Sarkozy: Ireland needs to vote on Lisbon again

thehighground

is_that_so wrote: »

Sarcasm is lost on you as well I see. Let's just leave it there so.

Quite like a bit of sarcasm myself. I see you are a fan of Shakespeare - amazing how 400 years later his writings still ring true

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

We in this country should remember the last parliament here which castrated itself and transfered powers outside the land.

How long are you planning to avoid the questions of exactly what powers Lisbon was going to transfer away from Ireland?

oscarBravo

thehighground, were you planning to contribute something useful?

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

So, why not be gracious and thank me for helping to make sense of his comments for you.



I thought only 'No' voters didn't go to school Trying doing a search on the internet for the Act of Union - I'm sure you will get lots of information on it so you have no excuse.

Nah, think it was about 30/35% of No voters who were uneducated.

Think it was a lecturer in TCD who reported it. Why do I think of the intelligence trap? Bloody boffins.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

thehighground, were you planning to contribute something useful?

Sorry, I thought I was being useful by pointing out that a poster had got a reference wrong (in my opinion) and then pointing them in the right direction as to what was meant.

I suppose I have been unhelpful by pointing out the irony that a poster that argues that something that happened 200 years ago irrelevant but yet finds a quotation from a play written 400 years curiously somehow relevant enough to have as their signature.

Mindboggling

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

Sorry, I thought I was being useful by pointing out that a poster had got a reference wrong (in my opinion) and then pointing them in the right direction as to what was meant.

You thought wrongly.

I suppose I have been unhelpful by pointing out the irony that a poster that argues that something that happened 200 years ago irrelevant but yet finds a quotation from a play written 400 years curiously somehow relevant enough to have as their signature.

Someone's signature has no relevance to the thread. Back on topic.

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

How long are you planning to avoid the questions of exactly what powers Lisbon was going to transfer away from Ireland?

Oscar Bravo, you know full well that Lisbon is just another in a string of treaties which have thusfar created a supranational organisation which is now responsible for an estimated 70-80% of supposed national legislation.....just this week Mr. Mc Creevy wrote to our (and a number of other) governments and threatened legal action against us for failing to implenent a directive made in Brussels.

I do not want any further political integration and will vote NO to any further EU treaties that facilitate that in any way shape or form. I strongly believe there are more sinister elements at play in this world who would benefit from reduced governments and more uniformity.

The refererence I made to the 1800 Act of Union is entirely relevant given that in 1800 the politicians in our then parliament had carte blanche to dissolve that parliament and ship off powers of legislation to a foreign city. Ask yourselves this: If it were possible for the politicians in Dail Eireann to dissolve that parliament and transfer powers lock, stock and barrel to the EU if they received sufficient bribes in return, would they? Have irish politicians ever been known to feather their own nests over the interests of their constituents or the wider public? They were capable of it in 1800 and they were capable of it in 1980. They are still capable of it. Unfortunately for them, that miserable streak of new york born pi$$ and that b0ll0x of an archbishop stuck a spanner in the works and wrote a pesky constitution to prevent them ever ceding powers to institutions outside the houses of the Oirechtais without first checking that the PEOPLE agree.

The EU has only gone ONE WAY since we joined a supposed EEC and the political elite of Europe are now growing more impatient. This is evidenced by the reaction in the immediate aftermath of our referendum.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

You thought wrongly. Someone's signature has no relevance to the thread. Back on topic.

Not suprising I would think differently from someone who obviously thinks its cool or something to have a Hitler doll as an avator.

Scofflaw

murphaph wrote: »

Oscar Bravo, you know full well that Lisbon is just another in a string of treaties which have thusfar created a supranational organisation which is now responsible for an estimated 70-80% of supposed national legislation.....

Seen that figure quoted a lot, and it strikes me I've never seen hide nor hair of a source for it. Do you, perhaps, have a source? If not, what makes you think it's actually true?

interested,
Scofflaw

K-9

Seconded Scofflaw.

It's a massive claim to make. We need evidence are it can't be taken seriously.

carveone

murphaph wrote: »

just this week Mr. Mc Creevy wrote to our (and a number of other) governments and threatened legal action against us for failing to implenent a directive made in Brussels.

Oh man, I just can't resist: You mean our commissioner threatened us? Thought you wanted to keep him...

archbishop stuck a spanner in the works and wrote a pesky constitution to prevent them ever ceding powers to institutions outside the houses of the Oirechtais without first checking that the PEOPLE agree.

Huh. Today, the original constitution would have been voted down on the basis that there should be one permanent secretary (or the Irish equivalent) from each of the 26 counties, if necessary making up bogus ministries for them to be in

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Seen that figure quoted a lot, and it strikes me I've never seen hide nor hair of a source for it. Do you, perhaps, have a source? If not, what makes you think it's actually true?

interested,
Scofflaw

I am not sure what the actual percentage is, although I did read recently that the German PM estimated that approximately 80% of all german Laws are now made in the EU, virtually all through the mechanism of the statutory instrument which is a way the EU makes laws which we all have to follow, and which none of our parliaments have any authority to challenge. Most statutory instruments don't even have to go through the EU Parliament, and are made by non elected officials and non elected commissioners like Peter Mandleson etc.

In 2002 the Commission produced 44 directives, 602 regulations and 610 decisions while the Council produced 149 directives, 164 regulations and 57 decisions. That makes a total of 193 directives, 766 regulations and 667 decisions, that is a grand total of 1,626 pieces of legislation.

In 2006, the Commission produced an impressive 76 directives, 1,795 regulations and 781 decisions; the Council topped up with a splendid 101 directives, 238 regulations and 264 decisions. That gives us a total of 177 directives, 2,033 regulations and 1,045 decisions or, in other words, 3,255 pieces of legislation.

I'm not sure how many pieces of legislation were produced in the Dáil in 2006 so as to do the mathematics to see what percentage of our legislation comes from the EU and what percentage comes from the Dáil, (and not from the Dáil ordered by the EU and merely rubber stamped or glossed over by the Dáil).

In the House of Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked in January 2006

".... why they will not provide a full estimate of the United Kingdom legislation which originated in the European Union since 1998, bearing in mind that the GermanFederal Department of Justice has estimated that 80 per cent of German laws or regulations were so made over that period."

The response was, according to eureferendum.blogspot.com, a masterpiece of obfuscation:

Many EU regulations have a purely technical or temporary effect. We estimate that around 50 per cent of UK legislation with a significant economic impact has its origins in EU legislation. OECD analysis of regulation in Europe yields similar results. In 2002, they estimated that 40 per cent. of all new UK regulations with a significant impact on business were derived from Community legislation. Despite reports that 80 per cent. of German regulation emanates from the EU, the German Government estimates that the proportion is about 50 per cent.

For anyone who is not familiar with government-speak, "we estimate that around 50%" is roughly translated as "we think about 50% is the figure which can easily be proved", and if someone can demonstrate it is higher, ( ie 80%), we can still say "the extra 30% does not, in our estimation, have significant economic impact".....


For anyone who is unsure of the factual basis for this, the research notes can be found here http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snia-02888.pdf

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

I am not sure what the actual percentage is, although I did read recently that the German PM estimated that approximately 80% of all german Laws are now made in the EU, virtually all through the mechanism of the statutory instrument which is a way the EU makes laws which we all have to follow, and which none of our parliaments have any authority to challenge. Most statutory instruments don't even have to go through the EU Parliament, and are made by non elected officials and non elected commissioners like Peter Mandleson etc.

In 2002 the Commission produced 44 directives, 602 regulations and 610 decisions while the Council produced 149 directives, 164 regulations and 57 decisions. That makes a total of 193 directives, 766 regulations and 667 decisions, that is a grand total of 1,626 pieces of legislation.

In 2006, the Commission produced an impressive 76 directives, 1,795 regulations and 781 decisions; the Council topped up with a splendid 101 directives, 238 regulations and 264 decisions. That gives us a total of 177 directives, 2,033 regulations and 1,045 decisions or, in other words, 3,255 pieces of legislation.

I'm not sure how many pieces of legislation were produced in the Dáil in 2006 so as to do the mathematics to see what percentage of our legislation comes from the EU and what percentage comes from the Dáil, (and not from the Dáil ordered by the EU and merely rubber stamped or glossed over by the Dáil).

In the House of Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked in January 2006

".... why they will not provide a full estimate of the United Kingdom legislation which originated in the European Union since 1998, bearing in mind that the GermanFederal Department of Justice has estimated that 80 per cent of German laws or regulations were so made over that period."

The response was, according to eureferendum.blogspot.com, a masterpiece of obfuscation:

Many EU regulations have a purely technical or temporary effect. We estimate that around 50 per cent of UK legislation with a significant economic impact has its origins in EU legislation. OECD analysis of regulation in Europe yields similar results. In 2002, they estimated that 40 per cent. of all new UK regulations with a significant impact on business were derived from Community legislation. Despite reports that 80 per cent. of German regulation emanates from the EU, the German Government estimates that the proportion is about 50 per cent.

For anyone who is not familiar with government-speak, "we estimate that around 50%" is roughly translated as "we think about 50% is the figure which can easily be proved", and if someone can demonstrate it is higher, ( ie 80%), we can still say "the extra 30% does not, in our estimation, have significant economic impact".....


For anyone who is unsure of the factual basis for this, the research notes can be found here http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snia-02888.pdf

I don't have a problem with the factual basis - it's the bit where people double from 40-50% to 80% by way of statements like "well, this is government-speak, so we add an arbitrary amount that brings the figure up to the one we've chosen" - if you see what I mean. It means that "an estimated 70-80% of supposed national legislation" is estimated by sticking your finger in the air - indeed, the original 'estimate' is a reported estimate which is contradicted by the same source...yet somehow the original estimate is used in preference. Most peculiar.

Somewhere I have seen an estimate for Irish legislation - I'll have a dig for it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the factual basis - it's the bit where people double from 40-50% to 80% by way of statements like "well, this is government-speak, so we add an arbitrary amount that brings the figure up to the one we've chosen" - if you see what I mean. It means that "an estimated 70-80% of supposed national legislation" is estimated by sticking your finger in the air - indeed, the original 'estimate' is a reported estimate which is contradicted by the same source...yet somehow the original estimate is used in preference. Most peculiar.

Somewhere I have seen an estimate for Irish legislation - I'll have a dig for it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I guess if you want to get an accurate estimate the simplest way would be to get the figure for the number of bills that went throught the Dáil in 2006. If it is 4068, then that means the EU has made 80% of our laws.... if it's 6580, they have made 50%. Either way, its appears to be a lot of laws being made bu the unelected officials of the EU.

Also, bear in mind when doing your calculations that it sometimes takes years for EU statutory implements to be translated into irish law, so a statutory instrument made in 2006 might not appear in Irish law until 2010,or so. So its hard to make an accurate comparison.

murphaph

Even if it's 30 or 40 percent...it's a hell of a lot!

dresden8

carveone wrote: »

Oh man, I just can't resist: You mean our commissioner threatened us? Thought you wanted to keep him...

(

Oh man I just couldn't resist. A lot of the yes people on this forum have been going on about how he isn't our commissioner at all.

McCreevy was put out to pasture in Europe, like a lot of our lords and masters in Brussels are. Ffs Mandelson had to resign twice in Britain.

K-9

There was a thread somewhere with a link, may have been Politics.ie.

IIRC, it was about 20-30% here, most of it Food, health & safety etc.

molloyjh

We should not just be looking at the number of directives etc passed by the EU as any sort of measure of anything. We need to put those directives into a bit of context. How many of the bits of legislation actually impact us in any way? Or impact us in a minimal way. Take for example the legislation surrounding the size of doors in ground floor areas within new houses, which must now accomodate wheel-chair access, or legislation regarding what materials can or cannot be used as insulation and/or sound-proofing within walls. Many of the directives passed at EU level are minor, trivial things, that have no realy impact on our lives. In some ways I suppose it is probably best that they pass those bills (IMO) and free up our Governments time for other more meaningful issues.

Secondly I'm not sure what the problem is with the EU passing legislation given that we directly elect most of the members? It is totally different to the state of affairs when we were ruled by England, in which case it was a foreign power and we elected nobody to the English Parliament.

K-9

Indeed, many of the laws passed, our Govt. wouldn't even bother with. Food and toy safety aren't vote grabbers!

Which reminds me, time our Govt. stopped blaming the EU for many things, things they often don't have the balls to introduce themselves!

Affable

Quel imbecile.

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

I do not want any further political integration and will vote NO to any further EU treaties that facilitate that in any way shape or form.

As is your prerogative, and I strongly support your right to do so. To date, you remain one of the very few "no" posters on this forum who have voiced a coherent reason for voting against Lisbon, albeit one I disagree with.

I strongly believe there are more sinister elements at play in this world who would benefit from reduced governments and more uniformity.

That belief would be more at home in the CT forum than here.

Ask yourselves this: If it were possible for the politicians in Dail Eireann to dissolve that parliament and transfer powers lock, stock and barrel to the EU if they received sufficient bribes in return, would they?

Honestly? no, I don't think so. Do you really believe they would?

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

Even if it's 30 or 40 percent...it's a hell of a lot!

And who needs all that pesky legislation for food & product safety, data privacy, equal rights, etc etc, anyway?

auerillo, any special reason you're avoiding awkward questions?

molloyjh

oscarBravo wrote: »

auerillo, any special reason you're avoiding awkward questions?

I think you answered that pretty well back on pg 11:

oscarBravo wrote: »

He claims to be interested in a debate, but in reality merely wishes to spout rhetoric about "democracy" while refusing to engage with the more inconvenient points that are put before him.

While I understand murphaphs position (and likewise do not agree, though as a good solicitor friend of mine would say "I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll fight for your right to say it") I can't help but feel that the EU has provided so much to Europe as a whole, ourselves included, that I can't figure out why some people are so against it.

Will be interesting to see what impacts Sarkozys trip has on the mood here too. Read the following article on BBC that, I would imagine, would ease the troubled minds of some of the people here with regard to our Governments stance on Lisbon, the way forward and Sarkozys place in it all......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7516254.stm

Earlier this month, Mr Sarkozy said the Republic of Ireland would have to hold a second referendum on the EU treaty.
The BBC's Jonny Dymond in Dublin says that remark by Mr Sarkozy annoyed many Irish politicians.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner stressed that the French president was on a mission to listen to Irish views.

"I believe what we shall do on Monday is listen to them, but we're not visiting them in our capacity as the French (EU) presidency. We'll listen to the parties, to civil society, to the intellectuals... To say that this can be settled quickly is not true. Time is needed," he said.

His Irish counterpart Micheal Martin said Mr Sarkozy was not visiting to "impose solutions" on Irish voters.

He stressed that Ireland would make its own decision over the treaty, adding that it was too early to say what that would be

is_that_so

Not sure it'll have much of an effect at all as long as he does the statesman thing. He'll be here for the afternoon. They'll all get to meet him. The political analysts will get a week out of what it really means and then they'll hope that Mary Hannafin doesn't go on holidays.

As was commented here during the general election , people only really get excited about it when they can see it coming i.e. in the last two weeks.
With Gilmore, Cowen talking it down and the "listening" mode of Sarkozy, it merely serves to nudge it out of the public perception for now while they figure out what to do. Anyway if it doesn't involve riot police, water cannon and lots of violence it's hardly a real protest at all.

molloyjh

is_that_so wrote: »

Not sure it'll have much of an effect at all as long as he does the statesman thing. He'll be here for the afternoon. They'll all get to meet him. The political analysts will get a week out of what it really means and then they'll hope that Mary Hannafin doesn't go on holidays.

As was commented here during the general election , people only really get excited about it when they can see it coming i.e. in the last two weeks.
With Gilmore, Cowen talking it down and the "listening" mode of Sarkozy, it merely serves to nudge it out of the public perception for now while they figure out what to do. Anyway if it doesn't involve riot police, water cannon and lots of violence it's hardly a real protest at all.

Correction, borrowed water cannon!

murphaph

I think from my perspective I'm starting to repeat myself and I'm sure others feel the same so I'll try to move on from the whys and wherefors of the result.

How do people feel about Sarkozy himself? I do not like the look of him. he looks sneaky (yeah, I know that's ridiculous but anyway, can't help how I feel). I'm sure that even if I were a yes supporter I'd be pi$$ed off at the attitude of the man coming here and holding 3 minute sessions with people. It strikes me as arrogance. As was mentioned in the Indo today...at least Prodi made it look like he was genuinely hear to listen in the aftermath of Nice as he came for 3 days-Sarkozy is here for about 3 hours!

Sarkozy seems to have his own agenda to get this 'sorted' before France hands over the presidency. This really bothers me and I think it's even starting to bother Cowen and co.

oscarBravo

I actually don't disagree. There's something about the man that bugs me.

murphaph

I watched him there on the 6 news. It seems someone has told him his mannerisms and visit itself may actually be helping the no side as he appeared more humble than I've ever seen hime before!

Scofflaw

murphaph wrote: »

I think from my perspective I'm starting to repeat myself and I'm sure others feel the same so I'll try to move on from the whys and wherefors of the result.

How do people feel about Sarkozy himself? I do not like the look of him. he looks sneaky (yeah, I know that's ridiculous but anyway, can't help how I feel). I'm sure that even if I were a yes supporter I'd be pi$$ed off at the attitude of the man coming here and holding 3 minute sessions with people. It strikes me as arrogance. As was mentioned in the Indo today...at least Prodi made it look like he was genuinely hear to listen in the aftermath of Nice as he came for 3 days-Sarkozy is here for about 3 hours!

Sarkozy seems to have his own agenda to get this 'sorted' before France hands over the presidency. This really bothers me and I think it's even starting to bother Cowen and co.

Hmm. I couldn't originally imagine someone I'd be less happy to have on "my" side than Dick Roche, but frankly I'd trade two of him for Sarkozy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

murphaph wrote: »

I think from my perspective I'm starting to repeat myself and I'm sure others feel the same so I'll try to move on from the whys and wherefors of the result.

How do people feel about Sarkozy himself? I do not like the look of him. he looks sneaky (yeah, I know that's ridiculous but anyway, can't help how I feel). I'm sure that even if I were a yes supporter I'd be pi$$ed off at the attitude of the man coming here and holding 3 minute sessions with people. It strikes me as arrogance. As was mentioned in the Indo today...at least Prodi made it look like he was genuinely hear to listen in the aftermath of Nice as he came for 3 days-Sarkozy is here for about 3 hours!

Sarkozy seems to have his own agenda to get this 'sorted' before France hands over the presidency. This really bothers me and I think it's even starting to bother Cowen and co.

I agree, the guy is doing more harm than good for the pro-Lisbon side. I'm not sure if its that he wants to resolve the issue in his term and get the credit for it, and as a result is being overly pushy, or whether this is who he is, i.e. an arrogant individual. Although with a wife like his I'm sure I'd be pretty cocky too!