Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Elmo

meglome wrote: »

The EDA can't do anything without all EU states agreeing.

They EDA is set up to provide research into armaments, they also have an e-tendering side to allow for the smooth trading of arms in the EU. http://eda.europa.eu/ebbweb/

what the other EEA countries do with those arms are up to them, they could use to arm to go to war with another country. By default Ireland and all members of the EDA are responsible.

The EDA is not an army.

meglome

Elmo wrote: »

what the other EEA countries do with those arms are up to them, they could use to arm to go to war with another country. By default Ireland and all members of the EDA are responsible.

You mean just like they are now? Every country in the EU already has an army and has always had an army.

marco_polo

Elmo wrote: »

They EDA is set up to provide research into armaments, they also have an e-tendering side to allow for the smooth trading of arms in the EU. http://eda.europa.eu/ebbweb/

what the other EEA countries do with those arms are up to them, they could use to arm to go to war with another country. By default Ireland and all members of the EDA are responsible.

The EDA is not an army.

They could also use them to prevent genocide and protect innocent civilians trapped between warring factions.

I doubt that you have any friends who are in the army if, as it seems, you would be happy to send them off on UN Peacekeeping missions with substandard equiptment.

Elmo

marco_polo wrote: »

They could also use them to prevent genocide and protect innocent civilians trapped between warring factions.

I doubt that you have any friends who are in the army if, as it seems, you would be happy to send them off on UN Peacekeeping missions with substandard equiptment.

I would be happy if the government had bother to invest in equipment for search, rescue, peacekeeping and health during the boom years and even before that, so that Ireland could have lead the way in those areas rather then an organisation there purely to distribute arms.

I would like to see more money going toward our Navy and the RNLI (a charity) than to the army and I think the army should be involve in health and peacekeeping.

But then the ministers were happy to spend at least 500,000 each on luxuries, they prob have no friends in the army working on peacekeeping missions. I suppose it depends on where your priorities lie and mine is in helping people from natural disasters to peace keeping not helping countries to procure arms for blind revenge.

Elmo

meglome wrote: »

You mean just like they are now? Every country in the EU already has an army and has always had an army.

Their Armies there with no military alliance surrounding the EU or at least that should be the case.

Ireland and the UN.

Cajamarca

I have considered all of the substantive arguments pro and con the Lisbon Treaty, and failed to come to a conclusion on this basis. However, I have been shocked by the behaviour of the ”Yes” supporters in the lead-up to the referendum. Rather than promote the virtues of the Lisbon treaty, they have generally sought to attack the “No” advocates. Many of the leading “Yes” advocates have resorted to the character assassination of individual “No” advocates. The viciousness of these attacks has been astounding. This brutishness is also much in evidence amongst the non-politician “Yes” promoters, who are generally intolerant of the expression of any views which are not in support of their own position; these ordinary “Yes” promoters, like their leaders, also frequently attempt to personally discredit the proponents of the “No” position. I find such behaviour repulsive. At the very least, it is anti-democratic, but it is also redolent of the rise of fascism in Europe in the last century. As a puny act of defiance against the bigots, I shall be voting “No” on Friday.

Dinner

So nothing to do with the treaty at all then? Grand just checking. But voting either way for reasons such as that isn't exactly the pinnicle of democracy either y'know.

K-9

Cajamarca wrote: »

I have considered all of the substantive arguments pro and con the Lisbon Treaty, and failed to come to a conclusion on this basis. However, I have been shocked by the behaviour of the ”Yes” supporters in the lead-up to the referendum. Rather than promote the virtues of the Lisbon treaty, they have generally sought to attack the “No” advocates. Many of the leading “Yes” advocates have resorted to the character assassination of individual “No” advocates. The viciousness of these attacks has been astounding. This brutishness is also much in evidence amongst the non-politician “Yes” promoters, who are generally intolerant of the expression of any views which are not in support of their own position; these ordinary “Yes” promoters, like their leaders, also frequently attempt to personally discredit the proponents of the “No” position. I find such behaviour repulsive. At the very least, it is anti-democratic, but it is also redolent of the rise of fascism in Europe in the last century. As a puny act of defiance against the bigots, I shall be voting “No” on Friday.

The whole thing is a disgrace and a national embarasment.

As has been shown on this forum, the only way to counter Ganley, Higgins et al is quote the Treaty back at them, pointing out what parts they leave out. Dobson did this on the RTE News and it has kicked up a fuss.

Suppose it would be boring to do that.

If they'd just rely on the Treaty and the facts and stop engaging with the lies, it would show the No campaigners up.

neantog

The right-wing rabble leading the call for a yes vote : -

Fianna Fail -- Extremely dodgy.
Fine Gael -- Equally dodgy.
Labour -- Hoping to form a coalition government with Fine Gael - Dodgy.
The Greens -- God help us.
The Trade Unions -- They love "social partnership" with capitalism -- enough said about them.
The Irish Catholic Church -- No comment.
Irish big business, and foreign multinationals -- promoting neo-liberalism and greed.

My support for a NO vote is based on reading and listening carefully to every opinion, from both right and left. The only argument that finally gets my support, however, is one based on the promotion of fairness in society. Capitalism is the antithesis of fairness, and therefore will never get my support.

The "yes" side is dominated by the most powerful capitalist interests in the country who, I strongly suspect, anticipate that a "yes" win would open the door to policies that could help them consolidate neo-liberalism in the EU.

The operation of an unfettered Free Market is inimical to civil society in Europe. Therefore a "NO" vote win is called for, so that the Lisbon Treaty can be scrapped, and a new EU constitution compiled which would safeguard democracy, and workers rights.

johnwillnot

I received my polling card in the post this morning, it was a proud moment for me but all I could think about was the almost 500 million Europeans citizens that were denied this opportunity to vote on this treaty. The only reason Ireland is having a referendum is because a Kilkenny man, Raymond Crotty, took a constitutional challenge in our courts 22 years ago which said that any change to the constitution required a referendum. Under Lisbon, our government is permitted make decisions without having recourse to a referendum here in the future. Why is giving up your right to vote on constitutional changes and handing over more power to unelected EU leaders a good thing for Ireland or it's people.

Daftendirekt

johnwillnot wrote: »

I received my polling card in the post this morning, it was a proud moment for me but all I could think about was the almost 500 million Europeans citizens that were denied this opportunity to vote on this treaty. The only reason Ireland is having a referendum is because a Kilkenny man, Raymond Crotty, took a constitutional challenge in our courts 22 years ago which said that any change to the constitution required a referendum. Under Lisbon, our government is permitted make decisions without having recourse to a referendum here in the future. Why is giving up your right to vote on constitutional changes and handing over more power to unelected EU leaders a good thing for Ireland or it's people.

It isn't a good thing, so luckily, it's not true.

the-island-man

K-9 wrote: »

The whole thing is a disgrace and a national embarasment.

As has been shown on this forum, the only way to counter Ganley, Higgins et al is quote the Treaty back at them, pointing out what parts they leave out. Dobson did this on the RTE News and it has kicked up a fuss.

If this treaty actually was as beneficial to ireland and indeed the rest of europe as the Yes side say it is they wouldn't be counter acting the No side they could talk about the benefits but the fact is there are no benefits just more complete competences been given away to Europe in more areas.

Furious-Dave

the-island-man wrote: »

If this treaty actually was as beneficial to ireland and indeed the rest of europe as the Yes side say it is they wouldn't be counter acting the No side they could talk about the benefits but the fact is there are no benefits just more complete competences been given away to Europe in more areas.

Actually I think it's more that they are just a bunch of retards, or at least the Government are anyway. You should take a read of the What does a Yes vote Mean? thread, if you haven't already.

K-9

the-island-man wrote: »

If this treaty actually was as beneficial to ireland and indeed the rest of europe as the Yes side say it is they wouldn't be counter acting the No side they could talk about the benefits but the fact is there are no benefits just more complete competences been given away to Europe in more areas.

Competences have already been given away and shared.

Any examples of how it over ruled Irelands wishes?

johnwillnot

Tony Blair has emerged as the favourite to become the First President of Europe and our president if the Lisbon Treaty is passed. Most Irish people are unaware of this. This is not a conspiracy, if you ''Google it'' you can find out all about it or go to the following link on the Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/15/blair-european-president

If you go to the President of the EU Channel on Youtube, you will see that they already have a video of him as president with Obama. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_l5jCvsMNk

The president of Europe is not elected like the president of Ireland or America. Instead, the heads of government of each member state will decide from a pre-selected group of candidates. You can find out more about the president of Europe by searching Wikipedia or going to the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Union

This is not a recent development; he has been touted for the job even when he was still prime minister of Great Britain and long before most Irish people knew anything about the Lisbon treaty. Here is an article that appeared in the Financial Times on the 03/05/07 - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b7e16a2-f9a6-11db-9b6b-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1

While most countries in Europe opposed the war on Iraq, Tony Blair did not listen. Do you think he will listen to the people if a situation like this arises again in the future? Do you feel comfortable with this man representing you abroad or making decisions on our behalf?

I am not anti Europe, I voted for the Maastricht treaty, Nice Treaty but I think this is a step too far. It is ok to say NO sometimes, why bother have a vote if all they want to hear is yes. The French and Dutch have said NO in the past to the same treaty and they were not sidelined or excluded.

meglome

johnwillnot wrote: »

Tony Blair has emerged as the favourite to become the First President of Europe and our president if the Lisbon Treaty is passed. Most Irish people are unaware of this. This is not a conspiracy, if you ''Google it'' you can find out all about it or go to the following link on the Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/15/blair-european-president

If you go to the President of the EU Channel on Youtube, you will see that they already have a video of him as president with Obama. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_l5jCvsMNk

The president of Europe is not elected like the president of Ireland or America. Instead, the heads of government of each member state will decide from a pre-selected group of candidates. You can find out more about the president of Europe by searching Wikipedia or going to the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Union

This is not a recent development; he has been touted for the job even when he was still prime minister of Great Britain and long before most Irish people knew anything about the Lisbon treaty. Here is an article that appeared in the Financial Times on the 03/05/07 - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b7e16a2-f9a6-11db-9b6b-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1

While most countries in Europe opposed the war on Iraq, Tony Blair did not listen. Do you think he will listen to the people if a situation like this arises again in the future? Do you feel comfortable with this man representing you abroad or making decisions on our behalf?

I am not anti Europe, I voted for the Maastricht treaty, Nice Treaty but I think this is a step too far. It is ok to say NO sometimes, why bother have a vote if all they want to hear is yes. The French and Dutch have said NO in the past to the same treaty and they were not sidelined or excluded.

Of course you're not anti-EU, I believe you. However you are wrong.

Dinner wrote: »

Eh.. No.

It's not an EU President. Thats a term used by no campaigners to scare people. It's 'President of the European Council' and it already exists (since the 1950's). At the moment there is a rotating system in place where the position rotates between the head of each EU country every 6 months.

What Lisbon does is increase the term to 2.5 years (with a 2 term maximum). The European Council will then elect somebody to the position. Currently whoever is President of the Council has to both run the council and their own country. This move will allow an individual to concentrate full time on the runnings of the Council.

I think you still have a bit of reading up to do before Friday.

meglome

Elmo wrote: »

Their Armies there with no military alliance surrounding the EU or at least that should be the case.

Ireland and the UN.

You do also realise that most EU country's are in NATO as well?

Dinner wrote: »

So nothing to do with the treaty at all then? Grand just checking. ...

That sums the thread up really.

johnwillnot

meglome wrote: »

Of course you're not anti-EU, I believe you. However you are wrong.

I am afraid it's you who needs to do your homework. You are mixing up the President of the European Council with the President of the European Union
These are two different things. Anyway, I dosn't matter what you call it, President of the European Council or President of the European Union - Tony Blair is still the favourite for the job.

Here is an article that appeared on the Irish Independant three days ago: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/yes-could-see-blair--as-europes-president-1897799.html

Also here is an article on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2318963.stm

Is the Irish Independant, The BBC, The Financial Times and the Guardian newspaper all telling lies?

meglome wrote: »

Of course you're not anti-EU, I believe you. However you are wrong.

I am afraid it's you who needs to do your homework. You are mixing up the President of the European Council with the President of the European Union
. These are two different things. Anyway, I doesn’t matter what you call it, President of the European Council or President of the European Union, Tony Blair is still the favourite for the job.

Here is an article that appeared on the Irish Independent three days ago: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/yes-could-see-blair--as-europes-president-1897799.html

Also here is an article on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2318963.stm

Is the Irish Independent, The BBC, The Financial Times and the Guardian newspaper all telling lies?

I like the way you closed off the discussion ''That sums the thread up really'' real democratic.

marco_polo

johnwillnot wrote: »

I am afraid it's you who needs to do your homework. You are mixing up the President of the European Council with the President of the European Union
These are two different things. Anyway, I dosn't matter what you call it, President of the European Council or President of the European Union - Tony Blair is still the favourite for the job.

Here is an article that appeared on the Irish Independant three days ago: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/yes-could-see-blair--as-europes-president-1897799.html

Also here is an article on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2318963.stm

Is the Irish Independant, The BBC, The Financial Times and the Guardian newspaper all telling lies?



I am afraid it's you who needs to do your homework. You are mixing up the President of the European Council with the President of the European Union
. These are two different things. Anyway, I doesn’t matter what you call it, President of the European Council or President of the European Union, Tony Blair is still the favourite for the job.

Here is an article that appeared on the Irish Independent three days ago: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/yes-could-see-blair--as-europes-president-1897799.html

Also here is an article on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2318963.stm

Is the Irish Independent, The BBC, The Financial Times and the Guardian newspaper all telling lies?

I like the way you closed off the discussion ''That sums the thread up really'' real democratic.

There is no such thing as the President of the European Union, because there is no mention of any job carrying such a title in the first place within the EUropean Treaties

Did you even read the wikipedia article, it quite clearly states that there are two Presidents, the President of the European Council and the President of the Commission. Sound familiar to the current situation.

The basis within the wiki article for saying there is a 'theoretical possibility' for a combined President under Lisbon, seems to stem from the following line in the BBC article referenced.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6928737.stm#president
True, the possibility of one day merging the posts of president of the council and president of the commission is not explicitly ruled out in the treaty

There are zero provisions in the treaty for merging these two roles, and the logic behind stating that because it is not explicitly ruled out, is some sort of support for the future creation of the post is laughable.

It also shows the flaws of using a wikipedia article in a serious discussion.

johnwillnot

marco_polo wrote: »

There is no such thing as the President of the European Union, because there is no mention of any job carrying such a title in the first place within the EUropean Treaties

Did you even read the wikipedia article, it quite clearly states that there are two Presidents, the President of the European Council and the President of the Commission. Sound familiar to the current situation.

The basis within the wiki article for saying there is a 'theoretical possibility' for a combined President under Lisbon, seems to stem from the following line in the BBC article referenced.



There are zero provisions in the treaty for merging these two roles, and the logic behind stating that because it is not explicitly ruled out, is some sort of support for the future creation of the post is laughable.

It also shows the flaws of using a wikipedia article in a serious discussion.

Again, this is the yes side trying to pick holes in my post and distort the facts, I am well aware that wikipedia is open for error as it is a human generated wiki. Also, I am not worried about what they call the post, the purpose of the post. How do explain the following Interview with Yves Gazzo, Head of the European Commission's delegation in France - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlgCAfuOFp8 - The last time I checked, the French government are on the yes side. Are you calling him a liar also? If you listen to this interview, half way through he states that after the treaty is ratified, they can begin to implement what is in the treaty and NOMINATE an EU president, possibly in early January.

How do you explain the following articles in the Independant The Economist Here is another article from the Independant
Here is an excerpt from it ''The post would be created, possibly as early as next January, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. The biggest remaining hurdle is a second referendum in Ireland in October, but opinion polls suggest people will vote Yes this time.''

In summary is Tony Blair the man for the job? I think not and it is one of the reasons I am voting NO to Lisbon.

free-man

johnwillnot wrote: »

Again, this is the yes side trying to pick holes in my post and distort the facts, I am well aware that wikipedia is open for error as it is a human generated wiki. Also, I am not worried about what they call the post, the purpose of the post. How do explain the following Interview with Yves Gazzo, Head of the European Commission's delegation in France - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlgCAfuOFp8 - The last time I checked, the French government are on the yes side. Are you calling him a liar also? If you listen to this interview, half way through he states that after the treaty is ratified, they can begin to implement what is in the treaty and NOMINATE an EU president, possibly in early January.

How do you explain the following articles in the Independant The Economist Here is another article from the Independant
Here is an excerpt from it ''The post would be created, possibly as early as next January, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. The biggest remaining hurdle is a second referendum in Ireland in October, but opinion polls suggest people will vote Yes this time.''

In summary is Tony Blair the man for the job? I think not and it is one of the reasons I am voting NO to Lisbon.

There is more information over on this thread

I don't want to re-post / duplicate here.