Ireland <3 Lison Treaty

dresden8

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I don't think that Ganley is anti-Europe as such, he just wants to make sure that his company keeps getting contracts from the pentagon. A stronger, more united Europe could reduce the number of US military operations around the world, and so in turn reduce the demand by the pentagon for the military systems that his company manufactures. The US also don't want Europe to be strong enough to hinder their "war on terror" and could be using Ganley to disrupt the European political process.

If you can hold out long enough without the illuminati or the lizards eating your brain Lidl or Aldi might do a special on tin-foil.

Furious-Dave

LOL. What's odd about a business man looking after the future of his company? Do you really believe that if it was in Americas interest that Europe didn't become more powerful that they wouldn't have people in place to stop it from happening, or at least delay it? Ganley does have contracts with the pentagon and being the chairman of a US military systems manufacturer he definately has connections in CIA and other agencies.

Continued: Here's the wikipedia page for Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley

He claims that the EU constitution should only be 25 pages and that everyone in the EU should have a vote. He only wants a people to have a vote because he knows that people are gullible and he can sway their opinion, with probably more lies. I say until he can prove beyond any doubt that he is not acting in the interest of the US and his company Rivada Networks then he should be forbidden to go anywhere near politics.

dresden8

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I say until he can prove beyond any doubt that he is not acting in the interest of the US and his company Rivada Networks then he should be forbidden to go anywhere near politics.

Eh, Shannon, all your details going to the US government, us being a part of the coalition of the willing, Bertie looking into the great President Bush's eyes etc. etc. etc. We're all linked to the US and the CIA whether you like it or not. (And I don't)

And one of the weaknesses of our Dail is its full of schoolteachers, barristers and publicans. The odd real businessman involved in politics probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

But Ganley is a tosser alright.

Furious-Dave

dresden8 wrote: »

Eh, Shannon, all your details going to the US government, us being a part of the coalition of the willing, Bertie looking into the great President Bush's eyes etc. etc. etc. We're all linked to the US and the CIA whether you like it or not. (And I don't)

And one of the weaknesses of our Dail is its full of schoolteachers, barristers and publicans. The odd real businessman involved in politics probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

But Ganley is a tosser alright.

Businessmen should never be involved in politics as they will always act in their companies interest. Look at the US. Decisions get made based on what is best for the corporations that run the country. There is a difference between a government having links with CIA etc and a private businessman like Ganley who is possibly acting in their favour when opposing something like the Lisbon Treaty.

If it isn't already obvious, I'm fairly anti-American. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that Obama was elected and I honestly believe that he will do his best to make the necessary changes to help improve the current world situation. But he isn't in control and I believe that there needs to be a counter balance to US power. And I believe that balance is Europe.

BlitzKrieg

Sink I have to ask do you have those points saved in a word document on your desktop?

Cause I think this is the 50th or so time since the referendum was *finished* that you had to post those points in response to comments like the following

People on the yes side complain that the no side dont make a coherent argument

cabinteelytom

It's been difficult to understand just what the misgivings concerning the Treaty were; and even more difficult to judge,'Were the misgivings valid?' and 'Is voting against the Treaty the best way to counter the perceived disadvantages?;( or might the dark arts of diplomacy, persuasion and horse-trading, exercised by our Government, have achieved the desired ends).
Post 12-6-07, there's been an understandably emotional (ie angry) reaction to our Government's decision to blank this choice of the Irish people as if it had never happened- in contrast to the Swiss Government of some years back who respected the electorate's choice, and negotiated a unique relationship with the EU.
Some of the misgivings were:
* self-amending Treaty [no more referenda]
* militarisation of the EU
* specific endorsement of NATO
* threats to Ireland's low rate of corporation tax [no loss;that one trick pony won't gallop forever]
* empowerment of the Euro elite (President and Foreign minister)
* ending internal borders; loss of control by nation-states
* the fraud of the Citizens' Initiative
* Charter of Fundamental Rights; gives rights to non-EU foreigners to services and legal process and could oblige governments to grant regular amnesties.
* enlargement ; [most of the Euro elite say it won't happen without this Treaty.]

Any other misgivings to add to this list?

sink

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Sink I have to ask do you have those points saved in a word document on your desktop?

Cause I think this is the 50th or so time since the referendum was *finished* that you had to post those points in response to comments like the following

Nah just searched my post history and copied and pasted. It's always handy to use as a counter argument against people who don't know what they're talking about.

Dob74

Lemming wrote: »

So we shouldn't have amended our constitution to allow for divorce then (to use one example).

Divorce referendum one 1985. Divorce referendum two 1995. Ten years in between not one year.

Dob74

Furious-Dave wrote: »

LOL. What's odd about a business man looking after the future of his company? Do you really believe that if it was in Americas interest that Europe didn't become more powerful that they wouldn't have people in place to stop it from happening, or at least delay it? Ganley does have contracts with the pentagon and being the chairman of a US military systems manufacturer he definately has connections in CIA and other agencies.

Continued: Here's the wikipedia page for Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley

He claims that the EU constitution should only be 25 pages and that everyone in the EU should have a vote. He only wants a people to have a vote because he knows that people are gullible and he can sway their opinion, with probably more lies. I say until he can prove beyond any doubt that he is not acting in the interest of the US and his company Rivada Networks then he should be forbidden to go anywhere near politics.

Unlike Peter Sutherland chairman of BP. How many Iraq's are they going to kill to get the oil out of there. The CIA want this treaty to pass to let Turkey in. A key ally in the war on oil.

BlitzKrieg

havnt alot of these been debunked?

* self-amending Treaty [no more referenda]

From my understanding the self amending treaty means Ireland wont need to hold a referendum everytime a treaty recieves a cosmetic overhaul? Someone gave a great example during the run up to the vote, best I can think of is the renaming of institutes or positions within the EU. The Irish constitution still requires a referendum if the treaty changes in a manner that brings it in conflict with our constitution. That is still firmly in place.

* militarisation of the EU

Honestly this is one of two points about the treaty I felt that debate was justified, it really is an issue at the core of the EU as a whole. But saying that in the run up to the treaty Ireland carved out substantial powers to insure our neutrality. The issue of course is how people feel about the rest of the EU becoming more militarised.

* specific endorsement of NATO

Again I think Ireland was given exception to this in the treaty

* threats to Ireland's low rate of corporation tax [no loss;that one trick pony won't gallop forever]

Good wording, seeing as there was nothing in the treaty about corporation tax and no powers given in it to allow them to change our corporation tax. But still it could be threatened by some unseen unknown force or element within the EU.

* empowerment of the Euro elite (President and Foreign minister)

Isnt this retitling again? Its a renaming of the head of the commission right? No new powers though. Similar case I think of foreign minister (might be a new position rather then renaming but I dont think there's any power in the position beyond representing EU interests, internationally)

* ending internal borders; loss of control by nation-states
* the fraud of the Citizens' Initiative
* Charter of Fundamental Rights; gives rights to non-EU foreigners to services and legal process and could oblige governments to grant regular amnesties.
* enlargement ; [most of the Euro elite say it won't happen without this Treaty.]

These are new complaints to me. Havnt heard anything about boarders in the treaty, I dont think the charter of fundemental rights can do what your suggesting (but maybe a shrewd lawyer can argue it) and the process of enlargement is ongoing regardless of this treaty or not. (Turkey is desperatly still clawing at the door trying to make herself look good )

utick

Furious-Dave wrote: »

He claims that the EU constitution should only be 25 pages and that everyone in the EU should have a vote. He only wants a people to have a vote because he knows that people are gullible and he can sway their opinion, with probably more lies. I say until he can prove beyond any doubt that he is not acting in the interest of the US and his company Rivada Networks then he should be forbidden to go anywhere near politics.

tbh with the amount of money ganley has he would have a much easier time buying politicians votes than trying to persuade 500 million people

djpbarry

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* self-amending Treaty [no more referenda]

Not true - feel free to prove otherwise.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* militarisation of the EU

Meaning what exactly?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* specific endorsement of NATO

Endorsement is not the word I would use. Recognising that certain EU member states are also members of NATO is just common sense.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* threats to Ireland's low rate of corporation tax [no loss;that one trick pony won't gallop forever]

Wrong again. Feel free to prove otherwise.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* empowerment of the Euro elite (President and Foreign minister)

Empowerment? How exactly?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* ending internal borders; loss of control by nation-states

Could you elaborate on this?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* the fraud of the Citizens' Initiative

Fraud? You think it's better NOT to have the Citizens Initiative? You think it's better that the people do not have a means of putting something on the commission's agenda?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* Charter of Fundamental Rights; gives rights to non-EU foreigners to services and legal process and could oblige governments to grant regular amnesties.

Could you elaborate?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

* enlargement ; [most of the Euro elite say it won't happen without this Treaty.]

While I do not agree that Lisbon is necessary for future enlargement, why would further enlargement be a bad thing?

dresden8

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Businessmen should never be involved in politics as they will always act in their companies interest.

So, will you be the first to tell IBEC and ISME to stfu when they come out in support of Lisbon 2?

Furious-Dave

The support of businessmen is as far as it should go. But no businessman should be allowed into an influential position in politics. Look at Chaney in the US. How much extra business did Haliburton get because he was vice president? Not to mention all the other companies that people in the Bush Admin are chairperson of. The US War Of Terror in the Middle East has been to the benefit of a certain number of companies, most of which are connected to the Bush Admin, particularly Haliburton.

dresden8

Furious-Dave wrote: »

The support of businessmen is as far as it should go. But no businessman should be allowed into an influential position in politics. Look at Chaney in the US. How much extra business did Haliburton get because he was vice president? Not to mention all the other companies that people in the Bush Admin are chairperson of.

Ganley is nowhere near power. (Apart from his donations to FF which they conveniently forgot about when this stranger "came out of nowhere")

That's sorted so.

Furious-Dave

dresden8 wrote: »

Ganley is nowhere near power. (Apart from his donations to FF which they conveniently forgot about when this stranger "came out of nowhere")

That's sorted so.

Perhaps, but he wants to have people in the EU elections. Who do you think will be in charge of them if they are elected? The EU commission? Also I think the ability to influence the Irish public in the way that he did is far too much power for him to have.

dresden8

So IBEC and ISME can campaign for a yes vote as long as they're totally ineffectual.

Again, sorted.

cabinteelytom

The following Rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, are worded 'for everyone', unlike those articles which apply to 'EU Citizens' or citizens of member states, or to 'workers'. Articles;
14.1 Everyone has a right to education and to have access to vocational training.
15.1 Everyone has a right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.
29. Everyone has the right of access to a free placement service.
41.2 ...the right of every person to be heard before before any individual measure which could affect him or her adversely is taken.
- the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy.
- the obligation of the adninistration to give reasons for it's decisions.
41.3 Every person has the right to have the Community make good any damage caused by the institutions or by it's servants in the performance of their duties in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the member states.
4.3 Any natural or legal person residing in a member state has the right to refer to the Ombudsman of the Union cases of maladministration in the activities of Community institutions or bodies with the exception of the Court of Justice and the court of first instance acting in their judicial role.
[to be continued].

cabinteelytom

Also articles ;
47 Everyone whose right and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with conditions laid down in this Article.
Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independant and impartial tribunal established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised,defended and represented.
Legal aid shall be made available...

Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/justice_home/visit/charte/index.en.html

Comment: When after Lisbon this CFR becomes the the supreme law of this state, and it's interpretation is a power of the european courts, it gives substantial and expensive entitlements to services, information, legal process, legal aid and appeals, to persons who are illegally in the State; and exhausted Governments and cowed minor officials will be tempted just to make what was formerly illegal, legal (eg amnesties for illegals).

cabinteelytom

'Citizens' Initiative' of the Lisbon Treaty; Article 8B

4. Not less than one million citizens who are members of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of it's powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties'(my italics).

Comment: The citizens initiative can only be used to push the EU in the direction it is already taking.
This is not an exercise in grass-roots democracy, and that's why I call the citizens' initiative a fraud.

Hitman Actual

@ cabinteelytom: Why should anyone bother replying to those three posts when you choose to ignore most of the points raised by Blitzkrieg and djpbarry to your earlier misinformed post? Your credibility is waning fast.

Dob74

lenny_leonard wrote: »

@ cabinteelytom: Why should anyone bother replying to those three posts when you choose to ignore most of the points raised by Blitzkrieg and djpbarry to your earlier misinformed post? Your credibility is waning fast.

Unbelieveable, can anyone on the YES side make a point without attacking everyone who disagrees with you. Ganley is not a CIA spy, there is as much if not more disinformation coming from the YES side and I have not seen one post from a YES man that has any insight into the treaty. Just the usual Dogima thrown out there by politial parties and Dick Roche. FG has not released any information of were there money came from. FF's money!!! one can imagine were there money came from and who it came from.

So if you support the treaty, support the treaty. Stop just being anti, the anti treaty side.:mad::mad::mad:

Scofflaw

cabinteelytom wrote: »

'Citizens' Initiative' of the Lisbon Treaty; Article 8B

4. Not less than one million citizens who are members of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of it's powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties'(my italics).

Comment: The citizens initiative can only be used to push the EU in the direction it is already taking.
This is not an exercise in grass-roots democracy, and that's why I call the citizens' initiative a fraud.

Hmm....but it would be utterly ridiculous to suggest that the Citizens' Initiative could be used to implement non-Treaty matters. The EU can only do what is allowed for in the Treaties that govern it, the Commission can only propose legal acts within that framework. The EU exists to implement the Treaties, and for no other purpose.

Without that proviso, the Citizens' Initiative could be used to propose initiatives on matters that have nothing to do with the EU. Since the Commission is only empowered to consider EU matters, and is required to consider any CI proposals, leaving out the provision you're attacking would simply lead to pointless time-wasting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Unbelieveable, can anyone on the YES side make a point without attacking everyone who disagrees with you

Hi, take a look through my posting history and you will find I never attacked anyone, thank you.

4. Not less than one million citizens who are members of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of it's powers,

Taking in the size of the population of some member states (we have less people in Ireland then london in the UK) its understandable that the initive needs to be spread out in the number required in both signees and states.

tComment: The citizens initiative can only be used to push the EU in the direction it is already taking.
This is not an exercise in grass-roots democracy, and that's why I call the citizens' initiative a fraud.

If my understanding is correct, this is about the fact that the commission is not required to act on any proposal brought forward by the citizens initative correct?

if so, then I think its a fair complaint.

But on the reverse, enforcing the citizens initiative that any proposal must be sent through the legalistive process brings up a number of worrying issues.

firstly the numbers would have to be changed, as a million (taking in the EU population) is far too small to be putting legalasation through (even if it is shot down in the council or Parliment, the time and cost wasted is too great and opens to EU for delibrate sabotage of its workings)

But if you raise the restriction much higher then the initiative becomes useless as the numbers required to take advantage of it would be too vast to be crebable as a grass roots policy.

So the comprimise is to have it a small number to allow relatively easy access (note, this is a policy that is designed for organisations and movements that are european as whole so getting a million signatures across multiple countries is not the phenomanal task as it would be if restricted to just ireland or another country.) But also not too powerful that it would put the system as a whole at risk.

Since the commission is the legalistive side of the EU anyway, it is conveniant and effective to have a direct route to proposing law to them, regardless they should still be eligable to say *no*

You could argue that this makes the process useless overall, but thats making the assumption that the Commission will be oppossed to anything put forward.

But thats the problem between theory and reality.

In theory if the initiative has the majority support of the people it should show in the EU as the governments and EU ministers we elect would have the same ideals, and since our governments with commission president appoint the commissioners and the president has to approved by the parliment. therefore in both our government and our directly elected parliment members we should be able to form commissions sympathetic to the majority. Therefore Iniative's which do have a majority support would pass with ease.

In reality though, because no one seems to care about EU politics except when a treaty comes up, it is never an issue when we elect our governments and there is low turnout for eu parliment elections. Therefore it is a much more riskier affair when using the citizens iniative.

Hitman Actual

Dob74 wrote: »

Unbelieveable, can anyone on the YES side make a point without attacking everyone who disagrees with you.

Ah come on now, are you new to how forums work? cabinteelytom gave a list of 'misgiving', each point was addressed in not one but two posts, and he chose not to respond (except to one point). Unless he's acknowledging that the list of misgivings he gave are not actually valid, he should be responding to the points. I mean, every other forum on Boards is expected to work that way, why should this one be any different?

Dob74 wrote: »

Ganley is not a CIA spy, there is as much if not more disinformation coming from the YES side and I have not seen one post from a YES man that has any insight into the treaty.

Read the posts from the last 8 months or so by Scofflaw, sink, djpbarry, molloyjh and a few others, and you'll see you are mistaken.

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Taking in the size of the population of some member states (we have less people in Ireland then london in the UK) its understandable that the initive needs to be spread out in the number required in both signees and states.

Sure - it's designed to be for European initiatives, rather than national ones.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

If my understanding is correct, this is about the fact that the commission is not required to act on any proposal brought forward by the citizens initative correct?

That's correct - they have to consider it, which means it goes on the agenda.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

if so, then I think its a fair complaint.

But on the reverse, enforcing the citizens initiative that any proposal must be sent through the legalistive process brings up a number of worrying issues.

Such as forcing the Commission to produce legislation on teaching Creationism in schools - there would be very little difficulty in assembling a million signatures for such an intitiative.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

firstly the numbers would have to be changed, as a million (taking in the EU population) is far too small to be putting legalasation through (even if it is shot down in the council or Parliment, the time and cost wasted is too great and opens to EU for delibrate sabotage of its workings)

But if you raise the restriction much higher then the initiative becomes useless as the numbers required to take advantage of it would be too vast to be crebable as a grass roots policy.

So the comprimise is to have it a small number to allow relatively easy access (note, this is a policy that is designed for organisations and movements that are european as whole so getting a million signatures across multiple countries is not the phenomanal task as it would be if restricted to just ireland or another country.) But also not too powerful that it would put the system as a whole at risk.

Since the commission is the legalistive side of the EU anyway, it is conveniant and effective to have a direct route to proposing law to them, regardless they should still be eligable to say *no*

Actually, the only legislative power the Commission has is to propose legislation, which it does on foot of a request from the Council or the Parliament (or, in certain circumstances, the ECB) - strictly, though, the Commission only ever has to 'consider' such requests, just as for the Citizens' Initiative.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

You could argue that this makes the process useless overall, but thats making the assumption that the Commission will be oppossed to anything put forward.

But thats the problem between theory and reality.

In theory if the initiative has the majority support of the people it should show in the EU as the governments and EU ministers we elect would have the same ideals, and since our governments with commission president appoint the commissioners and the president has to approved by the parliment. therefore in both our government and our directly elected parliment members we should be able to form commissions sympathetic to the majority. Therefore Iniative's which do have a majority support would pass with ease.

In reality though, because no one seems to care about EU politics except when a treaty comes up, it is never an issue when we elect our governments and there is low turnout for eu parliment elections. Therefore it is a much more riskier affair when using the citizens iniative.

The publicity involved in getting a million signatures across the EU should at least ensure some interest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Actually, the only legislative power the Commission has is to propose legislation, which it does on foot of a request from the Council or the Parliament or, in certain circumstances, the ECB)

huh

i thought the commission was dubbed the legislation piller of the EU?

in the *considering* of proposals, does the commission have a requirement to explain its reasoning for saying no?

strictly, though, the Commission only ever has to 'consider' such requests, just as for the Citizens' Initiative.

So the citizen's initiative has the exact same powers as the parliment and the council in proposing new legislation correct?

What it lacks though is powers to oppose new legislation? Which the parliment and council do have.

Such as forcing the Commission to produce legislation on teaching Creationism in schools - there would be very little difficulty in assembling a million signatures for such an intitiative.

that is something I didnt even consider.

And you sent a chill down my back

cabinteelytom

I'll do my best to apologise for my style of posting (which is moulded partly by limitations of time).
I find a dog-fight series of posts between two individuals boring, and try to avoid that kind of dialogue.
I am unchivalrous, and rarely conceed, 'you're right, I'm wrong' but leave that conclusion to the jury of non-posting viewers. A losing argument?- I will probably just discontinue.
I think I am airing points of view, which to me seem almost axiomatic, and asking, 'Am I missing something here? Is there a contrary argument?'
'My credibility'-probably abysmal (and that's an interesting and , to me, salutary outcome) but I do try to give sources for statements of fact, and I think I have a high inter-post reliability (ie don't contradict myself, a la Glenda Slagg ).

53% of the Irish electorate voted against a course of action urged upon them by almost the entire political establishment of the country. Don't dismiss them as stupid and uneducated. Could you name for me a better educated electorate? Only one party, Sinn Fein, has a professional politician group available to appear on TV and the media and articulate the reasons why they voted against the Treaty. The reasons motivating the other 50% are almost a mystery, and I am trying to elicit some opinion and debate about those reasons.

Scofflaw

cabinteelytom wrote: »

I'll do my best to apologise for my style of posting (which is moulded partly by limitations of time).
I find a dog-fight series of posts between two individuals boring, and try to avoid that kind of dialogue.
I am unchivalrous, and rarely conceed, 'you're right, I'm wrong' but leave that conclusion to the jury of non-posting viewers. A losing argument?- I will probably just discontinue.
I think I am airing points of view, which to me seem almost axiomatic, and asking, 'Am I missing something here? Is there a contrary argument?'
'My credibility'-probably abysmal (and that's an interesting and , to me, salutary outcome) but I do try to give sources for statements of fact, and I think I have a high inter-post reliability (ie don't contradict myself, a la Glenda Slagg ).

53% of the Irish electorate voted against a course of action urged upon them by almost the entire political establishment of the country. Don't dismiss them as stupid and uneducated. Could you name for me a better educated electorate? Only one party, Sinn Fein, has a professional politician group available to appear on TV and the media and articulate the reasons why they voted against the Treaty. The reasons motivating the other 50% are almost a mystery, and I am trying to elicit some opinion and debate about those reasons.

I wouldn't ever consider the Irish electorate stupid and uneducated - I think they're a pretty sophisticated electorate on balance. For me, the complaint made of 'insufficient information' or of not understanding the Treaty is nothing to do with the electorate being 'stupid' - it is instead a way of saying that the government failed to sell the treaty, failed to explain why it was necessary and what the benefits are. If anyone is stupid in that picture, it is not the electorate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

it is instead a way of saying that the government failed to sell the treaty, failed to explain why it was necessary and what the benefits are. If anyone is stupid in that picture, it is not the electorate.

I would agree with this, the government failed to explain what was necessary until it was too late.

It was also a difficult treaty in general to explain.