RandomName2 wrote: » This is a part of the Lisbon Treaty.
Eire_prince wrote: » just look yesterday, barrosa didnt get enough vote to continue as the layout of the parliment changed as it always does everytime there is the election. look at france if it people doesnt like what happens or make changes to their lifestyle asnd go on strike especially at ports causing chaos, til they get what they want. the german pay companies to put in like a part time employment regime in this recession. the uk keeps saying europe is great yet they want to keep their way of life. the people of ireland vote no, and then we are told we didnt know what we were voting for, and we are causing disharmony in europe for voting no. at least ireland got to vote for it, as all other country would have done the same if giving the option. we the voter are being told the problem in our economy is cause we voted no, the problem in the economy is caused by people believing the lies of the greens and fine faill parties, the quicker we get rid of them both the better. few years ago it was fine fail and the progressive democrats
Eire_prince wrote: » we vote yes, it wont be long before what we were promised be eaten away by raft of measure midway into the parlimentary session.
Eire_prince wrote: » they same some of the celtic tiger was born on the handout from europe but now we are paying back more than we get.
Eire_prince wrote: » let do what the uk does keep our independence
Eire_prince wrote: » independence allows you to make choice which is best for you
oscarBravo wrote: » So I voluntarily relinquish some of my independence to live in a society. I don't get to do whatever I want, whenever I want, but the tradeoff is generally positive as I can reap the benefits of being a part of that society.
RandomName2 wrote: » For the last time: Hobbes' Leviathan doesn't apply in relation to the EU!
oscarBravo wrote: » Are you arguing that there is nothing positive to be gained from pooling sovereignty, or are you throwing out pseudo-intellectual references just because you can?
RandomName2 wrote: » I wouldn't exactly say they are pseudo-intellectual - after all you gave a quick resume of the main arc of his argument. BUT it is only an apropriate model if the supranational organisation has authority over the external actions of the states under its jurisdiction - the internal actions (i.e. the citizens of the member states) cannot be under the direct influence of the suprastate or the analogy falls apart. Indeed this is where my anti-EU sentiments come in. It is superfluous for me to agree with you that mercantalism and autarky are seriously limited national outlooks that serve only to stagnate intellectual and economic progress.
let do what the uk does keep our independence
ei.sdraob wrote: » So you claim nothing good came out for Ireland out of the EU :rolleyes: now where are moving onto delusional lies :cool: there's lies, lies and then there's No lies :P
Eire_prince wrote: » when most of our laws comes from europe, we are told when to fish, catch eels, if inflations goes up then ecb puts up interest rates, then 26 members states decree something it can be passed by majority rules.
Eire_prince wrote: » sharing means what you is mine and what mine is yours, not what mine is mine and whats yours is mine. ever since the european union was founded it was on a common market principle, but look at spain has a fishing fleet which is taking more than it share of the fishing quota, and the irish fishermen are told to catch less, if you catch to much it cant be landed. as I said before the french, if you take it off them they go in a huff and blockade the ports, what about immigration and assylum, they just let people through to the UK and ireland rather than accessing at the port of arrival which is meant to be done. there are many other argument, I would vote for europe if all were equal but it not, as a lot of the larger nation are inward looking
K-9 wrote: » Others have managed to read it and understand it. Even it it was just a 40 page document this argument would still exist.
Scofflaw wrote: » If you can't understand the document, how can you know whether a No or a Yes is better for Ireland and Europe? This isn't the same as signing a contract, where not signing a contract leaves you exactly where you were before - this is the equivalent of agreeing to a medical procedure that the doctors claim is necessary.
Scofflaw wrote: » Not agreeing to reform the EU is not leaving things at the status quo. The world has moved on since 2001 - and even then, it was known that another treaty would be required, because a lot was left out of Nice as not yet agreed, or not yet possible to agree until the accession countries were actually part of the EU. cordially, Scofflaw
Agent J wrote: » Are you one of the those? Fantastic. Perhaps you could do a poll and find out exactly how many that is out of the population. And wasnt it Our own commissioner who said not even a handful of people had read it or words similar?
K-9 wrote: » That wasn't really my point though, was it? If it was a 40 page document we would still have the same problem. It still would be a complex international Treaty with people picking holes at it, which is their right.
Agent J wrote: » Perhaps you should be clearer in your points then and leave no room for ambiguity.
Agent J wrote: » Yes but increase that situation you outline by a factor of ten. Your arguement seems to be "But people will pick at anything".
AgentJ wrote: There is a term in IT called "Security through obscurity" which means that a system is more secure becase people don't know enough about the inner workings of it to be able to mess around with it because it is left intentionally difficult for people to try to understand.This method often fails. Just because something is complex doesnt actually preclude it from being straightforward for a lay person to understand without the need for cross reference every other treaty and having a couple of european lawyers on speed dial.
Agent J wrote: » Disagree and you are appealing to authority. Considering that i heard our minister for european affairs Dick Roche on national airwaves lie(either through malice or ignorance) about the ratification process how on earth are we suppose to the trust the "doctors?"
Agent J wrote: » He was asked a direct question by matt cooper about having a second referendum if the 1st one failed. He said it was right there in the treaty that it had to be ratified before the end of the year(2008) or else it wouldnt happen.I went to said section of the treaty and it put no such time limit on it. It merely said that it would come into force the month after ratification by all member states.This clip was replayed and similary on newstalk
Agent J wrote: » Ok you are going to have to elaborate on that point because i dont quite understand what will change if we say no again. Leaving the point about the world changing since 2001. The world changes, this doesnt nesscarily mean we need a new treaty every couple of years.
Sam Vimes wrote: » I find it ironic that you're arguing that the treaty is too big and complex while telling people to leave no room for ambiguity. The treaty is big and complex for precisely that reason
RandomName2 wrote: » What about big, complex and ambiguous?
Sam Vimes wrote: » In what way is it ambiguous? I realise there have been several interpretations put forward for parts of the treaty but in every case I've seen, all but one of the interpretations was very clearly wrong. Do you have any examples of ambiguity?
RandomName2 wrote: » Some ambiguity is caused by leaving it open-ended how the members of the Consilium impliment Lisbon in their own states - for instance, which Parliamentary seats will we lose? (Will Dublin become a two-seater, etc.) But anyway, here's one: How does the Citizens' Initiative work? How many signiatures per country/ how many countries/ does it have the powers of legislative initiative (technically or practically)/ would it still count if isolated to a single state? If so can it have any real relivance? Does it need the approval of the government of the country from which it began? Or the majority of the member states' governments in general? If approved by Parliament does it also have to be approved by the Commission as well (which is unlikely if it runs contrary to legislation produced by the Commission).
Sam Vimes wrote: » Citizens’ initiative Under the Lisbon Treaty, the commission is obliged to consider any proposal signed by at least one million citizens from a number of member states. Seems pretty clear to me
RandomName2 wrote: » So it has to be from more than one state. It doesn't have legislative initiative. It is essentially like writing a letter to the Commission, only with a guarantee that they will actually read it? So it is not really an Initiative, as such, but rather a suggestion box for the Commission, after which it goes the route of Commission legislation. If I'm understanding you correctly?
RandomName2 wrote: » Some ambiguity is caused by leaving it open-ended how the members of the Consilium impliment Lisbon in their own states - for instance, which Parliamentary seats will we lose? (Will Dublin become a two-seater, etc.)
