Scofflaw wrote: » Neither. cordially, Scofflaw
marco_polo wrote: » No they are not "Political Promises" they are decisions of the European Council that will be set aside as a seperate legally binding international treaty that will be registered at the same time as the Lisbon treaty. In the exact same way that the Edinburgh Agreement was for Denmark in 1992. Read and watch this:http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html Or read thishttp://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/...on-ireland.pdf or thishttp://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking40.htm
Croga wrote: » Ok thanks, so this is like a politician coming to my door making political promises (we all know how worthless these are) saying he'll do this and that for me and the community but really he just wants votes but if i make him put that in writing he'd be bound to it. So what im getting at, if these are just words spoken from persons/men with status how can we be sure that they'll stick to these words when they're not bound to them? How can the men on the land of Ireland be sure that our person and our persons country known as Republic of Ireland have these guarantees?
Croga wrote: » THanks, those last 2 links dont work though
bkelly86 wrote: » How can our first vote be totally ignored,i may be wrong but i believed each member state had a veto,like what good our all these guarentees if we can be just simply ignored and bullied into something we already refused.
bkelly86 wrote: » How can our first vote be totally ignored,i may be wrong but i believed each member state had a veto, like what good our all these guarentees if we can be just simply ignored and bullied into something we already refused.
reinald wrote: If the Irish government had been serious about listening to the verdict of the People, they would not have merely looked to obtain Protocols and guarantees but would have insisted that such provisions be included in the Lisbon document itself.
reinald wrote: The assurance that Ireland will retain its commissioner may also be an issue which is being overplayed by the Yes side. The reality is that if the Lisbon Treaty is approved, the EU will take a step closer to centralising and streamlining power between the bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels and Strasbourg. If this happens, the organs of the EU i.e. the proposed EU President, the Commission and Parliament, over time, will come to increasingly resemble the essential outline of a state power structure in their own right. The President might retain nominal but increasing control over foreign relations, advised by the Council of Ministers, while the Commission might come to resemble a cabinet government or Executive, checked perhaps by the Parliament. Even if Ireland retains its commissioner, an Irish commissioner would likely be confined to a junior commissionership or junior ministerial position answering to some more senior commissioner drawn from one of the larger EU states. Accordingly, the benefits of Ireland retaining a commissioner in the long run, if this scenario plays out, will be very limited and possibly irrelevant.
reinald wrote: » The Lisbon Treaty debate seems to have been hijacked, to an extent at least, by fringe groups raising concerns regarding particular social and moral issues unique to Ireland. These concerns are understandable but may have little to do with the content of the actual treaty itself and would likely be unaffected were the Treaty to come into force. In any event, the Protocols which have been secured on these peripheral issues attach only to a future hypothetical treaty, thus if no treaty were to come into force in the near future then the Protocols will not take effect until such time as the EU deemed it necessary to conclude a new political agreement. The assurance that Ireland will retain its commissioner may also be an issue which is being overplayed by the Yes side. The reality is that if the Lisbon Treaty is approved, the EU will take a step closer to centralising and streamlining power between the bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels and Strasbourg. If this happens, the organs of the EU i.e. the proposed EU President, the Commission and Parliament, over time, will come to increasingly resemble the essential outline of a state power structure in their own right. The President might retain nominal but increasing control over foreign relations, advised by the Council of Ministers, while the Commission might come to resemble a cabinet government or Executive, checked perhaps by the Parliament. Even if Ireland retains its commissioner, an Irish commissioner would likely be confined to a junior commissionership or junior ministerial position answering to some more senior commissioner drawn from one of the larger EU states. Accordingly, the benefits of Ireland retaining a commissioner in the long run, if this scenario plays out, will be very limited and possibly irrelevant. The real problem for Ireland is, however, the fact that a second referendum on an identical text is being held at all. Whether one is for or against the aims of the Treaty, there are now serious questions over the sovereignty of the People, enshrined in the Irish Constitution and affirmed in Crotty v An Taoiseach. Asking the People to vote again on an identical text raises fundamental questions over the depth and quality of democracy in Ireland and the attitude of political leaders toward the People. Obviously it is not unheard of for referenda to be held multiple times on identical issues but rarely have they been held in such quick succession and with no alteration in the wording to the proposed provision put before the People. This might be dismissed as semantics, in light of the Protocols and 'guarantees' secured, but it cannot be ignored where the long term democratic integrity of the state is in question. If the Irish government had been serious about listening to the verdict of the People, they would not have merely looked to obtain Protocols and guarantees but would have insisted that such provisions be included in the Lisbon document itself. This failure to respect the democratic will of the People is an ominous sign of things to come when Ireland becomes a progressively smaller voice in a Europe dominated by the bigger nations, looking to impose their will upon smaller states ultimately seen as irrelevant in the overall European project of building a federalised superstate.
happyfriday74 wrote: » Sure it will be great craic being on the fringes of europe cutting ourselves off from any eu funds that were instrumental in building ireland a few years ago.
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: » Hadn't seen this map before, but err, well, it says a lot about our position...http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/countries/index_en.htm
PHB wrote: » There is no article, the slogan is a weird one.
PHB wrote: » But ask yourself this question and try answer it honestly, if the situation was reversed and it was the Czech Republic who were holding up a Treaty that the other 26 countries wanted, how do you think the Czech Republic would be treated by those countries?
PHB wrote: » So ask yourself again, do you honestly think, honestly, that we won't loss significant influence in Europe and perhaps even more away from Europe if we vote No?
whatisayis wrote: » Yes, I honestly think that we won't lose significant influence in Europe or elsewhere if we vote No.
Stark wrote: » Even Indymedia of all people aren't using the "second referendum is undemocratic" argument: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/93916 The guarantees are being submitted to the UN. That gives them the same status as the Lisbon treaty. It's just like Maastricht and the Edinburgh agreement with the Danes. I have acknowledged that the guarantees have been secured and possibly are politically, though probably not legally, relevant. History shows us that they tend to be 'feel good' concessions, useless when it really matters. The main problem with them has tended to be that they are usually rejected by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as being political agreeements having no standing in Community law. Accordingly, when either side to a action has tried to incorporate them into their arguments they are cast aside. My main point though is that the document put before us in the upcoming referendum is identical to the one we voted on previously. When you take feel good guarantees and Protocols attaching to an undetermined hypothetical future treaty out of the equation, the question being put to the People is identical. My point regarding the broader issue of the integrity of the democratic process in Ireland raised by this fact is a legitmate one which cannot be dismissed out of hand and also relates to developments more generally within the political system at this time. While, admittedly, such arguments can be overstated my main point is that the government has shown considerable disregard for the People by failing to incorporate the guarantees and Protocols into the Treaty itself rather than outside it. Additionally, the Irish government failed to insist that, according to the Union's own internal procedures laid down in previous treaties, the Lisbon Treaty should be deemed vetoed and be scrapped and re-negotiated. This is not the same manner in which the French and Dutch were treated following their verdict on the textually similar European Constitution. The reality is that whether Ireland votes Yes or No for the Lisbon Treaty in the upcoming referendum, it will have no effect on Ireland's membership of the European Union and will have no effect on Ireland's membership of the Eurozone area. The content of Lisbon is primarily to do with further political, and legal, streamlining to the benefit primarily of the larger European nations and to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg. Also any argument that Ireland will lose influence in Europe with a No vote may be disingenous. The reality is that Ireland has always been politically and economically peripheral in the European project, although we have very able civil servants working in our interests in Brussels. However, we are a very small nation on the margins of Europe and have never been central to the EU. That centrality rests with France, Germany, UK, Spain and Poland and will only become stronger over time. Perhaps it is time to stop kidding ourselves over how important we are in Europe. While we may be a minor inconvenience if a No vote comes from Lisbon we will be largely ignored as we always have been and a way around it will be found, though we legally cannot be pushed from the Union either. The status quo will remain largely as it has before.
reinald wrote: The reality is that whether Ireland votes Yes or No for the Lisbon Treaty in the upcoming referendum, it will have no effect on Ireland's membership of the European Union and will have no effect on Ireland's membership of the Eurozone area. The content of Lisbon is primarily to do with further political, and legal, streamlining to the benefit primarily of the larger European nations and to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg. Also any argument that Ireland will lose influence in Europe with a No vote may be disingenous. The reality is that Ireland has always been politically and economically peripheral in the European project, although we have very able civil servants working in our interests in Brussels. However, we are a very small nation on the margins of Europe and have never been central to the EU. That centrality rests with France, Germany, UK, Spain and Poland and will only become stronger over time. Perhaps it is time to stop kidding ourselves over how important we are in Europe. While we may be a minor inconvenience if a No vote comes from Lisbon we will be largely ignored as we always have been and a way around it will be found, though we legally cannot be pushed from the Union either. The status quo will remain largely as it has before.
whatisayis wrote: Yes, I honestly think that we won't lose significant influence in Europe or elsewhere if we vote No.
nesf wrote: Why? (genuinely curious as to your reasons for believing the above)
O'Morris wrote: » I agree. I think we'll lose more power and influence in Europe if we vote yes than if we vote no. I'm curious to know your reasons for believing otherwise. I think it's obvious why the EUers wouldn't want to punish Ireland for voting the wrong way. The other governments of the EU have absolutely nothing to gain by punishing or isolating Ireland for voting no to the Lisbon treaty. They do have a lot to lose from behaving spitefully towards Ireland as that will almost certainty lead to a eurosceptic backlash in Ireland and in the rest of the EU. The EUers need the goodwill of the Irish political establishment and the Irish electorate. They're not going to jeopardise that by reacting spitefully. As well as that, the other governments will be dealing with our government. Our government supports the Lisbon treaty and they've spent a lot of time, effort and money in trying to get this treaty passed. Why would the other governments lay the responsibility on them for the failure to ratify the treaty rather than on the people? If there was reason to believe that the other governments believe they would do a better job selling the treaty to their people than our government has done selling it to the Irish people then it might be different but there is no reason to believe the other governments would expect their own electorates to vote differently to the treaty. Of all the arguments put forward by the yes side, the one about Ireland losing influence or "goodwill" in Europe is probably the weakest.
marco_polo wrote: » In summation our goodwill towards other member states is critical, but that of our fellow member states towards is insignifigant?
O'Morris wrote: » Where have I said that? My point is that Europe would have nothing to gain from isolating or punishing Ireland for it's refusal to vote yes to the Lisbon treaty. If you think otherwise then I'd be interested in seeing your answer to the question of what exactly Europe has to gain by isolating Ireland?
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: If they can find a formula of literally isolating us, then they could gain from the benefits around e.g. collective energy policy that Lisbon would implement.
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: I don't think they'll find that formula any time soon, but if we vote 'no' I would expect the next treaty to include some method of having a single state, or few states stay out of areas of increased competence, where, like us, they don't want to participate.
marco_polo wrote: Building up the importance of our goodwill towards the EU as a critical arguement in dismissing the importance of EU goodwill towards us, is a logical meltdown.
O'Morris wrote: » Let them! If they can find a way under the existing treaties to have a collective energy policy then let them go ahead and have a collective energy policy. And what's the problem with that? What's wrong with a two-tier Europe?
O'Morris wrote: » I haven't dismissed the importance of EU goodwill towards us. I've dismissed the argument that voting no will negatively impact EU goodwill towards us.
Exon wrote: » Please vote yes people if not we will be left out of Europe. PLEASE!:) Don't take your anger out on us please vote yes please please:) I give sexual favours for yes votes.
Keewee6 wrote: » thanks but im voting no
marco_polo wrote: » Well your formidable arguments almost turned me but I am sticking with a Yes myself.
