The silencing of EU citizens

thebman · 26-09-2009 4:47am

mangaroosh wrote: »

It is not secret that Tax harmonisation is favoured in the EU. The guarantees about our taxation in Lisbon are not legally binding until the next treaty after Lisbon. There doesn't necessarily have to be a treaty after Lisbon for a very long time.

The fact that the EU have tried to foist this treaty on the people offers me absolutely no reassurances about the EUs commitment to ensuring fair treatment of the people, not to mind when it comes to the corporation tax level of one minor member state

Favored by who exactly? French, Germans, British? I'd say opinion on that matter is divided in the EU. Your painting it as little auld Ireland against the big bad EU but that clearly isn't the case.

Scofflaw · 26-09-2009 11:06am

mangaroosh wrote: »

You'll surely excuse the blurring of the lines, but it doesn't change the fact that those governments ratified it without the consensus of the people. Vindicating that decision could set a dangerous precedent and ratifying Lisbon actually gives further authority for this to be done.

I don't excuse the blurring of the lines at all - the trick of referring indiscriminately to the member states or the institutions as the EU is a eurosceptic staple. Are you under the impression that the majority of member states ever have ratified by referendum?

mangaroosh wrote: »

The power that they are seeking to increase, the power that they wish to exercise without any consideration for what the people of Europe actually want. I don't mean the move it to a less accountable place, rather that it gives them more scope to do exactly what they are trying to do with Lisbon, and that is pass legislation without the conensus of the people, because apparently the know what is best for us.

Then you need to make that case, instead of alluding darkly to it. The actions of a government Minister on the Council of Ministers enjoy exactly the same mandate as his/her actions in Cabinet - and if Lisbon passes, we'll have a good deal more transparency on the former than we've ever had on the latter.

regards,
Scofflaw

bonkey · 26-09-2009 5:47pm

mangaroosh wrote: »

I think it is cause for concern that they weren't even offered the chance to vote.

Who is it a cause of concern for?

The two biggest countries in Europe didn't offer their people a chance to vote,

Nor have they done for a long, long time. The people in those two countries, interestingly, don't seem to have a problem with this. We haven't seen political parties rise in popularty on a promise of changing the way things work, so that the people get a direct say.

Rather, they seem by-and-large happy enough to get to choose who they elect, and then let those people make decisions on their behalf.

The exact same will happen to us in the future. The EU will enact legislation with or without our approval. We the people, will have less of a say.

I suspect you may need to re-examine the Lisbon Treaty. This is not something which arises from it.

faceman · 28-09-2009 10:49am

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

In 2004 there was a lot of protesting here against the invasion of Iraq by the the united states,most of the people back then said that we should let the US do what they want to do in Iraq,if we opposed them then Ireland would lose jobs because american companys would pull out of Ireland...we did oppose them and we didn't lose any jobs did we?

5 years on we have another situation and the same bull**** about american companys pulling out of here is up on the agenda again,Its simple.. if a company can make money in Ireland then they will stay here,Lisbon has nothing to do with that.

Massive difference between the political issue of the use of Shannon and the economic impact of Lisbon.

mangaroosh wrote: »

In what way will voting Yes to Lisbon be a positive influence on your business if you don't mind me asking

Why not ask the American Chamber of Commerce? They had a mailshot about it recently.

mangaroosh wrote: »

There is a clear desire in Europe to harmonise taxes. Ireland currently has a favourable rate. Lisbon opens the door, until the next treaty, for this. The beauty of Lisbon is that there doesn't have to be another treaty for quite some time.

If Lisbon opens the door to tax harmonisation, why is it that so many businesses in Ireland, both foreign and domestic, are very vocal about a Yes vote?

gissmoo · 28-09-2009 12:41pm

This is what citzens of Poland think about LT:
http://saveeuropeireland.niepoprawni.pl/

You are right - EU spends big money on propaganda and for VOTE YEAH! propaganda. Im not against all aspects of unifying but im against the lisbon treaty. They use totalitaristic methods to implement trockist state. EU has totalitaristic, comunistic tendencies - its sad.

Im really dissapointed with treating me on this forums by admins. I thought that we in poland have censorship on some portals. I was wrong - our censorship is one percent of that here.. And admins and mods of this forum openly admit that they are YES VOTERS while they should be like wife of Ceasar in their job they had to do in forums. They are emoticaly engaged..

Sam Vimes · 28-09-2009 12:42pm

gissmoo wrote: »

This is what citzens of Poland think about LT:
http://saveeuropeireland.niepoprawni.pl/

No that's what Libertas thinks of LT

ArmaniJeanss · 28-09-2009 1:57pm

I put some of the comments on that polish site into some Polish->English translators and some of them come back with references to 'reclaiming Poland from the Jew criminals who took over in 1946'.

Just to give people an idea of the mentality you are dealing with it if you try to reason with anyone associated with or supporting that site.

Post #64 for example.

żyda zbrodniarza = Jewish criminals.

imeddyhobbs · 02-10-2009 2:57am

After all these replys i still see no opinion polls from mainland europe,there must be some sort of war over there right now

vanla sighs · 02-10-2009 3:44am

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Intel, Ryanair & Microsoft hire thousands of people in Ireland and invest millions to our economy so I don't think it's unusual that they're interested in the outcome of the Lisbon treaty. How many huge employers want us to vote no?

Why should major multinationals care whether we vote yes or No, when the Lisbon Treaty has absolutely nothing to do with whether they remain in Ireland or not........FDI into Ireland has actually increased by 5% since last year when we rejected Lisbon. This is a vote on the Lisbon Treaty not Irelands future in Europe....a yes or a No we are still FULL members of the EU.

Scofflaw · 02-10-2009 3:52am

vanla sighs wrote: »

Why should major multinationals care whether we vote yes or No, when the Lisbon Treaty has absolutely nothing to do with whether they remain in Ireland or not........FDI into Ireland has actually increased by 5% since last year when we rejected Lisbon. This is a vote on the Lisbon Treaty not Irelands future in Europe....a yes or a No we are still FULL members of the EU.

FULL members of an EU in which we're about as popular as a fart in a lift. And FDI has a five-year lead time, so nobody's been basing FDI on our last vote.

regards,
Scofflaw

vanla sighs · 02-10-2009 3:58am

Scofflaw wrote: »

FULL members of an EU in which we're about as popular as a fart in a lift. And FDI has a five-year lead time, so nobody's been basing FDI on our last vote.

regards,
Scofflaw

The EU isn't a beauty pagent, darling

It isn't a social club or a popularity contest. We will do what is best for Ireland, and hopefully we will vote No later today. The WSJ have already said that to paraphrase: no sane businessman would mistake an Irish rejection of Lisbon as an Irish rejection of the EU. A No vote ensures we remain full members of the EU while at the same time respecting the democratic will of the Irish people as freely and fairly expressed.

Scofflaw · 02-10-2009 4:01am

vanla sighs wrote: »

The EU isn't a beauty pagent, darling It isn't a social club or a popularity contest. We will do what is best for Ireland, and hopefully we will vote No later today. The WSJ have already said that to paraphrase: no sane businessman would mistake an Irish rejection of Lisbon as an Irish rejectioN of the EU. A No vote ensures we remain full members of the EU while at the same time respecting the democratic will of the Irish people as freely and fairly expressed.

If you don't understand goodwill, you know nothing worth knowing about either business or politics.

regards,
Scofflaw

vanla sighs · 02-10-2009 4:05am

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you don't understand goodwill, you know nothing worth knowing about either business or politics.

regards,
Scofflaw

I understand the concept of goodwill perfectly, I also understand another concept: democracy....oh and another concept: national interests. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw · 02-10-2009 4:09am

vanla sighs wrote: »

I understand the concept of goodwill perfectly, I also understand another concept: democracy....oh and another concept: national interests. :rolleyes:

Well, let's say that you understand what you think of as democracy, and what you think of as national interests - which makes your perfect understanding of goodwill something I wouldn't take on faith.

regards,
Scofflaw

vanla sighs · 02-10-2009 4:19am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, let's say that you understand what you think of as democracy, and what you think of as national interests - which makes your perfect understanding of goodwill something I wouldn't take on faith.

regards,
Scofflaw

Well, you see I actually understand democracy whereas I have to say you seem to have trouble with that concept, as you also seem to have trouble with the concept of a national interest. The people already soke on Lisbon, and the people rejected Lisbon and hopefully today the people will reject it once again. Democracy is respecting the democratic decision of the people. Your side didn't, simples!

Btw, I heard voting was very slow with a low turnout on the islands which already voted.....hmmmm, wonder if that is replicated which side benefits?.........

meglome · 02-10-2009 4:33am

vanla sighs wrote: »

Well, you see I actually understand democracy whereas I have to say you seem to have trouble with that concept, as you also seem to have trouble with the concept of a national interest. The people already soke on Lisbon, and the people rejected Lisbon and hopefully today the people will reject it once again. Democracy is respecting the democratic decision of the people. Your side didn't, simples!

Btw, I heard voting was very slow with a low turnout on the islands which already voted.....hmmmm, wonder if that is replicated which side benefits?.........

28% of the electorate spoke a No on Lisbon 1. That's is not even close to 'the people'. I've changed my mind and I want to exercise my democratic right to vote. I'm sorry if you feel my rights are not as important as yours.

Scofflaw · 02-10-2009 4:43am

vanla sighs wrote: »

Well, you see I actually understand democracy whereas I have to say you seem to have trouble with that concept, as you also seem to have trouble with the concept of a national interest. The people already soke on Lisbon, and the people rejected Lisbon and hopefully today the people will reject it once again. Democracy is respecting the democratic decision of the people. Your side didn't, simples!

Btw, I heard voting was very slow with a low turnout on the islands which already voted.....hmmmm, wonder if that is replicated which side benefits?.........

Shrug. As long as both sides stick to the rules established in this democracy, we're good.

regards,
Scofflaw

vanla sighs · 02-10-2009 4:52am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Shrug. As long as both sides stick to the rules established in this democracy, we're good.

regards,
Scofflaw

The rules? So by that are you advocating post-referendum polls should there be a yes vote to see why people voted yes? And if x percent voted yes for reasons unrelated to the treaty or out of fear or confusion we then have a rerun? Is that what you mean by the rules? :rolleyes:

vanla sighs · 02-10-2009 4:54am

meglome wrote: »

28% of the electorate spoke a No on Lisbon 1. That's is not even close to 'the people'. I've changed my mind and I want to exercise my democratic right to vote. I'm sorry if you feel my rights are not as important as yours.

The majority of those who chose to partake in a free and fair democratic vote voted to reject Lisbon. The people voted to reject Lisbon, simple as that. Whether you have changed your mind or not is not the point....lol.....do you apply the same logic to all referendums and elections or just referendums on EU treaties?....lol

meglome · 02-10-2009 5:13am

vanla sighs wrote: »

The majority of those who chose to partake in a free and fair democratic vote voted to reject Lisbon. The people voted to reject Lisbon, simple as that. Whether you have changed your mind or not is not the point....lol.....do you apply the same logic to all referendums and elections or just referendums on EU treaties?....lol

And if the majority (of the electorate) are still of the same opinion then we'll have the same result. Democracy win again.

Farmer loses Lisbon challenge

The State’s argument the people could be asked more than once to vote on an issue was “compelling” because, if the people could decide a matter only once, that would effectively disenfranchise people in the future from expressing their view.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0903/breaking62.htm

Seems like the Irish Courts agree with my point.

thebman · 02-10-2009 5:17am

vanla sighs wrote: »

The majority of those who chose to partake in a free and fair democratic vote voted to reject Lisbon. The people voted to reject Lisbon, simple as that. Whether you have changed your mind or not is not the point....lol.....do you apply the same logic to all referendums and elections or just referendums on EU treaties?....lol

We can have another vote on divorce if you want, no problem here

While we are at it, can I get a vote on abortion?

I guarantee you there will be another general election sooner or later (lets hope sooner IMHO).

I think its healthy to vote again on some issues since peoples opinions can change or it could be another generation. If there is evidence that it is the case then I don't have a problem with another vote. It seems only logical (fair/democratic) don't you agree?

vanla sighs · 02-10-2009 5:25am

thebman wrote: »

We can have another vote on divorce if you want, no problem here

While we are at it, can I get a vote on abortion?

I guarantee you there will be another general election sooner or later (lets hope sooner IMHO).

I think its healthy to vote again on some issues since peoples opinions can change or it could be another generation. If there is evidence that it is the case then I don't have a problem with another vote. It seems only logical (fair/democratic) don't you agree?

Well, I'm pro-choice (campaigned actively on related issues back in '92) and actively campaigned for divorce back in '95.

I'm pro-EU but anti-Lisbon. Is it logical to vote on the very same issue we have already rejected when no changes have been made to it........hmmmm, let me think, eh, no.

vanla sighs · 02-10-2009 5:28am

meglome wrote: »

And if the majority (of the electorate) are still of the same opinion then we'll have the same result. Democracy win again.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0903/breaking62.htm

Seems like the Irish Courts agree with my point.

The people spoke, the people said No, thank you.......Democracy is respecting the will of the Irish people as expressed through a free and afir vote. So, given what you have said you would then support a Lisbon 3 when (I'll be generous, if) Lisbon is once again rejected? And you would favour repeated referendums until a yes vote was secured? :rolleyes:

thebman · 02-10-2009 5:34am

vanla sighs wrote: »

Well, I'm pro-choice (campaigned actively on related issues back in '92) and actively campaigned for divorce back in '95. I'm pro-EU but anti-Lisbon. Is it logical to vote on the very same issue we have already rejected when no changes have been made to it........hmmmm, let me think, eh, no.

It is if there is reason to suspect public opinion has changed and the result would be different or if it is suspected that lies may have swayed public opinion massively as seems to be the case with the Lisbon treaty IMHO and obviously of those in power.

I also think the previous general election was not above board that we had as all parties lied by forecasting that all their policies were based on high growth levels which we were obviously not going to have.

meglome · 02-10-2009 5:39am

vanla sighs wrote: »

The people spoke, the people said No, thank you.......Democracy is respecting the will of the Irish people as expressed through a free and afir vote. So, given what you have said you would then support a Lisbon 3 when (I'll be generous, if) Lisbon is once again rejected? And you would favour repeated referendums until a yes vote was secured? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but 28% of the electorate really isn't 'the people', obviously it was still a no vote.

I believe it's something like eight times we've voted more than once in a referendum, it nearly the norm. If the government have got it wrong (wouldn't be the first time, that's for sure) and people's minds haven't changed then there will be another no vote. If people have changed their minds then there will be a Yes vote. Either way more democratic votes won't be less democratic. Just like the Irish courts found in the case I linked above.

vanla sighs · 02-10-2009 5:39am

thebman wrote: »

It is if there is reason to suspect public opinion has changed and the result would be different or if it is suspected that lies may have swayed public opinion massively as seems to be the case with the Lisbon treaty IMHO and obviously of those in power.

I also think the previous general election was not above board that we had as all parties lied by forecasting that all their policies were based on high growth levels which we were obviously not going to have.

If public opinion had changed it would be the public who would have pressured the government for another vote and not the government who would have pressured the people.

It doesn't matter whether people voted No becuase they thought if they voted yes the moon would explode and the seas would turn to chocolate....people have the right to vote for whatever reasons they wish. You say the No side are lying, well, I say the yes side are lying.

vanla sighs · 02-10-2009 5:42am

meglome wrote: »

I'm sorry but 28% of the electorate really isn't 'the people', obviously it was still a no vote.

I believe it's something like eight times we've voted more than once in a referendum, it nearly the norm. If the government have got it wrong (wouldn't be the first time, that's for sure) and people's minds haven't changed then there will be another no vote. If people have changed their minds then there will be a Yes vote. Either way more democratic votes won't be less democratic. Just like the Irish courts found in the case I linked above.

Listen, I don't buy your "argument" for one moment and hopefully the majority of Irish voters won't either later today. I am not saying the government don't have the legal right to rerun referendums, I am saying they don't have the moral right to do so. The will of the Irish people has been ignored.

thebman · 02-10-2009 5:50am

vanla sighs wrote: »

If public opinion had changed it would be the public who would have pressured the government for another vote and not the government who would have pressured the people.

It doesn't matter whether people voted No becuase they thought if they voted yes the moon would explode and the seas would turn to chocolate....people have the right to vote for whatever reasons they wish. You say the No side are lying, well, I say the yes side are lying.

Well I say your posts indicate you want a no vote no matter what and don't give a crap about democracy TBH.

Overheal · 02-10-2009 5:54am

thebman wrote: »

It is if there is reason to suspect public opinion has changed and the result would be different or if it is suspected that lies may have swayed public opinion massively as seems to be the case with the Lisbon treaty IMHO and obviously of those in power.

I also think the previous general election was not above board that we had as all parties lied by forecasting that all their policies were based on high growth levels which we were obviously not going to have.

That argument holds water over a longer period. Its been what - 9 months? Am I wrong? The US changing its mind about letting women vote took 150 years ffs.

If public opinion had changed it would be the public who would have pressured the government for another vote and not the government who would have pressured the people.

Plus Eleventy I think.

But to play Moderate (and I have no say or stake in the vote mind you) That sentiment is easier to suggest, Vanla, on really simple concepts like Pro-Life/Pro-Choice etc. But you couldn't say the same thing about US Healthcare Reform or this Treaty where Its not nearly as easilly understood. In which case opinion really can change quite dramatically over a short span of time because of assimilation of information.

All you have to worry about then, is if its what you think is right. And vote accordingly based on your principles, whatever those may be.

I believe it's something like eight times we've voted more than once in a referendum, it nearly the norm.

Thats interesting.

Im late to this game so forgive my asking, how long were the Irish people left to deliberate on average for round 1 referendums? If youre regularly holding round 2 referendums doesnt that suggest a problem with the way your referendum system functions, in some way shape or form?

thebman · 02-10-2009 6:23am

Overheal wrote: »

That argument holds water over a longer period. Its been what - 9 months? Am I wrong? The US changing its mind about letting women vote took 150 years ffs. ;)Plus Eleventy I think.

Yeah well if you were here 9 months ago you'd have seen the joke that was the last referendum. No political party here supporting it would have said it but they did an appalling job running the yes campaign.

I believe the reason many no voters were against the re-vote was because they know an informed electorate will probably vote for Lisbon.

The Yes side was political parties trying to abuse the referendum as an excuse to post their faces up to the electorate and get known and not to promote the treaty. The only information was coming from the no side. Coupled with politicians saying they hadn't read the whole thing and independent body setup to inform people about the treaty not being able to answer questions, it really was more about the lack of information than a rejection of the treaty.

The people I know that voted no last time, mostly did so about things that aren't in the treaty at all. Most are all turned round on it by now and I've not been discussing it with people IRL as I prefer to talk about more fun things with my mates in a pub TBH.

The silencing of EU citizens

Comments