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
Sarkozy: Ireland needs to vote on Lisbon again
Options
Comments
-
Sone democracy, hope the no vote is bigger if we are ignored.0
-
Tim Robbins wrote: »No Croatia can't be accepted under Nice.
We need another treaty and considering the time and tax payers money they take, it's very important no voters articulate exactly what was wrong with Lisbon, before more money and time gets wasted.
I did not say that Croatia could be accepted under Nice. I did say that our brilliant Eurocrats have 4 years to work out an amendment to Nice so that Croatia have satisfised all necessary criteria and will be able to join the EU if they still want to at that stage.[/QUOTE]
So what exactly was wrong with Lisbon?
1. Tax? we kept our veto. Sorry, I'm not convinced we have. I don't trust the EU on this
2. Defense? we kept our veto. Sorry, I'm not convinced we have. I don't trust the EU on this
3. Commision? We won those negotiations. You mean that each country is going to have a Commisioner? Source please?
4. Changes to parliament? Changes for Ireland weren't that major. Not sure which ones you refer to here
5. Changes to powers between Council and Parliament? Hard to argue that. I wouldn't argue the change of power between the two - I would argue the loss of Irish souvernity here
6. Security? Asylum measure? We got an opt out clause on that. Not of huge concern to myself.
7. Climate Change initiatives? Hard to argue that. Most are good, although the recent fying levies are very tough on an island nation which is so heavily dependent on air travel to do business. Its not like we can get a train / drive instead.
8. Mechanism for Croatia to join? Hard to argue that. It shouldn't be a problem and as I've mentioned above, could be possible for Croatia to join the EU with an amendment to Nice or a separate accession treaty for Croatia to join.All we are getting is bunch of useless, asinine rhetoric. "We said NO", "Arrogant Eurocrats".
It has been explained time and again the reasons for voting no. Sarkozy's recent comments only convince us that we were right all along to vote no. What part of that do you not understand?We are at a major crossroads with the EU project, we either move forward or we bring it all down - largely through ignorance - and let the world be run by the US and China.
No thanks. So how about it No voters? Get moving and come up with something.
Right oh - so what I'll be voting on in the next referendum is whether Sarkozy/Merkel, the US or China run the world? Great!0 -
It doesn't matter if you trust the EU or not its there in black and white in the treaty. You obviously haven't familiarised yourself with it enough.thehighground wrote: »1. Tax? we kept our veto. Sorry, I'm not convinced we have. I don't trust the EU on this
2. Defense? we kept our veto. Sorry, I'm not convinced we have. I don't trust the EU on this
Another example of you not reading up on it enough. Initially the larger nations wanted permanent seats on the Commission while the smaller nations had rotating membership. It has been widely recognised across all member states that the Commission needs to be reduced, and will be next year because of Nice anway. The negotiations we won were the ones where we got the larger nations to agree to an equal rotation system among all member states.thehighground wrote: »3. Commision? We won those negotiations. You mean that each country is going to have a Commisioner? Source please?
What loss of sovereignty?thehighground wrote: »5. Changes to powers between Council and Parliament? Hard to argue that. I wouldn't argue the change of power between the two - I would argue the loss of Irish souvernity here
Has it really? Where? By whom? What have Sarkozys comments (i.e. his personal opinions) got to do with Lisbon anyway?thehighground wrote: »It has been explained time and again the reasons for voting no. Sarkozy's recent comments only convince us that we were right all along to vote no. What part of that do you not understand?0 -
How Ganley corrupted Irish democracy in 6 easy steps...
www.europeanhome.ie
from www.europeanhome.ie
really? which war was this?They also threw in another few billion to try and stop a little war we had going on.
Mike.0 -
It doesn't matter if you trust the EU or not its there in black and white in the treaty. You obviously haven't familiarised yourself with it enough.
Another example of you not reading up on it enough. Initially the larger nations wanted permanent seats on the Commission while the smaller nations had rotating membership. It has been widely recognised across all member states that the Commission needs to be reduced, and will be next year because of Nice anway. The negotiations we won were the ones where we got the larger nations to agree to an equal rotation system among all member states.
What loss of sovereignty?
Has it really? Where? By whom? What have Sarkozys comments (i.e. his personal opinions) got to do with Lisbon anyway?
You only answered on Points 1, 2, 3 and 5. Since you appear to have all the answers, what about points 4, 6, 7, 8?0 -
Advertisement
-
They already have spent 6 years working one out and it was rejected. It makes no sense to start another until it is known exactly what was wrong with Lisbon, That's the responsibility of no voters, otherwise they have subverted European democracy, as we are just spending time and money going around in circles.thehighground wrote: »I did not say that Croatia could be accepted under Nice. I did say that our brilliant Eurocrats have 4 years to work out an amendment to Nice so that Croatia have satisfised all necessary criteria and will be able to join the EU if they still want to at that stage.
Well you were offered a legally binding treaty, which we rejected. You can't get anything more. What's your suggestion?Tim wrote:So what exactly was wrong with Lisbon?
1. Tax? we kept our veto.thehighground wrote:Sorry, I'm not convinced we have. I don't trust the EU on this
Again, we had this legally binding in treaty, what more do you want?Tim wrote:2. Defense? we kept our veto.thehighground wrote:Sorry, I'm not convinced we have. I don't trust the EU on this
Have you any idea how stupid that sounds, countries make a treaty with each other and you say you don't trust them on issues you agreed and are clearly stipulated in the treaty?
The source is the Lisbon Treaty. We got the same rights as very large countries such as Germany, France, Poland and the UK.Tim wrote:3. Commision? We won those negotiations.thehighground wrote:You mean that each country is going to have a Commisioner? Source please?
The ones stipulated in Lisbon.Tim wrote:4. Changes to parliament? Changes for Ireland weren't that major.thehighground wrote:Not sure which ones you refer to here
Well then you need to be clear, which losses exactly are you referring to?Tim wrote:5. Changes to powers between Council and Parliament? Hard to argue that.thehighground wrote:I wouldn't argue the change of power between the two - I would argue the loss of Irish souvernity here
What are you talking about? Flying Levies? Nothing to do with Lisbon.Tim wrote:7. Climate Change initiatives? Hard to argue that.thehighground wrote:Most are good, although the recent fying levies are very tough on an island nation which is so heavily dependent on air travel to do business. Its not like we can get a train / drive instead.
Where are you getting that from?
No you can't amend Nice for Croatia to join without another Treaty.Tim wrote:8. Mechanism for Croatia to join? Hard to argue that.thehighground wrote:It shouldn't be a problem and as I've mentioned above, could be possible for Croatia to join the EU with an amendment to Nice or a separate accession treaty for Croatia to join.
I have no heard one intelligble reason for voting no. I have heard plenty of misinformed reasons for no. For example:thehighground wrote:It has been explained time and again the reasons for voting no. Sarkozy's recent comments only convince us that we were right all along to vote no. What part of that do you not understand?
1. Abortion would be freely available in Ireland - Lie
2. We were all going to join a EU army - Lie
And general misinformation and ignorance
1. I didn't understand it so I voted no.
And plenty of protest voting such as:
1. I can't get broadband so I am voting no.
The problem with all these reasons it that they are constructive in terms of finding a resolution, a compromise or a way forward.
They just mean that we look selfish, foolish.
Well in geo-political terms, the EU is one of the few international organisations that makes any drive on ethics. Some of the changes to our labour laws and environmental policies have been driven by the EU.Right oh - so what I'll be voting on in the next referendum is whether Sarkozy/Merkel, the US or China run the world? Great!
If you feel cosier to US or Chinese values, that's your right. But if you seriously think Ireland can go at it alone, in a world of global economics, I would suggest it ain't the 1930's anymore.0 -
thehighground wrote: »You only answered on Points 1, 2, 3 and 5. Since you appear to have all the answers, what about points 4, 6, 7, 8?
Who said I had all the answers? I certainly wish I did, I could make a nice few bob from that. Sadly I don't.
I addressed the important points. Given that point 4 was an "I don't know" answer, 6 was a "Fine by me" answer and 7 was a "Ah yeah for the most part its fine" answer there wasn't really much worth talking about on them.0 -
thehighground wrote:You mean that each country is going to have a Commisioner? Source please?
It should be pointed out that
(a) the commission was being reduced under Nice anyway, and
(b) Ireland was the chief negotiators for the equal rotation system. So it's our own system that we're rejecting.
Of course this is old ground and I don't want to push the thread off-topic, but it's irritating that people still don't grasp the basic facts of the treaty.0 -
(c) And Commissioners legally can't show bias to their own country. Lie-bertas won't point that out admist all their scare mongering.lenny_leonard wrote: »It should be pointed out that
(a) the commission was being reduced under Nice anyway, and
(b) Ireland was the chief negotiators for the equal rotation system. So it's our own system that we're rejecting.0 -
Again, sorry but can someone elaborate why a vote for Sarkozy meant that it was enough to ratify Lisbon without returning to the electorate. Those on the YEs side seem to be a-ok with this. Anything to avoid putting EU changes before the public.
All populations are relatively apathethic about Europe, I have checked with friends who live in different countries if I was wrong (Neth, Ita, Spa, and Ger for the record, of course they can only provide their own personal experience), and most populations in national election do not really consider european factors as issues. All politics is local after all.
If Cowan, Kenny, and Gilmore all said that as part of their govts their next govt they would ratify the Lisbon treaty without consulting the public again. (disregarding the consitutionality in this hyothethical situation) Do people really expect Gerry Adams to be elected Taoiseach as he is the only opposition view? Of course, whoever won the election would rightly say that they have a mandate to ratify lisbon, even if the reasons for their election victory have nothing to do with Lisbon.
But if that is the way the EU wants to work, it only furhter adds fuel to the idea that these institutions do not wholesale public approval. But sure who needs public approval.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The problem is that those on the No side don't understand how consensus politics works. 27 countries need to agree a mechanism to work.Again, sorry but can someone elaborate why a vote for Sarkozy meant that it was enough to ratify Lisbon without returning to the electorate. Those on the YEs side seem to be a-ok with this. Anything to avoid putting EU changes before the public.
Each country has it's own needs, some very important some not so important. They propose, draft, debate, discuss, compromise. No-one gets everything they want, otherwise there'll never be agreement.
Now here's the catch. If you have the ability to stop a proposal, you really need to be involved in the negotiation process so that a compromise or alternative can be negotiated. Otherwise it all falls apart.
The people who negotiate haven't a clue how to resolve an impasse.
So yes it would be nice to give 500 million a say but then that would mean you need 500 million involved in negotiation, otherwise how do you resolve disagreement?
This is logistically impossible. The solution is that each country democratically elects people to negotiate for it. If you don't like what they don't you don't vote for them.
It would be nice if there was a referendum for every finance bill as it is the most important piece of legislation every year, but the reality is, it would never get passed if everyone voted no for reasons like:
1. I didn't understand it.
2. I don't like the idea of tax changes here.
Nonsense. It's a major divisive and defining issue in the UK. Tories are skeptic, Labour in the middle and LD are very pro Europe.All populations are relatively apathethic about Europe, I have checked with friends who live in different countries if I was wrong (Neth, Ita, Spa, and Ger for the record, of course they can only provide their own personal experience), and most populations in national election do not really consider european factors as issues. All politics is local after all.
Again nonsense. Everyone who does anything for the EU or in the EU is elected with the exception of the commission who are the equivalent of Civil Servants and are hence appointed by democratically elected governments.But if that is the way the EU wants to work, it only furhter adds fuel to the idea that these institutions do not wholesale public approval. But sure who needs public approval.0 -
Again, sorry but can someone elaborate why a vote for Sarkozy meant that it was enough to ratify Lisbon without returning to the electorate. Those on the YEs side seem to be a-ok with this. Anything to avoid putting EU changes before the public.
It was part of his election manifesto, but don't let that stop you painting it as a conspiracy of sorts.All populations are relatively apathethic about Europe, I have checked with friends who live in different countries if I was wrong (Neth, Ita, Spa, and Ger for the record, of course they can only provide their own personal experience), and most populations in national election do not really consider european factors as issues. All politics is local after all.
If Cowan, Kenny, and Gilmore all said that as part of their govts their next govt they would ratify the Lisbon treaty without consulting the public again. (disregarding the consitutionality in this hyothethical situation) Do people really expect Gerry Adams to be elected Taoiseach as he is the only opposition view? Of course, whoever won the election would rightly say that they have a mandate to ratify lisbon, even if the reasons for their election victory have nothing to do with Lisbon.
I don't see the problem here, they openly stated their intent, it wasn't a scam or anything.
It's not like you'd have the ratification process sprung on you after words as a nasty surprise (you also realise it's possible for the ratification to fail even at a parlimentary level)But if that is the way the EU wants to work, it only furhter adds fuel to the idea that these institutions do not wholesale public approval. But sure who needs public approval.
You realise that the EU does not, nor has it ever, told member states how to ratify these treaties. It's left entirely up to each member state how they go about it.
More to the point, it can never say "everyone must do it by method X" as it sets the dangerous precident of letting the EU decide the method of ratification.
So while you might be ok with a treaty coming with the condition that "everyone must have a referendum" would you be equally as chuffed if the condition was "parlimentary ratification only"?0 -
I think it's fair to say that domestic issues dominate general election campaigns and so things more immediate to people tend to sway them in such elections; tax rates, proposed spending on health, education etc; The Lisbon treaty would in my opinion have seemed much more remote to people during the last French general election than these issues.1. The French elected Sarkozy who included on his mandate his intention to ratify the Treaty without a referendum. Therefore the people voted (indirectly) in favour of the Treaty.
Those are bold statements with nothing whatsoever to back them up.2. The French people and the French politicians are in agreedment on the issue
3. The French people and the French Government are in agreement with the rest of the EU where-as we are not.
The few opinion polls I have seen show that there is indeed opposition to Lisbon in France. Quite how significant that opposition is cannot be ascertained in any meaningful way as there is to be no referendum for the French people.4. There does not appear from anything that I have seen to be any really significant opposition to the Treaty in France.
Once again, bold statements with no grounding.So in other words there is no bone of contention within France or with their ratification. However here we are at odds with everyone. Each other, our politicians, the rest of the EU. Why shouldn't we take another look at the Treaty in this light? And why should the French bother looking at it again when, certainly in terms of Lisbon, its all harmonious over there.
I say again....why didn't the 'powers that be' take the french (and dutch) 'concerns' with regards to the European Constitution as rejected by the people of both nations in 2005 and simply amend the offending articles and resubmit it to them for referendum by the people? Too simple?
The problem with the European Constitution (from the perspective of the political elite) was that it was too easy to understand.0 -
-
Its pretty obvious whats going to happen:
*Ireland wont hold another referendum on Lisbon.
*Instead the rest of the EU will continue with the ratification, and form a union of 26 governed by the Lisbon treaty. They will then withdrawn from the current EU legal entity leaving only Ireland.
*Ireland will then be presented with a referendum where it votes on membership of the EU [ of which acceptance of the Lisbon treaty is implict] or remaining outside this EU 2.0
*For all the "Me Feinn-ism" in this thread that will be a very short debate. Ireland will vote yes in a very large number.
What needs to happen in the future is the supposed need [ there actually is no need for a referendum, simply the govt has always been overly cautious for fear of having a court challenge made against them] for a referendum needs to be removed. We have 90% of the elected representitives of the people who have been elected on the basis of the manifesto which includes support for the EU and the Lisbon Treaty and on the other hand a contradictory referendum vote indicating hostility to the EU and the Lisbon Treaty.
Most of our European neighbours avoid referendums because masses of the uninformed, guided by ignorance and scaremongering do not make wise or justifiable decisions. This is why other European states do not use them.
The Germans in particular have avoided referendums precisely because they are a vehicle for fringe political groups with no mandate or support, which they are wary of for historical reasons. This is something we have seen here in Ireland as well where the most common refrain is "Huh, Lisbon Treaty? Ya wha?" or as were seeing here "**** that stuck up frenchie bastard anyhow!"0 -
Mr Sarkozy said: 'The Irish will have to vote again'
Last time I checked Mr Sarkozy, you were French not Irish so why don't you keep your mouth shut and look after your own country?
The day the French tell us to do anything will be the day hell freezes over and Brian Cowen drops to 6 stone in weight.
As far as you are concerned Sarkozy is coming to Ireland as the President of the EU, not the president of France.0 -
meathstevie wrote: »Last time the French tried to do something about the political situation in Ireland they didn't get much further than Castlebar.
Can someone go and tell that French gnome to go and mind his own business ? As far as I know the French gave the constitution a sound kick up the backside as well. If there would have been a constitutional obligation to vote on the Lisbon treaty in France I'm quite confident it would have gone the same way as in Ireland.
The Lisbon treaty is a EU concern, not an Irish one. The French gnome is the president of the EU so it is exactly his business.
I prefer the French gnome to the Irish piggie with no charisma who btw has yet to come up with solutions to the problem he has created himself by not putting what it takes to promote the treaty and explain it to the people.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote:The solution is that each country democratically elects people to negotiate for it. If you don't like what they don't you don't vote for them.
This is the crux of the problem. The politicans in ireland do not represent the opinion of the irish public. European issues, where there is little or no point scoring to be done, are rarely a factor in the Irish nation elections. Deciding who gets elected to the European parliament is akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic. It is a home for TD's or party mandarins who do not want or are incapable of the cut and thrust of national politics.
Just because I do not vote for Sinn Fein does not mean that I support FF, FG, Labour, PD or the Greens stance on Europe. Why is that so hard to understand?
You mention the UK as not being apathetic. The general public generally couldnt care what goes on in Europe, but at least there is some dissenting voices in the mainstream who at least have some debate about about losing/sharing soverignity and whether the EU is overstepping the mark.thelordofcheese wrote:It was part of his election manifesto, but don't let that stop you painting it as a conspiracy of sorts.
Its not a conspiracy. But it has been flippantly suggested that by voting for Sarkozy, the Lisbon treaty was effectively ratified by the public. As if Sarkozy stood alone on the Lisbon Treaty as part of his election platform. That is completely wrong. I repeat just because I do not vote for Sinn Fein in national elections, it does not mean that I support FF, FG, Labour, PD or the Greens stance on Europe. Maybe French prefer Sarkozy to Le Pen running their country. I dont see what is so difficult to understand. It was political opportunism. - killing two birds with one stone.0 -
I take it you agree with the rest of my post then.oscarBravo wrote: »A bold statement with nothing whatsoever to back it up.
0 -
Advertisement
-
+1. I don't see what's so difficult either. People seem to be taking Sarkozy and his political chums at face value-that's the mistake!I dont see what is so difficult to understand. It was political opportunism. - killing two birds with one stone.
Obviously the irish people have a problem with Lisbon as we voted NO yet ALL our realistic choices for an alternative government at the last GE were ALL pro-Lisbon....so what gives?! :rolleyes:0 -
-
Yes it flew right over my head containing my miniscule brain.oscarBravo wrote: »Nope. I take it you missed the irony?
You are wrong of course. Molloy stated that all 60 million frenchmen are happy with the treaty of Lisbon: patent nonsense.
I stated that the political elite of Europe didn't amend the parts of the European Constitution and approach the french electorate again because they feared it would simply be rejected again as the french simply disagreed with it. I stated I believe that the political elite realised that the best option would be NOT to amend the bits of the European Constitution and put it back for referendum rather that it would be better to write the same notions into a treaty which would not require referendum at all, even though the European Constitution was a far easier read and in theory much more transparent. I said it in one simple sentence which I thought most people would get.0 -
lenny_leonard wrote: »It should be pointed out that
(a) the commission was being reduced under Nice anyway, and
(b) Ireland was the chief negotiators for the equal rotation system. So it's our own system that we're rejecting.
Of course this is old ground and I don't want to push the thread off-topic, but it's irritating that people still don't grasp the basic facts of the treaty.
(a) I just sought clarification as to whether the poster was referring to the rumours that the EU were prepared to revert back to each country getting its own Commissioner to secure an Irish 'Yes' vote.
(b) Sorry, I'm not so tribal that I would support something just because some Irish person (elected or not) was the chief negotiator.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »This is quite sad. We need suggestions how to move forward. You may think you're smart telling Sarkozy to f off, but what you are really doing is telling Croatia to f off - without Lisbon they cannot join Ireland's elite Euro club. This is a perfect opportunity for the Irish No voters to articulate the concerns.They could have had a cohesive suggestions and concerns about the Fishermen, for example? But instead of doing that, it's the usual asinine, "what part of no do you not understand?" rhetoric.
If you are so anti Lisbon, why not let Croatia in in our place?
Fine by me.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »(c) And Commissioners legally can't show bias to their own country. Lie-bertas won't point that out admist all their scare mongering.
You mean like how Sarkozy isn't supporting the French farmers position in the world trade talks.
Now, who, how and where is he going to be charged with French bias?0 -
What's really hard to undertands is that despite the very broad of European views in Irish politics, you feel that none of them represent you.This is the crux of the problem. The politicans in ireland do not represent the opinion of the irish public. European issues, where there is little or no point scoring to be done, are rarely a factor in the Irish nation elections. If the majority of people voted No to nice, there appears to be a huge gap.
Deciding who gets elected to the European parliament is akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic. It is a home for TD's or party mandarins who do not want or are incapable of the cut and thrust of national politics.
Just because I do not vote for Sinn Fein does not mean that I support FF, FG, Labour, PD or the Greens stance on Europe. Why is that so hard to understand?
Let's take a look at the political parties and the European alignment:
1. FF - Alliance for Europe of the Nations / Union for Europe of the Nations
2. FG - European People's Party / European People's Party–European Democrats
3. Labour - Party of European Socialists / Socialist Group in the European Parliament
4. Green - European Green Party / European Greens–European Free Alliance
5. Sinn Fein - European United Left
6. PDs - European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party
+ the independents such as Kathy Sinnet.
That's quite a spectrum. Now, there's no problem at all rejecting a treaty. The problem is when you either refuse to or are incapable of articulating what's wrong with the treaty, means that everyone else is prevented from moving forward, because you and grumpy and paranoid no voters, just don't want people to forward.
The general public are generally ignorant and take things for granted. Anyone can give out and moan. The challenge is to find better ways of doing things.You mention the UK as not being apathetic. The general public generally couldnt care what goes on in Europe, but at least there is some dissenting voices in the mainstream who at least have some debate about about losing/sharing soverignity and whether the EU is overstepping the mark.
For a start, it would help if you and other no voters could articulate what areas you are concerned about losing soverignity in and why? Rather just banding the word in a piece of vacuous rherotic.
There are parts in Lisbon that give more power to national governments. So you need to be very clear what you are talking about. But you abjectly fail to do that.
If an Irish Government said what you just said, we'd be laughed at.0 -
It doesn't matter if you trust the EU or not its there in black and white in the treaty. You obviously haven't familiarised yourself with it enough.
Sorry, it does matter to me whether the EU Europhiles* (the people who interpet the Lisbon Treaty) are trustworthy or not.
And the 'Yes' voters wonder why they are called arrogant! :rolleyes:
EDIT: should read 'EU Civil Servants (unelected)'.0 -
Nope. Unless you're going to tell me that by a comparable leap of logic, saying that Ireland voted "no" (which we did) means all 5 million Irish people voted "no" (which we didn't).Molloy stated that all 60 million frenchmen are happy with the treaty of Lisbon: patent nonsense.
That's not what you said. It's not even remotely close in meaning to what you said.I stated that the political elite of Europe didn't amend the parts of the European Constitution and approach the french electorate again because they feared it would simply be rejected again as the french simply disagreed with it. I stated I believe that the political elite realised that the best option would be NOT to amend the bits of the European Constitution and put it back for referendum rather that it would be better to write the same notions into a treaty which would not require referendum at all, even though the European Constitution was a far easier read and in theory much more transparent. I said it in one simple sentence which I thought most people would get.0 -
Advertisement
-
As I said, fine if you could articulate what's wrong and how to make it right and show that you have an understanding of the feasability and the realities of international politics. But you are not doing that.thehighground wrote: »Sorry, it does matter to me whether the EU Europhiles (the people who interpet the Lisbon Treaty) are trustworthy or not.
And the 'Yes' voters wonder why they are called arrogant! :rolleyes:
Ignorance is bliss but what really irks yes voters is that you seem completly oblivious that you are seriously ruining our role in Europe and Europe's role in the world.
Do you know anyone who works in the EU? Ask them what the sentiment is to us now...0
Advertisement