Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…4142444647…127

Comments

  • #1292
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Which of the ones that we are adopting do you feel are more critical to our national interest than the Common market laws.

    Read my last post. Law superior to national should not be imposed by QMV in any area beyond the common market.


  • #1293
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Read my last post. Law superior to national should not be imposed by QMV in any area beyond the common market.

    In your opinion.

    So you will accept EU immigration law but a common energy policy is just a bridge too far?


  • #1294
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Read my last post. Law superior to national should not be imposed by QMV in any area beyond the common market.

    It's not being 'imposed' if we agree to it being decided by QMV though, and it won't be 'imposed' if we don't, so it seems you have nothing to worry about.


  • #1295
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    taconnol wrote: »
    The idea that we sold out our fishermen for entry into the EU is a total fabrication.

    Before we joined the EU, fishermen from Spain and other countries were already fishing in our waters and the industry was worth very little in terms of livelihood, contributions to exchequer and employment.

    In fact it was investment from the EU that helped the Irish fishing industry to grow to where it is today.

    BTW, what's all this oil you're talking about? And please explain where they took all our gas...and stuff?
    This the most recent case
    http://www.businessandleadership.com/news/article/14002/leadership/oil-discovered-off-west-coast-of-ireland
    In terms of gas, I think where it is said we are struggling is to extract the resources due a lack of expertise in the field, so companies overseas are as such given the rights in terms of profits or the majority of them.
    Below is a good example of what Im talking about. Read the article, dont attack the person. Magill also did an article on the subject a few years ago.
    http://tedtynan.blogspot.com/2009/07/use-irelands-natural-resources-for-our.html


  • #1296
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    In your opinion.

    So you will accept EU immigration law but a common energy policy is just a bridge too far?

    You appear to have serious difficulties reading.


  • Advertisement
  • #1297
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    This the most recent case
    http://www.businessandleadership.com/news/article/14002/leadership/oil-discovered-off-west-coast-of-ireland
    In terms of gas, I think where it is said we are struggling is to extract the resources due a lack of expertise in the field, so companies over seas are as such given the rights in terms of profits.
    This would be a good example of what Im talking about. Read the article, dont attack the person. Magill also did an article on the subject a few years ago.
    http://tedtynan.blogspot.com/2009/07/use-irelands-natural-resources-for-our.html
    Look. I'll listen to what you're saying if you make an argument and use some research to back it up. Linking to a blog and a magazine article is just lazy.

    A lack of indigenous skills in natural resource extraction is not the fault of the EU.


  • #1298
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    taconnol wrote: »
    Look. I'll listen to what you're saying if you make an argument and use some research to back it up. Linking to a blog and a magazine article is just lazy.

    A lack of indigenous skills in natural resource extraction is not the fault of the EU.
    Well I'm not going to go back on the fisheries issue because I debated that a while back. My basic point and its underlined in the articles is that because we dont have the expertise or infrastructure in terms of offshore drilling, any overseas company is free to come in and drill and claim the rights.
    Now given that have oil and gas on our shores doesn't it make sense that we invest in training people here to drill and invest in the infrastructure and equipment for the drilling.
    Isn't this what FAS should have been doing. Training people in areas like this.


  • #1299
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Well I'm not going to go back on the fisheries issue because I debated that a while back. My basic point and its underlined in the articles is that because we dont have the expertise or infrastructure in terms of offshore drilling, any overseas company is free to come in and drill and claim the rights.
    Now given that have oil and gas on our shores doesn't it make sense that we invest in training people here to drill and invest in the infrastructure and equipment for the drilling.
    Isn't this what FAS should have been doing. Training people in areas like this.

    I think it's a problem of fully free market economies and privatisation. The state has given itself the right to sell off our natural resources, a quick sale now, for easier, but ultimately less money than we would get by using them ourselves, as public resources.

    Of course it can be argued that this oil or gas wouldn't have been located in the first place without private industry doing the expensive searching. You could set up a government agency to do this, but would the tax payer be willing to put up with the expense and high failure rate that is part and parcel of offshore oil and gas exploration?

    I think there's a balance that could be struck, personally, though. Of course I'm still fuming that the Government sold off the telecoms infrastructure of the country when they sold Eircom, it always makes me wary of plans to privatise Bus Eireann, in case they give away the roads with them...


  • #1300
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    It's not being 'imposed' if we agree to it being decided by QMV though, and it won't be 'imposed' if we don't, so it seems you have nothing to worry about.

    Why should one-time agreements of a qualified majority of other GOVERNMENTS lead to a permanent obligation on the Irish STATE (and all its future citizens) to live under European law that the Irish people never agreed with.

    If such a system is established it inevitably means the loss of democratic control over that policy areas. Sooner or later the one-time agreement will be obtained in the EU Council of Ministers due to the whittling-down process where states in the minority are bought of with concessions until an agreement can be imposed. And after that no national government, no matter how its people vote, will ever be able to change that EU law in future because of the supremacy of EU law, and becuase all changes to EU law first require a proposal from the Commision which is under no obligation to listen to any national electorate or government, and only once in its history has ever proposed removing an existing EU law (and that in the trivial area of curved vegetables that had become an embarssment to it).


  • #1301
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Why should one-time agreements of a qualified majority of other GOVERNMENTS lead to a permanent obligation on the Irish STATE (and all its future citizens) to live under European law that the Irish people never agreed with.

    If the Irish people have agreed to that situation by constitutional referendum, then they have shared that right, in return for the ability to reverse the transaction. It's shared sovereignty, and there's nothing legally, or morally wrong with it, if agreed by the people.


  • Advertisement
  • #1302
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    You appear to have serious difficulties reading.

    A large part of our immigration law comes under the first pillar does it not?

    Which of the new QMV areas is do you feel are important than this?

    Or are you pining for the good old days of the EEC, because I hate to tell you that particular organization doesn't exist anymore.


  • #1303
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    I think it's a problem of fully free market economies and privatisation. The state has given itself the right to sell off our natural resources, a quick sale now, for easier, but ultimately less money than we would get by using them ourselves, as public resources.

    Of course it can be argued that this oil or gas wouldn't have been located in the first place without private industry doing the expensive searching. You could set up a government agency to do this, but would the tax payer be willing to put up with the expense and high failure rate that is part and parcel of offshore oil and gas exploration?

    I think there's a balance that could be struck, personally, though. Of course I'm still fuming that the Government sold off the telecoms infrastructure of the country when they sold Eircom, it always makes me wary of plans to privatise Bus Eireann, in case they give away the roads with them...
    Yes and then there was that whole business with the West Link bridge where the govt had to buy back from NTR. Buying back a bridge for 600 million when it only cost 12 million to begin with
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055056752

    Again maybe not the EU's fault but who knows without the EU's financial aid would the govt have been so careless with its money in the book years.


  • #1304
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Which of the new QMV areas is do you feel are important than this

    STILL having difficulties reading?


  • #1305
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Well I'm not going to go back on the fisheries issue because I debated that a while back. My basic point and its underlined in the articles is that because we dont have the expertise or infrastructure in terms of offshore drilling, any overseas company is free to come in and drill and claim the rights.
    Now given that have oil and gas on our shores doesn't it make sense that we invest in training people here to drill and invest in the infrastructure and equipment for the drilling.
    Isn't this what FAS should have been doing. Training people in areas like this.
    As an environmentalist, I'm personally happier that we have been investing in renewable energy instead but I still don't see what the EU (or Lisbon for that matter) has to do with the above...?


  • #1306
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Yes and then there was that whole business with the West Link bridge where the govt had to buy back from NTR. Buying back a bridge for 600 million when it only cost 12 million to begin with
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055056752

    Again maybe not the EU's fault but who knows without the EU's financial aid would the govt have been so careless with its money in the book years.

    I don't think it was anything to do with EU money though as it was entirely a private venture unless I am mistaken, a terrible deal that was a monument to the political culture of the 80s. As nothing was ever really proven about the deal I won't say much more.


  • #1307
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    If the Irish people have agreed to that situation by constitutional referendum, then they have shared that right, in return for the ability to reverse the transaction. It's shared sovereignty, and there's nothing legally, or morally wrong with it, if agreed by the people.

    The Irish people have not agreed to Lisbon, and there is zero prospect of Irish politicians ever allowing them to 'reverse the transaction' on Lisbon (should it be ratified by forced re-vote) or any previous EU treaty either.

    Also voters in most other European countries (whose governments have the overwhelmingly majority of votes in the EU Council that would decide law for Ireland) have never been offered constitutional referendums. Those governments will not listen to their own people, and certainly will not listen to the Irish people when deciding the law of the land in future.

    The EU is a democracy-free zone which it would be extremely unwise for the Irish people to get further bogged down in.


  • #1308
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Do you refuse to read my posts?
    1. I have challenged your identification of state with nation, and pointed to the UK, which comprises a number of nations, to India and Pakistan, both of which comprise a number of ethnic groups, and to the general phenomenon of ethnic minorities in European states, with the Balkans highlighted as an area with many problems.
    2 & 3. I have pointed out that the EU differs from other international arrangements, and mentioned some of the points of difference.

    You are wrong. I say that on the basis that I have shown how your assertions do not accord with the facts. Call it an assertion if you like, but it is an assertion backed up with argument.

    And I note that you still have not apologised for or withdrawn your personal attack on me.

    Reading this as a debate between yourself and Freeborn John, I think you have lost. Please concede and move on.


  • #1309
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    The Irish people have not agreed to Lisbon, and there is zero prospect of Irish politicians ever allowing them to 'reverse the transaction' on Lisbon (should it be ratified by forced re-vote) or any previous EU treaty either.

    Hence the use of the word 'if'. By 'reverse the transaction' I mean use QMV to pass laws that Ireland desires, but are resisted by other member states.


  • #1310
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    STILL having difficulties reading?

    Not as many as you have answering questions, but since you have dodged every single one on this thread then I am hardly surprised.

    We can go back to looking for decisions forced upon nations under QMV in the current system if you like.


  • #1311
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    rumour wrote: »
    Reading this as a debate between yourself and Freeborn John, I think you have lost. Please concede and move on.

    lol...


  • Advertisement
  • #1312
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Also voters in most other European countries (whose governments have the overwhelmingly majority of votes in the EU Council that would decide law for Ireland) have never been offered constitutional referendums. Those governments will not listen to their own people, and certainly will not listen to the Irish people when deciding the law of the land in future.
    *yawns* this is so boring. The issue of referenda vs representative democracy has already been done. In the words of rumour, please concede and move on.


  • #1313
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Not as many as you have answering questions, but since you have dodged every single one on this thread then I am hardly surprised.

    We can go back to looking for decisions forced upon nations under QMV in the current system if you like.

    I have told you repeatedly that EU law should not be imposed by QMV in any area beyond the common market. That is a clear answer. If you have difficulty understanding it, the problem is yours.


  • #1314
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    I have told you repeatedly that EU law should not be imposed by QMV in any area beyond the common market.

    But you haven't told us once yet the reason...


  • #1315
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    taconnol wrote: »
    *yawns* this is so boring. The issue of referenda vs representative democracy has already been done. In the words of rumour, please concede and move on.

    I have a question which all the experts may help me with. In the new referendum on the 2nd of October, should the question read:
    1. Do you vote for the Lisbon Treaty?
    2. Do you vote for the Lisbon Treaty including the protocols as published XXXXX?
    I would be very interested to know opinions on this matter as this is the real choice we are facing now. In my opinion anything other than 2 above will certainly get a 'no' from me because I accept the results of the previous referendum.


  • #1316
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    taconnol wrote: »
    *yawns* this is so boring. The issue of referenda vs representative democracy has already been done. In the words of rumour, please concede and move on.

    Whatever the Yes-men on this forum may have agreed among themselves in the past is neither here nor there.

    Politicians do not own the political power they exercise in trust on behalf of the voters, and so cannot give it way to institutions beyond the reach of the voters without asking those voters. It has unfortunately become the norm in the rest of the EU to ignore such basic rules of representative government.
    "The legislative power cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands; for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others". John Locke


  • #1317
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    I have told you repeatedly that EU law should not be imposed by QMV in any area beyond the common market. That is a clear answer. If you have difficulty understanding it, the problem is yours.

    I admire your persistence but it appears no matter how well you explain yourself it doesn't sink in. Rather like the King with no clothes :o


  • #1318
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    But you haven't told us once yet the reason...

    Yes i have, on multiple occasions, but yes-men have the concentration span of a goldfish.

    The democratic legitimacy of international organizations that take serious decisions binding on their membership is only retained by decision-making by unanimity.

    Let me repeat for the hard of understanding... The democratic legitimacy of international organizations that take serious decisions binding on their membership is only retained by decision-making by unanimity.

    That is why the WTO, NATO etc. (which use unanimity despite a larger membership than the EU) have not experienced the crisis of democratic legitimacy uniquely faced by the EU since it began to replace unanimity by QMV in politically contested policy areas in the early 1990s.


  • #1319
    freyners
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,298 ✭✭✭freyners


    voting no no no no no no no no
    and i dont care how many times they re-run it, my vote aint changin


  • #1320
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Freeborn John wrote: »

    Politicians do not own the political power they exercise in trust on behalf of the voters, and so cannot give it way to institutions beyond the reach of the voters without asking those voters. This has been the norm in the rest of the EU.

    Do you have you own private dictionary with words that mean something completely different to everyone else on the planet?

    The norm is most countries do not hold EU referenda and never have.


  • Advertisement
  • #1321
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    rumour wrote: »
    In my opinion anything other than 2 above will certainly get a 'no' from me because I accept the results of the previous referendum.

    Well you shouldn't because the vast majority of people on both sides had no idea what they were voting on. Saying "respect my vote" is not an excuse for wilful ignorance. A decision made for stupid reasons deserves no respect


Advertisement