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

Lisbon would take power from Ireland

Options
  • 07-10-2008 7:44pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    A power shift from the non-directly elected EU bodies to the directly-elected. This is bad, why? This is bad, why? Over matters of EU law. Bad, why? Bad, why? Bad, why? Nope. Same amendment procedure (unanimous ratification by all member states), but no need for a whole treaty for every amendment. Based on what you've posted, I'm not at all clear on why you feel that.

    I only mentioned here the changes Lisbon will on the EU if passed. I have posted many on this on other posts about Lisbon. QMV takes more power from Ireland and hand it to Larger States. EU Court have more say on Ireland than our current Court system. Commenting more on Lisbon in this thread takes away from this thread that OP started, so I will not debate this more on this thread.


«1

Comments

  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    limklad wrote: »
    QMV takes more power from Ireland and hand it to Larger States.
    It takes away the undemocratic power of veto over a handful of not-exactly critical areas. How often have we used our veto?
    EU Court have more say on Ireland than our current Court system.
    Please explain clearly how this is the case, with reference to the Treaty. You also ignored the bulk of my rebuttals.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    limklad wrote: »
    I only mentioned here the changes Lisbon will on the EU if passed. I have posted many on this on other posts about Lisbon. QMV takes more power from Ireland and hand it to Larger States.

    I know, it's a conspiracy against Ireland I tell ya! :eek:

    There was a thread on this on politics.ie during the campaign, going through all the permutations if the new rules had been applied to older decisions, using statistical analysis etc. Ireland did lose some power, though not near the No side claims.

    It turned out that the largest countries did not gain power. Yes Germany did, but France and Britain lost slightly. Overall the big 3 or 4 did not gain power over Ireland, though of course that was the spin by the No side.

    Ireland gained over some of the medium sized countries like Spain and Belgium IIRC!

    Interestingly the biggest winners would have been Malta and Luxembourg, the smallest countries!

    There is no conspiracy against Ireland. 27 Countries have 100% of the power now and would have had if it had been passed. Some would slightly gain, some would lose! It was actually quite fairly designed so that the bigger countries didn't gain more power, exactly because they knew there would be claims otherwise.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Seanies32 wrote: »
    I know, it's a conspiracy against Ireland I tell ya! :eek:

    There was a thread on this on politics.ie during the campaign, going through all the permutations if the new rules had been applied to older decisions, using statistical analysis etc. Ireland did lose some power, though not near the No side claims.

    It turned out that the largest countries did not gain power. Yes Germany did, but France and Britain lost slightly. Overall the big 3 or 4 did not gain power over Ireland, though of course that was the spin by the No side.

    Ireland gained over some of the medium sized countries like Spain and Belgium IIRC!

    Interestingly the biggest winners would have been Malta and Luxembourg, the smallest countries!

    There is no conspiracy against Ireland. 27 Countries have 100% of the power now and would have had if it had been passed. Some would slightly gain, some would lose! It was actually quite fairly designed so that the bigger countries didn't gain more power, exactly because they knew there would be claims otherwise.

    It was discussed rather a lot - I have a couple of old posts on the subject:
    This is from a long mathematical analysis of the change in influence in voting for all countries (by a No voter on politics.ie (http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35034&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=168)) - it's a measure of the loss of 'decisiveness', where your weight on the Council is the decisive factor in the vote:

    Lose none
    Germany: 1.0 -> 1.0

    Lose around 20%
    France: 1.0 -> 0.79

    Lose around 25%
    United Kingdom: 1.0 -> 0.75
    Italy: 1.0 -> 0.74

    Lose around 40%
    Spain: 0.95 -> 0.57
    Poland: 0.95 -> 0.49

    Lose around 40%
    Romania: 0.55 -> 0.36
    Netherlands: 0.51 -> 0.30

    Lose around 50%
    Greece: 0.48 -> 0.24
    Portugal: 0.48 -> 0.24
    Belgium: 0.48 -> 0.24
    Czech Republic: 0.48 -> 0.23
    Hungary: 0.48 -> 0.23

    Lose around 50%
    Sweden: 0.40 -> 0.22
    Austria: 0.40 -> 0.21
    Bulgaria: 0.40 -> 0.20

    Lose around 40%
    Denmark: 0.28 -> 0.18
    Slovakia: 0.28 -> 0.18
    Finland: 0.28 -> 0.18
    Ireland: 0.28 -> 0.17
    Lithuania: 0.28 -> 0.16

    Lose 0-20%
    Latvia: 0.16 -> 0.15
    Slovenia: 0.16 -> 0.15
    Estonia: 0.16 -> 0.14
    Cyprus 0.16 -> 0.13
    Luxembourg: 0.16->0.13
    Malta: 0.12 -> 0.13

    That's relative to Germany, so, for Ireland compared to all other countries:

    We lose influence (relative) compared to:

    Germany (61% of former relative influence)
    France (77% of former relative influence)
    UK (81% of former relative influence)
    Italy (82% of former relative influence)
    Romania (93% of former relative influence)
    Denmark, Slovakia, Finland (94% of former relative influence)
    Latvia, Slovenia (65% of former relative influence)
    Estonia (69% of former relative influence)
    Cyprus, Luxembourg (75% of former relative influence)
    Malta (56% of former relative influence)

    And gain influence compared to:

    Spain (101% of former relative influence)
    Poland (118% of former relative influence)
    Netherlands (103% of former relative influence)
    Greece, Portugal, Belgium (121% of former relative influence)
    Czech Republic, Hungary (127% of former relative influence)
    Sweden (110% of former relative influence)
    Austria (116% of former relative influence)
    Bulgaria (121% of former relative influence)
    Lithuania (106% of former relative influence)

    That's based on a comparison of our influence compared to Germany to theirs compared to Germany under old and new systems.

    And in summary:

    We lose ability to pass policies we want (-6%)
    We gain blocking power (+6%)
    We are less decisive (-36%)

    I'll add that QMV voting is only actually used about a quarter of the time where QMV actually applies - and usually it's just to mark someone's opposition rather than being a real vote. The Council usually operates by consensus.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    Seanies32 wrote: »
    I know, it's a conspiracy against Ireland I tell ya! :eek:

    There was a thread on this on politics.ie during the campaign, going through all the permutations if the new rules had been applied to older decisions, using statistical analysis etc. Ireland did lose some power, though not near the No side claims.

    It turned out that the largest countries did not gain power. Yes Germany did, but France and Britain lost slightly. Overall the big 3 or 4 did not gain power over Ireland, though of course that was the spin by the No side.

    Ireland gained over some of the medium sized countries like Spain and Belgium IIRC!

    Interestingly the biggest winners would have been Malta and Luxembourg, the smallest countries!

    There is no conspiracy against Ireland. 27 Countries have 100% of the power now and would have had if it had been passed. Some would slightly gain, some would lose! It was actually quite fairly designed so that the bigger countries didn't gain more power, exactly because they knew there would be claims otherwise.
    Seanie we had this debate many times in the past. While I never had a problem with QMV in Lisbon, overall we do loose influence. That will always happen with Expansion of the European Union in which I am very much in Favour of Expansion and accepting new Members. Sarkozy biggest supporter of Lisbon is Blocking expansion for 10 years even with Lisbon and then claims there will be no expansion without Lisbon.

    No matter how you sugar coat it over, the reality is, there is no denying it, we do lose more influence with Lisbon.

    Scofflaw: Thanks for you last post


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    Isn't the point that we lose control? We are shifting the power from Ireland to Europe, in certain areas, on purpose. Lots of areas we stay the same, but in certain areas, climate change for example, the EU will have more power.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    PHB wrote: »
    Isn't the point that we lose control? We are shifting the power from Ireland to Europe, in certain areas, on purpose. Lots of areas we stay the same, but in certain areas, climate change for example, the EU will have more power.

    Yes it is, I do not mind handing over some power while there is a consensus vision of the future. So far in areas, we so far have handed over are beginning to bite us in the ass. Before we hand over more power, then we should examine existing areas of power the EU that have effect us badly on the ground.

    Latest legislation form the EU is now is that all Baking in baking competitions to be destroy which was part of the competition. They the bakers are not allowed to eat their own creations.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4597072.ece

    Any competitions I been to, I ate the food afterwards. They were delicious, made from Local produce. I did not end up eating food at the end of the day which came from hundred of miles (no country of origin stated) at the shops or at stands on the day, with the exception of the Kiwi Fruit which was in one cake.
    Only a small pieces that were cut put on a plate for Judges to taste. Now having a prized cake destroyed is nonsense and it a shame.

    It is like destroying Ferrari cars after a competitions because they are environmental unfriendly carbon emitting cars or able to drive too fast for our roads. Yet Trucks on our Roads emits far more pollutions that effect our health.

    legislation should have protection in place for the handling and storing of Food in competitions , just like Factories and food shops, restaurants, etc.
    Restaurants and Food Shops display their produces and many shops give away test pieces of food to promote them.

    This type of bad EU legislation is destroying Local communities and their traditions and it ends up giving conspiracy theorist more ammunition.
    Brussels says food entered in contests at country shows may cause food poisoning.

    Its states that food produced for display purposes, containing fresh ingredients such as eggs, butter and cream, should not be eaten to avoid possible food poisoning outbreaks.
    Their excuse is the word "may". There is far more food poisoning in regulated shops, restaurants, factories, and there are allowing food into the EU which is not properly traceable, for example, such as beef from Argentina where many areas have "Foot and Mouth" amongst other diseases. These unregulated food will cause us harm.

    I do not know of any baker in a competition who would do anything to cause food poisoning. I doubt they would be prize winning in the Future as bad reputation and any future Judges would be very hesitant from tasting the food in future competitions. Bad news always travel faster than good news.

    It also curbs prospective great bakers from show casing their work for future employment in a place where many people gather and come to see and taste their work. Everybody know that seeing and tasting of food are two very different senses.
    Destroying good food like this is an environmental waste.

    If we keep the EU bureaucrats logic then "May" be we should ban all dairy food, meat, water in the EU as it "may" cause us poisoning. We should ban Drink and Cigarettes for long term health issues. We should ban Cars, planes, trains for killing us, because they may kill or serious harm us in accidents. See how ridiculous their legislation is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    limklad wrote: »
    Seanie we had this debate many times in the past. While I never had a problem with QMV in Lisbon, overall we do loose influence. That will always happen with Expansion of the European Union in which I am very much in Favour of Expansion and accepting new Members. Sarkozy biggest supporter of Lisbon is Blocking expansion for 10 years even with Lisbon and then claims there will be no expansion without Lisbon.

    No matter how you sugar coat it over, the reality is, there is no denying it, we do lose more influence with Lisbon.

    Scofflaw: Thanks for you last post

    It depends what way you look at it. More countries are joining so the rules would change and some will lose a little power, some will not.

    It still doesn't change the fact that most things are reached by consensus and look how hard that is to get! (think the current economic turmoil)

    Sorry for being short, but the same people who moaned about QMV, more powers etc. etc seem to be the ones moaning about how ineffectual the EU is.

    It confuses the hell out of me! :confused:

    I agree there are some stupid laws, we all know of ones, but our own Govt. and others can come up with them! (the provisional licence springs to mind)

    Why concentrate on the negatives when there has been so much positive!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    limklad wrote: »
    Yes it is, I do not mind handing over some power while there is a consensus vision of the future. So far in areas, we so far have handed over are beginning to bite us in the ass. Before we hand over more power, then we should examine existing areas of power the EU that have effect us badly on the ground.

    Latest legislation form the EU is now is that all Baking in baking competitions to be destroy which was part of the competition. They the bakers are not allowed to eat their own creations.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4597072.ece

    Any competitions I been to, I ate the food afterwards. They were delicious, made from Local produce. I did not end up eating food at the end of the day which came from hundred of miles (no country of origin stated) at the shops or at stands on the day, with the exception of the Kiwi Fruit which was in one cake.
    Only a small pieces that were cut put on a plate for Judges to taste. Now having a prized cake destroyed is nonsense and it a shame.

    It is like destroying Ferrari cars after a competitions because they are environmental unfriendly carbon emitting cars or able to drive too fast for our roads. Yet Trucks on our Roads emits far more pollutions that effect our health.

    legislation should have protection in place for the handling and storing of Food in competitions , just like Factories and food shops, restaurants, etc.
    Restaurants and Food Shops display their produces and many shops give away test pieces of food to promote them.

    This type of bad EU legislation is destroying Local communities and their traditions and it ends up giving conspiracy theorist more ammunition.

    Their excuse is the word "may". There is far more food poisoning in regulated shops, restaurants, factories, and there are allowing food into the EU which is not properly traceable, for example, such as beef from Argentina where many areas have "Foot and Mouth" amongst other diseases. These unregulated food will cause us harm.

    I do not know of any baker in a competition who would do anything to cause food poisoning. I doubt they would be prize winning in the Future as bad reputation and any future Judges would be very hesitant from tasting the food in future competitions. Bad news always travel faster than good news.

    It also curbs prospective great bakers from show casing their work for future employment in a place where many people gather and come to see and taste their work. Everybody know that seeing and tasting of food are two very different senses.
    Destroying good food like this is an environmental waste.

    If we keep the EU bureaucrats logic then "May" be we should ban all dairy food, meat, water in the EU as it "may" cause us poisoning. We should ban Drink and Cigarettes for long term health issues. We should ban Cars, planes, trains for killing us, because they may kill or serious harm us in accidents. See how ridiculous their legislation is.

    That was discredited ages ago in this thread. People need to stop believing all the BS that stems from the euro-sceptic British tabloid press.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    Also, while we're on the issue of BS, here's the EU's real position on the death penalty. Any chance the No side could stop bringing up the whole "Lisbon will bring in the death penalty" nonsense now?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    Seanies32 wrote: »
    It depends what way you look at it. More countries are joining so the rules would change and some will lose a little power, some will not.

    It still doesn't change the fact that most things are reached by consensus and look how hard that is to get! (think the current economic turmoil)

    Sorry for being short, but the same people who moaned about QMV, more powers etc. etc seem to be the ones moaning about how ineffectual the EU is.

    It confuses the hell out of me! :confused:

    I agree there are some stupid laws, we all know of ones, but our own Govt. and others can come up with them! (the provisional licence springs to mind)

    Why concentrate on the negatives when there has been so much positive!
    You argument was we do not lose more influence with Lisbon, I said we do.
    Losing more Influence is a negative. The true question is can we handle that! Some people can and other can't. Lisbon does take more power away so does expansion. I not against Expansion, I love to see more countries Joining. NICE have Rules on QMV on expansion. Certain European Leaders do not like the NICE Rules after agreeing to them.

    My biggest problem is that the EU Commission is an unelected body. It does not come from the EU Parliament, like many Ministers from their National Parliaments, and yet they are saying that Lisbon is more democratic which is not, it only show an appearance of democracy, by letting National parliaments know future EU legislation. It allows them talk about it but reality they have little influence and can be ignored.

    The EU Commissioners are EU civil Servants and can only representative the EU as a whole not National Interest. They are bureaucrats.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner
    Having been appointed as a member of the Commission of the European Communities by the Council of the European Union, after the vote of approval by the European Parliament, I do solemnly undertake: to be completely independent in the performance of my duties, in the general interest of the Communities; in the performance of these duties, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties. I formally note the undertaking of each Member State to respect this principle and not to seek to influence members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.
    I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligations arising there from and in particular, the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance after I have ceased to hold office of certain appointments or benefits.

    Most People Do not know Rules and regulation of the EU Commissioner Job function. also People Keep misinforming themselves and others in how the EU function and them argue their point wrongly.

    QMV comes into play in the EU Council of EU Ministers (which is called the Council of the European Union) not in the EU Commission (Put forward Legislation) nor EU Parliament (Absolute majority voting).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QMV

    That why I Believe that losing the Commissioner argument in the Lisbon referendum is Bull. I do not care about losing an Commissioner because s/he belongs to the EU not Ireland. All we can do there is appoint a Body to fill a empty role.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    That was discredited ages ago in this thread. People need to stop believing all the BS that stems from the euro-sceptic British tabloid press.
    There is no smoke without fire. No one proved if it was wrong report just smeared it.

    Here another one From Mayo News & Irish Times.

    Here a Article from South Africa on the EC directive.


    Where you proof that it is incorrect than smearing the topic with put down comments like "BS" and "euro-sceptic British tabloid press". You got to do better than that in your post. Making fun or smearing something is not discredited it, it just plain laziness in arguing a point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    limklad wrote: »
    There is no smoke without fire. No one proved if it was wrong report just smeared it.

    Oh? So the CIA did get involved in the referendum then? Libertas are hand in glove with Austrian neo-Nazis? The WTC was an inside job? There are aliens regularly visiting earth? People voted No to Lisbon because they were afraid of conscription to an EU army?

    "There's no smoke with fire" applies to a physical phenomenon. In the world of media, there certainly are articles without any factual basis whatsoever. People make stuff up.*


    regretfully,
    Scofflaw

    *also, Santa doesn't exist. Sorry, kid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Oh? So the CIA did get involved in the referendum then? Libertas are hand in glove with Austrian neo-Nazis? The WTC was an inside job? There are aliens regularly visiting earth? People voted No to Lisbon because they were afraid of conscription to an EU army?

    "There's no smoke with fire" applies to a physical phenomenon. In the world of media, there certainly are articles without any factual basis whatsoever. People make stuff up.*


    regretfully,
    Scofflaw

    *also, Santa doesn't exist. Sorry, kid.
    Scofflaw: what wrong with you? This is not like you. You normal good are coming good arguments rather than taking a low level like this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    limklad wrote: »
    You argument was we do not lose more influence with Lisbon, I said we do.

    No, look at my post, I said we do, though not to the extent as some make out. As you point out with expansion we lose and have done, same as everybody else. By the very nature of Expansion every country loses some power.

    We lost power to some countries, gained over others.
    limklad wrote:
    My biggest problem is that the EU Commission is an unelected body. It does not come from the EU Parliament, like many Ministers from their National Parliaments, and yet they are saying that Lisbon is more democratic which is not, it only show an appearance of democracy, by letting National parliaments know future EU legislation. It allows them talk about it but reality they have little influence and can be ignored.

    The EU Commissioners are EU civil Servants and can only representative the EU as a whole not National Interest. They are bureaucrats.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner


    Most People Do not know Rules and regulation of the EU Commissioner Job function. also People Keep misinforming themselves and others in how the EU function and them argue their point wrongly.

    QMV comes into play in the EU Council of EU Ministers (which is called the Council of the European Union) not in the EU Commission (Put forward Legislation) nor EU Parliament (Absolute majority voting).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QMV

    That why I Believe that losing the Commissioner argument in the Lisbon referendum is Bull. I do not care about losing an Commissioner because s/he belongs to the EU not Ireland. All we can do there is appoint a Body to fill a empty role.

    We've been through this all before, especially the Commissioner and voting parts.

    Your biggest problem is unelected Commissioners, Do you want the EU comissioners to be elected?

    Then you seem to go onto say it isn't that important and I'm not that bothered! :confused:

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    Seanies32 wrote: »
    No, look at my post, I said we do, though not to the extent as some make out. As you point out with expansion we lose and have done, same as everybody else. By the very nature of Expansion every country loses some power.

    We lost power to some countries, gained over others.



    We've been through this all before, especially the Commissioner and voting parts.

    Your biggest problem is unelected Commissioners, Do you want the EU comissioners to be elected?

    Then you seem to go onto say it isn't that important and I'm not that bothered! :confused:
    If they are going to use the same Current EU Commission system with Lisbon then fighting over losing a commissioner is useless. Lisbon will never ever change that.

    Yes, I do want them elected from EU Parliament.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    limklad wrote: »
    There is no smoke without fire. No one proved if it was wrong report just smeared it.

    Here another one From Mayo News & Irish Times.

    Here a Article from South Africa on the EC directive.


    Where you proof that it is incorrect than smearing the topic with put down comments like "BS" and "euro-sceptic British tabloid press". You got to do better than that in your post. Making fun or smearing something is not discredited it, it just plain laziness in arguing a point.

    The two links in that locked thread I linked to discredited it, not me. I didn't realise I had to formally discredit it myself. There were numerous reports about this at the time (mid-August), and they were proven false. The Irish times followed up on their original report here. The EU issued a statement here. And even the source of the claim later acknowledged that it was false, as noted here, and I quote:
    The SWRI wishes to make it clear that in no way has the EU banned the consumption of competition cakes entered into baking contests at Country Shows. Most Federations within the SWRI hold a show every year or every two years, with hundreds of cakes being made for these shows. They have not ordered their members to destroy all cakes submitted immediately after the prize giving ceremony, however realising the importance of health and safety they do enforce that any cake containing fresh cream, eggs or butter is disposed of at the end of the show, to avoid any outbreak of food poisoning. To avoid food waste the Institute has recommend that their members to bake smaller-sized cakes, but again this is not under any instructions from the EU.

    Almost anything that originates in the British tabloid press needs to be checked and double-checked, especially when it comes to knocking the EU, as it generally is BS. There's even a whole page dedicated to their poisonous nonsense here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    The two links in that locked thread I linked to discredited it, not me. I didn't realise I had to formally discredit it myself. There were numerous reports about this at the time (mid-August), and they were proven false. The Irish times followed up on their original report here. The EU issued a statement here. And even the source of the claim later acknowledged that it was false, as noted here, and I quote:



    Almost anything that originates in the British tabloid press needs to be checked and double-checked, especially when it comes to knocking the EU, as it generally is BS. There's even a whole page dedicated to their poisonous nonsense here.
    Your link on the European Commission web page in your post on that thread (you provided) was pulled it got redirected to another index page.
    Click on it if you do not believe me.

    None of the newspapers pulled their articles or let any comments on the webpage that there was a retraction or inaccuracies. Two Irish Newspapers (Irish Times & Mayo News) and a South African had similar story.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    limklad wrote: »
    Scofflaw: what wrong with you? This is not like you. You normal good are coming good arguments rather than taking a low level like this.

    Thank you - but occasionally I do lose patience. Your post accused another poster of laziness, while using an incredibly lazy "argument-from-proverbs" which doesn't apply at all.

    That people say things in political debates simply doesn't prove anything other than that people say things in political debates. Not one thing said in a political debate has to be grounded in fact - it can be (and increasingly is) a combination of innuendo and outright fabrications.

    I don't think I can over-emphasise the importance of that point. A lot of this debate consists of people simply making things up. The Yes side, to pick a contra-example, more or less said that our economic prosperity depended on a Yes vote. They had no evidence for that. Eurosceptics, on the other hand, come up with things like the 'straight banana' story, which anyone buying a banana in a shop can see isn't true, since bananas are still curved, but which nevertheless persists.

    These things are, quite literally, myths - that is to say they contain an emotional or psychological truth, not a factual one (sometimes that truth is a truth about the listener, though), or they express a general truth. Euromyths contain the general truth that bureaucrats often make rules that are both arcane and inflexible - but the 'examples' that are used are not factually true.

    So, to come back round, I'm really quite prepared to be rude when someone unthinkingly assumes that something in the papers is true because it's in the papers, and therefore, apparently, must have some truth in it. It doesn't have to. It can be an outright lie, and even when they're called on it, the lingering impression is left - and that's what counts to the people who make up these stories.

    I hope that explains my rather snappy response, and I apologise if I offended.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    limklad wrote: »
    Your link on the European Commission web page in your post on that thread (you provided) was pulled it got redirected to another index page.
    Click on it if you do not believe me.

    None of the newspapers pulled their articles or let any comments on the webpage that there was a retraction or inaccuracies. Two Irish Newspapers (Irish Times & Mayo News) and a South African had similar story.

    The Mayo News article specifically claims, several times, that the Directive requires the destruction of all cakes immediately after the judging, and that this has already been made law in Scotland. The source for this, as originally quoted in the Times, is the Scottish Rural Women's Institute, and the Scottish Rural Women's Institute have specifically stated that it is not true. What more should one need?

    Someone made this up, by taking the most ridiculous possible interpretation of the Directive, ascribing it to someone else, and then phoning up a variety of people. Those people, in good faith, gave their reaction to the story as it was put to them - but what was put to them was a fabrication. Your reaction is also in good faith, but you too are reacting to something that has no basis in fact - that's the point of these kind of 'stories'. They're part of a permanent eurosceptic PR campaign.

    The newspapers are not going to "pull the story" or issue a retraction. The only reason they ever do that is if they are going to be sued, and the EU doesn't sue. And other papers are going to pick up the story without checking the facts, because they don't have time to check facts, and the EU doesn't sue.

    I recommend this book: Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media - and this article.

    exasperated,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Thank you - but occasionally I do lose patience. Your post accused another poster of laziness, while using an incredibly lazy "argument-from-proverbs" which doesn't apply at all.

    That people say things in political debates simply doesn't prove anything other than that people say things in political debates. Not one thing said in a political debate has to be grounded in fact - it can be (and increasingly is) a combination of innuendo and outright fabrications.

    I don't think I can over-emphasise the importance of that point. A lot of this debate consists of people simply making things up. The Yes side, to pick a contra-example, more or less said that our economic prosperity depended on a Yes vote. They had no evidence for that. Eurosceptics, on the other hand, come up with things like the 'straight banana' story, which anyone buying a banana in a shop can see isn't true, since bananas are still curved, but which nevertheless persists.

    These things are, quite literally, myths - that is to say they contain an emotional or psychological truth, not a factual one (sometimes that truth is a truth about the listener, though), or they express a general truth. Euromyths contain the general truth that bureaucrats often make rules that are both arcane and inflexible - but the 'examples' that are used are not factually true.

    So, to come back round, I'm really quite prepared to be rude when someone unthinkingly assumes that something in the papers is true because it's in the papers, and therefore, apparently, must have some truth in it. It doesn't have to. It can be an outright lie, and even when they're called on it, the lingering impression is left - and that's what counts to the people who make up these stories.

    I hope that explains my rather snappy response, and I apologise if I offended.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    Apology accepted, I know this behaviour was not like you. I was surprise by it, because you have always been back politely to correct any inaccuracies with good information, and anything we differ we always debated it, in which I very much enjoyed having a good debate, because democracy gives us that freedom to express our different views.
    I would not have surprise me if Seanie32 to come back with comments like that.
    I had many good discussions with you on the Lisbon Treaty where you provided brilliant incites and correct many inaccuracies by other posters by both "Yes" and "No" People.
    Again, I have no problem been corrected, but I have little regards for those who slander and use smearing comments to prove their points. I questioned them more than euro-skeptics. It proves nothing but laziness and disrespectful on the part of the poster, just like School yard bulling.

    When I noticed that story and I did do more searching and found other similar stories, Irish Times was one. They did not retract it. The European Commission Link in the other thread provided by lenny_leonard was pulled, you can check it yourself. As you also can see, He did provided another link in this thread which was valid after I responded to Him.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    limklad wrote: »
    Apology accepted, I know this behaviour was not like you. I was surprise by it, because you have always been back politely to correct any inaccuracies with good information, and anything we differ we always debated it, in which I very much enjoyed having a good debate, because democracy gives us that freedom to express our different views.
    I would not have surprise me if Seanie32 to come back with comments like that.
    I had many good discussions with you on the Lisbon Treaty where you provided brilliant incites and correct many inaccuracies by other posters by both "Yes" and "No" People.
    Again, I have no problem been corrected, but I have little regards for those who slander and use smearing comments to prove their points. I questioned them more than euro-skeptics. It proves nothing but laziness and disrespectful on the part of the poster, just like School yard bulling.

    When I noticed that story and I did do more searching and found other similar stories, Irish Times was one. They did not retract it. The European Commission Link in the other thread provided by lenny_leonard was pulled, you can check it yourself. As you also can see, He did provided another link in this thread which was valid after I responded to Him.

    Hmm. If you mean this Europa press release, it certainly hasn't been 'pulled', it's been archived, because it's from August.

    Newspapers, though, really don't pull stories or issue retractions except under threat of legal action. That puts the EU at something of a disadvantage, because they don't - indeed, can't, I imagine - sue the papers. No legal threat, no retraction.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    limklad wrote: »
    Again, I have no problem been corrected, but I have little regards for those who slander and use smearing comments to prove their points. I questioned them more than euro-skeptics. It proves nothing but laziness and disrespectful on the part of the poster, just like School yard bulling.

    Is that aimed at me? Believe it or not, I rarely have time to write long posts, especially at 2pm in the afternoon. It's nothing to do with "laziness" and being "disrespectful". I assumed the original links were still in place; in most case they would still be alive a couple of months later.
    limklad wrote: »
    When I noticed that story and I did do more searching and found other similar stories, Irish Times was one. They did not retract it. The European Commission Link in the other thread provided by lenny_leonard was pulled, you can check it yourself. As you also can see, He did provided another link in this thread which was valid after I responded to Him.

    The Irish Times posted their original web article on the 27th August (the first link in the locked thread), and posted a second article the following day with the EU response (linked to by sink in the locked thread). The EU response alone should have been enough to discredit the original claim; they did, after all, issue the particular food safety directive. But as usual people prefer to believe that the evil EU will enforce abortion, the death penalty, detention of kids, and disposal of cakes at an agricultural fair.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Hmm. If you mean this Europa press release, it certainly hasn't been 'pulled', it's been archived, because it's from August.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    No That was the last one he provided in this thread.
    I responded to the following comments
    That was discredited ages ago in this thread. People need to stop believing all the BS that stems from the euro-sceptic British tabloid press.
    and I looked at his response on that thread.
    His post in that thread is
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57067288&postcount=4
    I clicked on his link and it got redirected.

    I have often stated on Board.ie for all to see that I am Pro-EU and I made no secret about it but the type of EU I preferred differs from what Sarkozy wants for us. I do not want a further Integration into the EU which differs from the original EC/EU that its originators wanted. I prefer we keep our current stance of Neutrality for our Armed forces to continue their work in peacekeeping missions, a reputation they earn through hard work through earn respect from the local populations they serve in. I am a great vocal supporter of our armed forces for the work in the conditions they work in, especially with little resources they have.

    I also have respect for many legislation the EU imposed such as electrical directives that forces companies who sell products, to prevent electrical noise been emitted and also make them immune to Noise. Remember in the old days, you either watching TV or listening to the Radio, and someone turn on motor and all you see is static and noise on the TV and radio.
    This one area across the Union which are common to all that the EU is very effective in one large Market. Making toys safer, chemicals controls, environment directives to protect the water and air we breath.

    But to Give The EU a free hand or to prevent or smear people from speaking about issues or bad legislation is very wrong and it is heading back to the old days of Dictatorship, censorship and it is giving the conspiracy theorist and eurosceptics more ammunition. A part of Democracy is about accountability of our leaders to their people and freedom of it citizens to response to their leaders without duress.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    Is that aimed at me? Believe it or not, I rarely have time to write long posts, especially at 2pm in the afternoon. It's nothing to do with "laziness" and being "disrespectful". I assumed the original links were still in place; in most case they would still be alive a couple of months later.
    I have no proble anyone correcting me , but have proof.
    But as usual people prefer to believe that the evil EU will enforce abortion, the death penalty, detention of kids, and disposal of cakes at an agricultural fair.
    You just as bad as the "No campaigners" linking comments above (I have highlighted )from you post to mine. Again You are just Like SF and Liberates from the opposite extreme. Show me Proof I mentioned those other things? again you are slandering my words and posts..


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    limklad wrote: »
    No That was the last one he provided in this thread.
    I responded to the following comments

    and I looked at his response on that thread.
    His post in that thread is
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57067288&postcount=4
    I clicked on his link and it got redirected.

    Yes...that is because the EU Rep archives stories past a certain date. The press release he pointed to is exactly the same as the press release I pointed to. It has been archived, which is why it no longer has a link of its own. That is the way the Europa website works - and I am speaking from a professional perspective as a web developer! Actually it suggests their system is rather old...

    You can also read this rather more formal press release.
    limklad wrote: »
    I have often stated on Board.ie for all to see that I am Pro-EU and I made no secret about it but the type of EU I preferred differs from what Sarkozy wants for us.

    You and probably nearly everyone here...
    limklad wrote: »
    I do not want a further Integration into the EU which differs from the original EC/EU that its originators wanted.

    Fair enough, although some of its originators actually wanted a federal Europe.
    limklad wrote: »
    I prefer we keep our current stance of Neutrality for our Armed forces to continue their work in peacekeeping missions, a reputation they earn through hard work through earn respect from the local populations they serve in. I am a great vocal supporter of our armed forces for the work in the conditions they work in, especially with little resources they have.

    Well, my view is that nothing in Lisbon threatened that, since it contained the same guarantees as the previous treaties.
    limklad wrote: »
    I also have respect for many legislation the EU imposed such as electrical directives that forces companies who sell products, to prevent electrical noise been emitted and also make them immune to Noise. Remember in the old days, you either watching TV or listening to the Radio, and someone turn on motor and all you see is static and noise on the TV and radio.
    This one area across the Union which are common to all that the EU is very effective in one large Market. Making toys safer, chemicals controls, environment directives to protect the water and air we breath.

    Fair enough. I have to say that I thought the competences granted in the Treaty were both reasonable (energy, environment, space, sports/tourism) and, since they were shared competences rather than exclusive ones, not dramatic.
    limklad wrote: »
    But to Give The EU a free hand or to prevent or smear people from speaking about issues or bad legislation is very wrong and it is heading back to the old days of Dictatorship, censorship and it is giving the conspiracy theorist and eurosceptics more ammunition. A part of Democracy is about accountability of our leaders to their people and freedom of it citizens to response to their leaders without duress.

    Um, yes, but the EU doesn't seek to stop people talking - indeed, the EU is rather desperate for communication (although, being bureaucratic, it has a tendency to turn those communications into reports). The national governments, on the one hand, and the eurosceptics on the other, are the ones with a vested interest in keeping the EU and people apart. By and large, they are effective in doing so, partly because the EU is not terribly good at communication.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    limklad wrote: »
    I have no proble anyone correcting me , but have proof.

    You just as bad as the "No campaigners" linking comments above (I have highlighted )from you post to mine. Again You are just Like SF and Liberates from the opposite extreme. Show me Proof I mentioned those other things? again you are slandering my words and posts..

    What are you talking about? The sarcastic nature of the comment I made is not directed at you in particular. I thought that was obvious, so apologies if it wasn't. But I guess being at the opposite extreme to 'Liberates' or 'veritas' or whatever they're called is a good thing. (What is it with people confusing their name the past few days?)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That people say things in political debates simply doesn't prove anything other than that people say things in political debates. Not one thing said in a political debate has to be grounded in fact - it can be (and increasingly is) a combination of innuendo and outright fabrications.

    Scofflaw, you have just elaborated everything I have tried to say about Pr1ck Roche's and Labour's attacks on Declan Ganley. I haven't been able to put it this succinctly in about 6 months.

    You truly are a wordsmith. I bow to the master


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    dresden8 wrote: »
    That people say things in political debates simply doesn't prove anything other than that people say things in political debates. Not one thing said in a political debate has to be grounded in fact - it can be (and increasingly is) a combination of innuendo and outright fabrications.
    Scofflaw, you have just elaborated everything I have tried to say about Pr1ck Roche's and Labour's attacks on Declan Ganley. I haven't been able to put it this succinctly in about 6 months.

    You truly are a wordsmith. I bow to the master

    And now you just need to bear in mind that it applies to both sides...although for a fact, Dick Roche is much better at plausible deniability and non-answers than Libertas. If you look at what he said about immigration when the Government decided to waive the accession countries' embargo, you'll find that he never ever quite said there wouldn't be a lot of immigration. It looked like that was what he was saying, but when you examine the wording you'll see that everything was deniable. Quite a clever man, under the red-faced shoutiness - just not clever enough to realise that it doesn't quite come off.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    limklad wrote: »
    You argument was we do not lose more influence with Lisbon, I said we do.

    It would help if you'd read my posts properly.
    limklad wrote:
    It does not come from the EU Parliament, like many Ministers from their National Parliaments, and yet they are saying that Lisbon is more democratic which is not, it only show an appearance of democracy, by letting National parliaments know future EU legislation. It allows them talk about it but reality they have little influence and can be ignored.

    Lisbon gave more power to National Parliaments.
    limklad wrote:
    That why I Believe that losing the Commissioner argument in the Lisbon referendum is Bull.

    Indeed it is Bull. Lisbon had nothing to do with us losing a Commissioner, a Libertas lie.
    Seanies32 wrote: »
    No, look at my post, I said we do, though not to the extent as some make out. As you point out with expansion we lose and have done, same as everybody else. By the very nature of Expansion every country loses some power.

    We lost power to some countries, gained over others.



    We've been through this all before, especially the Commissioner and voting parts.

    Your biggest problem is unelected Commissioners, Do you want the EU comissioners to be elected?

    Then you seem to go onto say it isn't that important and I'm not that bothered! :confused:

    Sorry you felt that was was an attack, I was genuinely confused.
    limklad wrote: »
    Yes, I do want them elected from EU Parliament.

    The problem there is, it makes Commissioners political and open to lobbying by member states.
    limklad wrote: »
    I would not have surprise me if Seanie32 to come back with comments like that.

    I'm offended you didn't take this up with me directly, when replying to my posts. If you had a problem, you should have said, otherwise I could easily have missed the rest of the thread and not had a chance to defend and apologise.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    Seanies32 wrote: »

    I'm offended you didn't take this up with me directly, when replying to my posts. If you had a problem, you should have said, otherwise I could easily have missed the rest of the thread and not had a chance to defend and apologise.
    You use the following on post #3 " it's a conspiracy" which is a put down and it a common phrase to smear people who question facts or leaders etc..
    [quote=

    I know, it's a conspiracy against Ireland I tell ya! eek.gif

    [/quote]


Advertisement