The Next Referendum Vote Clock Is Ticking Down...

djpbarry

Biggins wrote: »

Here is an article printed last week by a major paper to confirm what I mentioned above.

Main part


Bottom part (thats cut off):

If you expect anyone to believe that either of those are from a "major paper", then you're seriously deluded; the grammar in both articles is appalling (although, I can barely read the first one because the resolution is too low).

Which "major paper" are they from?

Biggins

djpbarry wrote: »

...I can barely read the first one because the resolution is too low...

Did you bother to download the full sized version as by the link posted above?
I tested the contents and I can read them fine!

Here it is again: http://rapidshare.com/files/164453101/2008_11_16.rar

Here is the Irish Times latest updated short version: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1116/breaking42.htm

djpbarry

Biggins wrote: »

Did you bother to download the full sized version as by the link posted above?

No.

Biggins wrote: »

Here it is again: http://rapidshare.com/files/164453101/2008_11_16.rar

It's still a rag. What paper is it? By the standard of writing (and obvious bias), I'm guessing it's worse than a tabloid?

Biggins wrote: »

Here is the Irish Times latest updated short version: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1116/breaking42.htm

And what does this prove? That the government are going to make a decision?

Biggins

Respectfully, the name on this thread is "The next referendum vote clock is ticking down".
Besides bending over backwards to prove that point, what else do you personally require, blood?

I suspect nothing that is said or posted which conflicts with your view, will make any difference anyway or satisfy.

I wish you well.

nesf

Biggins wrote: »

Here is an article printed last week by a major paper to confirm what I mentioned above.

Major paper won't do, if you're linking to pdfs without the paper's title and date you need to provide both. Otherwise it's easy to photoshop whatever you want in there without people being able to check.

Biggins

I'm good at computers but at photoshopping - thats an art in itself I don't have the time for sadly!

As stated I will provide the name of the reporter so that he can be contacted independently from myself, to confirm this story.

Again all the links that are provided are seemingly still not enough to satisfy some. The newspaper that was provided as a single source was the Mail, a Saturday edition - reporters name: Richard Waghorne - do you want his email address?
Before it can be knocked for its reporting style, the content has been before reported (note the dates of the original source material provided below with further links) and after today's 6 o'clock news (Sunday) announcement, has been the same by other papers have reported - see yet again the more and more links below.
Please note the dates. If anyone else bothered to keep track of these things instead of having to ask repeatedly to the point of harassment, myself for links, they too would have concluded with clear thought that the previous referendum was not good enough for those leading the majority in the Dail.

Strange in that I that what was posted about having to vote again, has been now confirmed by the BBC, RTE and will be in and the papers from thereon from this date onwards...

But still some chose to have a go at me for some reason, reporting early for what will be confirmed in tomorrows papers and in the media news!

Right, here is more links to the related subject and changing of the law, etc:

Lisbon 'No' may spark end of votes on treaties - Friday October 24 2008
Source: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-no-may-spark-end-of-votes-on-treaties-1508101.html

EU officials still expecting Irish to vote again - Thursday September 11 2008 (changing of the law)

European union officials expect Ireland to cave in and hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Autumn 2009.

An internal EU briefing paper, entitled 'The Solution to the Irish Problem', predicts that officials will accede to the re-run at a meeting of Europe's leaders on October 15.

Source: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/eu-officials-still-expecting-irish-to-vote-again-1473414.html

EU begins secret drive to force Ireland to vote again on rejected Lisbon Treaty - 12th September 2008
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1054732/EU-begins-secret-drive-force-Ireland-vote-rejected-Lisbon-Treaty.html

Irish Examiner - Lisbon II in autumn 2009, says EU paper - Thursday, September 11, 2008
Source: http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2008/09/11/story72087.asp

...the links go on and on with more to be found if others bother to do their homework.
It would be time better spent than just finding another reason to have a go at me for reporting what now is in the open and is in the papers tomorrow (Monday).

nesf

Biggins wrote: »

I'm good at computers but at photoshopping - thats an art in itself I don't have the time for sadly!

And I wasn't accusing you of it, I'm just giving a reason for why we require people to give more details than just "a major paper".

The newspaper that was provided as a single source was the Mail, a Saturday edition

Thank you.

reporters name: Richard Waghorne - do you want his email address?

That's unnecessary, the paper and the approximate date is sufficient. I hope you understand why I need to ask people to give sources for their claims.

Biggins

I appreciate your position.

I just wish others would actually to their own research too.
When actual others do the work of keeping track of these things, we become targets for those that are just not willing to listen.
Its a sad state of affairs.

I bare no ill-will towards yourself Nesf. You have a forum role to do.

As mentioned already - I too am very weary of Libertas and those (many!) behind it (and would like to learn more).
My worry is other related matters and conduct by other principles involved too.
I hope most can see that.

Cheers for giving me the time to post more links. Others would be quick to write me off as just another fantasy artist or creator/writer.
Thankfully, the news leaked to RTE hours after it appeared here. (The media scramble will now begin again more so on this issue)

Good night to all (its now 2.55am - yikes!).
I look forwards to hearing further thoughts in the matter tomorrow.
Its going to be a long road again with this process - please I ask, that all will not make this issue a personal one to have a go at each other.
Lets discuss the issues - not have a go at ourselves.

All the best to both sides. At the end of the day, we all want what's best for our country.
If we didn't care, we wouldn't be so passionate. Thanks for caring and taking the time to do so.

Eurosceptic2008

PHB wrote: »

If we have another refendum, and its passed, isn't that also the will of the people?

Yes but I don't expect that to happen. I think to some degree there is a generational and class gap on this. Even the latest TNS-MRBI poll in the Irish Times has shown more in the 18-25 year old age-group opposed than in favour of Lisbon. The youth of Ireland do not remember the begging-bowl years when Albert came back in 1992 promising €8 billion. Then there's the cynicism about the trustworthiness of Irish politicians stemming from 11 years of Tribunals and the fact that Bertie Ahern, Ireland's voice at the negotiating table in the Lisbon negotiations, wanted us to believe him that this treaty is in Ireland's interests. Well sorry but I for one am not buying it.
My reasons for opposing Lisbon, as a young person are as follows:
A: I believe in the concept of the nation state, independent on the most important issues. The more power goes to Brussels, the more this concept is undermined. We have been in an empire before. We should see the parallels with 1800 when Castlereagh and Cornwallis came over at London's behest to bully the Irish Parliament into voting for the Act of Union. Some - including me - see parallels with the caravan of foreign politicians like Sarkozy, Merkel and Wallstrom coming to Ireland to try to nudge Irish ratification of Lisbon forward.

B: The Lisbon Treaty enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into European law. As such, it will be for the European Court of Justice to interpret it through court challenges to Irish law on human rights. In other words, the Irish Supreme Court's rulings in this area will be subordinate to those of the ECJ, where the final decision will rest. Bear in mind that Ireland currently has no judge on that court. We have to wait our turn along with 19 other small countries, while 7 Big States like the UK, France and Germany have permanent representation on the judiciary of the court. When you increase the power of a body dominated by Big States like the ECJ, you are de-facto reducing the influence of small countries. The Irish perspective on human rights issues will be absent from the deliberations of these judges most of the time, because there usually isn't an Irish judge due to the rotational system between small countries.

djpbarry

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

A: I believe in the concept of the nation state, independent on the most important issues. The more power goes to Brussels, the more this concept is undermined. We have been in an empire before. We should see the parallels with 1800 when Castlereagh and Cornwallis came over at London's behest to bully the Irish Parliament into voting for the Act of Union.

Yawn...

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

B: The Lisbon Treaty enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into European law. As such, it will be for the European Court of Justice to interpret it through court challenges to Irish law on human rights. In other words, the Irish Supreme Court's rulings in this area will be subordinate to those of the ECJ, where the final decision will rest.

Old hat.

Very original username by the way - I wonder what your agenda here could possibly be? Hmmmm.....

Eurosceptic2008

djpbarry wrote: »

Yawn...
Old hat.

Very original username by the way - I wonder what your agenda here could possibly be? Hmmmm.....

The agenda of supporting 54% of my compatriots who voted no to Lisbon. I make no apology for being a critic of the EU. I am however from the wing of the Eurocritical movement that favours engagement with the organisation rather than withdrawal.

Villain

If another referendum is gong to be run it will be pointless unless Ireland gets written clarification on the issues that affected the result, e.g. the tax issue.

And don't start the "the treat won't change anything with our tax system" the treaty is designed to be open to interrpution so a CLEAR statement that TAX system won't simple and would help a lot of people votes yes although imo sadly the Government have no hope of getting it passed at the moment.

Hitman Actual

Just a couple of quick points:

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

My reasons for opposing Lisbon, as a young person are as follows:
A: I believe in the concept of the nation state, independent on the most important issues.

What important issues do you believe we don't have independence in? And what important issues would Lisbon have taken away?

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

B: The Lisbon Treaty enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into European law. As such, it will be for the European Court of Justice to interpret it through court challenges to Irish law on human rights. In other words, the Irish Supreme Court's rulings in this area will be subordinate to those of the ECJ, where the final decision will rest. Bear in mind that Ireland currently has no judge on that court. We have to wait our turn along with 19 other small countries, while 7 Big States like the UK, France and Germany have permanent representation on the judiciary of the court. When you increase the power of a body dominated by Big States like the ECJ, you are de-facto reducing the influence of small countries. The Irish perspective on human rights issues will be absent from the deliberations of these judges most of the time, because there usually isn't an Irish judge due to the rotational system between small countries.

This is a terribly misinformed paragraph: EVERY member state has a member on the ECJ. It's a really basic underlying principal of the structure of the court.

Edit 1: Hang on a minute, are you talking about the advocate-generals? They don't make decisions, they just write opinions on cases, which dont have to be adhered to by the court. Your post is quite confusing, tbh.

Edit 2: Okay, I humbly acknowledge that I mis-read your post. But if you really believe that the ECJ doesn't or wont operate with complete impartiality, then there's not a lot anyone can say to you to change your mind. It absolutely shouldn't be a case of states being able to 'influence' the courts decision. If there was any evidence of this, then it would be seriously damaging or maybe even fatal to the EU ideal.

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

Very original username by the way - I wonder what your agenda here could possibly be? Hmmmm.....

Who cares if he has a Euroskeptic point of view? The name is this forum is European Union not Pro Europe! Although a lot of the time one could be forgiven for wondering why it isn't called Pro Europe.

In any case we've all known that from June 13th this year that there would be a second Lisbon referendum. I hope it's no again, lets put the unanimous question to bed once and for all. All states are equal so long as you all agree.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

If another referendum is gong to be run it will be pointless unless Ireland gets written clarification on the issues that affected the result, e.g. the tax issue.

And don't start the "the treat won't change anything with our tax system" the treaty is designed to be open to interrpution so a CLEAR statement that TAX system won't simple and would help a lot of people votes yes although imo sadly the Government have no hope of getting it passed at the moment.

So basically, the treaty has to contain a written assurance that it really, really, really means it when there's nothing whatsoever in it or any of the treaties it modifies about direct taxation?

You claim the treaty is designed to be open to interpretation: fine. Find the provision in the treaty that could be interpreted as meaning that we can't have a 12.5% corporation tax.

turgon

oscarBravo wrote: »

You claim the treaty is designed to be open to interpretation: fine. Find the provision in the treaty that could be interpreted as meaning that we can't have a 12.5% corporation tax.

Have some faith oscar. You might not be able to find it, nor might your lawyer, nor anyone else, but be rest assured the big bad EU have it up their sleeve somewhere. Kathy Sinnot will tell you, and shes never lied in her life

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

So basically, the treaty has to contain a written assurance that it really, really, really means it when there's nothing whatsoever in it or any of the treaties it modifies about direct taxation?

You claim the treaty is designed to be open to interpretation: fine. Find the provision in the treaty that could be interpreted as meaning that we can't have a 12.5% corporation tax.

You see this imo is exactly the issue with the treaty, Yes people say
"the treaty doesn't say that can happen etc etc"

But then when its put to them by No voters:
"grand so lets put a declaration in the treaty saying that",

You don't get the reply from YES voters:
"yea sure that makes sense there can be no confusion then"

Instead you get the Yes voter saying:
"Find the provision in the treaty that could be interpreted as meaning that we can't have a 12.5% corporation tax."

I don't believe the treaty can change our tax system and the 12.5% but I didn't vote No thinking it could.

YES people need to get down off the high horse where they look down and say " oh you silly peasant the treaty doesn't say that trust me I'm all intelligent" and start accepting that if this treaty is going to be passed it needs to have declarations that the ordinary Joe on the street can understand.

djpbarry

Villain wrote: »

YES people need to get down off the high horse where they look down and say " oh you silly peasant the treaty doesn't say that trust me I'm all intelligent" and start accepting that if this treaty is going to be passed it needs to have declarations that the ordinary Joe on the street can understand.

You're totally missing the point. How many different reasons have been offered for voting 'No'? There's quite an array, isn't there? Do we have to include written assurances for every single one of these reasons for voting 'No'? We would probably have to include assurances against anything else that Libertas, Cóir and Sinn Féin think up before any future referendum and a few extra assurances beyond that, just for good measure. You see how ridiculously impractical this is?

It would make a whole lot more sense if people just informed themselves on the content of the treaty, rather than seeking assurances that it doesn’t contain anything relating to x, y and z.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

YES people need to get down off the high horse where they look down and say " oh you silly peasant the treaty doesn't say that trust me I'm all intelligent" and start accepting that if this treaty is going to be passed it needs to have declarations that the ordinary Joe on the street can understand.

If there are five hundred stupid reasons for voting "no", all of which are irrelevant to the treaty, do we need to have five hundred redundant clauses added to the treaty to keep people happy? I've already mentioned the person who told me Lisbon would ban open-coffin funerals - should there be a clause appended to the treaty guaranteeing our right to open coffins? If I express a fear that Lisbon might be interpreted as banning ice cream, do I get an assurance too? Who gets to decide which fears are founded? You don't think our corporation tax is under threat, but you think those who do fear this should get a written assurance? Do you think an assurance on open coffins is required? What about ice cream? Where is the line drawn, and who decides?

At what point do we stop dumbing the treaty down with tautological and pointless assurances, and start asking the fearmongers to actually explain the mechanisms whereby their fears will be realised?

Villain

Ah lads come one your reply "oh we're going to have to 500 declarations then" doesn't account for the work that Government has done to identify the Main issues that people had problems with, I can't remember excatly what was stated by A minister Michael Martin I think but there was 4 or 5 main reasons.

If YES people want to pass this treaty next time they simply get declarations for those 4 or 5 items and thats it you have the treaty passed

BTW if the treaty was like our own constitution i.e. readable to the majority you wouldn't need clear declarations. I'm not saying taking sides here I'm simply pointing out what is needed imo to get the treaty passed and I believe the YES side are too stubborn to giev into the NO and get declarations.

If 5 declarations could be added to ensure the majority would vote YES in another vote would you agree to it or would you ignore the issues raised wrongly or rightly and risk a no vote?

Mahatma coat

from wht I've read the 'declarations' are non binding and mean nothing anyway.

someone said we should put in 500 new declarations, why not, lets call it a constitution and have the whole of Europe Vote on it state by state

Hitman Actual

Here's a crazy idea: Give people the declarations needed, and then once the treaty is ratified, use the self-amending aspect to make them legally part of the treaty. Can this work?

Scofflaw

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Here's a crazy idea: Give people the declarations needed, and then once the treaty is ratified, use the self-amending aspect to make them legally part of the treaty. Can this work?

It would, although some of them might well need a referendum for us to then ratify them - after all, it's not actually a "self-amending" clause, but an "amending" one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Darragh29

PHB wrote: »

If we have another refendum, and its passed, isn't that also the will of the people?

And if we have another referendum a year after that and it fails, sure that's also the will of the people, isn't it???

Scofflaw

Darragh29 wrote: »

And if we have another referendum a year after that and it fails, sure that's also the will of the people, isn't it???

Well, you'd need a proposal to amend the Constitution to reverse the ratification, and Yes and No would then need to change sides...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Darragh29

djpbarry wrote: »

It would make a whole lot more sense if people just informed themselves on the content of the treaty, rather than seeking assurances that it doesn’t contain anything relating to x, y and z.

My 2 cents worth is that it doesn't matter what is in the treaty. What is in the treaty is irrelevant to me. What is relevant to me is that this is the second time on as many occasions that our democratially expressed statement has been rejected in its entirety by Europe. There is no point in having a referendum where only one result will be accepted, so I'm voting no and I'll continue to vote against every single effort to bring us deeper into an EU that is undemocratic and closer to Zimbabwe than anywhere in Europe...

Hitman Actual

Scofflaw wrote: »

It would, although some of them might well need a referendum for us to then ratify them - after all, it's not actually a "self-amending" clause, but an "amending" one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sorry, bad choice of the the term "self-amending". I'm just adding to the fears of the No side now.

Scofflaw

Darragh29 wrote: »

My 2 cents worth is that it doesn't matter what is in the treaty. What is in the treaty is irrelevant to me. What is relevant to me is that this is the second time on as many occasions that our democratially expressed statement has been rejected in its entirety by Europe. There is no point in having a referendum where only one result will be accepted, so I'm voting no and I'll continue to vote against every single effort to bring us deeper into an EU that is undemocratic and closer to Zimbabwe than anywhere in Europe...

The comparison between the EU and Zimbabwe is really silly - who exactly is the EU's Mugabe, for example? Sarkozy? He'll be replaced in six weeks - by a eurosceptic.

There's plenty of democratic power available to EU citizens, but you need to actually use it. Unfortunately people by and large pay no attention to the EU except at referendum time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Darragh29

Scofflaw wrote: »

The comparison between the EU and Zimbabwe is really silly - who exactly is the EU's Mugabe, for example? Sarkozy? He'll be replaced in six weeks - by a eurosceptic.

There's plenty of democratic power available to EU citizens, but you need to actually use it. Unfortunately people by and large pay no attention to the EU except at referendum time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well in the case of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe obviously has been behind the drive to keep power away from the people by terrorising them.

It might not be the same over here, but the outcome is clearly the very same, you can only vote on way, only one answer is acceptable!

There is nothing democratic about set up where you are asked to vote, the country gives a soverign decision and within a month of that decision being given, we were told that we would just have to hold another referendum!

I'd rather that we were outside the EU than be a part of an organisation that calls this democracy, and if I was given a vote between leaving the EU or passing Lisbon, I'd choose to leave the EU.

Scofflaw

Darragh29 wrote: »

Well in the case of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe obviously has been behind the drive to keep power away from the people by terrorising them.

It might not be the same over here, but the outcome is clearly the very same, you can only vote on way, only one answer is acceptable!

There is nothing democratic about set up where you are asked to vote, the country gives a soverign decision and within a month of that decision being given, we were told that we would just have to hold another referendum!

I'd rather that we were outside the EU than be a part of an organisation that calls this democracy, and if I was given a vote between leaving the EU or passing Lisbon, I'd choose to leave the EU.

You would be very much in a minority, I think, albeit a very vocal one. Tell me, should the US ratify Kyoto? Or the ICC? Or the Landmine Treaty? After all, all those treaties have been refused ratification at least once by the US.

cordially,
Scofflaw