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

darkman2

Dinner wrote: »

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.

We are being humiliated end of story. Cop on. That is what the continent thinks of us.

Send them another no and they will think alot more of us then if we give them a yes. Vote yes to anything FF puts in front of me? Fcuk off tbh.

And those who have lost their jobs or are at threat of losing theirs. Those that have suffered the pay cuts and levies - fcuking vote yes so FF can say it is a vinication afterward (which they will do) - no fcuking way.

Dinner

darkman2 wrote: »

We are being humiliated end of story. Cop on. That is what the continent thinks of us.

Send them another no and they will think alot more of us then if we give them a yes. Vote yes to anything FF puts in front of me? Fcuk off tbh.

The only reason we are humiliated is because the Irish government had to go to the EU and ask for guarantees on things that aren't in the damn treaty!

I'm not even going to bother my hole going through this with you since all you want to do is run your mouth and violently slam an X in the no box and walk off with a smug smile on your face thinking "HMPH! That'll show them, they'll think twice before even thinking of trusting us with as big a responsibility as getting informed about an international treaty."

The only humiliation to this country are people like you. Cut off your nose to spite your face.

Sometimes I wish the Crotty judgement never happened.

sceptre

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.

No-one gets banned or otherwise merely because they're in favour of or against a treaty. No-one has suggested that except you and that isn't going to happen so please stop implying that it will (and especially on the wrong forum - see the charter, read it, absorb it, know it). Please read the rest of this post anyway, parts of it specifically apply to your post.

Here's a simple view from the (select one from trenches OR ivory tower).

If something isn't undeniable fact, it shouldn't be presented as fact. If something that is possibly not fact is presented as fact then it's either a lie or a big mistake.

There is no "hey dude, what's fact to you may not be fact to someone else". We all live in the same reality, even if sometimes it doesn't feel like it. Something either is fact or it is not. If it isn't undeniable fact then at best it's considered opinion so let's not all mislead. In the event that someone on this forum does (or has) present something as fact when they're talking out of their sitting end, I have the joy of being rather au fait with EU law in a general sense so I'm confident that I can make a ruling on it with a high degree of accuracy. In other words, there is no wool to be pulled over my eyes, which is an advantage for everyone on the forum who doesn't seek to pull it down. As a note, clearly prefixing an opinion with "I think that..." alleviates the problem of labelling something as fact. Opinion is just that, opinion. It may be a valuable opinion but it still consists of interpretation. Which is not the same thing as fact in this universe.

A side-discussion on this appears to have taken over part of the last page of this thread so two further notes:
1. The place to complain about moderation is the Help Desk
2. The place to discuss moderation or moderation options is the Help Desk.

Two corollaries:
1. The place to discuss this post is the Help Desk
2. The place to complain about this post is the Help Desk.

You can also complain to me by PM, though I would argue that this is a discussion that the world would really deserve to see, especially one involving where fact is sometimes not fact so Help Desk would be best.

I don't particularly care how anyone votes, I certainly don't care what opinion anyone has and I'm not particularly concerned about how anyone posts as long as they don't deliberately attempt to mislead. In any and all cases I will use the baseball bat where that happens. I obviously have an opinion on the whole thing, which at some stage I may express but I have a stronger opinion on virtual horseplay, pissology and attempts to mislead. I make moderation rulings on those bases, not on my own opinion. I have confidence that my fellow moderators make their decisions on the same rationale. That keeps the forum fair to everyone, not just anyone with an agenda to push or an axe to grind. Bear in mind that I will take steps to stop someone acting the scamp repeatedly should that be an issue as the rest of the forum members deserve that. That has always been the case so nothing changes there.

I fully expect a number of posters to eventually be banned through acting the idiot over the Lisbon treaty. At the moment I have no idea who those guys are (they may or may not be posting yet) but I'm pretty sure they'll act the idiot in their own time. When that happens I don't have a problem wiping out their posts, catching them when they re-reg, rinsing and repeating. What side they choose to act the plonker on won't bother me at all, all that will matter is their jumping, arm-waving, denial of reality and disruptive nature. The world will be a better place if everyone posts reasonably and doesn't create a situation where I make that call. Remember: all I really care about is behaviour, not what side of the discussion you're pimping or whoring.

That's a mod call. Ultimately it's also an admin call so if both the rationale and ruling aren't very clear to anyone, re-read it until both are crystal clear.

/out.

Carry on with the substantive discussion.

darkman2

sceptre wrote: »

No-one gets banned or otherwise merely because they're in favour of or against a treaty. No-one has suggested that except you and that isn't going to happen so please stop implying that it will (and especially on the wrong forum - see the charter, read it, absorb it, know it). Please read the rest of this post anyway, parts of it specifically apply to your post.

Here's a simple view from the (select one from trenches OR ivory tower).

If something isn't undeniable fact, it shouldn't be presented as fact. If something that is possibly not fact is presented as fact then it's either a lie or a big mistake.

There is no "hey dude, what's fact to you may not be fact to someone else". We all live in the same reality, even if sometimes it doesn't feel like it. Something either is fact or it is not. If it isn't undeniable fact then at best it's considered opinion so let's not all mislead. In the event that someone on this forum does (or has) present something as fact when they're talking out of their sitting end, I have the joy of being rather au fait with EU law in a general sense so I'm confident that I can make a ruling on it with a high degree of accuracy. In other words, there is no wool to be pulled over my eyes, which is an advantage for everyone on the forum who doesn't seek to pull it down. As a note, clearly prefixing an opinion with "I think that..." alleviates the problem of labelling something as fact. Opinion is just that, opinion. It may be a valuable opinion but it still consists of interpretation. Which is not the same thing as fact in this universe.

A side-discussion on this appears to have taken over part of the last page of this thread so two further notes:
1. The place to complain about moderation is the Help Desk
2. The place to discuss moderation or moderation options is the Help Desk.

Two corollaries:
1. The place to discuss this post is the Help Desk
2. The place to complain about this post is the Help Desk.

You can also complain to me by PM, though I would argue that this is a discussion that the world would really deserve to see, especially one involving where fact is sometimes not fact so Help Desk would be best.

I don't particularly care how anyone votes, I certainly don't care what opinion anyone has and I'm not particularly concerned about how anyone posts as long as they don't deliberately attempt to mislead. In any and all cases I will use the baseball bat where that happens. I obviously have an opinion on the whole thing, which at some stage I may express but I have a stronger opinion on virtual horseplay, pissology and attempts to mislead. I make moderation rulings on those bases, not on my own opinion. I have confidence that my fellow moderators make their decisions on the same rationale. That keeps the forum fair to everyone, not just anyone with an agenda to push or an axe to grind. Bear in mind that I will take steps to stop someone acting the scamp repeatedly should that be an issue as the rest of the forum members deserve that. That has always been the case so nothing changes there.

I fully expect a number of posters to eventually be banned through acting the idiot over the Lisbon treaty. At the moment I have no idea who those guys are (they may or may not be posting yet) but I'm pretty sure they'll act the idiot in their own time. When that happens I don't have a problem wiping out their posts, catching them when they re-reg, rinsing and repeating. What side they choose to act the plonker on won't bother me at all, all that will matter is their jumping, arm-waving, denial of reality and disruptive nature. The world will be a better place if everyone posts reasonably and doesn't create a situation where I make that call. Remember: all I really care about is behaviour, not what side of the discussion you're pimping or whoring.

That's a mod call. Ultimately it's also an admin call so if both the rationale and ruling aren't very clear to anyone, re-read it until both are crystal clear.

/out.

Carry on with the substantive discussion.

Originally Posted by darkman2
I accept your point, and it is well made, but you cannot come across as disregarding "fact" that others actually believe. Tackle it if you believe in a yes vote - but never talk down to them. The reason I think a no vote will pervail is because of the talking down. It is, as I have said, a middle class thing. And im fed up with it tbh. The talking down to us as if the population is retarded and don't understand. We have rubbish about abortion, conscription etc. That is NOT why there was a no vote last time. It was against our government. It suits them to make you believe it was not. It was. It was a vote against FF government not anything to do with Europe. The same will happen again. Everyone knows how they aided in our economic destruction. Everyone knew the corrupt gombeenism back then. It was a vote to say "get out" - they did not listen. They did not listen at the locals. They will listen at this referendum.

This post is edited as per mod advice.

And im no supporter of SF or the Workers Party either.

sceptre

darkman2 wrote: »

Originally Posted by darkman2
I accept your point, and it is well made, but you cannot come across as disregarding "fact" that others actually believe. Tackle it if you believe in a yes vote - but never talk down to them.

Actually you completely failed to understand my advice/point/mod ruling.

The substantive point of the thread as defined, with my ruling above in mind, is what people think of the Lisbon Treaty, anything associated with it and whether they intend to vote for it or against it. That's been the substantive point since the early posts defined the thread.

Debating what "fact" is and how I should regard something presented as fact isn't part of the thread.

Everyone can deal with the substantive point (which I've listed above, regardless of whether that's talking down to people or not). Discussing what fact is or should be is just going to result in my manually removing people's access to the thread. That's the part that belongs on the Help Desk or in a PM to me or on Feedback if you want everyone to have a go. Or on the Philosophy board if it really means something and it isn't just a time-wasting exercise. It doesn't belong here. I'm not sure it's actually possible to make that any more clear so if it's ignored I'll just have to assume that anyone who does (including you) is deliberately ignoring it. Which won't make me happy.

I don't propose to make another moderation post on this matter. Discuss the substantive part of the thread or don't bother.

Incidentally, but importantly, there is no reply to this post that actually belongs on this thread. Just like the last one.

Sam Vimes

If people voted no because of the government that's even more humiliating than voting no because of conscription and abortion. At least there was a chance that those two things might have been in the treaty but anyone in Europe could tell you that the words Fianna Fail were not mentioned

The Irish people can't tell the difference between a European referendum and a general election - how embarrassing.

Sam Vimes

btw darkman2, I'm no fan of the current government. In the local elections I voted for everyone except them and when the campaigners for the local FF guy came to my house I told them that I had nothing against him personally but wouldn't be voting for him because of his party

But the thing about the Lisbon treaty is that it has absolutely nothing to do with FF. Every major political party in the country supports the treaty except SF so the only statement you're making by voting no because you don't like FF is that you have no idea what the treaty is about. In a way you're showing why it probably shouldn't be put to a vote at all and should be decided by people who know what they're talking about

I would rather that people of your opinion stayed at home on election day rather that embarrassing Ireland again by voting no on a treaty for reasons that have bugger all to do with the treaty

darkman2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

btw darkman2, I'm no fan of the current government. In the local elections I voted for everyone except them and when the campaigners for the local FF guy came to my house I told them that I had nothing against him personally but wouldn't be voting for him because of his party

But the thing about the Lisbon treaty is that it has absolutely nothing to do with FF. Every major political party in the country supports the treaty except SF so the only statement you're making by voting no because you don't like FF is that you have no idea what the treaty is about. In a way you're showing why it probably shouldn't be put to a vote at all and should be decided by people who know what they're talking about

I would rather that people of your opinion stayed at home on election day rather that embarrassing Ireland again by voting no on a treaty for reasons that have bugger all to do with the treaty

If you give these gangsters a yes vote they will use it to vindicate their governance - mark my words. They will say you agree with them and they will hold on till 2012 - when the country is third world. FF have destroyed this country on 2 other occasions. The real question here is do you want them to fatally destroy our country? Vote yes and they will use it against you and me.
Don't be stupid - here is our chance - fcuk them out.

Sam Vimes

darkman2 wrote: »

If you give these gangsters a yes vote they will use it to vindicate their governance - mark my words. They will say you agree with them and they will hold on till 2012 - when the country is third world. FF have destroyed this country on 2 other occasions. The real question here is do you want them to fatally destroy our country. Vote yes and they will use it against you and me.

I'm not 'giving these gangsters a yes vote' because these gangsters are not the people proposing the treaty. I'm giving the European parliament a yes vote

Fianna Fail can hardly claim it as a victory for themselves for the following reasons:

All of the other parties also support it so they could just as easily claim it as a victory for themselves. But they won't because everyone in the Dail and the vast majority of the people in the country, yourself and people of your opinion excluded, understand that it's a European referendum and not a referendum on the government. They know that people who vote based on their preference of political party have missed the point
The results of the local elections clearly show that the people do not support their governance and voting yes to a treaty that has nothing to do with them will not change that
As alluded to above, the treaty has absolutely nothing to do with them. The dogs on the street know this and any attempt to use the treaty in that manner will be instantly shot down.

Tell me, if this was the divorce or abortion referendums and the government were for both, would you vote against them just to 'send them a message'? I ask because what you're doing makes exactly the same amount of sense

Also, even if you think the government will use it as a political tool, do you think it's fair to the rest of Europe to allow petty internal squabbles to cloud the issues over a treaty that they spent 5 years and millions writing? And do you not think it's embarrassing to show the rest of Europe that we can't separate internal squabbles from European affairs?

And you say "this is our chance. Fcuk them out". Do you really think that the government needs a yes vote? They got 12% of the vote in the local elections and they went nowhere. Do you actually think they'll look at the results of a treaty that has nothing to do with them and finally cop that they're not wanted? They already know.

darkman2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

All of the other parties also support it so they could just as easily claim it as a victory for themselves.

Im tellin yeh - if yes wins they will use it to their advantage - you might not believe me but if they win jesus they are so going to use it. This is Zanu Fianna Fail we are talking about. If you want these corrupt, gombeen, responsible bastards out of office vote NO - if you want them to have a cousin to 2012 vote YES. They are so going to use it as vindication - you wait and see. How anyone could put a yes on a ballot paper presented by them is beyond me. Forget about Europe. Think of OUR future.

These bastards will destroy us. Thats ok in your view because the rest of the EU will be ok. Yeah well to hell with the rest of the EU - I want these crooks out and so do 90% of the Irish people.

Sam Vimes

darkman2 wrote: »

Im tellin yeh - if yes wins they will use it to their advantage - you might not believe me but if they win jesus they are so going to use it. This is Zanu Fianna Fail we are talking about. If you want these corrupt, gombeen, responsible bastards out of office vote NO - if you want them to have a cousin to 2012 vote YES. They are so going to use it as vindication - you wait and see. How anyone could put a yes on a ballot paper presented by them is beyond me. Forget about Europe. Think of OUR future.

The ballot paper is not being presented by them, it's being presented by the EU. Corrupt, irresponsible gombeens they may be but they are not fcuking stupid and trying to claim that people voted yes to a treaty because of them when the treaty had nothing to do with them and when all the other parties supported it too is - fcuking stupid. They might as well say that if the tories in England win it's because the Irish like FF.

After the local elections, Enda Kenny called for a vote of no confidence in their leadership and it was thrown out but I can guarantee you that he won't call for one if Lisbon is voted down. He'd be laughed out of the Dail because, wait for it, the treaty has fcuking nothing to do with FF. The government will simply point to all of the other reasons for voting no and say that's why it was voted down and will ignore the people who put down hatred of FF as their reason. It'll be very easy to do because those people will have missed the point of the treaty and will be dismissed as not knowing what they're talking about. If you think the outcome will be any different you're fooling yourself

You didn't answer my question btw. If this was the divorce or abortion referendums, would you vote whatever way the government didn't want to 'send them a message'? Or would that be fcuking stupid? Would you 'talk down' to someone who thought that their vote on a divorce referendum should be decided by their preference of party?

Sam Vimes

On a separate note, you say we should vote no for 'our future'. I hope you realise that Ireland's place in Europe is vitally important and is even more important now that the world economy has collapsed. There was a survey mentioned on newstalk yesterday and 62% of people considered the treaty crucially important for the economy, 36% thought it was very important and 2% thought it wasn't important

By voting no to a European treaty because of a petty internal squabble you are

'Sending a message' that the government are not going to get. I can guarantee you that the way people vote on this treaty will have no bearing on whether they go or not. They will just say people voted no for other reasons, which in 90% of cases will be true. If a vote of no confidence was called for after a no vote it would be an acknowledgement from our leaders that we're too stupid to separate our hatred of the goverment from a European treaty
Embarrassing Ireland in Europe and in the whole world by showing that we can't separate internal squabbles from European affairs
Jeopardising Ireland's standing in Europe, the weight given to our voice and the goodwill (not to mention money) given to us
Jeopardising the European economy and stability itself. They didn't spend years and millions writing the treaty for the craic. It's designed to make the EU run better and more efficiently

And all because you can't tell the difference between a European referendum and a general election. The sentence "Forget about Europe. Think of OUR future" shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of where our future lies, so for our future, vote yes. Don't jeopardise our future in Europe by doing something that makes as much sense as banning divorce and abortion because you don't like Brian Cowen

FutureTaoiseach

Another Newstalk survey before the euro elections had FF on 8%, so I wouldn't put too much stall on that, Sam Vimes. 'Important to the economy' is also open to interpretation. It could be a negative importance rather than merely a positive one.

Sam Vimes wrote:

Jeopardising the European economy and stability itself. They didn't spend years and millions writing the treaty for the craic. It's designed to make the EU run better and more efficiently

There is no evidence of gridlock in the EU institutions. The argument that is always rolled out is that an EU of 27 members needs new procedures, but that was the argument for Nice. I also recall during the Amsterdam referendum the Rainbow govt (I think John Bruton) claiming it was 'about Enlargement' aswell. In fact, Helen Wallace, who carried out a study of the impact of Enlargement on the throughput of EU decisionmaking of the London School of Economics has said that the Nice arrangements are working well since Enlargement:

The paper, Adapting to Enlargement of the European Union: institutional practice since May 2004, explores the ways in which the EU institutions have adapted to the expansion from 15 to 27 members. The paper draws on evidence that has become available on practice since May 2004 when ten new member states joined, and (to a lesser extent) since January 2007 when a further two states joined. The key finding to emerge from experience so far is that the day to day business of the EU institutions continues to be carried out much as before enlargement, with similar levels of activity and output in and from the main EU institutions. Moreover, there is no evidence so far of a recurrent or polarised cleavage between old and new member states in the development of EU policies. Over the period covered in the paper no Treaty changes have been introduced other than the implementation of the Treaty of Nice, since the Constitutional Treaty stalled in 2005 and its successor the Reform Treaty is due to come into force only in 2009.

The paper concludes that there remains scope for continuing to identify practical and pragmatic ways and means of enabling the EU system through non-treaty reform to perform effectively in the light of enlargement. The changes proposed in the new Reform Treaty can be better understood in terms of wider discussions about the cases to be made for or against altering the way that the EU deals with its policy agenda in the future.

Helen Wallace said: 'Of course these are still early days for assessing the impact of enlargement on the EU institutions, but so far at least there is no evidence of the gridlock that many feared.'

Sam Vimes wrote:

Embarrassing Ireland in Europe and in the whole world by showing that we can't separate internal squabbles from European affairs

The EU should be embarrassed for not taking no for an answer. So much for democracy. I agree with Vincent Browne that the reaction to the Franco-Dutch no votes in terms of bringing back the EU Constitution under a new name constituted "subterfuge".

Jeopardising Ireland's standing in Europe, the weight given to our voice and the goodwill (not to mention money) given to us

We are stronger in Europe when we hang tough and play our cards right to secure the best deal for the country. Rolling over to get on the gravy-train is not the answer. There is no evidence of a popular or commercial backlash against Ireland since the no vote. Don't confuse the political-class and the EU media with the European people or wider business. Irish exports have actually risen this year, with February figures showing an increase of 6%.

turgon

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The EU should be embarrassed for not taking no for an answer.

Gees, I didnt realize it was the EU who organized referenda in Ireland.

turgon

dresden8 wrote: »

Now you're being naive.

How so? The Irish ratification of the Lisbon treaty is a matter for Ireland. The decision for a second referendum was solely the decision of the person who can call it; ie the Taoiseach. Who is a member of the Irish government, not the EU government, last time I checked the Irish constitution.

[dresden8's post subsequently deleted]

FutureTaoiseach

turgon wrote: »

Gees, I didnt realize it was the EU who organized referenda in Ireland.

They didn't change as much as a dot or comma in the Treaty. That is not what I call respect.

turgon

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They didn't change as much as a dot or comma in the Treaty. That is not what I call respect.

I dont think you really grasp the ratification process of Eu Treaties. Even though the treaties create/edit a super-national state, ratification is solely the business of the country ratifying, not the business of said super-national state.

Of course, the country can seek the advise/guidance of other members of the super-national state if they so please. However it is hardly the fault of the EU if Ireland has a second referendum now, is it?

But of course your pot-shots are infinitely more effective when leveled at the big bad EU in Brussels rather than the more comprehensible administration at home.

FutureTaoiseach

turgon wrote: »

I dont think you really grasp the ratification process of Eu Treaties. Even though the treaties create/edit a super-national state, ratification is solely the business of the country ratifying, not the business of said super-national state.

Of course, the country can seek the advise/guidance of other members of the super-national state if they so please. However it is hardly the fault of the EU if Ireland has a second referendum now, is it?

But of course your pot-shots are infinitely more effective when leveled at the big bad EU in Brussels rather than the more comprehensible administration at home.

But for an EU treaty to come into force, ratification in all member states is required. In that context, I regard it as anti-democratic for the other member states to proceed with ratification, as in that context, it is clearly utilising pressure on the Irish people in a manner I consider to be arrogant and anti-democratic. Sortof Mugabesque.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

But for an EU treaty to come into force, ratification in all member states is required. In that context, I regard it as anti-democratic for the other member states to proceed with ratification, as in that context, it is clearly utilising pressure on the Irish people in a manner I consider to be arrogant and anti-democratic. Sortof Mugabesque.

Sigh. Don't start comparing things to Mugabe - it's as trite as comparisons to Hitler or the Third Reich. That includes (not by you) the use of "ZANU Fianna Fail" and variants. Nor (for dresden8) is calling other posters "naive" acceptable. If people want politics.ie, go to politics.ie - we're trying to keep this place credible.

moderately,
Scofflaw

turgon

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

In that context, I regard it as anti-democratic for the other member states to proceed with ratification

So in the case of any international Treaty, such as ones prohibiting certain types of armaments (example: cluster bombs), in the case that one state that promised to ratify it fails, all other states should stop????

Tbh all you seem to be exhibiting is that you dont really understand the complexity of the EU.

FutureTaoiseach

turgon wrote: »

So in the case of any international Treaty, such as ones prohibiting certain types of armaments (example: cluster bombs), in the case that one state that promised to ratify it fails, all other states should stop????

Tbh all you seem to be exhibiting is that you dont really understand the complexity of the EU.

The difference is that this is about transferring sovereignty over 27 countries to EU institutions. The kind of treaty you are talking about entails no such measures. And I remind you again that under EU law, a treaty doesn't come into force unless all member states agree. It doesn't work like that with non-EU treaties e.g. the International Criminal Court.

turgon

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The difference is that this is about transferring sovereignty over 27 countries to EU institutions.

Indeed. And you are saying that should Italy want to transfer sovereignty they shouldn't just because Ireland doesn't.

This view doesn't hold up to scrutiny. International countries are not entities one can put a leash on and tie together. They are fully independent in this context.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The difference is that this is about transferring sovereignty over 27 countries to EU institutions.

That's the language of cheap propaganda. What "EU institutions" do you mean? What sovereignty is transferred?

The kind of treaty you are talking about entails no such measures. And I remind you again that under EU law, a treaty doesn't come into force unless all member states agree. It doesn't work like that with non-EU treaties e.g. the International Criminal Court.

What, if anything, does that prove?

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The difference is that this is about transferring sovereignty over 27 countries to EU institutions. The kind of treaty you are talking about entails no such measures. And I remind you again that under EU law, a treaty doesn't come into force unless all member states agree. It doesn't work like that with non-EU treaties e.g. the International Criminal Court.

That is because in treaties like the ICC, the signatories are 'joining up', whereas the EU is a pre-existing group of signatories. Modifying treaties with an existing group of signatories is always going to be a different process - it has nothing to do with any claims of "transferring sovereignty".

On the question of "transferring sovereignty" - if Lisbon transferred sovereignty, it would require a Danish referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is because in treaties like the ICC, the signatories are 'joining up', whereas the EU is a pre-existing group of signatories. Modifying treaties with an existing group of signatories is always going to be a different process - it has nothing to do with any claims of "transferring sovereignty".

On the question of "transferring sovereignty" - if Lisbon transferred sovereignty, it would require a Danish referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The reality is that under Danish law, treaties that affect the constitution can be ratified with a weighted-majority in their parliament.

RandomName2

It should be noted that Nice, in the long term, has damaged the Irish economy.

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's the language of cheap propaganda. What "EU institutions" do you mean? What sovereignty is transferred?

What, if anything, does that prove?

There is an obvious transfer of sovereignty to other member state govts at our expense when you expand Qualified Majority Voting on the Council of Ministers. Well Lisbon expands QMV to another 50 policy-areas. Yes - we have a Protocol allowing us to optin/out on a case-by-case basis. But the legislation allows the Government, with the consent of the Oireachtas to surrender that Protocol. That is a legal-fact. Now you can say that doesn't mean they will do so - but the fact is its in the legislation (Paragraph 7(iii) of the 28th amendment to the Constitution Bill). There is also an arguable transfer of sovereignty entailed in the enshrinement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law (under Article 6 of the TEU as amended by Lisbon). Article 6 states that the Charter will have the "same legal value as the Treaties". Who interprets the Treaties? The ECJ. So imho, depending on how the ECJ interprets Article 51 of the Charter (which claims that it only applies to member states when they are 'implementing EU law'), that could well constitute a huge transfer of sovereignty to the ECJ too. Gerard Hogan warned the Forum on Europe last year that the Charter could eclipse the Supreme Court. In the context of "implementing EU law", does the Charter merely refer to EU legislative instruments, or also to the Charter aswell? That greatly concerns me in terms of the potential for challenge to Irish law on the basis of repugnance to the Charter.

The reality in the context of the Lisbon debate is that there are a lot of grey areas. There are many areas which are not black and white, and the electorate have a right to speculate on how they will be interpreted, rather than waiting for some unelected bureaucrats on the ECJ to interpret it for us.

passive

RandomName2 wrote: »

It should be noted that Nice, in the long term, has damaged the Irish economy.

It should be noted that the above statement is false and foolish, and can only be swallowed with a healthy dose of gullibility from a presupposed position of euroscepticism.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The reality is that under Danish law, treaties that affect the constitution can be ratified with a weighted-majority in their parliament.

In the event of a transfer of sovereignty to the EU, the Danish Constitution requires the approval of a five-sixths majority in Parliament or a public referendum.

Now, then, what was the vote in the Danish Folketing for Lisbon? 90 Yes to 25 No - a Yes vote of 78%.

A 5/6ths majority is 83%, so the Danish Folketing vote would fall short of the 5/6ths majority required if there had been adjudged to be a transfer of sovereignty. The Danish Supreme Court judged that there was no transfer of sovereignty.

What you have done here is very dishonest. Instead of addressing the point that no referendum was found to be required because no transfer of sovereignty was found, you have made another point which appears to contradict the substantive point, but does not. If you know enough to know that the Danish Parliament can pass EU treaties on a weighted vote, you also know enough to know you're being dishonest here.

Have a week's ban, and contemplate your extremely fast and loose attitude to truth. If you can overcome that obstacle, you're very welcome to resume posting - the forum is currently slightly short on substantive No posters, but if you can't stick to the facts, your contribution remains negative.

irritated,
Scofflaw

turgon

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The reality is that under Danish law, treaties that affect the constitution can be ratified with a weighted-majority in their parliament.

But we all know that the other requirement for Danish Treaties should be that every other state that signed must have ratified too.

Damn undemocratic Danes!!