nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

darkman2

October 2nd is the date - how do you intend to vote?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I would be of the view that the guarantees should have been attached to the Treaty, and that the year and a half since Lisbon I was more than enough time for that to happen. They didn't need to wait till the last minute to negotiate 'guarantees'. The Treaties are the basic law of the Union. Paul Anthony McDermott claimed on Questions and Answers around the time the guarantees began to appear in the press that they were "meaningless" because if you wanted to sue on the basis of them, the ECJ would ask "what part of the Treaties are you sueing on?". I share that view.I don't want the EU to become some sort of rival to the US if that's what you are getting at. I have misgivings about both America and the EU politically speaking. We don't have to choose between Boston and Berlin. We can be on good terms with both.Well with all the media other than the Murdoch press on your side, the yes side should be running away with this referendum. Maybe it's just that many Irish people get suspicious when they see the powerful people in society closing ranks, as it evokes bad memories in Irish history.

There really is no need to put the word guarantee in quotations. And I see you are still quoting from a statement that was made weeks before the legal framework of the guarantees were announced.

Will it be much longer before you are back onto the CCCTB/taxation fantasy as well?

marco_polo

Caught wrote: »

Saying yes will just throw away our freedom. We probably would never get it back in this lifetime. So if I could vote, it would be no. They arent gonna make new jobs or atin else they are promising. If the EU really cared about us, would they not already be helping us?

People fought for our freedom, dont throw it away... Well then again, Cowen is in charge. :P

Yes, the ECB is currently loaning us billions to stay afloat?

Keewee6

Dinner wrote: »

Because the concerns discovered by the government have been addressed.

you would agree that democracy is still a good reason - lets say im votin on this reason - you may think its wrong and i should read the treaty and make a yes vote - i just want to vote because i dont like being asked twice - probably is a horrible reason - but sorry thats why im voting no sorry - lets agree to differ:(

Moriarty

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Maybe it's just that many Irish people get suspicious when they see the powerful people in society closing ranks, as it evokes bad memories in Irish history.

Yeah, because as we all know it was The Powerful Elite who carried out and supported a bloody thirty year low intensity civil war in this and a neighboring country.

Please.

There are just as many honourable people in every 'class' of society in this country. Attempting to play a honourable-downtrodden-masses card only makes you look like more of a fringe vitriolic screamer.

Caught

marco_polo wrote: »

Yes, the ECB is currently loaning us billions to stay afloat?

If we werent using Euro then we wouldnt be needing to be loaned billions to stay afloat, now would we? We could lower the worth of the currency and our prices to attract people. Do hotels know how ridiculous their prices can be sometimes?

And dont forget, Im a 14 year old girl. I sometimes ramble and have no idea what Im talking about. :P I love using smileys as their cute and find lip gloss tasty. :P:P

jhegarty

marco_polo wrote: »

Yes, the ECB is currently loaning us billions to stay afloat?

We are voting on lisbon , not maastricht.

We will still be using the Euro if we vote no.

Morzadec

Saw a sign today that said - Minimum Wage after Lisbon - 1.84e.

Where the hell do they get these things from?!

I will be voting Yes. As far as I can tell this treaty is a continuation and progression rather than a drastic change. The EU has been good to us and we need it now more than ever.

Pretty much all the ridiculous scaremongering reasons from last time round have been addressed, and the public seem to be getting more informed this time round, so another referendum is both morally and legally right in my opinion as the public should be given a chance to vote on the treaty based on facts rather than suppositions or nationalist rhetoric or blindly voting No as they aren't informed.

For the this reason I'm hoping the Treaty should get passed this time round, despite what the poll here says.

marco_polo

jhegarty wrote: »

We are voting on lisbon , not maastricht.

We will still be using the Euro if we vote no.

Did I mention vote yes for the Euro anywhere?

Or is there something factually incorrect about the statment: The ECB is currently loaning us billions to stay afloat.

Just correcting a misconception that the EU is not aiding us in any way, is there a problem with that?

marco_polo

Caught wrote: »

If we werent using Euro then we wouldnt be needing to be loaned billions to stay afloat, now would we? We could lower the worth of the currency and our prices to attract people. Do hotels know how ridiculous their prices can be sometimes?

And dont forget, Im a 14 year old girl. I sometimes ramble and have no idea what Im talking about. :P I love using smileys as their cute and find lip gloss tasty. :P:P

Would that solve our crippling public sector wage bill?

Dinner

Keewee6 wrote: »

you would agree that democracy is still a good reason - lets say im votin on this reason - you may think its wrong and i should read the treaty and make a yes vote - i just want to vote because i dont like being asked twice - probably is a horrible reason - but sorry thats why im voting no sorry - lets agree to differ:(

Yes yes, we all know you're voting no. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care and don't want to know anything about the treaty, you're still voting no.

There, is that enough attention yet?

FutureTaoiseach

Morzadec wrote: »

Saw a sign today that said - Minimum Wage after Lisbon - 1.84e.

Where the hell do they get these things from?!

I will be voting Yes. As far as I can tell this treaty is a continuation and progression rather than a drastic change. The EU has been good to us and we need it now more than ever.

Pretty much all the ridiculous scaremongering reasons from last time round have been addressed, and the public seem to be getting more informed this time round, so another referendum is both morally and legally right in my opinion as the public should be given a chance to vote on the treaty based on facts rather than suppositions or nationalist rhetoric or blindly voting No as they aren't informed.

For the this reason I'm hoping the Treaty should get passed this time round, despite what the poll here says.

Some would argue that the ECB monetary policy was a contributory factor to our housing-bubble because interest rates were suited to France and Germany and not to an overheating economy which we were before 2008 with galloping inflation. I would argue that. Many are also displeased that what Dick Roche assured us about in terms of the influx of cheap labour in 2002 e.g. 'There is no reason to believe that large numbers will come". turned out to be false. I think Nice and the question of ECB interest rates has given Irish people a new perspective on the pluses and minuses of the EU. The younger generation are also less beholden to Europe because we grew up in Celtic Tiger Ireland.

marco polo wrote:

There really is no need to put the word guarantee in quotations. And I see you are still quoting from a statement that was made weeks before the legal framework of the guarantees were announced.

The credibility of the guarantees is a hot issue in this campaign and therefore it would be amiss for me not to refer to that fact. I am not persuaded that depositing them with the EU will make them stand up in the ECJ, because in the ECJ ruling annulling an EU Regulation freezing a foundation linked to Al Qaida's assets (Joined Cases C-402.05 P and C-415.05 P) the ECJ annulled an EU Regulation implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1267, which would have frozen the assets of the Al Barakaat International Foundation, which is linked to Al Qaida. Note the wording of this part of the ruling justifying the decision:". Straight from the horse's mouth:

ECJ ruling wrote:

an international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties or, consequently, the autonomy of the Community legal system.

Speaking personally, that sounds to me like the ECJ considers itself above the UN where international law is concerned, and as such, depositing the 'guarantees' with the UN is no real assurance to me.

Keewee6

Dinner wrote: »

Yes yes, we all know you're voting no. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care and don't want to know anything about the treaty, you're still voting no.

There, is that enough attention yet?

eh just a bit more:D go on go on

nesf

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Some would argue that the ECB monetary policy was a contributory factor to our housing-bubble because interest rates were suited to France and Germany and not to an overheating economy which we were before 2008 with galloping inflation.

Only the most "straw grasping" of No campaigners try to paint the housing bubble we created as having something to do with the EU. The housing bubble could have been avoided regardless of the EU interest rate if the political will was there, which unfortunately it wasn't.

Keewee6

Dinner wrote: »

Yes yes, we all know you're voting no. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care and don't want to know anything about the treaty, you're still voting no.

There, is that enough attention yet?

would u rather i read it and then voted no

Dinner

Keewee6 wrote: »

would u rather i read it and then voted no

Well, yes. At least then you would know what you are rejecting.

Keewee6

Dinner wrote: »

Well, yes. At least then you would know what you are rejecting.

ok ill do that -then vote no

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

... The credibility of the guarantees is a hot issue in this campaign ...

I do wish you weren't so verbose. I can so easily miss the nuggets.

The credibility of the guarantees is not a valid issue. Some dishonest people seek to cast doubt on it.

P. Breathnach

Keewee6 wrote: »

ok ill do that -then vote no

Get reading. Don't bother posting until you have finished. I might have some questions for you when you have done your homework.

[I note FT saw fit to thank this post. What is one to make of that?]

Caught

I think the Minimum wage should be lowered anyway, even if I'm against the treaty. It would create more jobs, like wheeling trolleys from the shops out to the car parks for people. I'd love that job, even if I was only paid 2 euro an hour. It would give me something to do during the summer and it would give me a job. The age that you're allowed to get a job could be lowered too though you know. :P

spongeman

I will be voting no.

D'ont touch the Mickey Money...........

fona

No no absolutely no.

And quite annoyed to have to do it twice. When will FF learn that No means NO!

W1ct0ry

fona wrote: »

No no absolutely no.

And quite annoyed to have to do it twice. When will FF learn that No means NO!

Should be some sort of anti-thank button. :rolleyes:

mayordenis

I'm staying out of the argument on boards, both sides covering themselves in **** from head to toe.

Dinner

fona wrote: »

No no absolutely no.

And quite annoyed to have to do it twice. When will FF learn that No means NO!

Do you want divorce repealed. After all, NO means NO...

oscarBravo

Keewee6 wrote: »

ok ill do that -then vote no

We've had a conversation, not long ago, about only posting if you've something worthwhile to say. If we have to have that conversation again, you won't be posting here anymore.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The credibility of the guarantees is a hot issue in this campaign...

No, it's not.

This is exactly analogous to Cóir's approach to the campaign. Cóir have a fundamental problem with the EU, for their own fundamentalist conservative Catholic reasons. They know that their real reasons are a tough sell to a modern electorate, so they set about achieving their goals through blatant dishonesty, talking about things that they almost certainly know are untrue, like the minimum wage, solely with a view to planting seeds of doubt in the hope of damaging the EU through a second No vote.

In the same way, it's fundamentally dishonest to talk about the guarantees not having credibility. The major concerns as expressed by the electorate were addressed by the EU member states, so the No campaign in a desperate attempt to create more uncertainty try to claim that the guarantees are not binding.

What's the underlying message? That the EU is trying to trick us into ratifying this treaty, at which point they'll pounce, force us to introduce abortion and euthanasia, and conscript what few of us are left into their imperialist army.

I truly doubt that many, if any, of the No campaign actually believe this is true, which makes their campaign dishonest rather than misguided - and they should be deeply, deeply ashamed of themselves.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's not.

This is exactly analogous to Cóir's approach to the campaign. Cóir have a fundamental problem with the EU, for their own fundamentalist conservative Catholic reasons. They know that their real reasons are a tough sell to a modern electorate, so they set about achieving their goals through blatant dishonesty, talking about things that they almost certainly know are untrue, like the minimum wage, solely with a view to planting seeds of doubt in the hope of damaging the EU through a second No vote.

In the same way, it's fundamentally dishonest to talk about the guarantees not having credibility. The major concerns as expressed by the electorate were addressed by the EU member states, so the No campaign in a desperate attempt to create more uncertainty try to claim that the guarantees are not binding.

What's the underlying message? That the EU is trying to trick us into ratifying this treaty, at which point they'll pounce, force us to introduce abortion and euthanasia, and conscript what few of us are left into their imperialist army.

Just as they did after Nice, and after Amsterdam, and after Maastricht, and after the SEA...oh, no, wait, it didn't happen. So easy to get confused.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw, where does this process of integration end? Why the constant need to reinvent the wheel every 4/5 years? It makes me suspicious and I think a lot of no voters. We want to know where this is leading.

MrMatisse

If my recolection of the (very few:D) politics lectures i attended in UCD is anything to go by , jean Monnet, the architect of the EU openly said the goal of the whole thing is an eventual united states of europe, which looks like where were going

meglome

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Scofflaw, where does this process of integration end? Why the constant need to reinvent the wheel every 4/5 years? It makes me suspicious and I think a lot of no voters. We want to know where this is leading.

It ends when the people of Ireland say it does. I only hope that point is reached for some sort of valid reasons and not because of the lies of people who didn't even what us to join the EU in the first place.

Really-Stressed wrote: »

If my recolection of the (very few:D) politics lectures i attended in UCD is anything to go by , jean Monnet, the architect of the EU openly said the goal of the whole thing is an eventual united states of europe, which looks like where were going

If only he had any actual say in what really happens, other than his opinion.