Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…969799101102…127

Comments

  • Options
    #2942
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    dresden8 wrote: »
    1,800 workers by 204 unemployment per week by 52 weeks = 19,094,400 per annum in unemployment payments.

    This does not include dependents who will push up that figure.

    It does not include rent and mortgage interest payments from social welfare.

    It does not include taxes forgone.

    You might think Ireland got a good deal, but in the real world the numbers don't agree with you.

    ffs

    Why are you blaming the EU?

    Dell decided to leave Ireland, the writting was on wall for long time

    our government did nothing about it

    Polish government instead of bailing out their bankers/developers put the money into attracting Dell


    once Dell left the EU stepped in and is giving money to the Irish workers to retrain (something they don't have to do), while our government are still fumbling about



    so once again why are you blaming the EU for our incompetence and un-competitiveness?


    i really dont understand your line of thinking :(


  • Options
    #2943
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    IgnatiusPop wrote: »
    Dinner,

    Those "Guarantee's" that that YES camp are saying "address the concerns of Irish Voters" are NOT LEGALLY BINDING.

    They werent added to the treaty - we all know this because if they had been the treaty would have to be re-ratified, and this has NOT happened.

    The EU have no legal obligation whatsoever to honour the nonsense assurances that they gave Cowen and his boys. If they did, then the assurances would be called Protocols.

    This goes to the heart of the whole debate as far as I am concerned - we are being sold this utter lemmon that because our Government got these assurances, that now everything is ok - its not!! Its exactly that same thing we all voted NO for the last time -not a coma has changed! If your assurances were to hold any water at all, the treaty ITSELF would have had to be ammended to include them!

    It hasnt - So we dont have ANY assurances!



    they are as legally binding as the Good Friday Agreement


    other countries (Denmark) got agreements like this (Edinburgh agreement) in their second referendum on a EU treaty

    and these were honored and are honored to this day

    to claim that the Agreements for Lisbon 2 are not legal is a downright lie, and a bad one at that too

    /


  • Options
    #2944
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    IgnatiusPop wrote: »
    Dinner,

    Those "Guarantee's" that that YES camp are saying "address the concerns of Irish Voters" are NOT LEGALLY BINDING.

    They ARE legally binding. They're mini treaties in their own right. They have the same legal status as the Edinburgh Agreements, Seville Agreements, Good Friday Agreement and the Anglo Irish Agreement. How many of them have been overruled? And as an extra measure they will become protocols in the next accession treaty (probably for Croatia) where they will have full weight compared to the EU treaties. But there is no conflict between the guarantees and any EU treaty so there's no problem or question of them being ruled against.


  • Options
    #2945
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    IgnatiusPop wrote: »
    This treaty is going to cause more and more jobs to leave Ireland, but more importantly if a common consolidated tax base is implimented around the EU - which Lisbon II makes possible - then it might make it next to impossible to coax these jobs back in the near future.

    No, we are losing jobs as it is through property obsessions and high wages. It is our own fault we lost those jobs.
    IgnatiusPop wrote: »
    Dinner,

    Those "Guarantee's" that that YES camp are saying "address the concerns of Irish Voters" are NOT LEGALLY BINDING.

    They werent added to the treaty - we all know this because if they had been the treaty would have to be re-ratified, and this has NOT happened.

    The EU have no legal obligation whatsoever to honour the nonsense assurances that they gave Cowen and his boys. If they did, then the assurances would be called Protocols.

    This goes to the heart of the whole debate as far as I am concerned - we are being sold this utter lemmon that because our Government got these assurances, that now everything is ok - its not!! Its exactly that same thing we all voted NO for the last time -not a coma has changed! If your assurances were to hold any water at all, the treaty ITSELF would have had to be ammended to include them!

    It hasnt - So we dont have ANY assurances!

    Well the Referendum Commission disagrees. Ganley refers to the Commission when it suits him, so it is a reliable source.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #2946
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    dresden8 wrote: »
    Ok, put my hand up mis-read EU approving grant of 54.5 million Euro's to them approving it from themselves.

    Point taken.

    But we still got shafted, not just by the EU, but also the Polish government.
    And I'm wondering how we got shafted by the Eu in particular there. You're not accepting the point if you put a "but" anywhere near it.

    How did we get shafted by the EU there again? Let alone by the Polish government , who don't have a duty of care to Irish workers three thousand miles away. You might have liked the EU to hand over more money but they didn't have to hand over anything at all. The Poles woke up and started playing the game by our rules, which is hardly surprising as they're not dumb. We may not like it but we've played the same game the same way in the past. If it wasn't expensive we should almost be proud - the Irish way is getting exported, though unfortunately in the same way at times as it was with regard to England when football hit Brazil.

    Obviously I still reckon the whole thing's a red herring for no particular reason (I assume) but let's classify the herring and then move on. Or I could just ignore the "but" and hold on to the "point taken" on the mistake part, your call. I'd prefer to make it short either way if possible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2947
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    Interesting article here

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-treaty-is-a-constitution-says-giscard-destaing-395521.html

    So basically the lisbon treaty is the same as the eu constitution with the words changed slightly so the people of europe who dont want the thing and who have already said no wont get to vote on it.


  • Options
    #2948
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    The yes said have had a thread like this so NO voters should too!

    Heres my reason

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-treaty-is-a-constitution-says-giscard-destaing-395521.html

    The treaty is the constitution with the wording changed so the people of europe who dont want the thing and dont want a european super state wont get to vote on it. A sign of things to come in my view.


  • Options
    #2949
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    So basically the lisbon treaty is the same as the eu constitution with the words changed slightly so the people of europe who dont want the thing and who have already said no wont get to vote on it.

    Yet nobody has been able to point out the parts in the Constitutions of France and Holland that required a referendum for the Constitution but don't for Lisbon. Wonder why?


  • Options
    #2950
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    The yes said have had a thread like this so NO voters should too!

    We've had about a million of these posts all saying pretty much the same thing. We've even had a whole thread dedicated to the quote by d'Estaing in that article. It's quite interesting.

    There is no clause in the Constitutions of France and Holland that required a referendum for the Constitution but don't for Lisbon. So the point about it being reworded to avoid referenda is just bollox.

    And Lisbon doesn't create a European Super State. For more information see the German Court's Ruling a few weeks back.


  • Options
    #2951
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    The treaty is the constitution with the wording changed so the people of europe who dont want the thing and dont want a european super state wont get to vote on it. A sign of things to come in my view.

    then why is one of the leading spokespeople for the NO side

    Declan Ganley, wants a United States of Europe


    /


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2952
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Would you like to see the EU commission block government grants to Enterprise?

    I certainly wouldn't, nor would the hundreds of thousands still employed in businesses around the country in receipt of various IDA and EI grants.

    Massive own goal? Much as some in this country might like to believe it, the world does not, in fact, revolve around Ireland. Other people are getting on with actual business, rather than pandering to our self-serving, parochial gombeenism.
    What I am saying is it was just odd EU deciding to approve a grant by Polish Govermnent for Dell given that Dell moved their operations from Limerick. Surely if EU wanted to make their case for a yes vote, surely helping Dell to remain in Limerick would have been a good idea. Either way the timing of approving grant coming as it does a week before Referendum is terrible.


  • Options
    #2953
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    What I am saying is it was just odd EU deciding to approve a grant by Polish Govermnent for Dell given that Dell moved their operations from Limerick. Surely if EU wanted to make their case for a yes vote, surely helping Dell to remain in Limerick would have been a good idea. Either way the timing of approving grant coming as it does a week before Referendum is terrible.

    You want the EU to be able to legally prevent governments from giving businesses incentives to locate there?


  • Options
    #2954
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    IgnatiusPop wrote: »
    Dinner,

    Those "Guarantee's" that that YES camp are saying "address the concerns of Irish Voters" are NOT LEGALLY BINDING.

    They werent added to the treaty - we all know this because if they had been the treaty would have to be re-ratified, and this has NOT happened.

    The EU have no legal obligation whatsoever to honour the nonsense assurances that they gave Cowen and his boys. If they did, then the assurances would be called Protocols.

    Every time I hear this lie repeated I come a little bit closer to starting a campaign to have the Crotty judgement repealed so we can get future EU treaties ratified by legal experts who can make an informed decision instead of the average Joe who doesn't know enough to be able to tell a lie from the truth.

    I'm not saying you're lying, you have been lied to by a number of groups who each have their own ulterior motives for being against this treaty. This is not a matter of opinion, there is no what if, there is no debate. Those guarantees are as legally binding as any treaty the EU have ever agreed to and anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is lying to you


  • Options
    #2955
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    Dinner wrote: »
    Yet nobody has been able to point out the parts in the Constitutions of France and Holland that required a referendum for the Constitution but don't for Lisbon. Wonder why?


    Perhaps thats because there are very few French/Dutch people on boards.ie.


  • Options
    #2956
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    Perhaps thats because there are very few French/Dutch people on boards.ie.

    Yeah. Or there is nothing in their Constitutions to show.


  • Options
    #2957
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Every time I hear this lie repeated I come a little bit closer to starting a campaign to have the Crotty judgement repealed so we can get future EU treaties ratified by legal experts who can make an informed decision instead of the average Joe who doesn't know enough to be able to tell a lie from the truth.


    Here, here, how dare the plebs be allowed have their own opinion.

    Typical ' you just dont understand' view from the the yes side. The EU since it was creadted by Jean Monet has had the creation of a massive european super state led by the great nations of France and Germany as any first year UCD politics student will tell you. This is one step closer to bringing it into fruition.

    This is bad for Ireland.

    We are never going to get a Do you want a european superstate referendum? whay we will get are lots of treaties like this gradually chipping away at our independence until France and Germany have control over a large population and matter again on the world stage.

    "Transforming the European Union into a single State with one army, one constitution and one foreign policy is the critical challenge of the age"
    Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister The Guardian, London, 26th November 1998


  • Options
    #2958
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    Here, here, how dare the plebs be allowed have their own opinion.

    It not opinion when you are promoting a vote based on incorrect information.

    big difference.


  • Options
    #2959
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    Dinner wrote: »
    Yeah. Or there is nothing in their Constitutions to show.

    Id say its probably more likely given the former president of France, who probably knows a thing or two about the French constitution feels that their constitution would be infringed, that their is something in their constitution which causes problems.


  • Options
    #2960
    Mayoegian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 777 ✭✭✭Mayoegian


    vote NO


  • Options
    #2961
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    It not opinion you are promoting a vote based on incorrect information.

    big difference.

    What is incorrect?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2962
    Mark200
    Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    Here, here, how dare the plebs be allowed have their own opinion.

    Typical ' you just dont understand' view from the the yes side. The EU since it was creadted by Jean Monet has had the creation of a massive european super state led by the great nations of France and Germany as any first year UCD politics student will tell you. This is one step closer to bringing it into fruition.

    This is bad for Ireland.

    We are never going to get a Do you want a european superstate referendum? whay we will get are lots of treaties like this gradually chipping away at our independence until France and Germany have control over a large population and matter again on the world stage.

    What I don't understand is:

    The No side keep crying of a great takeover of Ireland from Germany and France that our Government is trying to cover up. So why the hell would Fianna Fail and Fine Gael be supporting this treaty so much?!?!?


  • Options
    #2963
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    What is incorrect?

    that saying the gaurantee's are not legally binding when they are.


  • Options
    #2964
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    Mark200 wrote: »
    What I don't understand is:

    The No side keep crying of a great takeover of Ireland from Germany and France that our Government is trying to cover up. So why the hell would Fianna Fail and Fine Gael be supporting this treaty so much?!?!?

    They are idiots.


  • Options
    #2965
    Mayoegian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 777 ✭✭✭Mayoegian


    Mark200 wrote: »
    What I don't understand is:

    The No side keep crying of a great takeover of Ireland from Germany and France that our Government is trying to cover up. So why the hell would Fianna Fail and Fine Gael be supporting this treaty so much?!?!?

    Because they solely benefit from it, Not the Irish people.


  • Options
    #2966
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    that saying the gaurantee's are not legally binding when they are.

    Where did i say that?


  • Options
    #2967
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    Mayoegian wrote: »
    Because they solely benefit from it, Not the Irish people.

    Which particular parts do they solely benefit from? I assume you have an article number or something.


  • Options
    #2968
    Mayoegian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 777 ✭✭✭Mayoegian


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    Where did i say that?

    The Yes side can't argue the benefits of the treaty so they try and spread lies that incriminate the NO side. Ignore them-Michael O'Leary represents what the yes side are like-oblivious to the technicalities of the treaty and the fact that it can only have reprecussions for Ireland. MOL got eaten alive by Declan Ganley the last night.


  • Options
    #2969
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    What you have to ask is where is it all leading. Each treaty ties Ireland to coutries with old populations who will increasingly have goals which differ from us.

    "Transforming the European Union into a single State with one army, one constitution and one foreign policy is the critical challenge of the age"
    Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister The Guardian, London, 26th November 1998.


  • Options
    #2970
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    my apoloigises, typo. I left out *when* in my original post (edited now). Sam Vimes post was in response to someone stating the gaurantee's were not legally binding which is a lie. You responded with the comment *how dare the plebs be allowed have their own opinion.* and my response was that there is a difference between having an opinion and promoting an opinion on factually incorrect information.

    sorry for the misunderstanding.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2971
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    Here, here, how dare the plebs be allowed have their own opinion.

    Typical ' you just dont understand' view from the the yes side.
    No everyone's entitled to their opinion. For example if I say that U2 are good, that's an opinion but if I say that Bono is a 3 foot tall chinese woman that's not an opinion, it's factually incorrect, just like when someone says that the guarantees aren't legally binding
    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    The EU since it was creadted by Jean Monet has had the creation of a massive european super state led by the great nations of France and Germany as any first year UCD politics student will tell you. This is one step closer to bringing it into fruition.

    This is bad for Ireland.

    We are never going to get a Do you want a european superstate referendum? whay we will get are lots of treaties like this gradually chipping away at our independence until France and Germany have control over a large population and matter again on the world stage.

    I wonder where all those foreign investors will get the idea that Ireland are anti-EU :rolleyes:

    If you think that you shouldn't be voting no to the Lisbon treaty, you should be campaigning for Ireland to withdraw from the EU


Advertisement