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…457910…35

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    PHB wrote: »
    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.

    The government were bought and paid for long ago.
    PHB wrote: »
    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.

    The efficiency aspect is the line trotted out for the public. Government is all about inefficiency, that how it survives. Ever heard the term "red tape"

    PHB wrote: »
    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.
    You have some strange views. Nice 2 passed for a number of reasons, none of which I am going to state here. As for taking the argument to the people, politics is based on deception. Not everyone has caught onto that though.
    PHB wrote: »
    The benefits of the EU are so blindingly obvious that not one respectable political party in Ireland has oppossed it.
    What benefits, benefits for big business and politicians. The average person is getting screwed yet again.
    PHB wrote: »
    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.
    :rolleyes: Politicians know who pays their bills. Enough said.


  • Options
    #183
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And I'll keep going there as long as you keep claiming that the article says something it doesn't
    There you go again
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Then all you have to say is "I'm voting no because I'm a euroskeptic"
    If only it were that simple.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've seen a lot of misinformation bandied about, though.
    Yes, mainly by pro europe posters.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    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.
    It would help if he knew what the treaty consisted of.


  • Options
    #184
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    DisandDat wrote: »
    I don't want to be dictated to by anyone, less any bureaucrat living the high life in Brussels.

    If you don't want to be dictated to then I'm afraid you're pretty much out of luck. I don't know of any stable country in the world where you could safely live and not be dictated to by the state.
    DisandDat wrote: »
    But again this Treaty all boils down to the handing of more rights to the EU.

    Please do both of the following:
    1. Point out the rights which are being handed to the EU in the Treaty of Lisbon.
    2. Explain why each "rights transfer" is a bad thing.

    The following chunk of the Treaty on European Union guarantees that none of the changes after ratification that you fear can be used to transfer rights to the EU. We can only hand responsibility for things to the EU by explicit treaty.
    Article 5
    1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
    2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.


  • Options
    #185
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    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.

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

    FACT.

    Not fact - complete rubbish. You are confused with the point that the EU was not going to issue a consolidated version of the Treaties until Lisbon was ratified. The Finalised Treaty, as signed by the heads of state, is available through the links I gave.

    The MEPs have seen the finalised Treaty, the heads of state signed a finalised Treaty, and you can go and look at the finalised Treaty for yourself any time you like. I would recommend, though, the consolidated version available from the IIEA, which is the official version as far as the EU is concerned (hence the link to it on the EU Rep site). If you still have difficulty grasping the fact that the Lisbon Treaty has been finalised, I suggest you Google "finalised Lisbon" - and you'll find that the reason it is called the Lisbon Treaty is because it was finalised in Lisbon.

    Let's try and keep the debate on a factual footing - and you can assist by learning what the word "fact" actually means.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #186
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    And again I'll reference the times article.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3257641.ece


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DisandDat, either engage seriously in the discussion or stay out of it.


  • Options
    #188
    PHB
    Registered Users Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    DisandDat, everything you've said is something that can be applied to the Irish government aswell.

    Are you going to vote against the childrens referendum because of all the problems with the Irish state?


  • Options
    #189
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    PHB wrote: »
    DisandDat, everything you've said is something that can be applied to the Irish government aswell.

    Are you going to vote against the childrens referendum because of all the problems with the Irish state?

    Look, I don't want to live in a nanny state. I look after my self and those around me. I don't need a government official looking over my shoulder.

    As for the the childrens referendum, again this is a wolf in sheeps clothing. As they found out in the US, it is merely a ploy to take away the rights of the parents. The government will be able to dictate everyway in which you raise your child, for example home schooling will be more problematic.

    Same thing with the EU, if we keep blindly following this course, in the future we will not be able to assert any free will in any areas of our lives.

    My own view of government echo's that of another famous man,

    "the government governs best who governs least".


  • Options
    #190
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    Lads, has anyone tried to read the full text? Its amazingly frustrating, I wanted to try and read the full text but I’m going back to look for unbiased summarised versions now I think. For example, here’s a quote from page 13:
    “Title IV shall take over the heading of Title VII, ‘PROVISIONS ON ENHANCED
    COOPERATION’ and Articles 27 A to 27 E, Articles 40 to 40b and Articles 43 to 45 shall be replaced by the following Article 10, which shall also replace Articles 11 and 11a of the Treaty establishing the European Community. These same articles shall also be replaced by Articles 280 A to 280 I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as set out below in point 278 of Article 2 of this Treaty”

    Now I know we don’t have to read all that to make our minds up but come on!

    Remember there used to be a page in the newspapers taken out that had a “for and against” argument for each referendum. Have these been released yet?, I haven’t seen them in any of the newspapers yet and I have checked online but can’t find anything.

    Anyway, I don’t want to vote one way or another based on what the political parties think is best, I'd prefer to make up my own mind. So I am still undecided until I can find an easier to read version of the draft.

    Does anyone know any good unbiased website detailing the Treaty btw?


  • Options
    #191
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    Lads, has anyone tried to read the full text? Its amazingly frustrating.
    You are not supposed to understand it, hence my point about the ten commandments and the EU cabbage policy.

    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    Remember there used to be a page in the newspapers taken out that had a “for and against” argument for each referendum. Have these been released yet?, I haven’t seen them in any of the newspapers yet and I have checked online but can’t find anything.
    Unbiased reporting in a newspaper?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    DisandDat wrote: »
    Unbiased reporting in a newspaper?

    No, it wasn't reporting, it was a state sponsored thing I think, (I know that sounds like a contradiction by saying its unbiased) where an argument from the "yes" side and "no" side were printed side by side on a newpaper page.


  • Options
    #193
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    Lads, has anyone tried to read the full text? Its amazingly frustrating, I wanted to try and read the full text but I’m going back to look for unbiased summarised versions now I think. For example, here’s a quote from page 13:

    Read the consolidated versions, they're MUCH easier going.


  • Options
    #194
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    No, it wasn't reporting, it was a state sponsored thing I think, (I know that sounds like a contradiction by saying its unbiased) where an argument from the "yes" side and "no" side were printed side by side on a newpaper page.

    Probably from the Referendum Commission. They haven't been established for this coming referendum yet.


  • Options
    #195
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    Ah condensed to 35 pages! I've just downloaded it, cheers Conor.

    Oh yeah, the Referendum Commission, that was the body I was thinking about.


  • Options
    #196
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DisandDat wrote: »
    You are not supposed to understand it, hence my point about the ten commandments and the EU cabbage policy.
    Last warning. Engage seriously in the discussion or stay out of it.

    We've established that you have a problem not just with the EU, but with government in general. This thread isn't about rugged individualism; it's about the Lisbon treaty. If you have any specific criticisms to make about it, make them - with reference to the treaty itself.


  • Options
    #197
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    Ah condensed to 35 pages! I've just downloaded it, cheers Conor.

    Not quite that simple, the treaty also amends the Treaty On The Functioning Of The European Union (150 pages) and the Annexes (6 pages) and Protocols (108 pages) for both treaties.

    It's still easier to read the consolidated versions though.


  • Options
    #198
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    IRLConor wrote: »
    Not quite that simple, the treaty also amends the Treaty On The Functioning Of The European Union (150 pages) and the Annexes (6 pages) and Protocols (108 pages) for both treaties.

    It's still easier to read the consolidated versions though.

    Ah feck! Still a lot of reading so, cheers for the heads up though.


  • Options
    #199
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    My sceptism of the treaty is that, when presented to us by the Goverment, there will either be a lot of jargon ( instead of clear englsih so everyone knows EXACTLY what they are voting for) or the Government will explain it without jargon but do a bit of cherry-picking, so as to make more reasons for a yes vote

    I think it's good that leaflets are also being distributed by those in favour of no, so that way you can judge both of them and try make a descision from that.

    Ideally, everything that is in it, highlighted in clear english would be most favourable. However I can't see this happening

    As well as this there will be those who don't bother to examine it and either vote yes or no, which I think is a waste of a vote

    Anyway, we'll see. There will be a lot more coverage of it coming up to June.


  • Options
    #200
    utick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 562 ✭✭✭utick


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    Lads, has anyone tried to read the full text? Its amazingly frustrating, I wanted to try and read the full text but I’m going back to look for unbiased summarised versions now I think. For example, here’s a quote from page 13:



    Now I know we don’t have to read all that to make our minds up but come on!

    Remember there used to be a page in the newspapers taken out that had a “for and against” argument for each referendum. Have these been released yet?, I haven’t seen them in any of the newspapers yet and I have checked online but can’t find anything.

    Anyway, I don’t want to vote one way or another based on what the political parties think is best, I'd prefer to make up my own mind. So I am still undecided until I can find an easier to read version of the draft.

    Does anyone know any good unbiased website detailing the Treaty btw?

    its designed to be confusing:D

    simple rule of thumb is if u are not sure then u should vote no, because the government will give u another chance to vote yes, but if the yes vote wins we wont get another chance to say no


  • Options
    #201
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    utick wrote: »
    its designed to be confusing:D

    simple rule of thumb is if u are not sure then u should vote no, because the government will give u another chance to vote yes, but if the yes vote wins we wont get another chance to say no

    If you don't understand it, it would make a heck of a lot more sense to not vote, rather than vote Yes or No when you've no idea what either one means.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If you don't understand it, it would make a heck of a lot more sense to not vote, rather than vote Yes or No when you've no idea what either one means.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    How does that work?

    You vote NO things stay as they are.
    You vote yes they change in ways that the poster does not understand.

    Do you find this a difficult concept?????


  • Options
    #203
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DisandDat wrote: »
    How does that work?

    You vote NO things stay as they are.
    You vote yes they change in ways that the poster does not understand.

    Do you find this a difficult concept?????
    Very disingenuous.

    If you vote no, things stay the same - which is only a good thing if you're certain that the status quo ante is better than the changes proposed by the treaty.

    If you vote YES (see what I did there?) things change, which is a good thing if the changes proposed by the treaty are better than the status quo ante.

    If you don't know whether or not things would be better, the responsible option is not to vote. Better yet, educate yourself on the outcome of voting either way.


  • Options
    #204
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    If you vote no, things stay the same - which is only a good thing if you're certain that the status quo ante is better than the changes proposed by the treaty.

    If you vote YES (see what I did there?) things change, which is a good thing if the changes proposed by the treaty are better than the status quo ante.

    :rolleyes: But the poster does not know. Your arguments are based on the fact that he does know.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you don't know whether or not things would be better, the responsible option is not to vote. Better yet, educate yourself on the outcome of voting either way.

    I cannot understand the majority of your posts. Treaty's are not meant to be understood by the majority. I can guarantee that if I asked ten lawyers about even one section of the treaty, they would have ten different views.

    The lay man has not a hope in hell of understanding the implications.


  • Options
    #205
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    DisandDat wrote: »
    How does that work?

    You vote NO things stay as they are.
    You vote yes they change in ways that the poster does not understand.

    Do you find this a difficult concept?????

    If you don't understand the Treaty, then you don't know whether the status quo is better than what the Treaty offers - so you could be ignorantly voting for the worse of the two options.

    What you're saying is "you don't understand it, so vote the way I think you should". It's exactly the same as saying "you don't understand it, so vote Yes".

    You have three options in this referendum - Yes, No, Abstain. If you don't understand it, you shouldn't pick either of the first two.

    However, the implications of the Treaty are certainly not as hard to understand as you appear to think - most of the No side certainly claim to understand them.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #206
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DisandDat wrote: »
    :rolleyes: But the poster does not know. Your arguments are based on the fact that he does know.

    ...

    I cannot understand the majority of your posts.
    Evidently.


  • Options
    #207
    PHB
    Registered Users Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    DisandDat wrote: »
    I cannot understand the majority of your posts. Treaty's are not meant to be understood by the majority. I can guarantee that if I asked ten lawyers about even one section of the treaty, they would have ten different views.

    The lay man has not a hope in hell of understanding the implications.

    Why is this different to any other law? Have you ever look at some legislation in Ireland? Politics is complicated, that's why we have full-time representatives with lots of staff working on it.

    Politics is complicated even more when its for 400 million people.

    The treaty is complicated is not a reason not to vote, it's a reason not to have a referendum on it though.


  • Options
    #208
    DisandDat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭DisandDat


    PHB wrote: »
    Why is this different to any other law? Have you ever look at some legislation in Ireland? Politics is complicated, that's why we have full-time representatives with lots of staff working on it.

    All laws are the same. I am well versed in the area of law, thats why I made the point.

    Politics is not that complicated. It is the milking of the people for all they are worth.

    Do you think it is acceptable that a law, which will eventually be applied to a person, that same law cannot be understood.


  • Options
    #209
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    DisandDat wrote: »
    All laws are the same. I am well versed in the area of law, thats why I made the point.

    Politics is not that complicated. It is the milking of the people for all they are worth.

    Do you think it is acceptable that a law, which will eventually be applied to a person, that same law cannot be understood.

    So, do you consider this unacceptable:
    HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2007 (Oireachtas) wrote:
    12.—Section 4 of the Act of 2007 is amended—
    (a) by the substitution of the following subsections for subsection 1:

    (1) Notwithstanding the repeal of section 6 of the Act of 1978 by section 3, the body known as Comhairle na nDochtu´ irı´ Leighis, or in the English language as the Medical Council, established by that section of that Act shall continue in being.

    (1A) Subject to subsections (5) to (7), anything commenced but not completed by the Council, or the committee established under section 13(2)(b) of the Act of 1978, before the commencement of this subsection may be carried on and completed by the Council (with its membership as constituted under this Act) or that committee (with its membership as constituted under section 13 of the Act of 1978), as the case requires, after such commencement in accordance with the Acts specified in Part 1 of Schedule 1 and the statutory instruments specified in Part 2 of that Schedule notwithstanding the repeal and revocation of those Acts and those statutory instruments or any provisions of them by section 3.

    You really, really, genuinely find that more comprehensible than the Lisbon Treaty? And please note - there's no consolidated version at all.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #210
    EamonnKeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 950 ✭✭✭EamonnKeane


    Yes, that's easy to understand. The Medical Council will not be abolished; it can continue the work it was doing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    EamonnKeane wrote: »
    Yes, that's easy to understand. The Medical Council will not be abolished; it can continue the work it was doing.

    Very good! And now - what are the implications of the second paragraph?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement