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

Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Options
1…34689…35

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    LostinBlanch
    Registered Users Posts: 2,908 ✭✭✭LostinBlanch


    Well Scofflaw, as much as I think that people like Berliner go too far I have to say that I never heard of that directive that N8 mentioned. I'm not surprised though.

    I did like the quote from, Hubert Vedrine regarding people that didn't vote as Brussels wanted though.
    Since we had to ask for confirmation from time to time, the recalcitrant peoples were told they had no choice, that it was for their own good, that all rejection or delay would be a sign of egotism, sovereignty, turning inward, hatred of others, xenophobia, even Le Penism or fascism.

    Now I'm no subscriber to alive, I may take a brief glance at it on the trip from my letterbox to the bin. it gets thrown in my door. but I did see in one of it's articles that the whole le pen coming over to ireland thing was started by questions from an Irish Times journalist posing the question, almost encouraging him(or his representative) to answer yes and then flagging that up. Queue opinion pieces in the times scaremongering that Le Pen is coming over to tell us to vote no. It also seems that the majority of articles about the Lisbon Treaty seem to be pushing the same thing i.e vote no = euroscpetic / racist / xenophobe/ fascist.

    Disregarding the fact that many who vote no could be supporters of europe but who want it to be seen to be more democratic.


  • Options
    #153
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    LostinBlanch wrote: »
    Well Scofflaw, as much as I think that people like Berliner go too far I have to say that I never heard of that directive that N8 mentioned. I'm not surprised though.

    Yes, it's a complicated one. It has to balance the rights of workers against the principle that you should be able to provide services cross-border under home country conditions. It applies only to temporary workers - otherwise a company employee being sent to another member state is automatically subject to the other member state's employment laws, which makes even going to a conference rather complicated.
    LostinBlanch wrote: »
    I did like the quote from, Hubert Vedrine regarding people that didn't vote as Brussels wanted though.

    Now I'm no subscriber to alive, I may take a brief glance at it on the trip from my letterbox to the bin. it gets thrown in my door. but I did see in one of it's articles that the whole le pen coming over to ireland thing was started by questions from an Irish Times journalist posing the question, almost encouraging him(or his representative) to answer yes and then flagging that up. Queue opinion pieces in the times scaremongering that Le Pen is coming over to tell us to vote no. It also seems that the majority of articles about the Lisbon Treaty seem to be pushing the same thing i.e vote no = euroscpetic / racist / xenophobe/ fascist.

    Disregarding the fact that many who vote no could be supporters of europe but who want it to be seen to be more democratic.

    That is true, but the bulk of those who vote against EU treaties here are the same people each time, and the number of No voters grows almost exactly in line with population, as does the number of Yes voters. That suggests that the same elements of the electorate have been saying No all along.

    I wouldn't dismiss someone who votes No as "eurosceptic / racist / xenophobe/ fascist". There are also "nationalists", who believe that the nation is a more or less sacred idea, "subsidiarists", who would more generally argue that power that flows into the EU is moving away from the local level, and "atlanticists", who believe that we should be moving closer to Boston than Berlin, both in terms of allegiance and thinking.

    Sinn Fein, for example, are "nationalists" - after all, they haven't finished fighting for their version of the Irish nation, and they certainly don't want what they're fighting for sucked into a European supranational entity.

    Libertas are a good example of "atlanticists", particularly on the economic front. Ganley favours a Europe that favours the "single entrepreneur".

    The Greens, traditionally, are "subsidiarists". They don't oppose the movement of power from Dublin to Brussels on the basis that Ireland as a nation is an ideal, but on the basis that the power is thereby removed further form the average voter. However, Green parties throughout the rest of the EU are pro-EU for exactly this reason (on the basis that the EU contains a commitment to subsidiarity that no national government has ever made), so I suspect there is actually a strong tinge of nationalist green in the Irish Greens.

    Finally, of course, there are those who think the whole EU project is irredeemably compromised by being a series of slightly clunky compromises between different nations, operated by a very distant bureaucracy. You might call them "European idealists", or something like that (I can't resist trying to classify things).

    Of all those points of view, I feel most sympathy for the "idealists" and the "subsidiarists" - however, the former are impractical, since the EU could only be formed out of what existed before it, and in the latter case I tend to side with the rest of the European Greens in thinking the EU has a stronger commitment to subsidiarity than any nation-state.

    It's also worth bearing in mind, I think, that the EU would probably love to have a proper direct democratic mandate, rather than simply being a pool of borrowed sovereignty. Each step it takes, however, is limited by the national governments' suspicion of exactly that - a democratic mandate that bypasses their own, but which controls their pooled sovereignty.

    Overall, I think this treaty is a small improvement over the existing arrangements. It's not a very exciting treaty, and it certainly doesn't do the various evil things to Irish neutrality, referendums, etc, that have been claimed for it - and which, of course, have been claimed for every single EU treaty so far (see, for example, Sinn Fein's Nice Treaty Referendum Manifesto, which is almost identical to the current SF No campaign, and in turn almost identical to their Amsterdam No campaign).

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #154
    AckwelFoley
    Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    The problem with this Referendum as i see it is, yet again Information, or the lack of it.

    I think that probable only 10% of the electoral really understand what the treaty is about.
    For the record, i voted no the last time because i didnt know enough about the consequences of it.


    I will be voting Yes this time.


  • Options
    #155
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    berliner wrote: »
    A real eye opener.This information should be given to Irish people but unfortunately they won't get it and they'll vote yes.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the whole EU project will end in disaster.

    To be fair, it was headline news on RTE and in the papers for a day or two. From what I remember, the nitty gritty means it isn't as end-of-the-world as some may have you believe either.


  • Options
    #156
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    snyper wrote: »
    The problem with this Referendum as i see it is, yet again Information, or the lack of it.

    I think that probable only 10% of the electoral really understand what the treaty is about.
    For the record, i voted no the last time because i didnt know enough about the consequences of it.

    There's an intrinsic problem there, though. The Treaty is complicated - and that simply can't be changed. The result of the negotiations between 27 countries to amend existing treaties is bound to be complex.

    So, for most of us, who have other things to do with our lives, we need it summarised and explained - and again we hit a problem. Who is impartial? Summaries are mostly going to be done by people involved with the EU to a greater or lesser degree, and they're likely to back a particular side. Even if what they produce is impartial, it is still open to challenge.

    Having said all that, I think there's a lot of information available - perhaps more than any previous referendum. You can get the full text online, or a consolidated version, or any one of half a hundred guides.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    suimhneas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭suimhneas


    can we do a quick poll on this i too will be voting no. Seeing the deal the fishermen of ireland have been given by europe and this state over the past few years maybe some of ye yes voters should see what has been done to fishing communities before you welcome europe blindly


  • Options
    #158
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    snyper wrote: »
    I will be voting Yes this time.

    Why? We do not even know what the treaty includes.

    I'll be voting, NO. (I don't like being taken for a mug.)


  • Options
    #159
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    DisandDat wrote: »
    Why? We do not even know what the treaty includes.

    I'll be voting, NO. (I don't like being taken for a mug.)

    Well, go and read the fecking thing then. Here's the text of the Treaty itself. Here's a page full of guides and summaries on Politics.ie. Here's another page full of links from the EU Representation in Ireland. This is the Department of Foreign Affairs site.


    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #160
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Well, go and read the fecking thing then. Here's the text of the Treaty itself. Here's a page full of guides and summaries on Politics.ie. Here's another page full of links from the EU Representation in Ireland. This is the Department of Foreign Affairs site.


    regards,
    Scofflaw

    If only it were that simple. Even as has been admitted, the MP's themselves have not seen the finalised treaty. Indeed the treaty will not be finalised until it is ratified.

    Therefore, only one paragraph need be added, such as, all of the above is rubbish and you have handed over all your rights.

    FACT.


  • Options
    #161
    monkeyfudge
    Registered Users Posts: 23,216 ✭✭✭✭monkeyfudge


    The National Forum on Europe has been holding a series of public debates on the Lisbon Treaty. Their function is to provide a neutral space for the public debate of the EU and Ireland's place in it.

    I produce the podcast of the events for them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DisandDat wrote: »
    If only it were that simple. Even as has been admitted, the MP's themselves have not seen the finalised treaty. Indeed the treaty will not be finalised until it is ratified.
    Source?
    DisandDat wrote: »
    Therefore, only one paragraph need be added, such as, all of the above is rubbish and you have handed over all your rights.

    FACT.
    Yet again, it seems that the word "FACT" when spelled out in capital letters means "a load of tosh that I just made up and can't provide any evidence to support."


  • Options
    #163
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Source?
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3257641.ece
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yet again, it seems that the word "FACT" when spelled out in capital letters means "a load of tosh that I just made up and can't provide any evidence to support."

    See above


  • Options
    #164
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DisandDat wrote: »
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3257641.ece
    There's nothing whatsoever in that article about the treaty being modified after it's ratified. Nothing.

    Try again.


  • Options
    #165
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's nothing whatsoever in that article about the treaty being modified after it's ratified. Nothing.

    Try again.

    You must have looked at the wrong link.


    The confidential strategy paper, prepared by the Slovenian EU president, suggests that important decisions will be taken only after Eurosceptic countries such as the UK have ratified the Lisbon treaty.

    O’Brien said: “Once the treaty is ratified, there’ll be no going back . . . MPs would effectively be signing a blank cheque to the EU if they ratify this without a referendum.”.


  • Options
    #166
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    You claimed the treaty won't be finalised until it's ratified. You then produced a link that talks about how the specific details of the implementation of some of the treaty's proposals won't be finalised until after it's ratified.

    Produce something that shows that the treaty itself will change between now and ratification, which is what you claimed.


  • Options
    #167
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You claimed the treaty won't be finalised until it's ratified. You then produced a link that talks about how the specific details of the implementation of some of the treaty's proposals won't be finalised until after it's ratified.

    Produce something that shows that the treaty itself will change between now and ratification, which is what you claimed.

    What are you talking about?

    The treaty is not presented in full, it will not be presented in full until it is ratified. Therefore it will be changed.

    Details are everything, and you are accepting that details are not finalised.

    Is this such a difficult concept to grasp?


  • Options
    #168
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    DisandDat wrote: »
    What are you talking about?

    The treaty is not presented in full, it will not be presented in full until it is ratified. Therefore it will be changed.

    Details are everything, and you are accepting that details are not finalised.

    Is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

    The implementation details of many (most?) laws and treaties are left open until after they've been enacted/ratified.

    Do you object to Irish laws that don't specify precisely how the Gardai enforce them?


  • Options
    #169
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    IRLConor wrote: »
    The implementation details of many (most?) laws and treaties are left open until after they've been enacted/ratified.

    Do you object to Irish laws that don't specify precisely how the Gardai enforce them?

    Yes I do.

    The devil is in the details, my friend.


  • Options
    #170
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    DisandDat wrote: »
    Yes I do.

    OK, so you complain about every Irish law? Sure you do.
    DisandDat wrote: »
    The devil is in the details, my friend.

    Of course. They're in the details of the text of the treaty which is what I thought we were discussing here.


  • Options
    #171
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    IRLConor wrote: »
    OK, so you complain about every Irish law? Sure you do.

    Do you have problem understanding the meaning of words. I object, object does not imply that I complain. And anyway with hundreds of laws passed every week this would prove quite a task for one man.

    Pythagoras’s Theorem has 24 words
    The Lord’s Prayer - 66 words
    The Ten Commandments - 179 words
    The Gettysburg Address - 286 words
    The new European Union rules on the sale of cabbages -26,253 words.

    IRLConor wrote: »
    Of course. They're in the details of the text of the treaty which is what I thought we were discussing here.
    Yes, before you dragged it off topic.

    My point has been proved. What we basically have is people voting YES for a treaty which they do not know the contents of.

    Thats the long and short of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DisandDat wrote: »
    My point has been proved. What we basically have is people voting YES for a treaty which they do not know the contents of.

    Thats the long and short of it.
    We also have people voting NO for a treaty which they do not know the contents of.

    We also seem to have a lot of people spreading disinformation in an effort to persuade other people to vote their way, and it's starting to try my patience.


  • Options
    #173
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    We also have people voting NO for a treaty which they do not know the contents of.

    Exactly, just like any sane person would do.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    We also seem to have a lot of people spreading disinformation in an effort to persuade other people to vote their way, and it's starting to try my patience.

    :mad: Just voicing my opinion.


  • Options
    #174
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DisandDat wrote: »
    Exactly, just like any sane person would do.
    It seems to me sane people would inform themselves, and vote yes or no on the merits. If someone couldn't be bothered finding out what it's about, the least they could do is have the decency to abstain.
    DisandDat wrote: »
    :mad: Just voicing my opinion.
    Your "opinion" has yet to be shown to be true, and was suffixed by the word "FACT".


  • Options
    #175
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It seems to me sane people would inform themselves, and vote yes or no on the merits. If someone couldn't be bothered finding out what it's about, the least they could do is have the decency to abstain.
    We are going around in circles here. They can't inform themselves, the treaty will not be finalised until after the ratification.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Your "opinion" has yet to be shown to be true, and was suffixed by the word "FACT".

    Incorrect. My opinion is that people should vote NO.

    My information in relation to the incompleteness of the treaty was suffixed by the word "FACT".


  • Options
    #176
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DisandDat wrote: »
    We are going around in circles here. They can't inform themselves, the treaty will not be finalised until after the ratification.
    That is factually incorrect. The text of the treaty will not change; it has been signed and is awaiting ratification.

    I've already pointed out that your "evidence" to the contrary doesn't support your assertion. We're going around in circles because you're continuing to assert something that isn't true.
    DisandDat wrote: »
    Incorrect. My opinion is that people should vote NO.
    That's an opinion you're entitled to, but I'd rather you supported your opinion with facts rather than disinformation.
    DisandDat wrote: »
    My information in relation to the incompleteness of the treaty was suffixed by the word "FACT".
    And it was untrue.


  • Options
    #177
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That is factually incorrect. The text of the treaty will not change; it has been signed and is awaiting ratification.

    This is again word games. It is all about details.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've already pointed out that your "evidence" to the contrary doesn't support your assertion.
    With all due respect I will take the word of the Times article before yours.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    We're going around in circles because you're continuing to assert something that isn't true.

    So you are voting yes, I assume. Why are you voting yes, you are only to quick to shout people of my opinion down, I'd like to hear your reasons for voting YES.

    Not to preempt you in any way, merely to rule out the obvious I'll list a few likely points:
    -equality - freedom -economic prosperity -free trade -environment??? -solidarity


  • Options
    #178
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DisandDat wrote: »
    This is again word games. It is all about details.
    You said something that wasn't true. You can call that word games; I call it factually incorrect.
    DisandDat wrote: »
    With all due respect I will take the word of the Times article before yours.
    I haven't denied anything the Times said. I simply pointed out that it doesn't say what you claim it says.
    DisandDat wrote: »
    So you are voting yes, I assume. Why are you voting yes, you are only to quick to shout people of my opinion down, I'd like to hear your reasons for voting YES.
    I'm not shouting you down, I'm pointing out that what you're saying isn't true.

    I'm actually still undecided. I'm leaning towards a yes vote, for two main reasons: one, I think the EU needs some streamlining, and from what I've read so far the treaty takes a step in this direction. Two, most of the arguments I've seen so far for a no vote rely on untruths, half-truths and general Euroskepticism. If there were any genuine problems with the treaty, I'm guessing they would have been highlighted by now.


  • Options
    #179
    PHB
    Registered Users Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    berliner wrote: »
    Haven't you noticed how many east europeans live here.That's all due to our EU membership.

    How does the Reform treaty have any effect on immigration policy? We're not part of Schegen, we choose to let the immigrants come here, our government did, not the EU. Most EU countries didn't allow it to happen. Your beef is with the government, not the EU.

    Alive is a joke of a publication, so many things taken out of context its unreal. I have real problems with the way the EU is run, but I'm not pretending that the Lisbon treaty has anything to do with them. Immigration is the perfect example. Immigration policy is not effected by the bloody Lisbon Treaty.

    If you want to pull out of the EU, that's fine, I totally understand that viewpoint. However if you want to vote against referendums which make it more efficient, even though it will have no effect on whether or not we stay within the EU, then you are just being silly.

    Personally there's a part of me that wants to see the treaty fail. I hate the EU approach to how they convince people. They have tried to work at higher levels of government, but it's utterly backfired. I want to the EU to take the argument to the people, because every time they do, they win. When they try to rush it past, it ****s up. That's why Nice 1 failed and Nice 2 didn't.
    The benefits of the EU are so blindingly obvious that not one respectable political party in Ireland has oppossed it. You'd think if there was anything wrong with it, FG or Labour or even the PDs would say, wait a minute, lets try score some political points. But not one of them will. That says it all.


  • Options
    #180
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You said something that wasn't true. You can call that word games;I call it factually incorrect.
    There you go again.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm actually still undecided. I'm leaning towards a yes vote, for two main reasons: one, I think the EU needs some streamlining, and from what I've read so far the treaty takes a step in this direction. Two, most of the arguments I've seen so far for a no vote rely on untruths, half-truths and general Euroskepticism. If there were any genuine problems with the treaty, I'm guessing they would have been highlighted by now.

    I am a eurosceptic to the highest degree. In my opinion if all ties could be cut, they should. People have no appreciation of the overall picture. Take a step back and look at the path of EU integration, and more importantly where it is going. I don't want to be dictated to by anyone, less any bureaucrat living the high life in Brussels.

    As for any genuine problems being highlighted, who are you expecting to do this. The general media??? Because that is not going to happen.

    Having a look back through this thread, N8 provided a lot of quotes. Those quotes tells the uninformed all they need to know about the EU, in my opinion.

    But again this Treaty all boils down to the handing of more rights to the EU.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DisandDat wrote: »
    There you go again.
    And I'll keep going there as long as you keep claiming that the article says something it doesn't.
    DisandDat wrote: »
    I am a eurosceptic to the highest degree. In my opinion if all ties could be cut, they should. People have no appreciation of the overall picture. Take a step back and look at the path of EU integration, and more importantly where it is going. I don't want to be dictated to by anyone, less any bureaucrat living the high life in Brussels.
    Great. Then all you have to say is "I'm voting no because I'm a euroskeptic", and leave it at that. It's a view you're entitled to.
    DisandDat wrote: »
    As for any genuine problems being highlighted, who are you expecting to do this. The general media??? Because that is not going to happen.
    I haven't seen anyone do so on this thread. I've seen a lot of misinformation bandied about, though.
    DisandDat wrote: »
    Having a look back through this thread, N8 provided a lot of quotes. Those quotes tells the uninformed all they need to know about the EU, in my opinion.
    N8 claimed that Denmark legalised paedophilia. Like you, he's a euroskeptic that can't seem to point out any specific problems with this treaty and who resorts to factually incorrect scaremongering to try to bring others around to his point of view.
    DisandDat wrote: »
    But again this Treaty all boils down to the handing of more rights to the EU.
    So you keep saying, but I haven't seen you point out how it does so.


Advertisement