A YES vote for Lisbon is a YES vote for ushering in the New World Order.

the_barfly1

oscarBravo wrote: »

The EU is totally opposed to the death penalty, and only provides exemptions as loopholes for specific member states that require them.

If that were the case it would be a specific country by country exemption clause, like ours when it comes to joining a common defence.

My problem with this is that it leaves everything wide open, while at the same time the Lisbon treaty actually creates a legal identity for the EU, and not just a common trading bloc. I'm going to leave ye to argue the points, because I could sit here all day dispelling arguments but im a bit pee'd off at it after the amount of time I spent at it last year.

Take care

6th

K-9 wrote: »

Get a dictionary.

Get some manners.

K-9

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Don't apologize, he just didn't read it correctly.

So military assistance means troops, nothing else?

U4IK ST8

K-9 wrote: »

So assistance means troops?

No, military assistance does. Obviously...

oscarBravo

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

I knew I read somewhere that "we would be compelled to provide military assistance to any other EU country that may be invaded by another country or terrorist organisation, or any country who believes such an invasion is imminent."

If you read it anywhere other than in the Lisbon Treaty, then it's not authoritative.

Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble:

Lisbon Treaty wrote:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other
Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in
their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not
prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member
States.

The phrase "military assistance" is conspicuously absent.

King Mob

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

No, military assistance does. Obviously...

If only there was some kind of guarantee that our neutrality wouldn't be effected......
Oh wait.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you read it anywhere other than in the Lisbon Treaty, then it's not authoritative.

Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble: The phrase "military assistance" is conspicuously absent.

I think the "This shall not
prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member
States." part is extremely important for Ireland.

K-9

Military assistance could mean re fuelling planes at Shannon.

oscarBravo

the_barfly1 wrote: »

If that were the case it would be a specific country by country exemption clause, like ours when it comes to joining a common defence.

Specific exemptions aren't necessary. The death penalty is explicitly prohibited, and then there's some relaxation on that prohibition for those states that feel the need to use it under certain circumstances.

We have abolished the death penalty, through a constitutional amendment, which means that there is no way that it can be re-introduced, except through a constitutional amendment.

oscarBravo

K-9 wrote: »

Military assistance could mean re fuelling planes at Shannon.

Re-read my earlier post. "Military assistance" is a straw man; it's not mentioned in the Treaty.

U4IK ST8

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you read it anywhere other than in the Lisbon Treaty, then it's not authoritative.

Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble:

Lison Treaty wrote:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other
Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in
their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not
prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member
States.

The phrase "military assistance" is conspicuously absent.

I don't know where you got that quote from but it's not the Lisbon Treaty... Who's pulling wool over who's eyes now?

Article 188 R from the Lisbon Treaty wrote:

SOLIDARITY CLAUSE

176) The following new Title VII and new Article 188 R shall be inserted:

‘TITLE VII
SOLIDARITY CLAUSE

Article 188 R

1. The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to:

(a) — prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States; - This would be hard without using military assistance

— protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack;- so would this

— assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a terrorist attack;- and this

(b) assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

Please notice some sections I highlighted in bold. Refueling planes at Shannon would not qualify as military assistance "in the territory" of the Member State, would it?

King Mob

oscarBravo wrote: »

Specific exemptions aren't necessary. The death penalty is explicitly prohibited, and then there's some relaxation on that prohibition for those states that feel the need to use it under certain circumstances.

We have abolished the death penalty, through a constitutional amendment, which means that there is no way that it can be re-introduced, except through a constitutional amendment.

And as far as I know that would require a referendum wouldn't it?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

And as far as I know that would require a referendum wouldn't it?

What referendum, if Lisbon gets through you can say good bye to the Irish Constitution and all future referendums.

K-9

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

I don't know where you got that quote from but it's not the Lisbon Treaty... Who's pulling wool over who's eyes now?


Please notice some sections I highlighted in bold. Refueling planes at Shannon would not qualify as military assistance "in the territory" of the Member State, would it?

All the above has to be in accordance with our defence policy. We are Neutral.

U4IK ST8

K-9 wrote: »

All the above has to be in accordance with our defence policy. We are Neutral.

And where does it state "All the above has to be in accordance with our defence policy." I didn't read that anywhwere in this Solidarity Clause?

K-9

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

And where does it state "All the above has to be in accordance with our defence policy." I didn't read that anywhwere in this Solidarity Clause?

Indeed. It wouldn't be in that clause.

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What referendum, if Lisbon gets through you can say good bye to the Irish Constitution and all future referendums.

You're really not getting the scaremongering thing at all are you?

Where exactly in the treaty does that come in?

oscarBravo

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

I don't know where you got that quote from but it's not the Lisbon Treaty...

It's not? What does article 49 of your copy of the Lisbon Treaty say?

King Mob wrote: »

And as far as I know that would require a referendum wouldn't it?

Absolutely.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What referendum, if Lisbon gets through you can say good bye to the Irish Constitution and all future referendums.

:rolleyes:

King Mob

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

And where does it state "All the above has to be in accordance with our defence policy." I didn't read that anywhwere in this Solidarity Clause?

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/104692.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008#Second_referendum

U4IK ST8

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed.

Are you just tryig to stir the **** or what?

Indeed what? Indeed it doesn't say that in the Solidarity Clause?

oscarBravo

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

And where does it state "All the above has to be in accordance with our defence policy." I didn't read that anywhwere in this Solidarity Clause?

The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal...

Irish military resources are not at anyone's disposal except through the triple lock mechanism. Our neutrality (such as it is) is not compromised.

humanji

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What referendum, if Lisbon gets through you can say good bye to the Irish Constitution and all future referendums.

Why should that bother you? It's your constitutional duty to find out everything you can about the Lisbon treaty before you vote on it. But you don't want to. So why should you care if something you've no regard for, is taken away?

K-9

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Are you just tryig to stir the **** or what?

Indeed what? Indeed it doesn't say that in the Solidarity Clause?

No, not stirring whatsoever. Just giving you a direct answer.It doesn't say it because that Solidarity clause doesn't deal with exclusions to it.

U4IK ST8

Ah, I think I'll take a leaf from barfly's book and leave you lads to it.

Seems there's no getting through at all.

King Mob

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Seems there's no getting through at all.

Yep because you can't possibly be wrong.

K-9

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Ah, I think I'll take a leaf from barfly's book and leave you lads to it.

Seems there's no getting through at all.

I think the problem is, while you have shown what the solidarity clause entails (in general, not in detail), you haven't shown why Ireland is forced to take part despite our constitutional bar and Lisbon specifically mentioning individual countries defence policies will be respected and also the fact the decisions on defence must be unanimous.

meglome

So if I can sum this up after reading the last few pages. People say there's bad stuff in Lisbon treaty, but cannot show where it is in the treaty and some admit to not even reading it. Others show this bad stuff isn;t even in the treaty.

So before I read any more of this I'd like those making the claims about the treaty to show me where in the treaty these bad clauses are. If you can't then I suggest you put up and shut up.

And Run_to_da_hills you are getting less credible every day and seriously I wouldn't have thought that was possible.

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

So if I can sum this up after reading the last few pages. People say there's bad stuff in Lisbon treaty, but cannot show where it is in the treaty and some admit to not even reading it. Others show this bad stuff isn;t even in the treaty.

So before I read any more of this I'd like those making the claims about the treaty to show me where in the treaty these bad clauses are. If you can't then I suggest you put up and shut up.

And Run_to_da_hills you are getting less credible every day and seriously I wouldn't have thought that was possible.

As Barfly put it well,The Lisbon Treaty is like Swiss Cheeze, IE Its full of holes.


<snip>image removed<snip>

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

As Barfly put it well,The Lisbon Treaty is like Swiss Cheeze, IE Its full of holes.

Image

So gonna actually point out these holes?

Or still haven't read it yet?

Flamed Diving

Maybe they should publish an edition of the Lisbon Treaty in pictures.

Run_to_da_hills

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Maybe they should publish an edition of the Lisbon Treaty in pictures.

Like so, :rolleyes:

<snip>image removed<snip>

6th

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

As Barfly put it well,The Lisbon Treaty is like Swiss Cheeze, IE Its full of holes.


<snip>image removed<snip>

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Like so, :rolleyes:

<snip>image removed<snip>

Run_to_da_hills, please dont post crap like that. If you cant contribute .... don't. Last warning.

Veni Vedi Vici

6th wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills, please dont post crap like that. If you cant contribute .... don't. Last warning.

Regardless of how funny it might have been it certainly was NSFW.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

As Barfly put it well,The Lisbon Treaty is like Swiss Cheeze, IE Its full of holes.

Ironically - and appropriately - most Swiss cheese isn't "full of holes" at all

Run_to_da_hills

bonkey wrote: »

Ironically - and appropriately - most Swiss cheese isn't "full of holes" at all

Depends on the brand, heres the link.

http://www.heinis.com/catalog/images/DSC_00610518%20copy.jpg

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Depends on the brand, heres the link.

http://www.heinis.com/catalog/images/DSC_00610518%20copy.jpg

And still waiting for you to point out these holes you keep talking about.

6th

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Depends on the brand, heres the link.

http://www.heinis.com/catalog/images/DSC_00610518%20copy.jpg

I've already asked you to stop posting crap. If you cant add something to a thread then dont post. Thats a yellow card and a red card infraction now. Next is a ban.

Run_to_da_hills

6th wrote: »

I've already asked you to stop posting crap. If you cant add something to a thread then dont post. Thats a yellow card and a red card infraction now. Next is a ban.

I find that you are a bit OTT, would you infarct Bonkey for dragging on the subject after me being told off?

I was simply replying to Bonkeys Post with a bit of added humor and the relevant link.

6th

You were asked to keep on topic and had 2 images removed. You posted another post after the warning with nothing relevant and a link to an image. Any further problems I suggest you take them to the helpdesk forum. Infraction stands. Please keep the thread on topic.

Run_to_da_hills

6th wrote: »

You were asked to keep on topic and had 2 images removed. You posted another post after the warning with nothing relevant and a link to an image. Any further problems I suggest you take them to the helpdesk forum. Infraction stands. Please keep the thread on topic.

It has relevance : Metaphor.

6th

The Charter wrote: »

• Moderator Decisions
Moderator decissions are final on this forum but if you feel the need to question anything please do so by PMing one of the mods or starting a thread over on Help Desk where it will be reviewed by SMods and Admins. Do not argue with mods in thread.
.

Run to da hills, please read the charter.

bonkey

At the risk of incurring 6th's wrath...

The point I was making is that what most people think of as "Swiss Cheese" is a single variety of cheese - Emmental. Sometimes, its not even produced in Switzerland (I've seen "Tipperary Emmental" in Irish shops).

Swiss cheese - i.e. cheese which originates in Switzerland - is, for the vast, vast majority of cheeses produced, no more full of holes than cheddar.

The relevance to the thread is that the Lisbon Treaty is no more full of holes than Swiss cheese is. In both cases, it requires a "re-interpretation" of the content.

If one ignores the vast majority of Swiss cheeses, one can conclude that Swiss cheese in general is full of holes.

Similarly, with the Treaty, if one ignores portions of the content, one can conclude that the remainder is full of holes. That the ignored content closes those holes only becomes apparent once we stop dealing with such sweeping generalisations and discuss the detail.

It is, I suspect, no coincidence that it is those who support the Treaty who want to discuss the detail of these holes, while those who oppose it want to remain in the realm of generalisation.

K-9

bonkey wrote: »

If one ignores the vast majority of Swiss cheeses, one can conclude that Swiss cheese in general is full of holes.

Similarly, with the Treaty, if one ignores portions of the content, one can conclude that the remainder is full of holes. That the ignored content closes those holes only becomes apparent once we stop dealing with such sweeping generalisations and discuss the detail.

It is, I suspect, no coincidence that it is those who support the Treaty who want to discuss the detail of these holes, while those who oppose it want to remain in the realm of generalisation.

Excellent analogy actually.

U4IK ST8 quoted the solidarity clause. I disagree with his focus on military troops as military assistance does not necessarily mean troops.

That clause is there and I don't particularly like that part of the Treaty either. However, it ignores the Irish triple lock mechanism and the fact that the EU has never put pressure on our Neutrality. Even if you ignore all that, Defence policy has to be unanimous and it is up to us to decide what the assistance is.

If somebody is opposed to the solidarity clause in general, fair enough, accepted, however saying it affects Irelands Neutrality is not true.

Hitman Actual

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

I don't know where you got that quote from but it's not the Lisbon Treaty... Who's pulling wool over who's eyes now?


Please notice some sections I highlighted in bold. Refueling planes at Shannon would not qualify as military assistance "in the territory" of the Member State, would it?

U4IK ST8, your assertion that member states would be compelled to provide military assistance due to the Solidarity Clause is wrong for the following reason. Firstly, you need to look at the full text of the Clause, which you'll find in the Consolidated version of Lisbon (and without being patronising, that really is the version you should be using):

Title VII, Solidarity Clause, Article 222, Lisbon Consolidated wrote:

1. The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to:

(a) – prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
– protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack;
– assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a terrorist attack;

(b) assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

2. Should a Member State be the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster, the other Member States shall assist it at the request of its political authorities. To that end, the Member States shall coordinate between themselves in the Council.

3. The arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause shall be defined by a decision adopted by the Council acting on a joint proposal by the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Council shall act in accordance with Article 31(1) of the Treaty on European Union where this decision has defence implications. The European Parliament shall be informed. For the purposes of this paragraph and without prejudice to Article 240, the Council shall be assisted by the Political and Security Committee with the support of the structures developed in the context of the common security and defence policy and by the Committee referred to in Article 71; the two committees shall, if necessary, submit joint opinions.

4. The European Council shall regularly assess the threats facing the Union in order to enable the Union and its Member States to take effective action.

The key text is highlighted in bold- Any action to do with defense must go through Article 31(1) TEU. This is:

Article 31, ex Article 23 TEU, Lisbon Consolidated wrote:

1. Decisions under this Chapter shall be taken by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where this Chapter provides otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded.

When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the
Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States shall respect its position. If the members of the Council qualifying their abstention in this way represent at least one third of the Member
States comprising at least one third of the population of the Union, the decision shall not be adopted.

2. By derogation from the provisions of paragraph 1, the Council shall act by qualified majority:
– when adopting a decision defining a Union action or position on the basis of a decision of the European Council relating to the Union's strategic interests and objectives, as referred to in Article 22(1),
– when adopting a decision defining a Union action or position, on a proposal which the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has presented following a specific request from the European Council, made on its own initiative or that of the High Representative,
– when adopting any decision implementing a decision defining a Union action or position,
– when appointing a special representative in accordance with Article 33.
If a member of the Council declares that, for vital and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The High Representative will, in close consultation with the Member State involved, search for a
solution acceptable to it. If he does not succeed, the Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for a decision by unanimity.

3. The European Council may unanimously adopt a decision stipulating that the Council shall act by a qualified majority in cases other than those referred to in paragraph 2.

4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to decisions having military or defence implications.

5. For procedural questions, the Council shall act by a majority of its members.

Part 1 states that unanimity is required, although QMV may be used in certain circumstances listed in (2) and (3); however, part 4 states that (2) and (3) do not apply in military/defense situations i.e. part 1 applies, or unanimty. So every country retains a veto as regards defence issues in the Solidarity Clause. So no country can be compelled to do anything. It really is that simple.

This isn't even touching on the points raised by OscarBravo/K-9 as regards Irelands neutrality, which is absolutely secure as they've said. I'm just trying to show why the Solidarity Clause cannot be used to compel any member state to take up arms to defend another MS, which I believe was your assertion.

Hitman Actual

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Good god. I can't believe people are still arguing about the lisbon treaty.
Anyway, I studied the whole deal in great detail last year, so onto the issue of neutrality.

Under our special exemption in B na H, we do not have to join in a European Defence Force. However, under the solidarity clause, we would be compelled to provide military assistance to any other EU country that may be invaded by another country or terrorist organisation, or any country who believes such an invasion is imminent. I'm not going to go into this whole thing now, but that's one of the greatest faults in the text, it makes you believe that something is true, then it provides a workaround further on in the treaty. Its not watertight as to what we, the Irish people need. And therefore it isn't good enough.

Its power to transfer the ECHR into law is also as dumbfounding. Read it, they promise that nobody shall be condemned to death, then take it away by providing get out clauses for it to be implemented. The thing is has more holes in it than bad cheese.

Wrong on both counts, barfly. Solidarity Clause dealt with above, death penalty BS dealt with on the EU forum. For someone who claims to have "studied the whole deal in great detail last year", you haven't made a very good start there.

starbelgrade

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A YES vote for Lisbon is a YES vote for ushering in the New World Order. :eek:


I thought I was time to start a new thread considering the Lisbon topic has spilled all over the Big Brother thread and swayed it off topic. I decided to carry it over to a new thread.

The Lisbon treaty is going to open the door to new global economic Governance that will eventually allow RFID microchipped identity cards replace cash completely in all our everyday financial transactions.

These cards will be used to monitor and ration products in relation to their carbon foot print and availibility. Restricted products such as alcohol and tobacco can be closely monitored at POS using their respective ETags.

If you buy a packet of smokes and they get into the hands of Minors the authorities can scan the pack with a RFID wand and trace them back to YOU!!, likewise with any other product or litter that contains RFID Powderchips can be tracked.

The ECU European Central Bank will eventually phase out the Euro cash and a time will come when it will no longer will be legal tender. All monetary decisions will come from Brussels and the Central Bank in Ireland will just be a puppet just like the Dail will be in a few years if we give in to this constitution.

While it is illegal to buy alcohol for supply to minors, it is not illegal to do the same with tobacco.

Besides, if money dissapears, there'll be a lot of bartering going on. The black markets will be, well.. the "new black".

bonkey

Folks - this appears to be turning into a surrogate Politics thread.

The Conspiracy Theory of a New World Order appears to have dropped off the radar.

Are we done discussing it?

Martyr

ireland has taken alot of money from the EU, now its time to pay it back.. a yes vote is inevitable at this stage - waste of money even having a vote

Run_to_da_hills

starbelgrade wrote: »

While it is illegal to buy alcohol for supply to minors, it is not illegal to do the same with tobacco.

Besides, if money disappears, there'll be a lot of bartering going on. The black markets will be, well.. the "new black".

It will be very difficult if not impossible to escape "the system" of the New World Order. Much of it is unfolding as we speak. Licenses will be required (If not already in some cases) for almost everything you produce or do to try to do to be self sufficient including angeling, growing crops or keeping livestock, collecting firewood in a forrest, keeping bees, windmills, Solar panels etc.

Keeping any sort of farm animal or foul will require a permit , "heard number" and of course Etagging from the Department of Agriculture which will be under direct rule from Brussels. Failure to comply will result in confiscation and severe penalties. (Disease control, health & safety and Global warming will be just some of the excuses for the EU authorities will use to enforce these strict measures.)

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

(Disease control, health & safety and Global warming will be just some of the excuses for the EU authorities will use to enforce these strict measures.)

You make it sound like none of these are valid concerns.