French Minister warns Irish voters if they vote Non

VoidStarNull

nhughes100 wrote: »

Our biggest trading partners are still outside the Euro zone and to try and link the passing of EU referendums in the past to the emergance of the Celtic tiger is utter gibberish(Again Cowan bleating this morning)

Not sure if your post is intended to be serious, but for what it's worth check out the CSO for the truth about who our largest trading partners are:

UK we import 20,154.4 we export 16,566.1
USA we import 16,566.1 we export 15,805.3
ROW we import 17,005.9 we export 16,690.5
EU (ex UK) we import 18,160.6 we export 39,509.1

(millions of euros)

source: http://www.cso.ie/statistics/botmaintrpartners.htm

Icebear_151

zuroph wrote: »

100% agreed, just, IMO, if we are to fight against this, a yes vote is a better option for us. This is based on informed decision, having studied as much information from balanced sources as i can. My decisions are not based on trust for either side, as the government lost my trust a long time ago.

its not about benefit for IRELAND in my personal view. its about benefit for europe in total. i dont believe ireland itself has anything to lose by voting yes. but I believe the EU has a lot to gain by voting yes. A more streamlined well functioning Europe is what is needed, especially facing into this worldwide economic slump, and with pressure economically from the east. Europe needs to combine its efforts to fight against losing business to china. As you work in construction, im sure you've noticed the influx of chinese product. at present only 66% (approx)of legislation makes its way through the legal bureacracy of the EU. if the yes vote succeeds, this can increase to 95% (approx), saving billions in taxpayers money, and allwoing the EU to come to fast effective decisions to fight against outside forces economically.

Are you sure you studied it?

The Lisbon Treaty prepares the entering of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which then becomes valid for all member states once the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

ECHR article 2:

Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

In other words, Police can shoot into any protest gathering lawfully, it's only a question of declaring it a riot. This enables LAWFULL EXECUTIONS!
Look at Protocol 6, which enables the death penalty in case of war or imminent thread of war.

The Lisbon Treaty itself is full of frightening articles. e.g. article 48 says the treaty will be easily changeable in part III (the functioning of the EU) without referendum, only by parlementary vote. So in five years there might be the obligation of wearing the chip under the skin, or the working week of 50 hours. OK, it's gloomy picture, but there's just no protection against.

http://www.libertas.org/content/view/203/113/

Besides, don't trust in voting machines, as they were already used to cheat elections in Germany. Since the use of machines, exit poll estimations and final results don't fit anymore.

DeVore

I found the info I was requesting:

This is really quite interesting and I have to say, a touch disturbing....
Its from here: http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html
which is supposedly a neutral site. I think everyone should read this:

More Info on Role of National Parliaments

Proposed Changes - Power to Change the Treaties
At present the Treaties governing the EU are amended only by the Member States agreeing to an amending treaty which must then be approved by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. In almost all cases this involves parliamentary approval. In some cases, for example in Ireland, a referendum may be required.

The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties. Any such changes cannot increase the competence of the EU. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council. This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present.

The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give them the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.

This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.

The power to change from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting or from the Special Legislative Procedure to a Ordinary Legislative Procedure does not extend to military and defence issues.

It could apply, for example, to taxation where unanimity is required at present. However as outlined earlier in this website, any such proposed change could be vetoed by the Irish government.

DeV.

oscarBravo

DeVore wrote: »

Can you elaborate on your comment about it being a "self-amending" treaty? Preferably with some links to the treaty or neutral explanation sites. I'm genuinely interested in that as I think its important...

"Self-amending" is a misleading term used to describe the effect of Article 48 of the treaty. The point of Article 48 is to allow individual changes to the treaties to be ratified by the member states as required, rather than having to wait several years for a whole big treaty and voting on hundreds of changes at once.

It basically allows the EU treaties to be amended as the Irish constitution is, by individual amendments rather than having to practically replace the entire document every few years.

Each change still has to be ratified by every member state in order to come into effect, and if any change encroaches on Irish sovereignty, it still has to go to a referendum.

So, as you can see, the term "self-amending" is quite misleading.

oscarBravo

Oops, you got there ahead of me.

DeVore wrote: »

This is really quite interesting and I have to say, a touch disturbing....
Its from here: http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html
which is supposedly a neutral site.

What do you find disturbing about it?

DeVore

Ok, I dont find it so disturbing now (in fact I was wondering why this whole thing comes as a package with a single Yes/No vote).

You should have written that website OB, their explanation was fairly confusing.

DeV.

nhughes100

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Not sure if your post is intended to be serious, but for what it's worth check out the CSO for the truth about who our largest trading partners are:

UK we import 20,154.4 we export 16,566.1
USA we import 16,566.1 we export 15,805.3
ROW we import 17,005.9 we export 16,690.5
EU (ex UK) we import 18,160.6 we export 39,509.1

(millions of euros)

source: http://www.cso.ie/statistics/botmaintrpartners.htm

Oh yes the post was serious, I love the way you've conglomerated the entire EU into one trading block bar the UK, they haven't got their federal government yet! what about the other 25 countries in it? My post stated that our two biggest trading countries were outside the Euro Zone

None of these "Euro Zone" countries individually trade more with us then the UK or the US. Not only that since the euro is getting stronger against the UK+US currencies our exports are hugely more expensive in these countries and as if that wasn't bad enough interest rates are going to go up so Hans and Gunter don't have to worry about inflation.

sink

nhughes100 wrote: »

Oh yes the post was serious, I love the way you've conglomerated the entire EU into one trading block bar the UK, they haven't got their federal government yet! what about the other 25 countries in it? My post stated that our two biggest trading countries were outside the Euro Zone

None of these "Euro Zone" countries individually trade more with us then the UK or the US. Not only that since the euro is getting stronger against the UK+US currencies our exports are hugely more expensive in these countries and as if that wasn't bad enough interest rates are going to go up so Hans and Gunter don't have to worry about inflation.

Do you realise that if we still had the punt, it would have to loose value to make our exports more competitive to the UK and US. The knock on effect would be that imports would be more expensive and that would drive up inflation, inflation in my guestimate would be 6-7% we currently have 3.3% or so. Do you think that would be a better situation?

nhughes100

At least if we had the punt we would have direct control over it's value and interest rates and yes I do believe that would be a better situation, your guess-timates on inflation is pure speculation, in fact before we had the euro we had very low inflation. So when your mortgage repayments go up over the next few months reflect on the fact that we have zero control over that. Incidentally Last time I looked inflation was around 5% for the best part of a year. I hadn't realised it has dropped to 3.3.

VoidStarNull

nhughes100 wrote: »

At least if we had the punt we would have direct control over it's value and interest rates and yes I do believe that would be a better situation, your guess-timates on inflation is pure speculation, in fact before we had the euro we had very low inflation. So when your mortgage repayments go up over the next few months reflect on the fact that we have zero control over that. Incidentally Last time I looked inflation was around 5% for the best part of a year. I hadn't realised it has dropped to 3.3.

If we didn't have the Euro the Irish punt would be following Sterling downwards. Good for Irish exporters, bad for inflation, and not exactly independence when the British cental bank is effectively controlling your currency. [ At least the ECB is mandated to take Irish inflation into account when making decisions ]

sink

nhughes100 wrote: »

Incidentally Last time I looked inflation was around 5% for the best part of a year. I hadn't realised it has dropped to 3.3.

http://www.finfacts.ie/inflation.htm

It hasn't been at 5% for years.

RDM_83

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm really getting tired of seeing this one trotted out.

It's not true.

It has been debunked repeatedly, over and over and over again.

Doesn't anyone read this forum? Is it a write-only medium?

Ok its a lie that it hasn't been audited, its just that the majority parliment which will be getting more powers doesn't believe that its electorate should be able to see its audits

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7266286.stm


Edit: Ps I'm pro european (cos of environmental EU legislation I've funding) I just see the creation of president etc as an opportunity for more corruption, perks and jobs for the boys.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

...before we had the euro we had very low inflation.

That statement means very little; inflation fluctuates all the time. Our highest rate of annual inflation in recent years was in 2000 (before the Euro was legal tender) when it reached 5.6%.

ShooterSF

"The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give them the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.

This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.
"

And is this not a genuine concern? what are those "certain areas" etc.?

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

And is this not a genuine concern? what are those "certain areas" etc.?

All areas apart from military and foreign policy.

ShooterSF

I thought I read asylum etc now fell under majority voting Anyway I dont fancy leaving this area to our government who have already shown they're afraid of ruffling other countries feathers. I doubt they'd ever use their veto

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

I thought I read asylum etc now fell under majority voting Anyway I dont fancy leaving this area to our government who have already shown they're afraid of ruffling other countries feathers. I doubt they'd ever use their veto

Asylum, immigration, justice and policing all move to QMV but we have opt outs for these areas, we don't have to implement the laws we can pick an choose the ones that suit us.

ShooterSF

sink wrote: »

Asylum, immigration, justice and policing all move to QMV but we have opt outs for these areas, we don't have to implement the laws we can pick an choose the ones that suit us.

Which in 3 years we'll have another referendum on that from what I've read? No real point just want to make sure I'm clear..

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

Which in 3 years we'll have another referendum on that from what I've read? No real point just want to make sure I'm clear..

Well the exact wording is it will be reviewed, there are no specifics so it's entirely up to the government how they go about reviewing it.

ShooterSF

sink wrote: »

Well the exact wording is it will be reviewed, there are no specifics so it's entirely up to the government how they go about reviewing it.

Thanks for you're reply man. I know we don't see anywhere near eye to eye, and as an example the vagueness of that statement is exactly the problem I HAVE here, but I appreciate the grown up approach you take to assisting people with information. Thanks.

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

Thanks for you're reply man. I know we don't see anywhere near eye to eye, and as an example the vagueness of that statement is exactly the problem I HAVE here, but I appreciate the grown up approach you take to assisting people with information. Thanks.

No problem. Of course I hope people vote yes, but I don't mind if they vote no and they know why and it is directly to do with the treaty. If democracy is to work we all must make an effort and form our best opinion on the determinable facts.

DeVore

Sorry, I seem to have wandered into the wrong website. I'm looking for my website... its big and noisy and full of cat pictures and polls about big brother. You haven't seen it around here anywhere have you?

DeV.

Beruthiel

DeVore wrote: »

Sorry, I seem to have wandered into the wrong website. I'm looking for my website... its big and noisy and full of cat pictures and polls about big brother. You haven't seen it around here anywhere have you?

Reported for being off topic

Darragh29

Not that I needed another reason to vote no, but this guy gave me another one when he started talking the other day.

Darragh29

sink wrote: »

No problem. Of course I hope people vote yes, but I don't mind if they vote no and they know why and it is directly to do with the treaty. If democracy is to work we all must make an effort and form our best opinion on the determinable facts.

This is the first I've heard of a requirement to vote "directly to do with the treaty". I voted no, not because of anything whatsoever in the treaty, but to be honest I have a gut feeling about how desperate the government are to push it through and this doesn't sit well with me. I don't like the way we have been threatened with victimisation, from our own government and other governments if we throw this out and I have serious concerns about so many EU citizens being sidelined with regard to an electoral mandate for this treaty across the EU.

Does this mean in your opinion that you'd have an issue with me being allowed to vote on this basis, because I didn't vote no on the basis of the treaty itself???

sink

Darragh29 wrote: »

This is the first I've heard of a requirement to vote "directly to do with the treaty". I voted no, not because of anything whatsoever in the treaty, but to be honest I have a gut feeling about how desperate the government are to push it through and this doesn't sit well with me. I don't like the way we have been threatened with victimisation, from our own government and other governments if we throw this out and I have serious concerns about so many EU citizens being sidelined with regard to an electoral mandate for this treaty across the EU.

Does this mean in your opinion that you'd have an issue with me being allowed to vote on this basis, because I didn't vote no on the basis of the treaty itself???

Yes in my opinion people like you are why direct democracy is not possible and why I don't think it is a good idea to have referenda on complex issues like an international treaty. Single issue referenda are fine e.g. abortion, divorce. Direct democracy would be the perfect form of democracy but it requires the demo's to be well informed and impartial, which I'm afraid our current society falls far short of. So I don't have a problem with you personally, you are just following the sociological structure of society, my problem is with society itself.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

Yes in my opinion people like you are why direct democracy is not possible and why I don't think it is a good idea to have referenda on complex issues like an international treaty. Single issue referenda are fine e.g. abortion, divorce. Direct democracy would be the perfect form of democracy but it requires the demo's to be well informed and impartial, which I'm afraid our current society falls far short of. So I don't have a problem with you personally, you are just following the sociological structure of society, my problem is with society itself.

Is it not more a case of following the constitutional structure of the state?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Darragh29

sink wrote: »

Yes in my opinion people like you are why direct democracy is not possible and why I don't think it is a good idea to have referenda on complex issues like an international treaty. Single issue referenda are fine e.g. abortion, divorce. Direct democracy would be the perfect form of democracy but it requires the demo's to be well informed and impartial, which I'm afraid our current society falls far short of. So I don't have a problem with you personally, you are just following the sociological structure of society, my problem is with society itself.

Your post above demonstrates the typical arrogance of the yes campaign. Your implication above that anyone who votes no does not understand the substance of the treaty is remarkable. There may be people who vote no for the sake of voting no, but I've voted no because I do not believe that the EU will accept a no, so I believe that on this basis, everyone ought to vote no. Voting yes and ignoring the fact that you cannot vote no is simply accepting that you can be silenced as a voter. If the referendum happened to be about something that you felt strongly about, say divorce or abortion, are you telling me that you would tolerate for a second the government and external governments telling you that you MUST vote on particular way on an issue??? There might be nothing amotive about the Lisbon Treaty, but the principal of people being free to vote entirely as they wish and that decision being fully respected, must still stand. The fact that you can ignore the wider implications of what is happening here, which is far more important than anything that is in the Lisbon Treaty, might come back to haunt you when the subject matter may be more emotive but the same approach will be used, i.e: "you MUST vote as we tell you"...

marco_polo

Darragh29 wrote: »

Your post above demonstrates the typical arrogance of the yes campaign. Your implication above that anyone who votes no does not understand the substance of the treaty is remarkable. There may be people who vote no for the sake of voting no, but I've voted no because I do not believe that the EU will accept a no, so I believe that on this basis, everyone ought to vote no. Voting yes and ignoring the fact that you cannot vote no is simply accepting that you can be silenced as a voter. If the referendum happened to be about something that you felt strongly about, say divorce or abortion, are you telling me that you would tolerate for a second the government and external governments telling you that you MUST vote on particular way on an issue??? There might be nothing amotive about the Lisbon Treaty, but the principal of people being free to vote entirely as they wish and that decision being fully respected, must still stand. The fact that you can ignore the wider implications of what is happening here, which is far more important than anything that is in the Lisbon Treaty, might come back to haunt you when the subject matter may be more emotive but the same approach will be used, i.e: "you MUST vote as we tell you"...

So basically a protest vote then? FFS why cant people vote on the merits or otherwise of the Treaty as they percieve them. :mad:

The result will effect Europe long after the current Government are gone.

djpbarry

Darragh29 wrote: »

There may be people who vote no for the sake of voting no, but I've voted no because I do not believe that the EU will accept a no, so I believe that on this basis, everyone ought to vote no. Voting yes and ignoring the fact that you cannot vote no is simply accepting that you can be silenced as a voter.

You've already made this claim (either in this thread or another one) and it's already been pointed out to you that this is nonsense. You can vote any way you want, but voting without even considering what you're voting on is pretty daft.

Darragh29 wrote: »

There might be nothing amotive about the Lisbon Treaty, but the principal of people being free to vote entirely as they wish and that decision being fully respected, must still stand.

It does. You're basically just complaining that the government is campaigning for a 'Yes' vote, which they are perfectly in entitled to do; as is any other group.

Funny that you don't complain that the 'No' campaigners are "forcing" you to vote 'No'.