Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!

andrew

So, who want's to have a go at summing up the last 781 posts for me then?

Davidius

andrew wrote: »

So, who want's to have a go at summing up the last 781 posts for me then?

Rabble Rabble Rabble.

thelordofcheese

the-island-man wrote: »

1) The E.U has three main bodies the commission, the council of ministers and the E.U parliment! We get to vote in members of one of these bodies, the E.U parliment! The others get appointed by our goverment, that is not direct democracy and should not be the case! I watched Dick Roche during and after the last referendum and i felt that he spoke with contempt for the irish people and i feel if he had to answer to us the irish citizens he would not be so quick to forget about us and care more about his european pals!

Representative democracy. Look it up.

the-island-man wrote: »

In my opinion we should break from the E.U altogether and try to get back to the stage where we were!

Horribly poor?
Well, there's aiming low and there *that*.

walshb

andrew wrote: »

So, who want's to have a go at summing up the last 781 posts for me then?

Ok, to affirm my position;

This second VOTE really is not about Lisbon to ME.
It is about democracy and respect and for that, I would urge
the people to vote NO. Yes, even those who voted YES
in the first election should change the vote
to NO to send a clear message that the electorate should
never ever be disrespected and ignored.

If we had/have any respect for each other and our right to
democracy, we should stand side by side on this and VOTE NO

It is the fundamental basis of democracy!

WooPeeA

Darragh29 wrote: »

It's much harder for the yes side to lie on this debate because as I understand it, the Lisbon Treaty is so opened ended, that nobody on the yes side or the no side could envisage exactly what problems might arise in the future for us, on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty being in force for EU decision making purposes.

This is the main problem I have with the treaty and nobody has been able to answer this question for me and I've not been able to answer it for myself.

As I understand it, and I could be a little shaky on this as I haven't kept track of the debate since June, where the EU has a competence, we will never be asked for an opinion by way of a referendum in Ireland again...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, as I said, I could be on shaky ground here...

I'd be scared about the future under current treaty more than under the new one. The reason is simple. For today power belongs to unelected commissioners, so they can do anything.

After Lisbon Treaty 90% of power will belong to elected by all of us Parliament. That means that it's only up to us, the citizens, where will we go, not to unelected elites as it is today.

anonymous_joe

walshb wrote: »

Ok, to affirm my position;

This second VOTE really is not about Lisbon to ME.
It is about democracy and respect and for that, I would urge
the people to vote NO. Yes, even those who voted YES
in the first election should change the vote
to NO to send a clear message that the electorate should
never ever be disrespected and ignored.

If we had/have any respect for each other and our right to
democracy, we should stand side by side on this and VOTE NO

It is the fundamental basis of democracy!

You're being given the chance to exercise your democratic right. How is that ignoring the electorate?

walshb

anonymous_joe wrote: »

You're being given the chance to exercise your democratic right. How is that ignoring the electorate?

What???

The govt ignored the vote earlier this year

Did you not know that?:rolleyes:

And, by asking us to vote again is a clear indication to ME, anyway, that the NO vote was NOT accepted or respected.

andrew

walshb wrote: »

What???

The govt ignored the vote earlier this year

Did you not know that?

Elections serve to promote the public's intrests in government. We have elections every 5 years because people's opinions change, and they need the chance to elect a new government to represent these new changes. Similarly, if the government's 'reassurrances' were to change public opinion, do you think that another vote on it would be undemocratic? You said that the government 'ignored' our vote. Surely ignoring our vote would mean pushing it through anyway, not giving us another chance to vote.

WooPeeA

Darragh29 wrote: »

Can the "yes" side and the "no" side give their opinions on this... I posted this comment earlier and would like to know whether I have the right take on this...

As I understand it, if we ratify the Lisbon Treaty and after that ratification, where the EU has a competence, we will never be asked for an opinion by way of a referendum in Ireland again...

I've never heard that. Ireland will keep the constitution.

cooperguy

andrew wrote: »

So, who want's to have a go at summing up the last 781 posts for me then?

walshb wrote: »

Ok, to affirm my position;

This second VOTE really is not about Lisbon to ME.
It is about democracy and respect and for that, I would urge
the people to vote NO. Yes, even those who voted YES
in the first election should change the vote
to NO to send a clear message that the electorate should
never ever be disrespected and ignored.

If we had/have any respect for each other and our right to
democracy, we should stand side by side on this and VOTE NO

It is the fundamental basis of democracy!

You really havent being paying attention have you. They have addressed the main reasons people voted no in the first place. Namely the loss of a commissioner, abortion, conscription and taxes. Now they want to do a revote after these concerns have been addressed. How is that undemocratic? Is that not the very point of democracy?

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

Ok, to affirm my position;

This second VOTE really is not about Lisbon to ME.
It is about democracy and respect and for that, I would urge
the people to vote NO. Yes, even those who voted YES
in the first election should change the vote
to NO to send a clear message that the electorate should
never ever be disrespected and ignored.

If we had/have any respect for each other and our right to
democracy, we should stand side by side on this and VOTE NO

It is the fundamental basis of democracy!

Until the government ratifies lisbon in spite of a No vote, it's still democracy. You mightn't think it's fair to have a second vote in such a short timespan, but it's still democratic.

You really need to learn the difference between somehting you think is against the spirit of democracy and what democracy actually is.

walshb

andrew wrote: »

Elections serve to promote the public's intrests in government. We have elections every 5 years because people's opinions change, and they need the chance to elect a new government to represent these new changes. Similarly, if the government's 'reassurrances' were to change public opinion, do you think that another vote on it would be undemocratic? You said that the government 'ignored' our vote. Surely ignoring our vote would mean pushing it through anyway, not giving us another chance to vote.

C'mon now, you are being rather pedantic and technical for the sake of it and I am in no doubt that if they somehow could, they damn well would IGNORE the vote.
That's the point; by asking so so so soon for another VOTE, it
is nothing but crystal clear, that they do not respect their electorate, nor accept
their right to vote the way they feel. Man, this to me is so so clear.

Listen, this has happened before with Nice, and now again they are at it.

When will folks call a spade, a spade?

What does it take to get the message thru that this
govt and the Nice govt did not accept a vote
by the people?

And make no mistake about it, it will continue to happen as long
as we accept these disgracefully low standards and contempt

walshb

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Until the government ratifies lisbon in spite of a No vote, it's still democracy. You mightn't think it's fair to have a second vote in such a short timespan, but it's still democratic.

You really need to learn the difference between somehting you think is against the spirit of democracy and what democracy actually is.

Again, hiding behind a technicality and simple semantics.
Be honest and be truthful, call a spade, a spade.

If this is NOT an example of a lack of democracy, I don't know what is; unless of course they simply tell us that we CAN only vote YES, there is no NO option!

skelliser

ben bedlam wrote: »

Ive heard suggestions from places such as the Oirechteas that perhaps the coverage for Lisbon 2 should not give equal time to both the yes and no sides. I was just wondering has this proposal been given the go ahead? If so, it seems like a complete attack on democracy and freedom of speech

im interested in this as well, can somone elaborate?

walshb

cooperguy wrote: »

You really havent being paying attention have you. They have addressed the main reasons people voted no in the first place. Namely the loss of a commissioner, abortion, conscription and taxes. Now they want to do a revote after these concerns have been addressed. How is that undemocratic? Is that not the very point of democracy?

At least I have the guts to be honest and not hide behind words.

They had a vote, they didn't get the answer THEY wanted and now, another vote is being put to us on the SAME treaty, no matter what spin is put on it, assuranceS etc etc.

Feck sake, am I alone in thinking that this is just not democracy and that
the standards are simply LOW?

andrew

walshb wrote: »

C'mon now, you are being rather pedantic and technical for the sake of it and I am in no doubt that if they somehow could, they damn well would IGNORE the vote.
That's the point; by asking so so so soon for another VOTE, it
is nothing but crystal clear, that they do not respect their electorate, nor accept
their right to vote the way they feel. Man, this to me is so so clear.

Listen, this has happened before with Nice, and now again they are at it.

When will folks call a spade, a spade?

What does it take to get the message thru that this
govt and the Nice govt did not accept a vote
by the people?

And make no mistake about it, it will continue to happen as long
as we accept these disgracefully low standards and contempt

You didn't answer my question though. What's the difference (other than the timespan) between this and having frequent general elections. And don't just ignore the question by saying I'm being pedantic - it's a valid question.

walshb

andrew wrote: »

You didn't answer my question though. What's the difference (other than the timespan) between this and having frequent general elections. And don't just ignore the question by saying I'm being pedantic - it's a valid question.

4 years for one! That's a good enough reason for me

Oh, and the LAW states that we have to have a general election after 5 years!

Oh, and why would a govt that gets elected say NO, we don't agree, elect someone else???

This is easy!

skelliser

il say this again as no one from the yes side took this up,
how does a "streamlined and efficient" commission work with 27 members?!
imo such a mechanism contradicts and makes a mockery of the ethos of the treaty.

WooPeeA

the-island-man wrote: »

Here are two reasons i would vote NO and other people can say what they like:
1) E.U is not fully democratic

True. But that's why the Lisbon Treaty was made for.

2) We have lost a lot of sovereignty by changing years ago from the E.E.C to the E.U in my opinion

Really? What kind of sovereignty? Ireland kept all the borders, laws, constitution, army etc etc.. What does it mean to lose sovereignty?

1) The E.U has three main bodies the commission, the council of ministers and the E.U parliment! We get to vote in members of one of these bodies, the E.U parliment! The others get appointed by our goverment, that is not direct democracy and should not be the case!

Lisbon Treaty will give almost all power to elected by us Parliament.

In my opinion we should break from the E.U altogether and try to get back to the stage where we were!

Back to 1970's?

I think this would be more beneficial to us than a lot of people think!
For a start if we got back our own currency and had our own central bank again we firstly would be able to set our own interests rates giving people payin back loans even more breathing space!

Currency would become cheap very quickly which would make Irish much poorer then they are today.

It's thinking of XX century, but today we live in XXI century. Small currencies doesn't matter anymore.

Another thing is that Ireland would have to use Euro for international trade anyway, so what's the reason to add unneeded fees to the prices.

Secondly our currency would weaken against the Euro, us dollar, Great Britain pound etc!

You think that currency of 4 million republic would be able to act against euro and dollar? I wouldn't say that.

First of all, which country in the world would chose to use Irish currency instead of euro and dollar? And what for? What would be the benefits for that country to use Irish currency on international stage?

If no country would make such decision, Irish currency wouldn't matter on international stage.

Look what's going on with strong GBP. In few years British currency will be weaker than euro. If Brits won't join the eurozone till that time, salaries of many people will be as low as salaries in Czech or Lithuania.

Coupled with our low corporation tax it would mean that it would be a more attractive place for a company to set up than it is at the moment!

But the companies would have to pay other taxes they don't have to pay being part of EU. Ireland would be also out of common market.

We would also be exporting even more products!

Oh yeah, with cheap currency Ireland would become European China.

Irish companies would have to pay duties that all non-EU companies have to pay in Europe. Import tax, export tax, duties etc..

Imports would cost more!
Oil, coffee, tea, cars etc!

You think it's positive?

ShooterSF

walshb wrote: »

At least I have the guts to be honest and not hide behind words.

They had a vote, they didn't get the answer THEY wanted and now, another vote is being put to us on the SAME treaty, no matter what spin is put on it, assuranceS etc etc.

Feck sake, am I alone in thinking that this is just not democracy and that
the standards are simply LOW?

Technically is not undemocratic but I would say unethical. Plenty of yes voters here seem to think the majority of no voters were duped to voting on non-issues.
The truth is plenty of no voters voted for genuine reasons yet the government instead of arguing those Real issues have pandered to Coir, the lowest common denominator. Pretty sickening to those of us who didnt vote no because we thought we'd be having mass abortions on the middle of our conscription filled war field. And YES voters take note. They werent the issues. A handy FF poll made those the issues.
One fantastic situation we have now is the Commissioner issue.
Some No voters (myself excluded) wanted a commissioner from every nation. Most yes voters argued that that would leave a bloated and less functional commission than the planned streamlined one.
Now however with the assurances that all nations will put forward a commissioner IF Lisbon is passed Yes voters are imploring for No voters to vote Yes.
However they fail to point out to those Yes voters who want a streamlined commission the solution is now, to vote NO and keep Nice in action which changed the commission to the lower streamlined setup.

andrew

walshb wrote: »

4 years for one!

Oh, and the LAW states that we have to have a general election after 5 years!

This is easy!

Ok. So you accept that there needs to be a time difference between elections. So do you think that it'd be ok to have another Lisbon vote after a period of years? How long do you think we should wait for it not to be 'undemocratic'?

The reason that Law exists (and i presume you agree with it) is to prevent dictatorships and whatnot. And dictatorships are bad, because they don't represent public opinion (amongst other crap things).Similarly then, whats the problem with voting on lisbon again if assurances change public opinion, because not representing public opinion is bad. And i'm not being pedantic, just logically following through your arguments.

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

Again, hiding behind a technicality and simple semantics.
Be honest and be truthful, call a spade, a spade.

If this is NOT an example of a lack of democracy, I don't know what is; unless of course they simply tell us that we CAN only vote YES, there is no NO option!

Yes, they are stealing your democracy, OH GOD HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIN--- Wait, no. You're still voting on an issue. Democracy! Hooray for everything!

I'm not agreeing with your opinion that something you think is unfair is actually wrong. I'm also sorry that you're so offended at being asked what you think again that you've decided to ignore the issue and get just vote no anyway.


And those "semantics" you want me to ignore so i can be as outraged as you, are actually important.

ShooterSF

andrew wrote: »

Ok. So you accept that there needs to be a time difference between elections. So do you think that it'd be ok to have another Lisbon vote after a period of years? How long do you think we should wait for it not to be 'undemocratic'?

I have yet to meet a No voter who would have a problem if the government tried to work with a no vote for 5 years and then IF it was unworkable came back to us. Atleast they'd you know try.
So maybe that'd be a starting point?

cooperguy

the-island-man wrote: »

Here are two reasons i would vote NO and other people can say what they like:
1) E.U is not fully democratic......
2) We have lost a lot of sovereignty by changing years ago from the E.E.C to the E.U in my opinion.......
3) In my opinion we should break from the E.U altogether and try to get back to the stage where we were!

1) How exactly is every do you propose every member be elected? This would make the EU even more inefficient! On top of this the commission is not designed to benefit individual countries they deal with EU wide issues. There is no such thing as an "Irish Commissioner" just a Commissioner from Ireland. This is not the same thing. S/He does not represent Ireland on the commission If a commissioner is seen to be biased towards his own country he can loose his job. Therefore a direct election to this post would be wrong as it puts pressure on the commissioner to favour their home country. I feel you are lacking a basic understanding of how the EU works

2) We are still a soverign nation. Saying otherwise is nothing short of scare tactics. A quick example would be the fact that we have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the EU. Do the other member states like this? NO because we take business away from them. That still doesnt stop us having the rates we do. We get to make these decisions. In fact one of the gaurantees that comes with Lisbon is that we keep getting to make the decision on tax rates. This is yet another case of scaremongering and lies from the No side

3)Leaving the EU now this shows a complete lack of understanding of the benefits of the EU to Ireland. Ill try sum this up quickly because im sick of typing now. Firstly this WOULD NOT make it more attractive to companies to invest. Sure we could have a weaker currency but what counteracts that is that we are no longer part of the free trade area therefore you would now be subject to border restrictions and import duties into the EU. As well as that the reson Ireland is attractive to foriegn multinationals is that we are a european base for them. This would no longer be the case. The exact opposite would be the case and companies would leave Ireland not come here

Second we are a small island nation. We rely on imports of a huge range of goods that we simply cant produce here. Al you have to do is think about it for a minute and you will be able to come up with hundreds of examples. It would have a much bigger impact than simply putting up the price of coffee.. The price of everything would rise. Not least because the price of transport due to fuel price increases would go up.

You also seem to dismiss the funding from the EU as very little. Look at all the funded by the EU signs around the place and look up all the projects being funded by the EU at the moment. This would also be a serious blow.

There is one bit I agree with "The more and more people that line up at the dole queue the less money in the public finances which means less money for health, education and infrastructure improvements!" though as pointed out your plan to leave the EU causes this.

In summary inform yourself before making wild statements

walshb

andrew wrote: »

Ok. So you accept that there needs to be a time difference between elections. So do you think that it'd be ok to have another Lisbon vote after a period of years? How long do you think we should wait for it not to be 'undemocratic'?

The reason that Law exists (and i presume you agree with it) is to prevent dictatorships and whatnot. And dictatorships are bad, because they don't represent public opinion (amongst other crap things).Similarly then, whats the problem with voting on lisbon again if assurances change public opinion, because not representing public opinion is bad. And i'm not being pedantic, just logically following through your arguments.

I believe for the sake of democracy and for not just democracy, but GOOD democracy, we should be afforded respect, and a poxy year sends out nothing but a message of disrespect! Andrew, that is just a belief of mine that I am passionate about.

You mentioned dictators. I tell you, the way Lisbon and Nice were handled, they weren't bloody far off.

Off topic, when Mary McAleese was voted in unchallenged for her second term, IMO, democracy was not in play and it was wrong. No matter what, some vote should have taken place and this country should have seen to it that NO person could take
office in this country without ELECTION. I wonder were our laws broken by this example?

Call me precise or even awkward, but at least I want efficiency and law and procedures
and above all, respect!

Rented Mule

The ridiculous nature of another vote is that other countries have voted on Lisbon 'as is'. Ireland votes no and now changes are being made to appease the Irish people, therefore negating the treaty that other countries have ratified.

Now ....suppose that the Irish people in thier infinite wisdom ratify Lisbon and it moves on to the next EU nation for ratification. They vote 'no' and are told that changes will be made. The changes that are made go in direct contrast to the changes that were made for Ireland. Where does this leave Ireland and every other country that has ratified Lisbon ?

Democracy has failed on so many levels in this equation.

Dankoozy

walshb wrote: »

I believe for the sake of democracy and for not just democracy, but GOOD democracy, we should be afforded respect, and a poxy year sends out nothing but a message of disrespect! Andrew, that is just a belief of mine that I am passionate about.

You mentioned dictators. I tell you, the way Lisbon and Nice were handled, they weren't bloody far off.

Off topic, when Mary McAleese was voted in unchallenged for her second term, IMO, democracy was not in play and it was wrong. No matter what, some vote should have taken place and this country should have seen to it that NO person could take
office in this country without ELECTION. I wonder were our laws broken by this example?

Call me precise or even awkward, but at least I want efficiency and law and procedures
and above all, respect!

but what do you do if nobody runs for election? send someone like Mr. Tayto in?

andrew

ShooterSF wrote: »

I have yet to meet a No voter who would have a problem if the government tried to work with a no vote for 5 years and then IF it was unworkable came back to us. Atleast they'd you know try.
So maybe that'd be a starting point?

walshb wrote: »

I believe for the sake of democracy and for not just democracy, but GOOD democracy, we should be afforded respect, and a poxy year sends out nothing but a message of disrespect! Andrew, that is just a belief of mine that I am passionate about.

You mentioned dictators. I tell you, the way Lisbon and Nice were handled, they weren't bloody far off.

So the problem isn't so much that we're having another vote then, but that we're having another vote so soon, which tbh I think isn't that unreasonable. I think it's the no.1 problem people have. But how long have we to wait then? If the governments assurances were to allay everyone's fears by next October, then would there really be a problem with running it again so soon?

walshb

andrew wrote: »

So the problem isn't so much that we're having another vote then, but that we're having another vote so soon, which tbh I think isn't that unreasonable. I think it's the no.1 problem people have. But how long have we to wait then? If the governments assurances were to allay everyone's fears by next October, then would there really be a problem with running it again so soon?

Andrew, I am not ANTI Lisbon forever and ever. I know that second votes on
issues do happen because that is what allows progress and change, whether
it be for good or bad. I just think that YES, 1 year and we are being asked to vote
again is a direct show of contempt for the electorate. It couldn't
be more obvious.

I voted NO first time because I didn't agree with the treaty, now it's not about the
treaty to ME; it's about the respect that should be shown to our people and YES, 1 year
is a glaring and obvious show of contempt.

I agree with all that Rented Mule wrote

walshb

Dankoozy wrote: »

but what do you do if nobody runs for election? send someone like Mr. Tayto in?

Well, if we are in that dire a position, scrap the position