Some lies about the Lisbon Treaty.

Scofflaw

spikedimitri wrote: »

Thanks for the info Scofflaw. I haven't read through the link yet (I have to print it off to save me eyes!). I'll respond when I have .

As to your post, why are the percentages out of 9 or 19 countries rather than the full 27? I understand the need for 4 to block, but surely the reverse of that is that you need 23 to pass?

Well, a proposal can be blocked, or it can simply fail to pass. Say Ireland puts forward a proposal to do something, and no-one really opposes it, but nobody really supports it either. Then the proposal would fail to pass.

If, on the other hand, most members supported it, but 4 were resolutely opposed, then they could block it, assuming they represent enough people.

It seems reasonably solid to me - the big states have more weight, as befits the greater number of people they represent, but can't do without the small states.

The EU has some fairly standard sets of allies in different policy areas - we're usually with the UK on tax and business (usually against the French), and with France on farming (usually against the UK).

cordially,
Scofflaw

berliner

the eu is undemocratic.when you vote no they insist you vote again until they get the result they want.the whole eu project is a lie,a con.

heyjude

bonkey wrote: »

Its interesting you should mention that.

When the government did re-run a referendum, I suggested to all those who vehemently complained about it that they campaign for just that, as soon as the referendum had passed.

They didn't.

In 2004, another referendum came about, and those against it complained that a no vote would only result in a re-run. I asked why they hadn't been campaigning for a change in legislation since mid-2002 to prevent that, and suggested that they should start such a campaign immediately after the referendum, regardless of the result, in order to ensure this didn't come about. I believe I explicitly suggested they keep it in the public's memory, so that it could be used against the government come election-time.

They didn't.

Now, in 2008, guess what. We have a referendum coming up yet again, and all of a sudden the long-silent have rediscovered their voice, and are reminding us once again that the government will surely pull a fast one if they don't get their way.

I will, unsurprisingly, repeat my long-held position. Until you can build a popular movement to prevent the government from re-running referenda when there isn't an issue on the table that you have a vested interest in, no-one is going to take those claims seriously.

I predict, however, that once this referendum is past, the issue will once again disappear, only to be raised as a certainty, again, by whoever opposeses whatever the next referendum is about.

The government propose and schedule referendums, so I couldn't see any circumstances in which they would wish to handcuff themselves into waiting for 18 months to repeat a vote. Probably what we would need is some mechanism whereby a referendum can be proposed and held without having to be approved by the government. I think they have some system for referenda in Switzerland whereby if you can get 250,000 to sign a petition then you can have such a vote. AFAIK we don't have such an arrangement here and without it, the government will continue to have sole control over what we vote on and when.

heyjude

The government is trying to paint the NO campaign by Libertas and others as being full of lies, inaccuracies and exaggerations, but this is the same government that a few years ago told us that when the new accession states joined the EU that since there was no history of emigration from eastern Europe to Ireland, that just 5,000 were expected to travel here.

Their argument was that, as something had never happened before(mass emigration from eastern europe into Ireland), it wouldn't happen now.

Well 4 years later, the number who actually arrived is something like 400,000.

Now I don't have a problem with most of those that came, but if we're talking about credibility and accuracy when talking about Europe and what is likely to happen in the next few years in Europe, post-Lisbon, then I don't think the current government has a record that inspires confidence.

If they could be wrong to this extent before, then whose to know, maybe their forecasts about the effects of the Lisbon Treaty could be equally inaccurate, with unforeseen consequences.

Moriarty

heyjude wrote: »

If they could be wrong to this extent before, then whose to know, maybe their forecasts about the effects of the Lisbon Treaty could be equally inaccurate, with unforeseen consequences.

Would you agree that certain prominent proponents for a No vote could be equally inaccurate in their forecasts of what will or will not happen should we vote No?

Gadjodilo

heyjude wrote: »

The government is trying to paint the NO campaign by Libertas and others as being full of lies, inaccuracies and exaggerations, but this is the same government that a few years ago told us that when the new accession states joined the EU that since there was no history of emigration from eastern Europe to Ireland, that just 5,000 were expected to travel here.

Their argument was that, as something had never happened before(mass emigration from eastern europe into Ireland), it wouldn't happen now.

Well 4 years later, the number who actually arrived is something like 400,000.

Now I don't have a problem with most of those that came, but if we're talking about credibility and accuracy when talking about Europe and what is likely to happen in the next few years in Europe, post-Lisbon, then I don't think the current government has a record that inspires confidence.

If they could be wrong to this extent before, then whose to know, maybe their forecasts about the effects of the Lisbon Treaty could be equally inaccurate, with unforeseen consequences.

I'm not from the government and I've succeeded in showing that the NO campaign by Libertas and others is full of lies, inaccuracies and exaggerations. Check my posts above; if you don't believe me, I'll post the links proving it.

The No to Nice campaign was trying to tell us that voting yes would mean mass immigration. The yes people said that there was no link. Voting yes would not necessarily mean mass immigration; voting no would not necessarily stop. The main reason behind the mass immigration was economic - we needed the workers due to labour shortages. Now, it's impossible to prove this now but I do believe that we'd have let them in anyway, Nice or no Nice. The business organisations were clamouring for it.

Anyway, if you don't trust the yes side, don't accept blindly what the no side is saying. Go and read up on it yourself.

Overheal

Irish Independent wrote:

THE Irish Exporters' Association yesterday added its voice to the chorus of Lisbon Treaty supporters, arguing the treaty's defeat could jeopardise €56bn of EU-bound annual exports.
The move comes ahead of today's launch of a pro-Lisbon campaign fronted by business luminaries including Glen Dimplex's Martin Naughton, C&C's Maurice Pratt and BP's Peter Sutherland.
"Ireland has benefited hugely from being in the EU, with European exports growing from €839m when we joined in 1973 to €56bn last year," said IEA boss John Whelan.
"A No vote would have the effect of unravelling the hard work of exporters over the past decades, would turn away prospective new investors in Ireland and would bring further uncertainty into our current manufacturing sector."
A survey published last week by business lobby group ISME showed the treaty would be rejected by 73pc of owner/managers of small business if a vote were held immediately.
A spokesman for anti-Lisbon lobby group Libertas dismissed the IEA's comments as "scaremongering".
"A No Vote would leave the European Union exactly where it is now -- working well," he added. "We would also ask why the terrible fate outlined by the IEA did not befall the Netherlands, another small country in Europe, when they said a resounding No to the exact same document in 2004?"
Further arguments for the treaty will be unveiled today when the Business Alliance formally calls for a yes vote.
Members of the alliance include Mr Sutherland, Mr Pratt and Mr Naughton, along with Microsoft Ireland managing director Paul Rellis, Dublin Airport Authority boss Declan Collier and former Industrial Development Agency (IDA) boss Padraic White.
- Laura Noonan

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/exporters-say-no-vote-would-spell-disaster-1367087.html


"A No vote would have the effect of unravelling the hard work of exporters over the past decades, would turn away prospective new investors in Ireland and would bring further uncertainty into our current manufacturing sector."


I dont see how?

marco murphy

dlofnep wrote: »

"Voting no would be disasterous for Ireland".

"Voting no is a precursor to an exit from the EU".

Both lies.

Dermot Ahern doesn't think so.

justfortherecor

Brian Goggin, CEO of Bank of Ireland, also gave full support to the Treaty at his speach at the Smurfit Business School Annual dinner on May 1st.

He also highlights the importance of EU exports, after all 84% of what we produce in this country ends up on the export market. He also said the Treaty will cement our corporation tax of 12.5% and make it harder for other member nations to try and influence it.

From a business point of view, the vote on the Treaty is a no brainer.

is_that_so

heyjude wrote: »

The government is trying to paint the NO campaign by Libertas and others as being full of lies, inaccuracies and exaggerations, but this is the same government that a few years ago told us that when the new accession states joined the EU that since there was no history of emigration from eastern Europe to Ireland, that just 5,000 were expected to travel here.

Their argument was that, as something had never happened before(mass emigration from eastern europe into Ireland), it wouldn't happen now.

Well 4 years later, the number who actually arrived is something like 400,000.

Now I don't have a problem with most of those that came, but if we're talking about credibility and accuracy when talking about Europe and what is likely to happen in the next few years in Europe, post-Lisbon, then I don't think the current government has a record that inspires confidence.

If they could be wrong to this extent before, then whose to know, maybe their forecasts about the effects of the Lisbon Treaty could be equally inaccurate, with unforeseen consequences.

As others have posted this is not about the government nor should it be seen as a a chance to give them a bloody nose. That's for next year.:D

That said to Dick Roche's credit he playing a blinder, showing up everywhere and standing his ground very firmly.

In the end read and understand it as best you can, and make your decision on information rather than the prejudice of others.

IMO,the only lies are the ones people make to themselves because they don't verify what they are being told.

Gadjodilo

More lies from the No side!

EC Vice President Margot Wallstrom recently said the following while addressing the Irish Institute of European Affairs in Brussels. This is the quote from the article in the Irish Examiner:

“Under the terms of the treaty, member states will lose their commissioner for five years in every 15 in an effort to make the body more streamlined.

But Ms Wallstrom, who is very much in favour of the treaty, said a system has to be found to ensure countries are not left out in any way when they do not have a commissioner.

Member states nominate commissioners and while they pledge to serve the interests of the EU overall, they are a vital link between the commission and their home country.

Ms Wallstrom, addressing the Irish Institute of European Affairs in Brussels, said she had concerns about the new arrangement.
“Whatever we win in efficiency we might lose in democratic legitimacy because we need someone who can speak their own language and be acceptable to their people and stand up for them,” she said.

However, the rotating system had been agreed and would affect both big and small member states and all would have to be treated equally, she said.

“We have only started to reflect on how it can work in practice with losing a commissioner and we have to find a system — this is the down side and definitely it is a problematic thing but there will be a lot of structures that will have to be adapted,” the commissioner said.

Liebertas (sorry Libertas) cut that down to:

“Whatever we win in efficiency we lose [the ‘might’ is deleted] in democratic legitimacy because we need someone who can speak their own language and be acceptable to their people and stand up for them,”.
“We have only started to reflect on how it can work in practice with losing a commissioner and we have to find a system — this is the down side and definitely it is a problematic thing”

They took it out of the context it was in, turned it into a very selective quote and deliberately distorted it. See the bits they removed (in bold) even from the quotes they did use.

Folks, they're asking us to trust them with their reading of an extremely important treaty. I wouldn't trust them with yesterday's newspaper.

sink

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Liebertas (sorry Libertas) cut that down to:

It's actually lieberats. Little rodent's that spread lies and confusion, I think Ireland needs to call pest control to exterminate them.

Vinegar Hill

The Independant has an article in today about some of the articles in the treaty. It is a good read and does touch a few of the reasons I will vote no.

http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html

One point to ponder;

Redistribution of voting weights between member states
Within those areas to be decided by qualified majority voting, the current rules require the support of a little over 72% of member states for a law to be passed. Under the new system due to come into effect from 2014, a vote can be passed if it is backed by 55% of member states, and secondly, if these countries represent 65% of the EU’s population. It can also be passed if less than four countries oppose it. The changes mean
that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

Gadjodilo

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

The Independant has an article in today about some of the articles in the treaty. It is a good read and does touch a few of the reasons I will vote no.

http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html

One point to ponder;

Redistribution of voting weights between member states
Within those areas to be decided by qualified majority voting, the current rules require the support of a little over 72% of member states for a law to be passed. Under the new system due to come into effect from 2014, a vote can be passed if it is backed by 55% of member states, and secondly, if these countries represent 65% of the EU’s population. It can also be passed if less than four countries oppose it. The changes mean
that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

We could argue all day as to whether or not this is a good or bad thing. I'd like to see you argue how we're being so hard done by with barely 1% of the population. One major point of difference between us lies in the following sentence:
Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

Gosh! Do small countries only ever block legislation?!

More than anything else this betrays your view of the EU. As I've mentioned before, you clearly see Ireland as still being a poor little member out on the edge being pushed around by the others and that under the Lisbon Treaty, we'll be pushed around even more. Have a look at the the thread called "It should be called the treaty of Dublin":
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055293886

As you see, we're actually a very dynamic, engaged member of the EU and have been excellent at building up consensus and blocks of support. That's how the EU operates; it's not about how much votes you have; it's about your ability to liaise with and convince other members.

Lose the inferiority complex, for God's sake. We've been very good at putting forward changes that have benefitted us. Why turn down a treaty that makes it even easier for us to do that?

Vinegar Hill

Gadjodilo wrote: »

We could argue all day as to whether or not this is a good or bad thing. I'd like to see you argue how we're being so hard done by with barely 1% of the population. One major point of difference between us lies in the following sentence:
Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

Gosh! Do small countries only ever block legislation?!

More than anything else this betrays your view of the EU. As I've mentioned before, you clearly see Ireland as still being a poor little member out on the edge being pushed around by the others and that under the Lisbon Treaty, we'll be pushed around even more. Have a look at the the thread called "It should be called the treaty of Dublin":
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055293886

As you see, we're actually a very dynamic, engaged member of the EU and have been excellent at building up consensus and blocks of support. That's how the EU operates; it's not about how much votes you have; it's about your ability to liaise with and convince other members.

Lose the inferiority complex, for God's sake. We've been very good at putting forward changes that have benefitted us. Why turn down a treaty that makes it even easier for us to do that?

Yes Ireland is a poor little country within the EU and yes we have very little impact on the EU or it's policies at this time. But if this treaty passes we will have none.

Suppose 100% of Ireland wanted to supply it's feed for the farmers from within Ireland and the EU decided we were going to buy it all from say Brasil? Then there is nothing we could do or say about it if the rest of the EU supported buying from Brasil.

I have no inferiority complex BTW. You just dislike the facts when faced with them. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. Do you get paid for your views about his BTW?

Vinegar Hill

Besides I forgot to mention, my original post was a link to an article in the Independant (As was pointed out in the post). You can read it and enlighten us to the lies it contains.

Gadjodilo

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Yes Ireland is a poor little country within the EU and yes we have very little impact on the EU or it's policies at this time. But if this treaty passes we will have none.

Second highest GDP per capita of the 27 nations and you think we're poor? You're totally wrong in your claim that we have very little impact on EU policy. You're making the classic mistake of focusing on our voting power. That's not crucial when it comes to getting your way. You make friends, form alliances with other countries, support them if they're sore on certain points on the understanding that they'll support you.

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Suppose 100% of Ireland wanted to supply it's feed for the farmers from within Ireland and the EU decided we were going to buy it all from say Brasil? Then there is nothing we could do or say about it if the rest of the EU supported buying from Brasil.

LMFAO! Are you seriously suggesting that the EU (after all this gumph about lowering trade barriers, breaking monopolies etc.) might start to force all European farmers to buy their feed from Brazil? Are you seriously suggesting that all EU countries would accept this? Are you seriously suggesting that the French with their very militant farm lobby would accept this?

Do you live in Ireland? Do you even live in Europe?

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

You just dislike the facts when faced with them.

Well, for a change, try me with a few.

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Do you get paid for your views about his
BTW?

Yes! I'm paid by a shadowy alliance composed of the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, the Freemasons and the Elders of Zion. There are also a couple of blokes in black robes and hoods who come in every now and again. I don't know who they are but the others are all scared ****less of them.

Gadjodilo

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Besides I forgot to mention, my original post was a link to an article in the Independant (As was pointed out in the post). You can read it and enlighten us to the lies it contains.

I'm not saying it's lies. I'm questioning your totally negative interpretation of it. In all the years we've been members, there has never been an instance where we're stood alone against the others. We've always been able to find wiggle room and get some positives with quid pro quos etc. Particularly now, with small countries in the vast majority and the new Eastern European countries being so well disposed towards us, I don't see that changing. In fact, I see huge possibilities in building alliances with these new members.

But then that's were we differ, Vinegar. I can point to all our successes, our stunning 2004 presidency that was so widely praised, our recent presidency of the European Parliament, our current and previous secretary generalship of the European Commission (one Irish diplomat has succeeded another in this high profile job). I have a lot of confidence in our diplomats and civil servants. You - despite all the evidence to the contrary - have none.

Vinegar Hill

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Second highest GDP per capita of the 27 nations and you think we're poor? You're totally wrong in your claim that we have very little impact on EU policy. You're making the classic mistake of focusing on our voting power. That's not crucial when it comes to getting your way. You make friends, form alliances with other countries, support them if they're sore on certain points on the understanding that they'll support you.

How is it a mistake to vote on our voting power? We all know that alliances and friends can not always be counted on and we do not have a way to hold them accountable.

LMFAO! Are you seriously suggesting that the EU (after all this gumph about lowering trade barriers, breaking monopolies etc.) might start to force all European farmers to buy their feed from Brazil? Are you seriously suggesting that all EU countries would accept this? Are you seriously suggesting that the French with their very militant farm lobby would accept this?

Lowering trade barriers and breaking monopolies? Seems it is all about the furthering of Capitalism and nothing more. It seems a few short months ago it was the Irish farmers that had to protest the Irish Army being fed South American beef with the full knowledge and consent of the EU. They refused to ban it despite the safety concerns. This beef was shown not to meet the standards that European beef was being held.

Do you live in Ireland? Do you even live in Europe?

No, I live on the moon.... Perhaps I will hold my own referendum on creating a super state.


Well, for a change, try me with a few.

If Lisbon is good for democracy, then why are the people of Europe who it will effect, NOT being allowed to vote on it. What about France, Holland, and Germany (Referendum are illegal there BTW)



Yes! I'm paid by a shadowy alliance composed of the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, the Freemasons and the Elders of Zion. There are also a couple of blokes in black robes and hoods who come in every now and again. I don't know who they are but the others are all scared ****less of them.

Well that explains it then

Gadjodilo

1. Given the tiny level of voting power we have (still more than the population warrants!), it's not significant. Of course, there are no guarantees with alliances but realistically we can do nothing on its own with the tiny level of voting power we have. That applies now whether or not Lisbon is passed.

2. First of all you were suggesting that the EU might give a monopoly to Brazilian farmers and that that would be a bad thing. Now you seem to be suggesting that breaking monopolies is a bad thing. Which is it?

3. The EU did ban Brazilian beef pretty much on the insistence of Ireland. Thank you for that example of how much power we do actually have.

4. I'm as unhappy as you are about the lack of referenda in the other 26 members but there's nothing we can do about it. It's their problem and if they were so concerned about it, why aren't they out protesting in the streets of their capitals?

sink

Gadjodilo wrote: »

1. Given the tiny level of voting power we have (still more than the population warrants!), it's not significant. Of course, there are no guarantees with alliances but realistically we can do nothing on its own with the tiny level of voting power we have. That applies now whether or not Lisbon is passed.

I would just like to point out that even large countries have to build alliances, they can't do anything on their own. Britain because of it's reluctance to get involved is terrible at forming alliances and hence gets less done in Europe than Ireland.