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 - What way will Clare vote this time?

drunken_munky52

The results of Lisbon 1, showed that Clare voted in favour of the treaty. That is likely to happen again... or is it?

Just like NAMA, Lisbon may be designed purely to put even more power in the hands of a few rich elite, and the it appears the masses are been scare mongered into thinking that voting yes puts the people first.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

meglome

Sam Vimes wrote: »

... When making my own decision I had very little interest in what the yes side were saying because, as bladespin pointed out, the yes campaign was a shambles run by idiots. If I wanted to find out if there was anything wrong with the treaty I needed to look at what its opponents were saying and so I did and I found that everything they were saying was one of the following:
A lie

An exaggeration

Taken from something that was already in force and misinterpreted (because most of Lisbon is just Nice, Amsterdam and Rome put together)

A red herring

And then I learned the voting pattern of the main proponents of the no side (table shamelessly stolen from Scofflaw )

Group | Accession | SEA | Maastricht | Amsterdam | Nice | Lisbon
| | | | | |
Sinn Fein | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
P McKenna | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
Anthony Coughlan/National Platform | - | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
COIR/YD/SPUC | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
PANA | - | - | - | NO | NO | NO

And I realised the entire no campaign was a pack of naysayers trying to trick people into rejecting the treaty by telling lies about it because they know that the rest of the country doesn't hate Europe like they do

And Europe has every right to ask us to reconsider when our vote was manipulated by liars with ulterior motives

I think this says it all. (The Dub will run off and hide now)

And Run_to_da_hills I didn't know you were from Clare? Although I like your new tactic, you can't get away with posting all the lies in the politics forum so you're going into the regional forums and doing it instead.

BLITZ_Molloy

meglome wrote: »

Again I'm not from Clare but this post is utter ****e. Feel free to pop over to the politics forum and have it explained to you in great detail why it's ****e.

What the hell is wrong with the No campaign in this country that they can't even state basic fact.

Feel free to stay in the politics forum. If you're just going to pop in here and tell me what I'm saying is sh1te, offer no justification (and not read any of my other posts in the thread) and then fcuk off again then you can stay over there. I've no particular interest in talking to you. You're only interested in a slagging match.

I don't claim to know it all and I'm not sure wether to vote Yes or No. But the EU now has 751 MEPs up from 736 allowed to be elected under Nice rules. Doesn't that mean they're implementing parts of the Lisbon treaty already? Seems like that to me.

meglome

BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »

Feel free to stay in the politics forum. If you're just going to pop in here and tell me what I'm saying is sh1te, offer no justification (and not read any of my other posts in the thread) and then fcuk off again then you can stay over there. I've no particular interest in talking to you. You're only interested in a slagging match.

I'm interested in balance and truth. But I'm also not from Clare so I didn't want to be starting a political discussion in a forum that isn't about politics or Dubs like me. Of course none of that stops me from being tired of listening to lies about the Lisbon treaty, which is the main reason I'm now actively seeking a Yes vote instead of just quietly supporting it.

BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »

I don't claim to know it all and I'm not sure wether to vote Yes or No. But the EU now has 751 MEPs up from 736 allowed to be elected under Nice rules. Doesn't that mean they're implementing parts of the Lisbon treaty already? Seems like that to me.

I don't know it all either which is why I started out with an open-mind on the whole thing. I didn't even vote the first time as I didn't know enough about it. You appear to me to be slating the Lisbon treaty, without knowing the facts.

Are those the pre-accession Nice rules or the post-accession Nice rules?

drunken_munky52

meglome wrote: »

I'm not from Clare but if I was I'd be extremely insulted by this bull****.

Again I'm not from Clare but this post is utter ****e. Feel free to pop over to the politics forum and have it explained to you in great detail why it's ****e.

What the hell is wrong with the No campaign in this country that they can't even state basic fact.

Yes, you are right about one thing... I dont know what planet your from but its definately not Clare.

Can you atleast backup your agruments with some "facts" of your own?... OH WAIT... thats right you dont have any facts coz your a yes sider... go back to your spaceship now...

marco_polo

BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »

Feel free to stay in the politics forum. If you're just going to pop in here and tell me what I'm saying is sh1te, offer no justification (and not read any of my other posts in the thread) and then fcuk off again then you can stay over there. I've no particular interest in talking to you. You're only interested in a slagging match.

I don't claim to know it all and I'm not sure wether to vote Yes or No. But the EU now has 751 MEPs up from 736 allowed to be elected under Nice rules. Doesn't that mean they're implementing parts of the Lisbon treaty already? Seems like that to me.

There are only 736 MEP in the European Parliament currently.

golfball37

Meglome- Posting up the voting history of the NO campaigners does nothing for promoting the Lisbon treaty and in fact insults some of us who will vote NO but never vote for any of the crowd advocating a NO vote. This negative campaigning was a major factor in the YES side not getting out their message in June 08 imo. The implication being look whose saying vote NO that should be enough. I’m sure Declan Ganley and Sinn Fein have nothing in common except for their wish to see Ireland not pass the European Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, similarly I’m sure FF/Labour are the same on the other side.The question for me is how is it in Ireland’s interest to halve our voting rights in Europe? I will vote NO on this basis and this alone, I personally do not want to be part of a Federal Superstate, economic community yes, USE no. Lisbon is another step towards a USE and somewhere we need to say stop enough.

If we vote NO again Britain will vote NO too, the Czechs will probably not ratify either. I’m happy enough living under Nice & Maastricht and the 1937 Constitution and having the EURO as my currency, there’s come a point when you have to say stop though and Lisbon for me is this point.

meglome

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Yes, you are right about one thing... I dont know what planet your from but its definately not Clare.

Can you atleast backup your agruments with some "facts" of your own?... OH WAIT... thats right you dont have any facts coz your a yes sider... go back to your spaceship now...

As I keep saying I'm not from Clare and yet I'm not calling Clare people names and suggesting their idiots like you've been doing.

If there's anything you like to discuss about the Lisbon treaty then the European Union forum is the best place for it. I have a feeling though you won't do that as I suspect you know you're not telling the truth and they'd show you up in second.

Oh and one last thing it's very difficult for me to prove a negative, some would say impossible, so it's up to you to back up your claims with evidence. Lisbon is a detailed legal document so it should be easy for you to prove your claims, right?

meglome

golfball37 wrote: »

Meglome- Posting up the voting history of the NO campaigners does nothing for promoting the Lisbon treaty and in fact insults some of us who will vote NO but never vote for any of the crowd advocating a NO vote. This negative campaigning was a major factor in the YES side not getting out their message in June 08 imo. The implication being look whose saying vote NO that should be enough. I’m sure Declan Ganley and Sinn Fein have nothing in common except for their wish to see Ireland not pass the European Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, similarly I’m sure FF/Labour are the same on the other side.The question for me is how is it in Ireland’s interest to halve our voting rights in Europe? I will vote NO on this basis and this alone, I personally do not want to be part of a Federal Superstate, economic community yes, USE no. Lisbon is another step towards a USE and somewhere we need to say stop enough.

I have no problem with anyone voting No, that's their democratic right. However I do think it's very important to have balance. It's easy for some people to claim that Lisbon will cause your first born child to be sacrificed so it's important those people are challenged to show where in the Lisbon treaty that can happen. It's also important to show that the No campaign have called for a No to every single EU treaty that each of the groups has been around for, even the one when we joined the EU in 1973. The No campaign has used really similar reasons to call for this No vote to each one too, since 1973.

The No campaign are quick to say we shouldn't trust our politicians, I assume since most of the No campaign are not elected, but why should we trust people who say No at every step using the same reasons. Reasons, none of which have come to pass since 1973. Seriously Ian Paisley of old would be proud.

There's nothing about a federalist state in Lisbon and for example the German constitutional court found that nothing in the Lisbon treaty created one. Lisbon is mostly about making EU more efficient, it's not exciting but there you go.

drunken_munky52

meglome wrote: »

The No campaign are quick to say we shouldn't trust our politicians, I assume since most of the No campaign are not elected, but why should we trust people who say No at every step using the same reasons. Reasons, none of which have come to pass since 1973. Seriously Ian Paisley of old would be proud.

I you had bothered to read over this thread you would see that myself and many more have been pointing out the many reasons why we should vote no, which by far outweigh any lame reasons to vote yes.

Lisbon over rides our constitution -> End of -> We will never be asked to vote again. That aint democracy mate... thats autocracy, so get real.

All these agruements been put forward by the yes campaign, which include the retention of a commisionor is just a political smoke screen. When you peel away at the skin you get to the rotten core, something really stinks inside, and I dont want to be any part of that, nor does any right minded free thinking person

meglome

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I you had bothered to read over this thread you would see that myself and many more have been pointing out the many reasons why we should vote no, which by far outweigh any lame reasons to vote yes.

Apologies I admit I didn't read every post. Please would you mind posting your list of reasons over in the EU forum and I'll reply properly.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Lisbon over rides our constitution -> End of -> We will never be asked to vote again. That aint democracy mate... thats autocracy, so get real.

Anything we need a referendum on now we would still need a referendum on after Lisbon was approved. But since you're making the claim why don't you show us the part of Lisbon that does what you claim? It's all there in the treaty, right? No problem for you, right?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

All these agruements been put forward by the yes campaign, which include the retention of a commisionor is just a political smoke screen. When you peel away at the skin you get to the rotten core, something really stinks inside, and I dont want to be any part of that, nor does any right minded free thinking person

Em the No campaign wanted our commissioner retained, most Yes campaigners don't care about that. Commissioners are there to represent the EU and not the member states. I have a feeling you mistaking free thinking with dreaming. But since you're going to show me the list of these things in the Lisbon treaty I'm sure you can prove me wrong, right?

marco_polo

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Lisbon over rides our constitution -> End of -> We will never be asked to vote again. That aint democracy mate... thats autocracy, so get real.

That is total and utterly incorrect, you need to expand your reading material beyond Coir posters.

drunken_munky52

The issue is not with Lisbon treaty now... the issue is what is going to happen in the future.

This makes the EU a self decision making entity... that means no more inter governmental conferances to agree on new big steps like the treaty itself... IN FACT... the EU can now effectively have a Lisbon Treaty every week is it is ratified... only this time it wont need the peoples voices to be heard... it will simply make a new decsion... AS BIG A ONE as the Lisbon Treaty at anytime it feels like... and just call it another decision...

So with that in mind, where are we going to be in 30 - 50 years time when all this is water under a bridge... a military, federal ruled system? Or even worse... at the end of the day, all us slaves subordinates will be obeying our master elite, kinda of like now.. but they will be much more open about what their intentions are exactly...

Maybe if the treaty is pased, all us no voters could be branded as "terrorists". Anyone who stands up to the established elite nowadays is considered an enemy... what did Bush onces say trying to sell his case to invade Iraq and Afganistan?? "Your either with us, or your with the terrorists"

BLITZ_Molloy

marco_polo wrote: »

There are only 736 MEP in the European Parliament currently.

Having a Google around to see what the story is. It's a bit confusing. Seems they used to have 780 in 2007 back when the limit was 736 so it isn't really an indication that they're implementing new Lisbon stuff, they've just historically been over capacity.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=IM-PRESS&reference=20070906STO10163&language=EN

I guess I stand corrected. The only source of figures I can find is the EU website which says 736 members. I definitely heard they've got more than that at the moment on a podcast though.

asmobhosca

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I have 200 copies of it... going to make sure I spread them in key locations around Ennis...

Dead on the mark... full of FACTS that would make die hard yes voters stomach's turn!

The best we got from the yes camp is the a few vague explanations in the referendum commision booklet and a FG poster with "sexy" ENDA KENNY appealing for a "young, energenic, sexy FG yes vote"

Drunken Monkey at this stage the utter crap you've been spewing on here has made my mind up for me, I'm going to vote YES.
I read the "Sovereign Independent" in detail, "full of facts" my arse. It seems to me that that you and others are accepting the info in this "publication" as "Fact" when most of it is biased, and inaccurate and just downright misleading.
A little research on the internet debunks most of the earthshattering "facts" that the Sovereign Independent talks about.
I could easily go into detail and provide links but to be honest I'm too busy working to spend my life on here arguing with you.
You obviously have a lot more spare time on your hands than I do.

This whole bilderburg, new world order, we're just sheep, argument of yours makes you sound like a total loon and only hurts any legitimate No argument.

Youre repeated assertions that anyone who votes yes is somehow dumb, unenlightened and just not as smart as you, really is a childish exercise.

I may dissagree with you but I would never make an inference on someones intelligence based on the fact that i dont agree with them.
Youre obviously NOT stupid but I would ask you to put forward your arguments without feeling the need to berate anyone with a different opinion.
unfortunately i dont see this happening.

Anyway My mind is made up, peace out!!

Whatever you decide people, please get out and vote!!!!!

marco_polo

BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »

Having a Google around to see what the story is. It's a bit confusing. Seems they used to have 780 in 2007 back when the limit was 736 so it isn't really an indication that they're implementing new Lisbon stuff, they've just historically been over capacity.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=IM-PRESS&reference=20070906STO10163&language=EN

I guess I stand corrected. The only source of figures I can find is the EU website which says 736 members. I definitely heard they've got more than that at the moment on a podcast though.

Under the terms of Nice the number of MEP had to be cut from 786 to 736 for for the European Parliament election in June. A number of countries thought that this number was too low so that 736 was increased to 751 under the terms agreed in the Lisbon treaty.

At the time the negotiations were concluded it had been expected that Lisbon would have been in force when the last elections were held and so the 736 number would never have had to come into force, had that indeed been the case the number of elected MEPs would have been 751.

In the event that Lisbon is ratified and enters into force during the current term then the current number will be increased by 15 to 751 as was originally planned. If this happens Germany loses 3 seats (as the maximum number allowed for any country is 96 under Lisbon), 12 other countries gain a total of 18 seats (the extra 15 + the extra 3 lost German seats). Unfortunately Ireland is not of the countries due to collect one of the extra seat though

marco_polo

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

The issue is not with Lisbon treaty now... the issue is what is going to happen in the future.

This makes the EU a self decision making entity... that means no more inter governmental conferances to agree on new big steps like the treaty itself... IN FACT... the EU can now effectively have a Lisbon Treaty every week is it is ratified... only this time it wont need the peoples voices to be heard... it will simply make a new decsion... AS BIG A ONE as the Lisbon Treaty at anytime it feels like... and just call it another decision...

So with that in mind, where are we going to be in 30 - 50 years time when all this is water under a bridge... a military, federal ruled system? Or even worse... at the end of the day, all us slaves subordinates will be obeying our master elite, kinda of like now.. but they will be much more open about what their intentions are exactly...

Maybe if the treaty is pased, all us no voters could be branded as "terrorists". Anyone who stands up to the established elite nowadays is considered an enemy... what did Bush onces say trying to sell his case to invade Iraq and Afganistan?? "Your either with us, or your with the terrorists"

For major changes to the treaty such as the member states granting any new competancies on the EU, the proceedure is now called the Ordinary Revision Proceedure as detailed in Article 48. This process remains practically identical to the previous method of holding Intergovernmental conferences to change the treaties under Nice and before. The major steps of the process are all the same. All member states must agree to the proposed change and it must be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of every member state, as has been the case with all European treaties thus far.

To save me another reply please do not attempt to suggest that the simplified revision procedure may be used for the same purpose.

drunken_munky52

asmobhosca wrote: »

Drunken Monkey at this stage the utter crap you've been spewing on here has made my mind up for me, I'm going to vote YES.

You will live to regret it.

asmobhosca wrote: »

I read the "Sovereign Independent" in detail, "full of facts" my arse. It seems to me that that you and others are accepting the info in this "publication" as "Fact" when most of it is biased, and inaccurate and just downright misleading.

Oh yeah, and those Yes posters are not misleading one bit? Ya right... WHATEVER.

asmobhosca wrote: »

A little research on the internet debunks most of the earthshattering "facts" that the Sovereign Independent talks about.
I could easily go into detail and provide links but to be honest I'm too busy working to spend my life on here arguing with you.
You obviously have a lot more spare time on your hands than I do.

Yes, the internet is our friend... we should treat it like our baby. What yes crap have you been spoon fed exactly? Please provide a page, Id like to try some. Il even pick apart every counter agrument sh!te those NAMA weilding nitwits have coungered up..

asmobhosca wrote: »

This whole bilderburg, new world order, we're just sheep, argument of yours makes you sound like a total loon and only hurts any legitimate No argument.

I never mentioned any organistations like that, what the hell are you on about anyway?

asmobhosca wrote: »

Youre repeated assertions that anyone who votes yes is somehow dumb, unenlightened and just not as smart as you, really is a childish exercise.

People make mistakes, thats life... all I am trying to do is prevent the mistake from been made before it happens. I am sorry I get carried away sometimes, I only added a little humour to my points, no way am I trying to divide us by islolating yes and no siders... I want Ireland to reject the treaty AGAIN and lets kiss and make up afterwards and find our own way into the future, without needing to rely on less than caring suits in Brussels

asmobhosca wrote: »

Anyway My mind is made up, peace out!!.

LOL. How ironic you said that... you are voting yes for more guns, missiles, tanks, warplanes. aircraft carriers, etc?

Yes... most def... PEACE BRO!

meglome

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

You will live to regret it.

People make mistakes, thats life... all I am trying to do is prevent the mistake from been made before it happens. I am sorry I get carried away sometimes, I only added a little humour to my points, no way am I trying to divide us by islolating yes and no siders... I want Ireland to reject the treaty AGAIN and lets kiss and make up afterwards and find our own way into the future, without needing to rely on less than caring suits in Brussels

LOL. How ironic you said that... you are voting yes for more guns, missiles, tanks, warplanes. aircraft carriers, etc?

Threats make it all better, I'm sure.

I have no real interest in discussing this with you as you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you.

Still...You are making some claims so it's up to you to show evidence that your claims are true. So let's take your claim that we won't need referenda any more after Lisbon, show us all were in the treaty that happens? You're so sure you're right so that should be pretty simple?

Or how about we look at the European Defence Agency, what vast sum of money are they spending on all these guns etc? Show us the numbers?

I won't held my breath since us mere mortals all know less than you.

drunken_munky52

meglome wrote: »

Threats make it all better, I'm sure.

Oh yeah, and threats like if we reject Lisbon we are going to get isolated from Europe, or if we vote no we will never recover or get more jobs... but I suppose short term greed will prevail and the treaty will be passed out of fear and hope.... which was not the case this time last year when we rejected it not in the dire straight we found ourselves in.

meglome wrote: »

I have no real interest in discussing this with you as you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you.

If you dont have any real interest in discussing then stop posting on this thread. Of course, you dont have any yes arguments to say... you havnt tried me yet... the door is alway open, you just have a stone in your throat and cant come up with anything of substance in retaliation to my "false" claims and socialist ideas... which is the edge I am getting at

meglome wrote: »

Still...You are making some claims so it's up to you to show evidence that your claims are true. So let's take your claim that we won't need referenda any more after Lisbon, show us all were in the treaty that happens? You're so sure you're right so that should be pretty simple?

Please... :rolleyes:

Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.

Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.

Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or the guarantee of a referendum.

Until now, revisions of EU treaties required these three stages, ensuring that national governments and, in the case of Ireland, national populations are involved in the decision-making process. Article 48 dispenses with this and allows the European Council to make amendments by unanimity. This means that, in the future, significant changes could be made to the structure, procedures or competencies of the EU without any guarantee of a referendum.

meglome wrote: »

Or how about we look at the European Defence Agency, what vast sum of money are they spending on all these guns etc? Show us the numbers?

“Lisbon equals more military spending: Article 25 and 28 contain four separate obligations on military spending. Article 28(c)(3) states ‘Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.’ The same article also states ‘member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’.

Articles 10 to 28 of the Lisbon Treaty advance EU control over foreign, security and defence policy, increasing the militarisation of the EU and further eroding Irish neutrality.
Article 28c mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Taken with the “start-up fund” and “specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations... for urgent financing of [unspecified] initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy” (detailed in Article 28d), member states will be obliged to increase their financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU.

meglome wrote: »

I won't held my breath since us mere mortals all know less than you.

Did I mention the response to climate change in the trety?

I wont go there for now, I think Ive done enough to your sinking comeback for the day

Teadrinker

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Oh yeah, and threats like if we reject Lisbon we are going to get isolated from Europe, or if we vote no we will never recover or get more jobs... but I suppose short term greed will prevail and the treaty will be passed out of fear and hope.... which was not the case this time last year when we rejected it not in the dire straight we found ourselves in.

If you dont have any real interest in discussing then stop posting on this thread. Of course, you dont have any yes arguments to say... you havnt tried me yet... the door is alway open, you just have a stone in your throat and cant come up with anything of substance in retaliation to my "false" claims and socialist ideas... which is the edge I am getting at

Please... :rolleyes:

Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.

Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.

Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or the guarantee of a referendum.

Until now, revisions of EU treaties required these three stages, ensuring that national governments and, in the case of Ireland, national populations are involved in the decision-making process. Article 48 dispenses with this and allows the European Council to make amendments by unanimity. This means that, in the future, significant changes could be made to the structure, procedures or competencies of the EU without any guarantee of a referendum.

“Lisbon equals more military spending: Article 25 and 28 contain four separate obligations on military spending. Article 28(c)(3) states ‘Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.’ The same article also states ‘member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’.

Articles 10 to 28 of the Lisbon Treaty advance EU control over foreign, security and defence policy, increasing the militarisation of the EU and further eroding Irish neutrality.
Article 28c mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Taken with the “start-up fund” and “specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations... for urgent financing of [unspecified] initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy” (detailed in Article 28d), member states will be obliged to increase their financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU.

Did I mention the response to climate change in the trety?

I wont go there for now, I think Ive done enough to your sinking comeback for the day

Have you had a chance to look up New World Order and Bilderberg yet? I'm hoping that before you do you get a good night's sleep in and a long walk and a good meal in you because there really will be no stopping you after that...

drunken_munky52

Teadrinker wrote: »

Have you had a chance to look up New World Order and Bilderberg yet? I'm hoping that before you do you get a good night's sleep in and a long walk and a good meal in you because there really will be no stopping you after that...

Interesting. Wikipedia defines the term "Bilderberg" in the following way:

The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an unofficial, annual, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of great influence in the fields of politics, business, and banking.

In regards to the term "New World Order" it goes on to say:

In conspiracy theory, the term "New World Order" (the capital letters are distinguishing) refers to the advent of a cryptocratic or totalitarian one-world government.

Now why would I be the slightest bit interested in that? :rolleyes:

meglome

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.

Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.

But the European Council is when the leaders of the EU states meet, Cowan is our case. The Council of Europe is when the ministers of each EU state meet.

I searched the Lisbon treaty and the only place the text you posted exists in in Article 13 which states.
"1. The Union shall have an institutional framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.
The Union's institutions shall be:

the European Parliament,
the European Council,
the Council,
the European Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"),
the Court of Justice of the European Union,
the European Central Bank,
the Court of Auditors.

2. Each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out in them. The institutions shall practice mutual sincere cooperation.
3. The provisions relating to the European Central Bank and the Court of Auditors and detailed provisions on the other institutions are set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union."

Now this doesn't say what you're claiming at all.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or the guarantee of a referendum.

Until now, revisions of EU treaties required these three stages, ensuring that national governments and, in the case of Ireland, national populations are involved in the decision-making process. Article 48 dispenses with this and allows the European Council to make amendments by unanimity. This means that, in the future, significant changes could be made to the structure, procedures or competencies of the EU without any guarantee of a referendum.

I'll post this section from Article 48 for you.
"4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

It's very clear since our constitutional requirements are we need to have a referendum then we will still have to have a referendum - nothing changes. Well it appears you were 'mistaken' again.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

“Lisbon equals more military spending: Article 25 and 28 contain four separate obligations on military spending. Article 28(c)(3) states ‘Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.’ The same article also states ‘member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’.

Articles 10 to 28 of the Lisbon Treaty advance EU control over foreign, security and defence policy, increasing the militarisation of the EU and further eroding Irish neutrality.
Article 28c mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Taken with the “start-up fund” and “specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations... for urgent financing of [unspecified] initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy” (detailed in Article 28d), member states will be obliged to increase their financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU.

I can't even find some of these articles you mention and since you've mentioned over 21 different ones above I'm not going through them all. Some of these are articles from older treaties which we've already agreed to.

Article 25
"The Union shall conduct the common foreign and security policy by:
(a) defining the general guidelines;
(b) adopting decisions defining:
(i) actions to be undertaken by the Union;
(ii) positions to be taken by the Union;
(iii) arrangements for the implementation of the decisions referred to in points (i) and (ii);
and by
(c) strengthening systematic cooperation between Member States in the conduct of policy."

No specific spending there, is there?

Article 28 doesn't say what you claim but article 42 does.
"3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as "the European Defence Agency") shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities."

I looked up the budget of the European Defence Agency for 2009, it's a total of €30 million between 27 countries. I don't know if you're aware of this but €30 million would hardly buy one plane or maybe a few tanks, it's hardly more than an admin budget. The US spends hundreds of billions on weapons.

Article 42
"7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."

So we learn two things here, we have an obligation to help if one of the other EU countries is attacked but we can do so any way we like, we can send bandages or cabbages if we want. We are not under any obligation to help militarily. And secondly we learn that since we have a policy of neutrality it's not affected by this in any way.

You should stop reading leaflets by bull**** artists and go check for yourself.

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Did I mention the response to climate change in the trety?

Let me guess you don't think climate change is happening?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I wont go there for now, I think Ive done enough to your sinking comeback for the day

Well you certainly wasted a lot of my time finding out that you were just parroting some No campaign lies instead of looking for yourself. Ah well.

drunken_munky52

meglome wrote: »

No specific spending there, is there?

Policy equals more spending. Do you think that they would publish the details on arms manufactuering. No... becuase then their would be an open revolt by the people when they realise that those arms are been sold to mostly African countries to keep them killing each other! As long as ignorant people like yourself make up the majority, this will never change...

It bit the French governement after the Falklands war... The French man who built the Exorsist cruise missle that sunk a British warship killing 100s of men during that campaign, sold this to the Argentinians. When asked how he could go behind his allies back and supply weapns to the enemy, he was quoted as saying "Business is business, money is money".

meglome wrote: »

I looked up the budget of the European Defence Agency for 2009, it's a total of €30 million between 27 countries. I don't know if you're aware of this but €30 million would hardly buy one plane or maybe a few tanks, it's hardly more than an admin budget. The US spends hundreds of billions on weapons.

An agency that is striving to be just as powerful as the Pentagon every day... you seem to be distorting the the truth a bit yourself... €30 million was spent on the administration of a a cross border agency... now theres a QUANGO! You failed to leave out the fact that billions are wasted each year on ways to kill people in the sick world of the military industrial complex. Rejecting the military institutions should top priority in this day and age... its an outdated use of resources and must end... supporting the articles in Lisbon only strenghtens this institution, and becuase of that, I will be rejecting it... if you want to have the blood of millions of people around the world on your conscience, then you go and feel free to vote yes.

meglome wrote: »

And secondly we learn that since we have a policy of neutrality it's not affected by this in any way.

I doubt it, as every European trety I know of has had some form of military expansion provisions in it... they are gradually wearing away at our neutrality, bit bit bit... whats next??

meglome wrote: »

You should stop reading leaflets by bull**** artists and go check for yourself.

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty.

You really are pethetic if you stooped as low as the presume my grounds are based on sheets of cardboard up on telephone poles.

It seems to be like the bible... you can make your own meaning from it. If you want to think that killing lots of people in a sucide bombs gets you 75 virgins, then thats what you get... isnt it?

meglome wrote: »

Let me guess you don't think climate change is happening?

Totally wrong again... I do believe it is happening, but what I dont believe is the smell of the bullsh!t coming from people saying that Lisbon will effectivly tackle the problem... when all it says is that it will "promote" climate change policy, without specifically mentioning any hard hitting medicine for the problem.

Just like all the fear been rammed down peoples throats about the economy and so forth, this is just another lie in a long string of lies.

meglome wrote: »

Well you certainly wasted a lot of my time finding out that you were just parroting some No campaign lies instead of looking for yourself. Ah well.

You go and parrot what you read in the treaty to your little cry baby yes voters, I will keep my eye fixed on the bigger picture of the ways things and going and reject this other baby step towards the complete erosion of democracy in the free world.

Turtwig

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Policy equals more spending. Do you think that they would publish the details on arms manufactuering. No...

**Speculative**

It seems to be like the bible... you can make your own meaning from it. If you want to think that killing lots of people in a sucide bombs gets you 75 virgins, then thats what you get... isnt it?

The Qu'ran and Bible say NO SUCH THINGS!
Get your facts right!

meglome

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Policy equals more spending. Do you think that they would publish the details on arms manufactuering. No... becuase then their would be an open revolt by the people when they realise that those arms are been sold to mostly African countries to keep them killing each other! As long as ignorant people like yourself make up the majority, this will never change...

Just to point out the obvious every country in the EU has an army already and most are members of NATO, this has nothing to do with the EU and has really has nothing to do with Lisbon. You just insult anyone who disagrees with you in any way. I don't personally like that money is spent on the military but I also realise that it has always been spent on the military.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

It bit the French governement after the Falklands war... The French man who built the Exorsist cruise missle that sunk a British warship killing 100s of men during that campaign, sold this to the Argentinians. When asked how he could go behind his allies back and supply weapns to the enemy, he was quoted as saying "Business is business, money is money".

Which has what to do with the Lisbon treaty exactly?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

An agency that is striving to be just as powerful as the Pentagon every day... you seem to be distorting the the truth a bit yourself... €30 million was spent on the administration of a a cross border agency... now theres a QUANGO! You failed to leave out the fact that billions are wasted each year on ways to kill people in the sick world of the military industrial complex. Rejecting the military institutions should top priority in this day and age... its an outdated use of resources and must end... supporting the articles in Lisbon only strenghtens this institution, and becuase of that, I will be rejecting it... if you want to have the blood of millions of people around the world on your conscience, then you go and feel free to vote yes.

He he he you don't half mind exaggerating do you. The European Defence Agency has a total budget of 30 million Euro and no EU state has to be a member, it's optional. And again to state the obvious every EU state already has an army, one of the goals of the EDA is to help them save money. It's interesting but the most Euro-sceptic country, the UK, is also involved in most of the conflicts. It really is funny you comparing the US to the EU, the US military budget for 2009 is $515.4 billion.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I doubt it, as every European trety I know of has had some form of military expansion provisions in it... they are gradually wearing away at our neutrality, bit bit bit... whats next??

The EU guarantees our neutrality and how many times has the EU gone back on a deal? It's never in case you're wondering. So your opinion means nothing to me.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

You really are pethetic if you stooped as low as the presume my grounds are based on sheets of cardboard up on telephone poles.

A lot of the stuff you posted wasn't in the treaty so where did you get it from?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

It seems to be like the bible... you can make your own meaning from it. If you want to think that killing lots of people in a sucide bombs gets you 75 virgins, then thats what you get... isnt it?

So you're now suggesting a detailed legal document should be interpreted like the bible? I don't even know what to say to that nonsense. And you insult Christians and Muslims at the same time, good going.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Totally wrong again... I do believe it is happening, but what I dont believe is the smell of the bullsh!t coming from people saying that Lisbon will effectivly tackle the problem... when all it says is that it will "promote" climate change policy, without specifically mentioning any hard hitting medicine for the problem.

The EU brings in a treaty that promotes green energy and you slate it...right.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Just like all the fear been rammed down peoples throats about the economy and so forth, this is just another lie in a long string of lies.

Well you're certainly not afraid to ram fear down people's throats now are you?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

You go and parrot what you read in the treaty to your little cry baby yes voters, I will keep my eye fixed on the bigger picture of the ways things and going and reject this other baby step towards the complete erosion of democracy in the free world.

The reason I'm sure you're talking out of your arse is that I have read the treaty, boring as that was to do. You should try it, it might be nice for you to see just how fallible you are.

Why do you keep changing tack and 'forgetting' to discuss points when you've been shown to be wrong? If you're so sure you shouldn't have to do that.

And I say again, I'm not from Clare so I'd much rather take this discussion to the European Union forum but I know you're not going to try and spout you're lies in there so I won't hold my breath.

I urge anyone with questions on the Lisbon treaty to go over to the European Union forum and ask them, don't be fooled by a pile of bull****.

drunken_munky52

meglome wrote: »

I urge anyone with questions on the Lisbon treaty to go over to the European Union forum and ask them, don't be fooled by a pile of bull****.

So Mr smart arse not from Clare... your so high and mighty with your right wing neo-liberial views.. please show us what your made of and explain the positives of this treaty...

Turtwig

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

So Mr smart arse not from Clare... your so high and mighty with your right wing neo-liberial views.. please show us what your made of and explain the positives of this treaty...

In fairness that works both ways,

He (she?) asked the question first and you have failed to provide citation or source for your arguments, ergo you have already lost the debate unless you can provide proof i.e where EXACTLY in the treaty your point is implied. Note that, stating Article xx is not suffice, you need to show the direct quotation.

Also, it follows logically that unless you are against the ENTIRE treaty you should be aware of some of the positives residing within it.

BLITZ_Molloy

The whole climate change thing is ridiculous. They used to call it global warming, but now NASA scientists are observing global cooling (http://elementalsblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/scientists-from-naval-research.html) they've started calling it 'climate change' and rant on about how the weathers getting more unpredictable. Weather has always been unpredictable. If there's a reason to cut down our pollution and emissions it's to ensure our own personal comfort and the comfort of our children. The planet will heal itself perfectly in the long run it's just us who'll be put out. The whole concept of healing the planet is hilariously arrogant.

drunken_munky52

BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »

The whole climate change thing is ridiculous. They used to call it global warming, but now NASA scientists are observing global cooling (http://elementalsblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/scientists-from-naval-research.html) they've started calling it 'climate change' and rant on about how the weathers getting more unpredictable. Weather has always been unpredictable. If there's a reason to cut down our pollution and emissions it's to ensure our own personal comfort and the comfort of our children. The planet will heal itself perfectly in the long run it's just us who'll be put out. The whole concept of healing the planet is hilariously arrogant.

I disagree... greenhouse gases been generated by heavy industry, fossil fuel burning and motors and causing the atmosphere to trap more infrared light that would normally bounce back out into space is been trapped and the rate at which the light leaves has been rapidly declining in recent decades.

The process the atmosphere heating up is natural, becuase methane or naturally occuring sources of CO2 have always been there, but human activity is really speeding things up rapidly now.

Not to mention the pollution of the worlds rivers and lakes, fresh water will become a commodity within a few decades at the rate things are going now.

Lisbon does not go far enought in regards stepping up to be the hero for the environment. It just gives a vague empty suggestion that it will try a little harder to get the message accross, without hurting big vested interests profit... it is very very sad indeed, shame on our leaders for not waking up

Run_to_da_hills

Back on topic.

I was chatting to a heap of farmers on Tuesday and handing out the facts about Lisbon.

Before I even spoke to them most of them have decided on voting NO because they fear that the EU will rape them in the same way as they have desicrated the fishermen in this country. The smaller farmers feared the worst.