netron wrote: » respectfully i disagree. getting to a position of power and sheer bloody mindedness like O'Leary has does NOT suggest a "love/hate" relationship. the only conclusion i can draw from his endorsement of the Yes campaign is that he has been bought out. plain as that. O'Leary is certainly not the kind of person to have a "love/hate" undecided opinion - and the ONLY thing that matters to him is the future profitability of Ryanair. That is the ONLY thing he is considering.
ranmac wrote: » I totally agree with FutureTaoiseach if only for the proposed insertikon of the following Clause "ARTICLE 5b In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation." To me this clause s totally abhorrent and anti-christian
Irish and Proud wrote: » My concerns would relate mainly to Commerce (privatisation)
D.Harry wrote: » I want to see the EU built from the ground up, on a foundation of democracy and accountability.
D.Harry wrote: » This Lisbon EU is being imposed from the top down by pigs at a trough, with contempt for the people.
D.Harry wrote: » Ireland is not a pawn to be traded in the selfish interests of political parties and corporations. The people come first. We just have to make ourselves heard.
Kev_ps3 wrote: » No the first time, No the second, and if they ask me a third time it will be another No.
ei.sdraob wrote: » please expand on the points your brought up..
D.Harry wrote: » Not Lisbon - how's that?
bayviewclose wrote: » that there was a lack of transparency over who is exactly funding the yes campaigns.
ei.sdraob wrote: » as opposed to complete lack of information as to whom funded Libertas and funds Coir
bayviewclose wrote: » Well this is a new campaign. Can we expect fairness on ALL sides this time. If one side can claim a lack of transparency, the other side can too. Think its valid point if Referendum Commission who after all are supposed to be partisan here send out a booklet without these two fairly key issues included you have to ask questions.
ei.sdraob wrote: » from what im aware all the parties on the YES side are bound by funding laws, where theres a max limit on donation and a list is kept, maybe the lawyers among us can clarify about this Libertas on the other hand spend millions and not a word of where it came from as under Lisbon 1 they were registered as private company not a party more info @ http://www.cro.ie/search/ type in libertas are they referring to his guide? or something elsehttp://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_guide.pdf qmv and vetoing is mentioned inhttp://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_extended_guide.pdf
bayviewclose wrote: » No sorry I think you are misreading the post. Never mentioned Libertas. .
free to prosper wrote: » The Wall Street Journal was correct when it said (26/6/09), 'In some countries they rig votes, in the European Union they repeat votes to get the desired result.' I'm voting NO for the democratic good of Ireland and of Europe.
ei.sdraob wrote: » i mentioned Libertas to remind you about their very dodgy existence that still no light has been shed onhttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61929433&postcount=2023
bayviewclose wrote: » Yes but we are not talking about Libertas. Im sure it was discussed at length after first treaty
ei.sdraob wrote: » and no one is still any wiser where the money came from also Coir guy refused to answer the funding question and who the members are when asked about it (several) times on Matt Cooper's show few days back
bayviewclose wrote: » Yes heard that. Not disputing that there were problems with funding on No side. But can we deal with the issue with Referendum commission for a moment.
bayviewclose wrote: » Okay this from Patricia McKenna who at this stage looks to be one of the main No voters. A lot of her arguments so far are down to lack of transparency and fairness and I think they need to be recognised. This morning on Morning Ireland from an Interview at press conference she mentioned that there was a lack of transparency over who is exactly funding the yes campaigns. Clip below is in reference to lack of balance in booklet sent out recently by Referendum commission. To quote from article "Ms McKenna, who resigned from the Green Party earlier this year, said it fails to point out that Ireland's vote in the Council of Ministers decreases by over 50pc. The booklet also fails to mention the loss of the veto, which means moving to majority voting in a whole range of new policy areas. "These two changes are of crucial importance but the Referendum Commission has basically ignored them," Ms McKenna said last night."http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mckenna-threatens-court-action-over-partisan-booklet-1875174.html
Keewee6 wrote: » voting no myself
bayviewclose wrote: » This is only mention of veto i could find in booklet b)taxation Ireland ’s policies on direct taxation cannot be changed by the EU unless there is unanimous agreement in the Council of Ministers. Ireland therefore has the power to veto any such change and the Lisbon Treaty does not change this. The European Council has stated that nothing in the Lisbon Treaty makes any change of any kind for any member state in relation to the powers of the EU in respect of taxation. From indepedent article "The booklet also fails to mention the loss of the veto, which means moving to majority voting in a whole range of new policy areas".
Proposed changes More decisions would be made bythe Council in co-operation with the European Parliament.More decisions would be made by QMV; for example, in the areas of energy, asylum and immigration. From 2014, a qualified majority would require that: a) 55% of the member states agree; b) those member states supporting the decision must represent 65%of the EU population.
ei.sdraob wrote: » good for you so
marco_polo wrote: » This is in the slimmed down version, Council Changes?
