What Is This Lisbon Treaty All About?

K-9 · 12-08-2009 1:17am

procure11 wrote: »

You have a valid point but the fact is the Irish people have a very legitimate right to be upset because they have to vote again on an almost a similar treaty .I can reason with you that a lot of people would say things that are off topic and sometimes senseless but IMHO I think they are entitled to do so because they casted their vote not too long ago.

Can't argue with that. They are entitled to be pissed off, but again the Govt. can run this referendum. Just as they are entitled to be pissed off, people are entitled to argue the Govt. can run this. Why people would get offended with that, I don't know!

procure11 wrote:

Most of the Yes side are focused on what would be good for Ireland vis a vis Europe .We want to know what the future holds...is it going to be same old politics of ...you didnt get right first off sh..ite or are they going to listen to the populace?

P.S...I dont mean the usual how Europe built/saved /rescued Ireland 10/20 years ago...stale news!!!...we could equally boast about the Polish/Lituanians in a few years time.

To me they have addressed some concerns No voters had. I don't believe they can address every No voters concern or indeed even the majority, given the reasons in polls.

The rage at a second vote isn't a new phenomenon.

The_Minister · 12-08-2009 1:23am

IRockUrSocks wrote: »

Yes. One of the legal guarantees secured by Ireland confirms that the Lisbon Treaty does not affect or prejudice Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality. This legal guarantee confirms that there will be no conscription and no European army.

There was never any chance of conscription being brought in, in the first place.

procure11 · 12-08-2009 1:23am

The_Minister wrote: »

Firstly that not what alluded means - you mean attributed to.:)

Secondly, most Yes side voters would be like me.
It's just hard not to get frustrated when certain No siders come out with rather bizarre claims such as conscription.

I wont bother to find out if I wrongly used that word...thank God it's not my thesis presentation...but I could always use you as a form of dictionary...bless you:D

I dont think there would be any form of frustration if there was a water -tight case from the Yes side.Most of the arguements on the EU forum recently have absolutely nothing to do with conscription btw.

K-9 · 12-08-2009 1:29am

procure11 wrote: »

I dont think there would be any form of frustration if there was a water -tight case from the Yes side.

Ah, what do you mean by water tight?

Referenda aren't water tight, look at divorce and Abortion.

PrivateEye · 12-08-2009 1:57am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPSVxyETO6A

I think Higgins is likely to become the public face of the No campaign, given the fact Mary Lou is gone from the picture (and Deco of corse). He essentially dedicated the majority of his first Parl. speech to the issue recently too.

Skip to 1:13, where they dub over the Cupla Focal :rolleyes:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 12-08-2009 2:06am

I think a lot of people are voting no, based on fears of what may happen... you know?

K-9 · 12-08-2009 2:12am

Leilani Happy Moon wrote: »

I think a lot of people are voting no, based on fears of what may happen... you know?

And that is the problem with referenda. It equally applies to Abortion referenda.

Conscription may happen!

The Volt · 12-08-2009 3:00am

Where's the Atari jaguar voting option when you need it?

Seaneh · 12-08-2009 4:04am

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en

Watch this.
Skip the first minute or so.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 12-08-2009 4:16am

K-9 wrote: »

And that is the problem with referenda. It equally applies to Abortion referenda.

Conscription may happen!

And pigs may fly... :rolleyes:

After looking at the above video, it's pretty scary to have people from other countries coming to Ireland with said countries salaries... That will seriously effect us...

IRockUrSocks · 12-08-2009 1:18pm

Seaneh wrote: »

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en

Watch this.
Skip the first minute or so.

Interesting video but I must admit, I find it a little one-sided for my taste - much like Bowling For Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11, although I enjoyed these movies

.

K-9 · 12-08-2009 2:15pm

Leilani Happy Moon wrote: »

And pigs may fly... :rolleyes:

After looking at the above video, it's pretty scary to have people from other countries coming to Ireland with said countries salaries... That will seriously effect us...

If that is the Lavel judgment they are working on changing it. It is the wiseup journal so I'd use the same skepticism they have of Lisbon and apply it to them!

TheZohanS · 12-08-2009 2:22pm

K-9 wrote: »

If that is the Lavel judgment they are working on changing it. It is the wiseup journal so I'd use the same skepticism they have of Lisbon and apply it to them!

I'd be skeptical of anyone that doesn't support the Treaty...it's just ignorant.

K-9 · 12-08-2009 2:46pm

TheZohan wrote: »

I'd be skeptical of anyone that doesn't support the Treaty...it's just ignorant.

Nope, a lot of No voters have perfectly good reasons, I just don't attach the same significance to some of those reasons.

IRockUrSocks · 12-08-2009 7:29pm

Are the only European nations to actually practice conscription: Germany, Lux, Austria, Denmark and Sweden?

squod · 12-08-2009 8:52pm

TheZohan wrote: »

I'd be skeptical of anyone that doesn't support the Treaty...it's just ignorant.

Then you'd be sceptical about most of the population of europe.
That would make you euro-sceptic, and so you'd vote no?

What can I say.

K-9 · 12-08-2009 9:37pm

IRockUrSocks wrote: »

Are the only European nations to actually practice conscription: Germany, Lux, Austria, Denmark and Sweden?

Think Austria and Germany where considering ending it.

K-9 · 12-08-2009 10:25pm

IRockUrSocks wrote: »

Are the only European nations to actually practice conscription: Germany, Lux, Austria, Denmark and Sweden?

K-9 wrote: »

Think Austria and Germany where considering ending it.

Bulgaria and Romania have ended it in the last year or two.

Thinking about this, Germany and Austria have it because they could not be members of NATO until recently.

Looks like Sweden is ending it too:http://www.thelocal.se/9318/20071206/

So even though the trend is for EU countries ending conscription this somehow is an EU concern for some.

squod · 12-08-2009 11:46pm

K-9 wrote: »

The above isn't a bad summary of how the EU works anyway and always has. Vetoes are rarely used and it is about cooperation. Losing vetoes sounds scarey if you don't realise that.

No other state has passed it by a public vote because their constitution doesn't require it. The UK and Germany had legal challenges to that. We are indeed the odd one out on Referenda.

On the UK, tbh, I think the problem there isn't so much Lisbon, it's more the EU. They've opted out of the Euro and many other things and still they are eurosceptic.

The booklet isn't patronising! Many people want a booklet like that as they don't have the time or inclination to read more on it. The Treaty is available to read if that is your inclination.

As for abortion, it is clear our position will not be affected.

I don't go along with all your reasoning and I still can't understand why we're voting again.
My piont is that another Peter Mandelson type will come along in future,
pushing his own agenda to the detrement of others and under Lisbon we'll have fewer chances of stopping him.

As I said the UK are our nearest neighbours and biggest trading partners,
they would vote no. It's highly probable the rest of europe would vote no also if asked.

We're one of very few countries to be asked to express our opinions on Lisbon. We should feel the burden of weight of those unable to vote on this.

An Fear Aniar · 13-08-2009 12:34am

squod wrote: »

We're one of very few countries to be asked to express our opinions on Lisbon. We should feel the burden of weight of those unable to vote on this.

Exactly. Most of Europe would vote no, that's why they're not being given a referendum, not after the French and the Danes voted No in previous polls.

.

K-9 · 13-08-2009 12:40am

squod wrote: »

I don't go along with all your reasoning and I still can't understand why we're voting again.
My piont is that another Peter Mandelson type will come along in future,
pushing his own agenda to the detrement of others and under Lisbon we'll have fewer chances of stopping him.

We are voting again because our Govt. got some guarentees. They may not satisfy your concerns and I accept that, but some people are happy with them and will change their vote to a Yes.

Do you have any examples of him doing that? Not his biggest fan at all so I'd be interested in it. Can throw some mud come the UK elections!

squod wrote:

As I said the UK are our nearest neighbours and biggest trading partners,
they would vote no. It's highly probable the rest of europe would vote no also if asked.

We're one of very few countries to be asked to express our opinions on Lisbon. We should feel the burden of weight of those unable to vote on this.

I don't know on the burden point. Don't think Germany or indeed the UK would be too bothered about us if it was the other way round.

The EU is now as big a trading partner as the UK so we need to consider that too.

The UK is different to us as they could arguably survive without the EU. The EU has helped us get rid of the shackles that tied us to the UK.

sink · 13-08-2009 12:50am

I want a yes vote but I'm apathetic about the whole thing now. The greatest motivators of the general public are hate, greed and fear in that order. They'll vote against the treaty because they hate the government and all politicians. They'll vote against the treaty because they believe sharing power is loosing power. They'll vote against the treaty because they fear what's not in it.

"In a democracy the people get the government they deserve"

An Fear Aniar · 13-08-2009 12:58am

sink wrote: »

"In a democracy the people get the government they deserve"

It's a lot better than the alternatives, which is where we're heading if the people have to keep voting again until they give the right answer.

.

K-9 · 13-08-2009 1:05am

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It's a lot better than the alternatives
.

Hmmmm, think that is why we are in the mess we are in!

squod · 13-08-2009 1:06am

sink wrote: »

I want a yes vote but I'm apathetic about the whole thing now. The greatest motivators of the general public are hate, greed and fear in that order. They'll vote against the treaty because they hate the government and all politicians. They'll vote against the treaty because they believe sharing power is loosing power. They'll vote against the treaty because they fear what's not in it.

"In a democracy the people get the government they deserve"

You shouldn't be apathetic, it seems the longer this goes on the more sure I am getting.

Mandelson was a 'spin doctor' to answer a question, a very talented negotiator.
'Couple times he was accused of corruption. You could wiki him of course.

sink · 13-08-2009 1:10am

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It's a lot better than the alternatives, which is where we're heading if the people have to keep voting again until they give the right answer.

.

QED, TBH!

Behind that is really just hatred of the government.

Democracy is the so called 'least worst option'. The trouble with democracy is that the majority of people vote based on abstracts like "people have to keep voting again until they give the right answer". In that statement there is no consideration of the pros and cons, not even a reflection of reality. It's a slogan that has been picked up by those who feel disenfranchised. It's angry, cynical and sticks one to the government, it purely reflects how the people feel emotionally at this moment in time but it says noting about the treaty.

K-9 · 13-08-2009 1:13am

squod wrote: »

You shouldn't be apathetic, it seems the longer this goes on the more sure I am getting.

Mandelson was a 'spin doctor' to answer a question, a very talented negotiator.
'Couple times he was accused of corruption. You could wiki him of course.

Ah, that isn't what I asked or related to what you said first.

What was his agenda in the EU and was he successful with that agenda?

checkbalance · 13-08-2009 1:25am

There are a lot of issues in Lisbon but first of all it would be a constitutional treaty. It would make a federal Europe, not a complete federation but close enough.

Lisbon would be a constitution and the EU would have it's own police force, it's own court system, it's own president, its own minister for foreign affairs, a military dimension & common foreign policy, it's own diplomatic system and its own charter of fundamental rights. It would be ignorant to say that Lisbon does not create the strong outline of a federation.

The issue for voters now just like before is do you want an independent country like now (in many areas) or to be a semi-independent state in a large federation?

That is the issue of sovereignty, which is central. Then you must look at what kind of Union Lisbon will make Europe and decide if it's agreeable or not.

From my perspective the issues are is Lisbon democratic, will it allow irish people to have a say in its own governance, does it respect workers rights, will it create another army/military alliance like those active today, will its economic policies help us or create recessions like this one?

PS anyone who disagrees that Lisbon isn't a constitution of sorts can argue with the German chancellor who said about Lisbon in comparison to the rejected EU Constitution 27/06/07

"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."

Dinner · 13-08-2009 1:29am

You have an awful lot of fact checking to do. Lets start with an easy one.

'The EU would have [...] it's own president.'

You are wrong. Do you care?

Here's a hint to get you started. It won't be called President of the EU, it has feck all power and we already have one. It will just become a longer term after Lisbon.

After you have corrected yourself on the president bit you can start to research the rest of your post.

K-9 · 13-08-2009 1:34am

checkbalance wrote: »

There are a lot of issues in Lisbon but first of all it would be a constitutional treaty. It would make a federal Europe, not a complete federation but close enough.

How so?

checkbalance wrote:

Lisbon would be a constitution and the EU would have it's own police force, it's own court system, it's own president, its own minister for foreign affairs, a military dimension & common foreign policy, it's own diplomatic system and its own charter of fundamental rights. It would be ignorant to say that Lisbon does not create the strong outline of a federation.

Can you expand on all those points?

checkbalance wrote:

PS anyone who disagrees that Lisbon isn't a constitution of sorts can argue with the German chancellor who said about Lisbon in comparison to the rejected EU Constitution 27/06/07

"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."

Think the recent German court judgment is more relevant than a politicians opinion or quote that may have been misquoted.

What they mean by SUBSTANCE probably isn't what you mean.

What Is This Lisbon Treaty All About?

Comments