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

again22

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?

those who accept the Lisbon Treaty will also accept the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights with it. The Charter proclaims that the death penalty is abolished, but then it directs one to a specific footnote in which it is written: “Except in case of war, riots, upheaval”.

tedstriker

walshb wrote: »

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

If you didn't agree with the treaty and now they have changed the treaty then what is the problem?

ShooterSF

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?

Assurances are you serious? Did you think abortion or conscription had anything to do with the treaty? That's Coir you're thinking of. As for the commissioner issue, if it were a real change surely those who voted Yes would now vote No to keep the streamlined commission.

Back to the timeline issue. Had they come back with an actual Changed treaty it might be stomachable a year later. Maybe, though I'd rather they tried to move on and drop lisbon after we rejected it. But to come back with word for word the same treaty without even toying with the notion of following the wishes of the electorate and moving on in less than a year is sickening.
Again ask any no voter who has a problem with it if they came back in 5 years would they be ok and you might get the answer to your question.. again.

ShooterSF

tedstriker wrote: »

If you didn't agree with the treaty and now they have changed the treaty then what is the problem?

what have they changed? Answer me that.

walshb

tedstriker wrote: »

If you didn't agree with the treaty and now they have changed the treaty then what is the problem?

Changed? For whom?

Give me a breakdown of these major changes?

Maybe, some of the changes don't do it for me. Did you ever
think of this possibility. Or are you, like the govt, simply saying, 'like
it or LUMP it?'

democrates

With Ireland getting special guarantees that'll wake up citizens in other member states to the democratic deficit in their own countries.

When they voted their politicians in it was based on a host of issues, the EU hardly tops the list for the average voter. Now they see the 'representatives' take that as a carte blanche to make fundamental changes that the people would be highly unlikely to vote for if given a say.

Libertas' europe-wide campaign will be interesting.

andrew

walshb wrote: »

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

So 1 year is a 'show of contempt.' How long need we wait then?!

Also, afaik the government isn't planning to change the treaty so much that it's not the same treaty other countries passed. Tbh i doubt they'll change the treaty at all - simply because many of the issues people voted no on weren't issues that were actually in the Treaty (and probably because they just can't anyway). It's just the government didn't communicate that very well and so (many) people were swayed by misinformation about what was in the treaty, eg. the issue about corporation tax. These are the people who decided the vote, and these are the people whose opinions are suceptible to change given reassurances. If you voted no for some other reason, like you just don't like europe, then i don't think anyone would expect you to change your vote.

walshb wrote: »

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

Now thats hardly democratic! :eek:

walshb

andrew wrote: »

So 1 year is a 'show of contempt.' How long need we wait then?!





Now thats hardly democratic! :eek:

Well, I did say that. I don't know why you insist on asking
again?

1 year is IMO a crystal clear message that the govt don't give a toss
about their OWN peoples views and rights!

I'll ask you now, if I can; how long is acceptable to you, or does time mean ZERO?

andrew

walshb wrote: »

Well, I did say that. I don't know why you insist on asking
again?

1 year is IMO a crystal clear message that the govt don't give a toss
about their OWN peoples views and rights!

I'll ask you now, if I can; how long is acceptable to you, or does time mean ZERO?

I don't really think 1 year is too short a time frame. Ideally, all you need is enough time in which to run another referendum campaign. What difference does a year make? How does something become democratic and lacking in contempt after waiting just a little bit longer? The time period seems arbitrary to me (insofar as is practical), therefore (in my opinion) once you accept that it's ok to have another vote after a little while then you're basically saying that it's ok to have another vote whenever.

tolosenc

http://www.toland.ie/Some_light_relief_files/Spoofers%20guide%20to%20Lisbon%20FINAL.pdf

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!

So you're not voting on the actual issue at hand?

One of the fundamentals of democracy is that voters are informed and rational people. It is up to you to become informed - the government doesn't need to spoon feed us, this ain't secondary school. But you, my friend, are flying in the face of being a rational voter by not actually voting on the ammendment to the constitution, but rather a private, irrelevant agenda. For you to call a second referendum on a matter about which it is clear that people were uninformed/misinformed undemocratic is the height of hipocrisy.

walshb wrote: »

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.

Were you over 35, there was nothing to stop you challenging her. To win due to lack of opposition in the case of re-election is treated in DEMOCRACY as a 100% vote in favour.

again22 wrote: »

those who accept the Lisbon Treaty will also accept the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights with it. The Charter proclaims that the death penalty is abolished, but then it directs one to a specific footnote in which it is written: “Except in case of war, riots, upheaval”.

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS?! It's certainly not from here, the text of the Charter:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2000:364:0001:0022:EN:PDF

In fact, the word "war" is never doen't even occur once in the document. Nor do "riot" or "upheaval".

walshb

That sounds great; but don't you think it's so so obvious that afer only 1 year, our people are being fed this from the SAME govt.

I did say that I didn't think that voting again on issues was ALL BAD.

But, this is takin' the piss. You have to see that?

tedstriker

From what I am reading there is an element of the NO voters who are fearful of a repeat vote, now with added assurances, because the last time they argued issues that subsequently turned out to be utter rubbish. Issues about abortion, neutrality etc. If people really understood the treaty then these issues wouldn't exist.

Can someone give me one fact about the Lisbon treaty that will stop them voting in favour. Nothing to do with the government, nothing to do with job losses, nothing to do with how undemocratic it is to vote??. Someone give me something solid as to why they honestly believe that the Lisbon treaty as is will now be presented has more negatives than positives for Ireland and for Europe.

andrew

walshb wrote: »

That sounds great; but don't you think it's so so obvious that afer only 1 year, our people are being fed this from the SAME govt.

I did say that I didn't think that voting again on issues was ALL BAD.

But, this is takin' the piss. You have to see that?

Lets just get on with it I say!

ShooterSF

tedstriker wrote: »

If you didn't agree with the treaty and now they have changed the treaty then what is the problem?

ShooterSF wrote: »

what have they changed? Answer me that.

I'd still love an answer to that question.

andrew wrote: »

I don't really think 1 year is too short a time frame. Ideally, all you need is enough time in which to run another referendum campaign. What difference does a year make? How does something become democratic and lacking in contempt after waiting just a little bit longer? The time period seems arbitrary to me (insofar as is practical), therefore (in my opinion) once you accept that it's ok to have another vote after a little while then you're basically saying that it's ok to have another vote whenever.

So given that all it takes to run a referendum is have a polling station I take it you'd have no problem if we set up permanent ones and ask each day - time being no issue to you.

tolosenc

tedstriker wrote: »

From what I am reading there is an element of the NO voters who are fearful of a repeat vote, now with added assurances, because the last time they argued issues that subsequently turned out to be utter rubbish. Issues about abortion, neutrality etc. If people really understood the treaty then these issues wouldn't exist.

Can someone give me one fact about the Lisbon treaty that will stop them voting in favour. Nothing to do with the government, nothing to do with job losses, nothing to do with how undemocratic it is to vote??. Someone give me something solid as to why they honestly believe that the Lisbon treaty as is will now be presented has more negatives than positives for Ireland and for Europe.

You see, you've got them there. There isn't one.

If you guys come up with one, I'd also like a reference as to which paragraph of the Treaty of Lisbon does in fact state that.

tolosenc

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'd still love an answer to that question.

He was wrong. The treaty hasn't been changed.

ShooterSF wrote: »

So given that all it takes to run a referendum is have a polling station I take it you'd have no problem if we set up permanent ones and ask each day - time being no issue to you.

Cop on.

walshb

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'd still love an answer to that question.



So given that all it takes to run a referendum is have a polling station I take it you'd have no problem if we set up permanent ones and ask each day - time being no issue to you.

Andrew, exactly what I was thinking. Time means ZERO to you; so if that's what you want, then just KEEP voting until we get what we want? That's madness IMO, and utterly embarrassing!

walshb

obl wrote: »

He was wrong. The treaty hasn't been changed.



Cop on.

Why COP on?

Andrew has ZERO issue with time. I think it's a very
relative point

andrew

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'd still love an answer to that question.



So given that all it takes to run a referendum is have a polling station I take it you'd have no problem if we set up permanent ones and ask each day - time being no issue to you.

Well to be honest I don't really understand how that'd work. But If the next referendum were 1 month after the first one i'd be ok with that on a 'democratic level.' I'd object to it only on the grounds that 1 month probably isn't long enough to convince people to change their vote, so it'd probably fail. I think that there should be another vote as soon as the govt. has given their assurances and opinion polls show a swing in favour to 'yes,' However long that takes. I'd be fine with that if it took a week.

edit:
Well, obviously voting 10 (or whatever amount) times on something would be silly. If people voted no to something 10 times or something then chances are they have some fundamental problem with what's being voted on. In a case like that, having loads of votes is pointless until you can bring about some fundamental change, which takes time. But in this case I believe that people voted no because they were misinformed about the facts. In a case like this then, I think that time isn't an issue.

PrivateEye

Dont like the talk I'm hearing from people about the idea that 'everyone else' in Europe is pushing us about and demanding we vote Yes.

Remember the letters page of the Irish Times being flooded with 'Thank You' letters from France, Germany, England, Holland and all over Europe?
Also, the E.U Constitution was rejected by two states before the Lisbon Treaty was ever put near us.

'The rest of Europe', opinion polls always show, want a referendum. We have one.

Well, we have two. Here's hoping for the same again.

tolosenc

walshb wrote: »

Why COP on?

It was a ridiculous hyperbole on what he said, making what was a valid and intelligent contribution appear to have been reasoned by a two year old. That's why COP on.

democrates

tedstriker wrote: »

From what I am reading there is an element of the NO voters who are fearful of a repeat vote, now with added assurances, because the last time they argued issues that subsequently turned out to be utter rubbish. Issues about abortion, neutrality etc. If people really understood the treaty then these issues wouldn't exist.

Can someone give me one fact about the Lisbon treaty that will stop them voting in favour. Nothing to do with the government, nothing to do with job losses, nothing to do with how undemocratic it is to vote??. Someone give me something solid as to why they honestly believe that the Lisbon treaty as is will now be presented has more negatives than positives for Ireland and for Europe.

The EU mandarins seek to further Qualified Majority Voting, it's one purpose is to enable 'representatives ' of a majority of nations to impose their will on a minority.

There is no reason why the EU can't be restructured to operate exclusively on the basis of co-operation rather than coercion. We see many examples where EU nations come together to agree things as we saw with the mini-summit on the financial crisis, we can do it any time for any reason and we don't need to vest power centrally.

One of the greatest benefits to tax paying citizens of co-operation would be to pool purchasing power, cement for roads etc., but why is this not done? Could it be that profits for big business is more important than the interests of citizens?

ShooterSF

obl wrote: »

It was a ridiculous hyperbole on what he said, making what was a valid and intelligent contribution appear to have been reasoned by a two year old. That's why COP on.

I wasnt suggesting it doable rather checking with Andrew on how he'd feel on the issue.

Dankoozy

walshb wrote: »

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

but that's boring.

billy the squid

In nice 1 i voted yes, but voted no in nice II for the simple reason that the views of the people were not recognised from the first vote.

They got a no vote in Lisbon 1 and will get the same answer for every subsequent lisbon referrendum.

ShooterSF

tedstriker wrote: »

From what I am reading there is an element of the NO voters who are fearful of a repeat vote, now with added assurances, because the last time they argued issues that subsequently turned out to be utter rubbish. Issues about abortion, neutrality etc. If people really understood the treaty then these issues wouldn't exist.

Can someone give me one fact about the Lisbon treaty that will stop them voting in favour. Nothing to do with the government, nothing to do with job losses, nothing to do with how undemocratic it is to vote??. Someone give me something solid as to why they honestly believe that the Lisbon treaty as is will now be presented has more negatives than positives for Ireland and for Europe.

Here's just 1 that'll go ignored again. Citizen's initiative. It allows for the likes of the catholic religion to put forward the idea of teaching creationism in schools. This then takes up time where it has to be discussed by the E.U. Now have I answered you? (I do believe I pointed this out a few times!)

tedstriker

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'd still love an answer to that question.

Your fond of your quotes so here is one of your own:

ShooterSF wrote: »

But to come back with word for word the same treaty without even toying with the notion of following the wishes of the electorate and moving on in less than a year is sickening.

If you are so certain that the nothing, ZERO, NOT A THING, has changed then surely there is no problem. The no vote will win out. You should be happy, sit back and relax. Enjoy the spectacle...

If others want to know what the conclusions of the meeting of the European Council were then here is a brief description:

European Council Presidency conclusions wrote:

The European Council re-affirms that the Treaty of Lisbon is considered necessary in order to help the enlarged Union to function more efficiently, more democratically and more effectively including in international affairs. With a view to enabling the Treaty to enter into force by the end of 2009, the European Council, while respecting the aims and objectives of
the Treaties, has defined the following path.

On the composition of the Commission, the European Council recalls that the Treaties currently in force require that the number of Commissioners be reduced in 2009. The European Council agrees that provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision will be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.

The European Council has carefully noted the other concerns of the Irish people presented by the Taoiseach as set out in Annex 1 relating to taxation policy, family, social and ethical issues, and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) with regard to Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality. The European Council agrees that, provided Ireland makes the
commitment in paragraph 4, all of the concerns set out in the said statement shall be addressed to the mutual satisfaction of Ireland and the other Member States.
The necessary legal guarantees will be given on the following three points:.
• nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the Union's competences in relation to taxation;
• the Treaty of Lisbon does not prejudice the security and defence policy of Member States, including Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality, and the obligations of most other Member States;

In addition, the high importance attached to the issues, including workers' rights, set out in paragraph (d) of Annex 1 will be confirmed.

In the light of the above commitments by the European Council, and conditional on the satisfactory completion of the detailed follow-on work by mid-2009 and on presumption of their satisfactory implementation, the Irish Government is committed to seeking ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by the end of the term of the current Commission.

http://www.ue2008.fr/webdav/site/PFUE/shared/import/1211_Conseil_europeen/European_Council_12-12-2008_Conclusions_EN.pdf

tedstriker

ShooterSF wrote: »

Here's just 1 that'll go ignored again. Citizen's initiative. It allows for the likes of the catholic religion to put forward the idea of teaching creationism in schools. This then takes up time where it has to be discussed by the E.U. Now have I answered you? (I do believe I pointed this out a few times!)

Great, a nice point there. I think that discussion of everything is great but you obviously don't agree with that so fair enough. You have a right to vote no on that point but personally if I had your views then I would consider that the other impacts of the Lisbon treaty would further outweigh this one but each to there own.

tolosenc

democrates wrote: »

The EU mandarins seek to further Qualified Majority Voting, it's one purpose is to enable 'representatives ' of a majority of nations to impose their will on a minority.

There is no reason why the EU can't be restructured to operate exclusively on the basis of co-operation rather than coercion. We see many examples where EU nations come together to agree things as we saw with the mini-summit on the financial crisis, we can do it any time for any reason and we don't need to vest power centrally.

One of the greatest benefits to tax paying citizens of co-operation would be to pool purchasing power, cement for roads etc., but why is this not done? Could it be that profits for big business is more important than the interests of citizens?

Here are the areas for which we will change from unanimity to QMV:

Election of the President of the European Council by the European Council
Configurations of the Council of Ministers (other than the Foreign Affairs Council)
Appointment of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy by the European Council
Conclusion of a withdrawal agreement with a Member State wishing to leave the EU
Determination of the procedures and conditions required for a citizens’ initiative for legislation
Establishment of certain measures concerning transport
Measures concerning the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform intellectual property rights protection throughout the EU
Amendment of some articles of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks
Measures necessary for use of the euro
Promotion of certain sporting issues
Incentive measures in the cultural field
Measures necessary to draw up a European Space Policy
Measures relating to energy policy
Some aspects of the common commercial policy
Measures for drawing up a framework for humanitarian aid
Decision defining the European Defence Agency’s statute, seat and operational rules
Implementation of the solidarity clause in the event of a Member State suffering a terrorist attack or a disaster
Amendment of some of the provisions of the Court of Justice’s Statute and establishment of specialist courts
Arrangements for the control of implementing powers

ShooterSF wrote: »

Here's just 1 that'll go ignored again. Citizen's initiative. It allows for the likes of the catholic religion to put forward the idea of teaching creationism in schools. This then takes up time where it has to be discussed by the E.U. Now have I answered you? (I do believe I pointed this out a few times!)

So the right of a large representative body to express its opinion should be suppressed? Ahhh, democracy...

Nigsy

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm more suspicious of new posters spouting on here than of any politician. I can't recall seeing a new poster in recent days who wasn't anti-Lisbon.

They are probably re-registering, having been banned for stating their anti-EU opinions, see OscarBravo on the politics forum.