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

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.

To be honest, you do not seem to understand the actual rules of the EU - the rules that we all signed up to concerning unaminous decisions. It doesn't matter whether a treaty is rejected by a piss-pot eastern bloc member, or by Germany or France, or all 27.

There is a reason for that unanimity is because each member is supposed to be an independent soverign state, protected from being bulldozed by any individual member, or even by every other member combined.

You might not like that. Indeed, Lisbon seeks to overturn some of the original composition of the EU concerning unaminous decisions, at least in terms of the Commission.

You obviously hope that state borders and individual EU state governments will be removed in time, which there is some justification for (although, annoyingly it can't be compared to Charlamagne's conglomeration due to Nazi connoctations :mad:... or Roman Empire due to Italian fascist connoctations :mad:)

Personally, I think that the veto system in the UN has made the organisation virtually useless, apart from the times that the Communist countries abstained... which is so damn ironic when you realise that the entire reason why Communism became a dominant force in the first place was because of the Menshevics' and SRs' walk-out protest in the Russian Parliament

. But you probably don't have any idea what I'm on about....

RandomName2 wrote: »

You obviously hope that state borders and individual EU state governments will be removed in time, which there is some justification for (although, annoyingly it can't be compared to Charlamagne's conglomeration due to Nazi connoctations :mad:... or Roman Empire due to Italian fascist connoctations :mad:)

Not even by clever tangential references, unless you're prepared to engage in the necessary historical dissertation. Wrist-slap.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not even by clever tangential references, unless you're prepared to engage in the necessary historical dissertation. Wrist-slap.

moderately,
Scofflaw

WTF? I say that these historical analogies cannot be used because the language has been polluted by right-wing extremist parties in the 1930s.

You say: Damn straight! Even mention the f word (fascism) within a fifity mile radius of here and you get a warning.

Strange and worrying in equal measure.

If I use an analogy for fascism is it acceptable? It might work until the analogy itself became un-PC, at which point it might be safe to return to the original terminology.

RandomName2 wrote: »

To be honest, you do not seem to understand the actual rules of the EU - the rules that we all signed up to concerning unaminous decisions. It doesn't matter whether a treaty is rejected by a piss-pot eastern bloc member, or by Germany or France.

Em actually the EU has nothing official to do with the Treaties formulation and ratification. The collective rule of the people who have something to do with it - the member states - is that all have to ratify it. Why do you keep dragging up the EU into a debate that does not concern it?

RandomName2 wrote: »

There is a reason for that unanimity - because each member is suppsoed to be an independent soverign state, who is not supposed to be bulldozed by any other member, or even by every other member combined.

Yes. The problem is you think Germany ratifying it after Ireland fails to amounts to "bulldozing."

RandomName2 wrote: »

Indeed, Lisbon seeks to overturn some of the original composition of the EU concerning unaminous decisions, at least in terms of the Commission.

So your jumping from the issue of unanimity in Treaty ratification to internal decision making within the Commission. Thats completely incoherent.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You obviously hope that state borders and individual EU state governments will be removed in time

The former yes; that latter no. Please tell me how you came to that "obvious" conclusion btw.

RandomName2 wrote: »

although, annoyingly it can't be compared to Charlamagne's conglomeration due to Nazi connoctations :mad:... or Roman Empire due to Italian fascist connoctations :mad:)

Why are you living in the past?

RandomName2 wrote: »

But you probably don't have any idea what I'm on about....

*yawn*
Im not going to rise to the blatant provocations and child games you are trying to bring to me.

turgon wrote: »

Em actually the EU has nothing official to do with the Treaties formulation and ratification. The collective rule of the people who have something to do with it - the member states - is that all have to ratify it. Why do you keep dragging up the EU into a debate that does not concern it?

[...] The problem is you think Germany ratifying it after Ireland fails to amounts to "bulldozing."

So your jumping from the issue of unanimity in Treaty ratification to internal decision making within the Commission. Thats completely incoherent.

The former yes; that latter no [individual governments]. Please tell me how you came to that "obvious" conclusion btw.

Why are you living in the past?

*yawn*
Im not going to rise to the blatant provocations and child games you are trying to bring to me.

First of all - there is the original purpose of the EU/EC/ECC/ECSC which is arguably very different from what is needed today (in terms of war, peace, and all the rest of the stuff that WW2 made people think about). But the direction the EU has been taking since the Iron Curtain began to crumble has been towards a single European state, albeit very gradually, and is nowhere near that position by this stage, not even after Lisbon.

Nevertheless I think it is necessary to determine what direction the EU is moving in - which is clearly removed from strictly economic matters. I find it hard to really see how you can have real independent, individual governments without borders. I mean, individual governments can become the equivalent of powerful county-councils, it does not really make them governments.

And I wasn't meaning to be provocative - just realised the tangent of Illich Ullyanov's rantings was not only besides the point, but something you probably wouldn't have all that much knowledge or interest in.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

First of all - there is the original purpose of the EU/EC/ECC/ECSC which is arguably very different from what is needed today (in terms of war, peace, and all the rest of the stuff that WW2 made people think about). But the direction the EU has been taking since the Iron Curtain began to crumble has been towards a single European state, albeit very gradually, and is nowhere near that position by this stage, not even after Lisbon.

Nevertheless I think it is necessary to determine what direction the EU is moving in - which is clearly removed from strictly economic matters. I find it hard to really see how you can have real independent, individual governments without borders. I mean, individual governments can become the equivalent of powerful county-councils, it does not really make them governments.

And I wasn't meaning to be provocative - just realised the tangent of Illich Ullyanov's rantings was not only besides the point, but something you probably wouldn't have all that much knowledge or interest in.

Every treaty states the aim of the EU is 'An ever closer union among the peoples of Europe'. This organisation has always been political, and has always had that aim. It's not changed 'direction' since it started.

RandomName2 wrote: »

First of all - there is the original purpose of the EU/EC/ECC/ECSC which is arguably very different from what is needed today

Thats something that many people take for granted, having grown up in an EU Europe. Do you consider the original task of the EU - merging steel and iron industries so as to prevent war - done and dusted and never needed again?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Nevertheless I think it is necessary to determine what direction the EU is moving in

Yeah, so read the Lisbon Treaty. Should the EU continue to move in the direction you think it will there will obviously be further referenda and time for you to debate that. In the interim the only thing that is important is the immediate future, ie: the Lisbon Treaty.

RandomName2 wrote: »

individual governments can become the equivalent of powerful county-councils, it does not really make them governments.

How so?

RandomName2 wrote: »

And I wasn't meaning to be provocative

I would consider having a go at my historical knowledge (or lack thereof) without any basis as being provocative. Im going to stop discussing this now as its off-topic.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

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).

Between the giving and the taking away, you say that there is no actual loss of sovereignty, but that it might happen some day.

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.

Legal jurisdiction and sovereignty, although they touch one another, are not the same thing. And then you add to the confusion by suggesting that the ECJ is a sovereign body and also that it might act in some perverse way.

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.

Hogan's view is not uncontested. See, for example http://www.forumoneurope.ie/eng/index.asp?COMMAND=PRINTER&docID=489&locID=210

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.

The ECJ is no more a set of unelected bureaucrats than is our own Supreme Court. To represent them in such a way is at best discourteous, but I would go further and say that you do so in the tradition of the propagandist.

jabbertalky

Folks, it's very simple, we voted on this last year and we said NO. But they're not happy with that so it's a case of "Try again lads, you'll get it right next time." Time to stand together as a nation and say NO to Lisbon and NO to rule from abroad and NO to fascism. We saw what happened the last time the Germans took over Europe and we need to stop them in their tracks before it happens again.

jabbertalky

And all this "nicey nicey" debate is just playing into their hands, believe me.

jabbertalky wrote: »

Folks, it's very simple, we voted on this last year and we said NO. But they're not happy with that so it's a case of "Try again lads, you'll get it right next time." Time to stand together as a nation and say NO to Lisbon and NO to rule from abroad and NO to fascism. We saw what happened the last time the Germans took over Europe and we need to stop them in their tracks before it happens again.

That post does not merit a response.

Iwasfrozen

jabbertalky wrote: »

Folks, it's very simple, we voted on this last year and we said NO. But they're not happy with that so it's a case of "Try again lads, you'll get it right next time." Time to stand together as a nation and say NO to Lisbon and NO to rule from abroad and NO to fascism. We saw what happened the last time the Germans took over Europe and we need to stop them in their tracks before it happens again.

Post reported for Soapboxing.

passive wrote: »

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

Glad to hear it

.
False, foolish and presupposed position of euroscepticism - well, I hope so, but doubt it.

1. False: Irish economy is weaker than it was. This is partially caused by commercial migration to eastern europe. This primarily lies in overly high Irish wages generated by a high cost of living, coupled with low wages in eastern europe. Whilst not directly caused by Nice - indeed some companies have moved to India or China - Nice certainly facilitated such company relocation.

Moreover, FF pushed an agenda to get extra migrant workers from eastern europe into Ireland whilst there were plenty of jobs. As job-seeker allowance is greater than low wages in eastern europe this has had a negative effect on the Irish economy when a considerable number of the surplus migrant workers attempt to ride out the Irish recession within ireland.

2. Foolish: I suppose so, in many ways. It is history, so no point dragging up Nice in the first place. Anyway, it an unspoken rule that you can't legitimately attack treaties that have already been passed - it looks as if you are trying to attack the whole of the EU (even if you are just attacking the legislation)

3. Eurosceptic yogurt: Not really. I was always ambivalent about Nice - I thought the eastern bloc countries should join - over a staggered process, and then with some restrictions on movement which might be decreased over time. Didn't like the loss of a Commissioner, but that seems to be sorted now anyway.

On second thoughts, maybe your position was incorrect and we have, and will, take a step backwards

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

Glad to hear it .
False, foolish and presupposed position of euroscepticism - well, I hope so, but doubt it.

1. False: Irish economy is weaker than it was. This is partially caused by commercial migration to eastern europe. This primarily lies in overly high Irish wages generated by a high cost of living, coupled with low wages in eastern europe. Whilst not directly caused by Nice - indeed some companies have moved to India or China - Nice certainly facilitated such company relocation.

Moreover, FF pushed an agenda to get extra migrant workers from eastern europe into Ireland whilst there were plenty of jobs. As job-seeker allowance is greater than low wages in eastern europe this has had a negative effect on the Irish economy when a considerable number of the surplus migrant workers attempt to ride out the Irish recession within ireland.

2. Foolish: I suppose so, in many ways. It is history, so no point dragging up Nice in the first place. Anyway, it an unspoken rule that you can't legitimately attack treaties that have already been passed - it looks as if you are trying to attack the whole of the EU (even if you are just attacking the legislation)

3. Eurosceptic yogurt: Not really. I was always ambivalent about Nice - I thought the eastern bloc countries should join - over a staggered process, and then with some restrictions on movement which might be decreased over time. Didn't like the loss of a Commissioner, but that seems to be sorted now anyway.

On second thoughts, maybe your position was incorrect and we have, and will, take a step backwards .

Our economy was doing fine up to 02/03. FF decided to concentrate on the property tax windfalls and retail/service offshoot industries and ignore exports etc.

These exact same points were brought up in the last General Election and moreso in the last year and the vast majority know it was a crap Govt., not the EU that got us in this mess.

The 3 most fecked economies in Europe are Ireland, Spain and Latvia. Common denominator? Property bubbles, not the Euro!

It just sounds like taking a situation and making it fit a situation rather than looking at the general picture.

There's an economics forum on here. You should start a topic, though I think it may have already been covered.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Moreover, FF pushed an agenda to get extra migrant workers from eastern europe into Ireland whilst there were plenty of jobs. As job-seeker allowance is greater than low wages in eastern europe this has had a negative effect on the Irish economy when a considerable number of the surplus migrant workers attempt to ride out the Irish recession within ireland.

And the comparative cost of living?

RandomName2 wrote: »

2. Foolish: I suppose so, in many ways. It is history, so no point dragging up Nice in the first place. Anyway, it an unspoken rule that you can't legitimately attack treaties that have already been passed - it looks as if you are trying to attack the whole of the EU (even if you are just attacking the legislation)

3. Eurosceptic yogurt: Not really. I was always ambivalent about Nice - I thought the eastern bloc countries should join - over a staggered process, and then with some restrictions on movement which might be decreased over time.

Which was what Nice introduced - except that one could opt out of the restrictions, which FF duly did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Guy:Incognito

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. "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.

Have Eamon Gilmore and Enda Kenny switched to the No side?Surely if its all FF pushing this then FG and Labour have been vocal about why we should vote no?

A large proportion of people are inherantly stupid and it's proved by certain views.

Like voting no to stick it to FF which results in going against the parties they ordinarily vote for. What has the Lisbon treaty got to do with domestic politics and FF running of the country? Shooting yourself in the foot of the highest order.

If Lisbon gets defeated and FG get elected at the next general election, are all FG supporters going to support a similar treaty that FG back as well? Or will they want to stick it to FG too?

free to prosper

As far as I remember 49 per cent of FG supporters voted NO and a
clear majority of Labour party supporters voted NO to Lisbon.

Enda Kenny comes from Mayo which voted 60 per cent No to Lisbon.

Who does Kenny represent ? - certainly not the people of Mayo.

It the political elites of the EU, who want more power, that Enda Kenny represents.

Gilmore certainly does not represent the members of his party who voted NO.
Anyway he said the Irish NO vote should be respected - the treaty was dead.

Back to FF, voting NO is a surefire way to get rid of this useless FF governnment. If we can't get rid of them directly - if we vote NO, the real power in Brussels will get rid of them in short shift.

g1rl

bladespin wrote: »

No, for the second time, hate having to repeat myself lol.

Bit shocked at the way the 'no' vote was received last time, the EU pretty much ignored our decision and told us to choose again, if I had voted yes before it'd be a no now just for that.

Same. I'm also offended at the fact that the re-vote is so soon.

K-9

free to prosper wrote: »

Back to FF, voting NO is a surefire way to get rid of this useless FF governnment. If we can't get rid of them directly - if we vote NO, the real power in Brussels will get rid of them in short shift.

How?

This is getting to Conspiracy Theory stuff?

So replace FF with the FG/Labour. Ah come on here! It's getting to the ridiculous stage!

We need a revolution by this measure of democracy.

K-9 wrote: »

Our economy was doing fine up to 02/03. FF decided to concentrate on the property tax windfalls and retail/service offshoot industries and ignore exports etc.
[...]

The 3 most fecked economies in Europe are Ireland, Spain and Latvia. Common denominator? Property bubbles, not the Euro!

I only said partially caused by the consequences of Nice. The single biggest cause of the recession was the property bubble - but companies like Dell pulling out, just as the proverbial hits the fan, has added considerably to the crap economic prospects of the country.

And yes, FF can be correctly blamed for its part in the property bubble, and also in not enacting the migrant worker movement restriction (which created a bubble in itself)

free to prosper

If you give these FF failures a Yes to Lisbon vote they will quickly say afterward that it looks like approval of their governance.

When it looked that bertie would be a hindrance to the first Lisbon referendum
he got the heave ho.

Did any pressure come to bear from Brussels? Don't know.
Can't rule it out though.

PopeBuckfastXVI

free to prosper wrote: »

If you give these FF failures a Yes to Lisbon vote they will quickly say afterward that it looks like approval of their governance.

When it looked that bertie would be a hindrance to the first Lisbon referendum
he got the heave ho.

Did any pressure come to bear from Brussels? Don't know.
Can't rule it out though.

Well they can make that claim all they want, they're still going to get a kicking in the next GE.

Did any pressure come to bear from the illuminati? Don't know.
Can't rule it out though.

free to prosper wrote: »

If you give these FF failures a Yes to Lisbon vote they will quickly say afterward that it looks like approval of their governance.

So your going to give the EU a kick in the balls over some smug attitude our TD's may take.

If it comes right down to it, how can FF claim a Yes as any kind of vindication? They made an appalling hash of the first referendum, which is partly or largely why we're having a second one, it's irrelevant to their governance of the country, it's not an issue which distinguishes them from the opposition, they won't be the only political party calling for a Yes, and most voters are going to grumble their way out to the polls, vote, and grumble home again - the issue's not fresh, and stale issues make stale triumphs. The best they'll get out of it is maybe a feeling that it's something they've failed to screw up - assuming they don't screw up, and that the opposition don't distinguish themselves by running a better campaign. The argument that we should vote No to 'unseat FF', when FF haven't been unseated by losing the first referendum or getting a kicking at the euro and local elections, is a farcically transparent attempt to cash in on anti-government feeling for a completely unrelated issue.

What next? Vote against Ireland in the Eurovision to get FF out of government?

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

I only said partially caused by the consequences of Nice. The single biggest cause of the recession was the property bubble - but companies like Dell pulling out, just as the proverbial hits the fan, has added considerably to the crap economic prospects of the country.

And yes, FF can be correctly blamed for its part in the property bubble, and also in not enacting the migrant worker movement restriction (which created a bubble in itself)

High wages fueled indirectly by massive mortgages and high rents would appear to have been a big reason for Dell leaving. It isn't really an EU issue as companies are moving to cheap labour Asian countries as well. Anyway, it's going off topic.

free to prosper wrote: »

If you give these FF failures a Yes to Lisbon vote they will quickly say afterward that it looks like approval of their governance.

When it looked that bertie would be a hindrance to the first Lisbon referendum
he got the heave ho.

Did any pressure come to bear from Brussels? Don't know.
Can't rule it out though.

Lisbon was a small part of Bertie leaving.

K-9 wrote: »

Lisbon was a small part of Bertie leaving.

There was that little matter of the Tribunal...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

There was that little matter of the Tribunal...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lisbon obviously had nothing to do with why Bertie left in the first place. It had a huge amount to do with when he chose to leave.

Scofflaw wrote: »

What next? Vote against Ireland in the Eurovision to get FF out of government?

If it was the case that FF launched a massive campaign promoting one of the more recent poor Irish entries to Eurovision, and then attempted to reenter the same act despite the experience of 'Irlandais nul point', then there might indeed be justification in doing just that.