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; } } }

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

Comments

FutureTaoiseach

Another concern is that the text of the Lisbon II legislation (28th amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009) would allow the Oireachtas to join the Schengen Agreement, which abolishes customs-checks and border-controls between participating member states. On the other hand, it would require us to establish such controls with non-participating member states i.e. the UK in this case. An advantage might be less illegal entry from the UK, while a disadvantage would be a huge increase via air and carriers. It would also make it easier to smuggle arms/drugs into this country. On balance, it's a negative.

28th amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 wrote:

7° The State may exercise the options or discretions—

i to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union relating to
enhanced cooperation applies,

ii under Protocol No. 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the
framework of the European Union annexed to that 25 treaty and to the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the
Treaty establishing the European Community), and

iii under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and
Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, so
annexed, including the option that the said Protocol No. 21 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.

Scofflaw

The UK is already planning to introduce some kind of electronic borders system, is it not? Given that, we'd presumably be joining Schengen anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

The UK is already planning to introduce some kind of electronic borders system, is it not? Given that, we'd presumably be joining Schengen anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The fact that the UK is doing that does not in any way mean we have to abolish controls at airports and ports as required by Schengen. It would be mana from heaven for the Limerick gangs in terms of drugs/weapons smuggling.

Mario007

Scofflaw wrote: »

The UK is already planning to introduce some kind of electronic borders system, is it not? Given that, we'd presumably be joining Schengen anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ya to be honest ireland should have joined schengen long ago, it'd help the exports and make travel more comfortable for the people

FutureTaoiseach

Mario007 wrote: »

ya to be honest ireland should have joined schengen long ago, it'd help the exports and make travel more comfortable for the people

Especially for people-traffickers, weapons/drugs smugglers etc.

Mario007

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The fact that the UK is doing that does not in any way mean we have to abolish controls at airports and ports as required by Schengen. It would be mana from heaven for the Limerick gangs in terms of drugs/weapons smuggling.

you really dont know how the schengen works, do you?

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The fact that the UK is doing that does not in any way mean we have to abolish controls at airports and ports as required by Schengen. It would be mana from heaven for the Limerick gangs in terms of drugs/weapons smuggling.

Because drug and weapons smugglers usually go through border controls? Also, most of the drug smuggling into Ireland is as an entrepot for the UK market - we're not really worth it ourselves. The institution of border controls between us and the UK would, by that logic, reduce drug smuggling into Ireland.

amused,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because drug and weapons smugglers usually go through border controls? Also, most of the drug smuggling into Ireland is as an entrepot for the UK market - we're not really worth it ourselves.

amused,
Scofflaw

I am talking about travel via air/sea. We would be increasing controls on the border with the UK, but sacrificing the other controls.

Zuiderzee

Martin 2 wrote: »

Yes, the treaty gives me no reason to vote no.
Yes because its acceptance is best for the economy in the long run.
Yes, at heart I’m pro European.
Yes, because a No would leave Ireland isolated in Europe.

No, because there are several agendas within the treaty such as the EDA that I dont see a reason for

No, because workers are increasingly being turned into commodities, we have workers - as shown in the UK's Independent newspaper article about fruit pickers, Swedish builders and Irish seafarers being replaced not by immigrants, but by cheap, temporary migrant labour with few rights.
Its looking increasingly like the way Mexicans are being treated in the US.

No, because I am very pro European, I want a European Union designed to be in touch with and answerable to its citizens, not a quango for politicians, lobbiests and unelected officials like a President Blair.

No because we are the only people in Europe that can force this to be an inclusive decision, the fact that despite the decision of the Dutch, French and ourselves, the attempt is being made by politicians to steamroll this through rather than use the opportunity to reflect, rethink and rebuild a treaty for the people, not the power brokers of the EU.

Save the EU from politicians like Biffo and Berliosconi -
Make the EU something for people like You and I -
Vote No

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

I am talking about travel via air/sea. We would be increasing controls on the border with the UK, but sacrificing the other controls.

Handy for tourism, then. I'm not sure why it would impact serious smuggling, which seems largely to be carried out in a very traditional way - boats landed secretly in remote coves etc. They don't go through border controls at all - but they do rely on the free travel area with the UK, which presumably will be abolished.

Why is this in the amendment, though? The current situation, according the Irish government, is:

Ireland is not part of the Schengen arrangements on travel and visas. It is open to Ireland to take part in these arrangements if all of the Schengen members and a representative of the Irish government vote unanimously in favour within the Council of the EU. This means that Irish people are subject to passport checks at the borders of other EU member states.

Why put it into the referendum?

perplexed,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Handy for tourism, then. I'm not sure why it would impact serious smuggling, which seems largely to be carried out in a very traditional way - boats landed secretly in remote coves etc. They don't go through border controls at all - but they do rely on the free travel area with the UK, which presumably will be abolished.

Why is this in the amendment, though? The current situation, according the Irish government, is:

Why put it into the referendum?

perplexed,
Scofflaw

So as to avoid having to hold a referendum on joining it in the future. They are making sure they don't have to hold referenda both in this case, and to allow them surrender the Justice and Home Affairs optout Protocol.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

So as to avoid having to hold a referendum on joining it in the future. They are making sure they don't have to hold referenda both in this case, and to allow them surrender the Justice and Home Affairs optout Protocol.

No. See earlier point - joining has never been seen before as requiring a referendum, but has been on the cards since the UK started talking about the new electronic border system. What has changed since last year that this has been added?

As to your second point, I'll remind you that you have offered no evidence that this is the case - you're stating your opinion as fact again. As I've said, that belongs in the CT forum, not here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

No. See earlier point - joining has never been seen before as requiring a referendum, but has been on the cards since the UK started talking about the new electronic border system. What has changed since last year that this has been added?

As to your second point, I'll remind you that you have offered no evidence that this is the case - you're stating your opinion as fact again. As I've said, that belongs in the CT forum, not here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's in the legislation. Paragraph 7 (iii) states that the Oireachtas can surrender the Protocol on the position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the European Area of Freedom and Justice. Read it.

Mario007

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

So as to avoid having to hold a referendum on joining it in the future. They are making sure they don't have to hold referenda both in this case, and to allow them surrender the Justice and Home Affairs optout Protocol.

but according to scorfflaw's quotation the position of the irish state is that it can join should the shengen nations and ireland so decide, so no referendum is actually needed...there's no change to the constitution

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It's in the legislation. Paragraph 7 (iii) states that the Oireachtas can surrender the Protocol on the position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the European Area of Freedom and Justice. Read it.

I know what's in the amendment - that the government will review the opt-out, with the obvious corollary that they can drop it. My point is that you are assuming they will drop it, and that there is no other plan - that 'review' is a smokescreen of some kind. That is conspiracy theory stuff - there's not a shred of evidence for such a plan, yet you are putting it forward as a fact.

You're a new poster - here at least - so I'm being very lenient, but if you don't stop putting forward your personal theories as fact, I will have no option but to ban you, because your ratio of made-up "facts" to posts is now very high. Am I making myself clear?

moderately,
Scofflaw

darkman2

Scofflaw wrote: »

so I'm being very lenient, but if you don't stop putting forward your personal theories as fact,
moderately,
Scofflaw

You cannot ban a poster just because he is against a treaty - or do you wish to join that section of the Irish Times reading middle class who are talking down to the rest of us? What he regards as fact may not seem so to you yet what you regard as fact may not seem so to others.

Any position, factual or not, must be represented fairly and their opinion has to be heard. Because they will vote. IMO the ignorance alone will lead to the no vote.

And I am 100% certain the anti government vote will win. Don't underestimate the anger out there and try to regulate your fact against others. It's self defeating.

P. Breathnach

darkman2 wrote: »

You cannot ban a poster just because he is against a treaty - or do you wish to join that section of the Irish Times reading middle class who are talking down to the rest of us? What he regards as fact may not seem so to you yet what you regard as fact may not seem so to others.

Any position, factual or not, must be represented fairly and their opinion has to be heard. Because they will vote. IMO the ignorance alone will lead to the no vote.

And I am 100% certain the anti government vote will win. Don't underestimate the anger out there and try to regulate your fact against others. It's self defeating.

Am I understanding this correctly? It seems to be a defence of the practice of inventing facts.

darkman2

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Am I understanding this correctly? It seems to be a defence of the practice of inventing facts.

He will (probrably) vote - you better engage his facts because you have to. The referendum is already lost because most will kick the government but go ahead and try anyway.

Agent J

darkman2 wrote: »

Any position, factual or not, must be represented fairly and their opinion has to be heard. Because they will vote. IMO the ignorance alone will lead to the no vote.

Em no.

If i stand up and claim the Lisbon treaty will order the 1st born of everyone in the country to be put to death because articule 48 is self amending and it can do what its likes. I don't have to be heard or listened to because i would be a loon.

For the record though i did vote no last time out.

Treora

What with no oversight on the criminal justice bill, blasphemy & surveillance legislation and NAMA this appears to be the only way to vote no to the insanity:cool:

darkman2

Agent J wrote: »

Em no.

If i stand up and claim the Lisbon treaty will order the 1st born of everyone in the country to be put to death because articule 48 is self amending and it can do what its likes. I don't have to be heard or listened to because i would be a loon.

For the record though i did vote no last time out.

But that poster will vote so you had better address it. No?

darkman2

Agent J wrote: »

Em no.

For the record though i did vote no last time out.

And will you be bullied into voting yes this time - are they succeeding? The quickest way to turf this government is a no vote.

Put OUR interest before Europe. We are more desperate.

mikemac

Voting yes!

From a farming background, strongly pro-Europe

Wait a minute, I had people telling me I'd be conscripted if I was yes for Lisbon 1.
Phew, a good thing that was defeated, I'd be in some training camp somewhere for a mega European army.
For all the no scaremongereres, tell me - what happened? No war to go to? :rolleyes:

darkman2 wrote: »

And will you be bullied into voting yes this time - are they succeeding? The quickest way to turf this government is a no vote.

Put OUR interest before Europe. We are more desperate.

If I want to turf the government out I use a by-election or general election.
I don't use a European election to spite the government, I vote on the facts.

Hell, if FF opposed Lisbon would you vote yes just to be contrary?

P. Breathnach

darkman2 wrote: »

... you better engage his facts because you have to...

I don't have to. His "facts" are not facts; they are part of a set of untrue statements. One should not have to engage with an untruthful statement other than to point out that it is not true. When a poster makes a series of unfounded claims, finds that they are challenged, and persists with the same unfounded claims, it becomes tiresome. One is tempted to doubt the bona fides of the poster.

P. Breathnach

darkman2 wrote: »

The quickest way to turf this government is a no vote.

Put OUR interest before Europe. We are more desperate.

You should be consistent and, if given a chance to vote for a change of government, support a party that shares your position on Lisbon. Now that Libertas has left the stage, you get to choose between Sinn Féin, The Socialist Party, and People Before Profit.

Agent J

darkman2 wrote: »

But that poster will vote so you had better address it. No?

No. If some one is that far gone then trying to engage is a waste of time

Where do you draw the line on their concerns because they vote?

darkman2 wrote: »

And will you be bullied into voting yes this time - are they succeeding? The quickest way to turf this government is a no vote.
Put OUR interest before Europe. We are more desperate.

I've been reconsidering it. I dont nesscarily see any harm in personally reconsidering a decision despite my feelings about how the whole referendum process has been handled by the government.
The whole lisbon thing has been caught in a storm of issues from everything on the local level, to the national leve and even on the european level and none of them are related to the actual treaty itself. It gets very hard to seperate out the din.

Although one major reason i can think of for switching sides.
Given how much our government have f**ked up i can't see the EU being capable of doing a worse job.(And yes this is a massive over simplication but im not interesting in debating the point.).

darkman2

Agent J wrote: »

No. If some one is that far gone then trying to engage is a waste of time

Where do you draw the line on their concerns because they vote?

I've been reconsidering it. I dont nesscarily see any harm in personally reconsidering a decision despite my feelings about how the whole referendum process has been handled by the government.
The whole lisbon thing has been caught in a storm of issues from everything on the local level, to the national leve and even on the european level and none of them are related to the actual treaty itself. It gets very hard to seperate out the din.

Although one major reason i can think of for switching sides.
Given how much our government have f**ked up i can't see the EU being capable of doing a worse job.(And yes this is a massive over simplication but im not interesting in debating the point.).

Well, just remember it is the well healed preaching to us. The millionaires. The Irish Times is the propaganda tool. If you accept their level of fact - which is that if we vote no hell will reign down - then go ahead vote yes like a lemming. I am a member of that middle class and I am voting no out of the interest of this country - to get rid of our corrupt gombeen government. I make no appology for doing so because it is really in OUR national interest. Europe won't save us when we have this cabal in charge.

And remember despite Irish Times propaganda the Lisbon Treaty has NOTHING to do with economics in this country.

Agent J

darkman2 wrote: »

Well, just remember it is the well healed preaching to us. The millionaires. The Irish Times is the propaganda tool. If you accept their level of fact - which is that if we vote no hell will reign down - then go ahead vote yes like a lemming. I am a member of that middle class and I am voting no out of the interest of this country - to get rid of our corrupt gombeen government.

I stopped reading the times ever since the "Are we out of our minds?" column before the Mark one referendum. I couldn't take its preachness of the yes side anymore

But then again when i saw a bloody poster which had something like "They died for your freedom" "Vote No" referencing 1916 that pissed me off something terrible as well and almost swung me 180 to yes.

Then i realised for this referendum it seems to be all about which side is going to act more stupid and alienate more people. If Dick roche is given enough air time he'll win it for the no side single handed.

My only soultion was to try and read the treaty myself last time.
(Wasted almost a whole toner cartridge printing the thing out....)

darkman2

Well ask yourself this question. Do you know what Europe is thinking about us? The Irish - get them to vote until they give the right answer - that is the level we are reduced to. Embarrasing, humiliating. You, by voting yes, will obilge that humiliation - because make no mistake (and I know we are humiliated because of our economy) we are about to suffer the ultimate humiliation - the Irish will vote till they get it "right". That is what Europe thinks of us. As an Irish person I already feel humiliated that they had the cheek to ask again.

Dinner

darkman2 wrote: »

Well ask yourself this question. Do you know what Europe is thinking about us?

I'll have a guess:

-****! The Irish voted no
-Crap, What'll we do?
-Lets ask them and address their concerns!

<some time later>
-Well it appears they are worried about their neutrality, taxation, abortion and various other issues.
-Well, they're not in the treaty, but let's address them anyway and see if that solves their problems.

Sorry if that doesn't fit into your us vs the EU/government world view.