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
For those of you who voted yes...
Options
Comments
-
Exhibit A
Outlandish? Well, it's really obviously untrue to anyone who knows what they're talking about.
Scaremongering? Debatable, I'll grant you that.
Not as bad as CÓIR, but they still deserve a hammering.
As you even hinted yourself after posting up Exhibit A, you will need something a bit better than that to prove your point.
Do you think that Cowan will mention the Commissioner issue in the upcoming meetings with the EU heads of states and mandarins? What will come of it is a different debate, but I think the role of the commissioner was key in the treaty. Far from being a red herring, it was one of the central issues in the reorganisation of EU. I havent seen all Libertas posters, just that Ganley struck me as being a respectable apologist with a certain agenda - right or wrong. Debated respectfully etc but has been subjected to all forms of mudslinging from beaten supporters since the defeat. It suited Libertas to play the straight game while lunatics, actual lunatics, threw all sorts of nonsense as reasons to vote No, on the other hand I know a handful of people who made up their minds to vote Yes once SF voted No.
I think lumping all No groups together as loo-lahs without deciding what arguments had serious points was the main mistake of the Yes campaign.0 -
What many people on the Yes side seem to be forgetting is that the Lisbon Treaty was a re-run of the EU Constitution which failed. Ireland, did NOT ratify the proposed EU Constitution as the process was halted. France rejected it, as did Holland. The EU Constitution, which was legally a treaty as well, lets not forget that, was the forerunner of Lisbon, and Ireland now has rejected it in its Lisbon Treaty format. The Yes side need to keep this fact in mind at all times.
We are not as alone as you might think. Its not a case of Ireland (1 country) versus the other 26 who have ratified it, of which 18 only have done so so far. The EU representatives en masse will do a lot of self-reflecting in the coming weeks and months. For some countries, their leaders may in fact decide that it is internally political damaging to go ahead and ratify a treaty that may end up legally dead. Why go through that pain for nothing? The UK is in this position, and there may be a few other countries too.
There are two paths. Seek a new treaty later on, or the EU may be able to devise a protocol which if presented to the Irish people attached to Lisbon could be acceptable. Our leaders will know from the Nice I and Nice II situation, as will many in the EU, that this and perhaps additional Irish constitutional change/text assurances may be enough to get Ireland over the line, so it is entirely plausible. The EU will be listening to our representatives on that. And some of the other EU countries yet to ratify, especially those with a perceived internal difficulty such as the UK, may delay their ratification process until after Ireland approves it.
So, for the Yes voters that think the world has caved in, that we will get kicked out by the other 26, that it will be a disaster for Ireland - this is completely and wholly incorrect. Yes, its true that our represenatives may find things tougher in the EU in the short-term, but they are our representatives and this is what they are paid to do, but to be honest as they have such brass-necks it is still a cake-walk for many of them. Water of a duck's back if you ask me.
The Yes voters also need to remember that we Irish people were the only people that got a chance to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, that the countries that could have done decided not to do so in case it wasnt passed, and that we only have it because our government, our so-called representatives have been forced by our courts to do so! That should give many people some food for thought on the so-called democracy of the EU project at this point in time.
Perhaps a time for all to reflect ....
Redspider
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/06/15/story33696.aspDutch voters applaud Irish ‘courage’
Sunday, June 15, 2008 - By Isabel Conway in Amsterdam
The Irish government’s campaign for a Yes vote on the Lisbon Treaty ‘‘did not have a hope’’, said Dutch politician Harry van Bommel, a prominent No campaigner.
‘‘They made exactly the same mistakes as our government back in 2005, when Dutch voters threw out a proposed European Constitution. The Irish government started their campaign far too late and they didn’t have any good arguments, except to say that people should be grateful to the European Union for the past,” van Bommel said.
‘‘But this treaty wasn’t about the past; it was about the future – so why bother to vote for a treaty to ensure what we already have? Dutch people, like the Irish, appreciate what the EU has done in terms of prosperity. But this is a new treaty about the future, with huge implications that threaten neutrality, sovereignty, independence, and erode democracy. Irish voters realised all of that, luckily,” he said.
As Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende bemoaned the Irish No vote, expressing deep disappointment and regret at the outcome, the Dutch public appeared to have a different view.
Dutch newspaper websites were inundated with messages of support for a No vote by early Friday afternoon. News in the previous days had dwelt on the benefits of EU membership for Ireland, the Celtic tiger years and the suggestion that the Irish were committed Europeans and thankful for all the wealth and success that had come their way over the past decade. So, in a way, the outcome was a surprise for many Dutch people.
However, more than 90 per cent of the stream of reactions on the website of the country’s largest newspaper, de Telegraaf, were applauding ‘‘Ireland’s courage’’ as soon as the early tallies were in. The reaction spoke volumes about Dutch people’s frustration over their own government’s treatment of an electorate that, together with the French, had overwhelmingly rejected a European Constitution, forcing the Brussels Eurocrats back to the drawing board.
Responding to the news that Irish voters were turning down the treaty, one said ‘‘they are doing the work our politicians were too cowardly to let us decide. If we had been given another referendum, we could have had our say; but the politicians knew the outcome – so instead, they decided on our behalf.”
In an effort to spark off a debate in parliament, more than 44,000 signatures were collected in the Netherlands, urging a referendum. But van Bommel, European Affairs spokesman for the Socialist Party, was the only member of parliament to accept the petition.
He has called on Balkenende to respect ‘‘Irish voters’ right to reject the treaty’’, by stopping the ratification process immediately in the Netherlands. ‘‘We voted down much of what is in this Treaty; it isn’t fair to ignore the Irish right to say No; we Dutch should do the fair and decent thing and accept Ireland’s No for what it is,” he said.0 -
I thought under nice we hadn't actually lost our commissioner for 5 years every 10 years. Was it not just an agreement in principal that there has to be less than 27 commissioners thus that poster is still technically correct? i.e we have not agreed to lose our commissioner but ratifying lisbon does commit to us specifically losing our commissioner for a period of time. From my understanding technically everyone losing a comissioner for 1 year rotating would fulfil the nice agreement and would mean that countries only lose a commissioner for 1 year every 27 years.
You still don't keep "your" commissioner, whatever way you look at it.0 -
Is a term set in stone as being 5 years or is that only for president of the commission?
It's in stone.Either way it technically justifies the poster as a possibility of specifically not losing a commissioner.
If the number of commissioners is less than the number of countries and the commissioners are rotated fairly it is a mathematical certainty that everyone loses a commissioner for some of the time.0 -
As you even hinted yourself after posting up Exhibit A, you will need something a bit better than that to prove your point.
Well, maybe they weren't scaremongering but they were certainly blatantly lying for some as-yet-undiscovered reason.
Most of their claims were either outright lies or misleading distortions of the truth.Do you think that Cowan will mention the Commissioner issue in the upcoming meetings with the EU heads of states and mandarins? What will come of it is a different debate, but I think the role of the commissioner was key in the treaty. Far from being a red herring, it was one of the central issues in the reorganisation of EU.
It's certainly not a red herring. That said, the level of understanding among Irish voters of what a commissioner does is woefully inadequate.
I suspect Cowen will bring up the commissioner issue at the EU but as far as I understand it there's very little support for continuing the 1 commissioner per country deal. To get us back to 1 commissioner per country we need the agreement of all member states, that's highly unlikely to happen any time soon and some other states might see an Irish push for that as Ireland trying to hold the EU to ransom.I havent seen all Libertas posters, just that Ganley struck me as being a respectable apologist with a certain agenda - right or wrong. Debated respectfully etc but has been subjected to all forms of mudslinging from beaten supporters since the defeat.
The first step in debating respectfully is to tell the truth, undistorted. Unfortunately, if they told the truth they would have had a much harder campaign.It suited Libertas to play the straight game while lunatics, actual lunatics, threw all sorts of nonsense as reasons to vote No, on the other hand I know a handful of people who made up their minds to vote Yes once SF voted No.
There were plenty of lunatics on both sides. Yes, Libertas probably made some ground by not being mad.I think lumping all No groups together as loo-lahs without deciding what arguments had serious points was the main mistake of the Yes campaign.
One mistake of many made by the Yes campaign.0 -
Advertisement
-
If it is done that way but lisbon gives a definite loss of commissioner in 2014 whereas the possible loss under nice still has to be worked out.If the number of commissioners is less than the number of countries and the commissioners are rotated fairly it is a mathematical certainty that everyone loses a commissioner for some of the time.0 -
If it is done that way but lisbon gives a definite loss of commissioner in 2014 whereas the possible loss under nice still has to be worked out.
In Nice it's required to be < 27 in 2009.
Barring negotiation of a treaty to roll back that provision of the Nice treaty of course, but that's not very likely to happen before 2009.0 -
-
-
The problem with the quotes is that you assume that the people of the other 26 nations agree with their leaders.I'd vote Yes a second time if given the opportunity. I don't find anything wrong with the OP's quotes.
In the only instance this was put to the test it turned out the people and their leaders do not agree. Is it so difficult to assume this would be the case in more countries had they had referendums too?0 -
Advertisement
-
These were posted in another thread. Do these quotes not clearly show that these people have no respect for democracy. The clear disregard for the "minority" , which is what Ireland and many other smaller countries represent in the EU is worrying to say the least.
Would you reconsider your yes vote after hearing this? I know I would.
I voted Yes and would vote Yes again, because I agreed with the treaty.
All respect to anybody who voted No based on an analysis of the treaty, but to say I would now reject the treaty, solely based on intemperate statements by a handful of European politicians, is utterly ludicrous.0 -
I would think that it would force a shared rotation of sorts but I am also saying that one could argue that since nothing has been agreed pre-lisbon about Ireland specifically losing a commissioner that lisbon would have sealed Ireland's loss of one for a period of time - that is what they are arguing.But you still understand that <27 guarantees the loss of a commissioner right?
One could also argue that if it came to that then god knows what might happen i.e. Ireland mightened lose the commissioner if no agreement is made as the idea of a rotation of commissioners might be partly or fully scrapped.Indeed. It's less than clear what woud happen in the absence of an agreement.0 -
....would you vote no if the referendum was put to us a second time after hearing the reaction of European politicians in the aftermath of our decision?
There will be calls in the EU to ensure that a few thousand Irish voters do not hold up half a billion European citizens who want this treaty. -Antonio Missiroli
With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority. -Axel Schafer
These were posted in another thread. Do these quotes not clearly show that these people have no respect for democracy. The clear disregard for the "minority" , which is what Ireland and many other smaller countries represent in the EU is worrying to say the least.
Would you reconsider your yes vote after hearing this? I know I would.
They can all say what they want. I will vote based on the issue at hand, last week it was Lisbon. I made my mind up based on the Treaty and not what others were saying about it and the consequences of a yes/no vote.0 -
As you even hinted yourself after posting up Exhibit A, you will need something a bit better than that to prove your point.
Do you think that Cowan will mention the Commissioner issue in the upcoming meetings with the EU heads of states and mandarins? What will come of it is a different debate, but I think the role of the commissioner was key in the treaty. Far from being a red herring, it was one of the central issues in the reorganisation of EU. I havent seen all Libertas posters, just that Ganley struck me as being a respectable apologist with a certain agenda - right or wrong. Debated respectfully etc but has been subjected to all forms of mudslinging from beaten supporters since the defeat. It suited Libertas to play the straight game while lunatics, actual lunatics, threw all sorts of nonsense as reasons to vote No, on the other hand I know a handful of people who made up their minds to vote Yes once SF voted No.
I think lumping all No groups together as loo-lahs without deciding what arguments had serious points was the main mistake of the Yes campaign.
How anyone can defend Libertas is beyond me. Even the knowledgeable No voters on here haven't tried. They completely misled the people on the commissioner issue, and they directly stated that corporation tax could be raised through Enhanced Co-operation, which was an outright lie. They have zero credibility.0 -
I would think that it would force a shared rotation of sorts but I am also saying that one could argue that since nothing has been agreed pre-lisbon about Ireland specifically losing a commissioner that lisbon would have sealed Ireland's loss of one for a period of time - that is what they are arguing.
Well, the clear things that Nice says are:- The number of commissioners must be less than the number of member states.
- The reduction happens for the 2009 commission.
- The rotation must be fair. Fair is defined as "the difference between the number of terms any two countries have had may not exceed one". This ensures that everyone gets an equal number of times at the table.
Here are the possible scenarios:
Number of commissioner seats|Percentage of time each country spends away from the table
26|3.7
25|7.41
24|11.11
23|14.81
22|18.52
21|22.22
20|25.93
19|29.63
18|33.33
17|37.04
16|40.74
15|44.44
14|48.15
13|51.85
12|55.56
11|59.26
10|62.96
9|66.67
8|70.37
7|74.07
6|77.78
5|81.48
4|85.19
3|88.89
2|92.59
1|96.3
They may have been arguing that a Yes vote to Lisbon guaranteed a loss of a commissioner. What they failed to tell people was that a No vote guaranteed the same thing.One could also argue that if it came to that then god knows what might happen i.e. Ireland mightened lose the commissioner if no agreement is made as the idea of a rotation of commissioners might be partly or fully scrapped.
It's possible, but really really unlikely. There's political consensus at the governmental level that the current 1 commissioner per country is not scalable and that it will have to be reduced. The question is less "will it be reduced?" and more "how much will it be reduced by?".
To scrap the reduction of the number of commissioners we would need another treaty. I don't think there's time to get that negotiated and ratified between now and November 2009.0 -
lenny_leonard wrote: »How anyone can defend Libertas is beyond me. Even the knowledgeable No voters on here haven't tried. They completely misled the people on the commissioner issue, and they directly stated that corporation tax could be raised through Enhanced Co-operation, which was an outright lie. They have zero credibility.
No one can tell what Enhanced Co-operation may or may not bring. Libertas, amongst others, including Charlie McCreevy if i remember correctly, have stated that pressure could be placed on Irish Corporation Tax through Enhanced Co-oporation. It was acknowledged by all that the Irish have a veto on taxation, however, as has been stated now, after the referendum, using the veto is the nuclear solution in EU politics. Maybe we'll see how useful a veto is for one country swimming against the general tide of European opinion shortly.0 -
No one can tell what Enhanced Co-operation may or may not bring. Libertas, amongst others, including Charlie McCreevy if i remember correctly, have stated that pressure could be placed on Irish Corporation Tax through Enhanced Co-oporation. It was acknowledged by all that the Irish have a veto on taxation, however, as has been stated now, after the referendum, using the veto is the nuclear solution in EU politics. Maybe we'll see how useful a veto is for one country swimming against the general tide of European opinion shortly.
Its not one country. Several, including the UK, would oppose such a move.0 -
No one can tell what Enhanced Co-operation may or may not bring. Libertas, amongst others, including Charlie McCreevy if i remember correctly, have stated that pressure could be placed on Irish Corporation Tax through Enhanced Co-oporation. It was acknowledged by all that the Irish have a veto on taxation, however, as has been stated now, after the referendum, using the veto is the nuclear solution in EU politics. Maybe we'll see how useful a veto is for one country swimming against the general tide of European opinion shortly.
You're talking about pressure being put on Ireland from other countries involved in an Enhanced Co-operation move? That wasn't Declan Ganleys position; he was asked a direct question like "Can Enhanced Co-operation force Ireland to raise corporation tax", and he replied (after what sounded like a slightly guilty hesitation) "Yes it can". So unless I'm mis-interpreting how enhanced co-operation is supposed to work, that to me is an outright lie.
And anyway, we got quite a few assurances that corporation tax was safe, so call me naive, but I trusted those assurances. Also, as molloyjh has stated, we wouldn't be the only country who would fiercely oppose any increase in corporation tax. We would have support on the issue.
Have you any defense of Libertas' claims over the commissioner, or the statement that three-year old kids could be detained? Because I totally disagree with your defense of their corporation tax claims.0
Advertisement