat wearily, Scofflaw
Lucinda Creighton wrote: I urge the Taoiseach to reconsider the matter of justice and home affairs. This is too important for Ireland to opt out of and we must acknowledge that a mistake was made with that Cabinet decision. I hope it will be reconsidered in the context of the forthcoming Lisbon treaty referendum.
FutureTaoiseach wrote: » Certainly. We already have an ad hoc optin/out of common policies in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, including the common immigration-policy. The text of the Lisbon II Constitutional amendment as revealed in that paragraph effectively guarantees that the govt and Oireachtas can choose to surrender even the right to optout in future. In a context where the 50 vetoes surrendered under Lisbon includes 16 related to Justice and Home Affairs, that amounts to letting the politicians agree that Irish policy in these areas will be decided by QMV in the future. Note also that then Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern (on the DFA website still) stated last year that within 3 years, the govt would "review" the optouts. Note also that Lucinda Creighton reacted to the optout by stating that the JHA area was 'too important to optout from'. So either way, whoever governs us next, a yes vote to Lisbon II would mean the eventual - and possible early - end of our national veto over Justice and Home Affairs with respect to what is applicatory in law in this State.
Blitzkrieg wrote: I think you could explain that out a bit more, because the change in the constitution is in reference to a protocol that was added to Lisbon, while the self amending treaty is like you said article 48, I'm trying to work out what areas in specific you are addressing as giving the government the power to deny the irish people referendum's in areas that:
because of Article 48 and de-facto passerelle-clauses the Lisbon II (28th amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009) introduces into the Constitution e.g. Paragraph 7(iii) of the legislation allowing the govt and Oireachtas to surrender Protocol 21 (the optout on Justice and Home Affairs) referendum would insert into the Constitution
The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.
in that Lisbon is self-amending, and so politicians - if there is unanimity among all member-governments - could negotiate amendments under the simplified revision-process (Article 48). The problem is that we most likely wouldn't get more referenda on them though.
The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or par t of the provisions of Par t Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.
FutureTaoiseach wrote: » The problem is that we most likely wouldn't get more referenda on them though.
BlitzKrieg wrote: » So you agree bokspring's argument is flawed then?
