Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…3435373940…63

Comments

  • Options
    #1082
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    ben bedlam wrote: »
    Pig Cowen and Fianna Fail are going around suggesting "wow, look at what the EU has given us". Let me remind everyone that we have nothing altered. We must vote on the exact same treaty again, and should we bend over and vote yes, we then supposedly get so called "assurances", assurances that I might add have not even been drawn up yet. And who is to say that should Ireland vote yes, that there wont be a problem in giving us the assurances- perhaps an intervention from the Germans or French? The fact is that Ireland has no bargaining position, despite Cowen and co.'s attempts over the coming months to dupe us into believing our concerns are addressed. The EU holds ALL the cards, ALL the time.

    That had almost nothing to do with what you quoted.


    Also, the assurances will be drawn up in june, roughly, the vote is penned in for october, roughly. Saying the assurances havn't been drawn up yet, while technically true, is not really an issue. They'll be drawn up before the vote so you can discuss them (or not, as the case is most likely to be) before you vote.
    The rest of your post was conspiracy theory style drivel, so i won't bother to dignify it with a response.


  • Options
    #1083
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    ben bedlam wrote: »
    Pig Cowen and Fianna Fail are going around suggesting "wow, look at what the EU has given us". .
    The EU has done wonderful things for Ireland and continue to do so. Look at all our European financed motorways stretching from one end of the country to the other. There is no way we could have afforded those without EU funding.

    We can also look back in History at the Romans and Nazi Germany building high quality roads. Hitler built a vast amount of Autobahn across Germany prior too the rise of his Third Reich for the rapid deployment of troops.


  • Options
    #1084
    Ckal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭Ckal


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Ahah.
    People keep bleating on and on about why vote yes. Seems fair, we keep asking for why vote no, but keep getting mostly nebulous bullshit back.

    Here's why i think this is worth voting yes
    • The creation of a single foreign affairs post - Answers kissengers question of "who do i ring if i want to talk to europe". Also, provides a single voice on issues where europe is in agreement.
    • Charter of Fundamental Rights is now legally binding - I consider this to be important, but then i oppose shit like the death penality, like the giant moralfag i am.
    • The Legislative meetings of the EU council to be held in public - transparancy is always a good thing
    • Mutual solidarity obliged - It's mostly a formality, but i hope this would lead to a euope wide plan for relief and aid after a terrorist attack/natural disaster
    • Citizens' petitions - As potentially open to abuse as it is, a direct line from the public to the Commission is a good thing.
    • Membership withdrawal clause - nothing was ever stopping us from leaving, but it's preferable to have the conditions and proceduires for withdrawl writen down
    • Amending nature - Controversial, but i think the ability to ammend the treaty on a as needed basis is a good idea. Everything still needs to be ratified by the traditional means, but it means the EU needn't wait until the have enough legislation to form a new treaty before they can act on a known issue
    • Combating climate change is now a stated abjective. Once again, i like this because i believe that man is a major component in climate change, and we should be doing everything we can to lessen our impact on the environemnt
    • More power to the directly elected Parliament - by extending the whole codecision thing, it gives MEPs more power.

    Yes, some of those are very good reasons and thanks for taking the time out to list them. But the people I've asked keeping saying "Um, 'yes' will make the EU more efficient..." Which is true, but they don't know the individual changes (like the ones you've listed) that will make it more efficient. It seems they are voting yes, but they are unaware of the details.


  • Options
    #1085
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    A report was done to find out why we voted no and it was determined that there was nothing in the treaty that could be changed to satisfy us. Basically because "i wasn't arsed finding out anything about it so i voted no out of dear of the unknown" isn't something that can be changed in the text of the treaty

    Link for the report or are you just making things up now again ?
    These "reports" and "polls" by the yes campaign are NOT independent and NOT to be trusted.
    You'd also be surprised at how many Irish people do know what they are voting for and are aware of at least the substance of the treaty.

    Putting spin out there in regards report and polls that favour the yes campaign in some way, still does not get over the fact that no matter what you think now, or what these self serving polls and report might say - the Irish people already voted No.

    I read a report once that said the yes campaign was funded by the nazi party. I can't quote the report as it's super secret but a poll within it said that more men than women eat boiled eggs. Shocked I was !


  • Options
    #1086
    ben bedlam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 261 ✭✭ben bedlam


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    That had almost nothing to do with what you quoted.


    Also, the assurances will be drawn up in june, roughly, the vote is penned in for october, roughly. Saying the assurances havn't been drawn up yet, while technically true, is not really an issue. They'll be drawn up before the vote so you can discuss them (or not, as the case is most likely to be) before you vote.
    The rest of your post was conspiracy theory style drivel, so i won't bother to dignify it with a response.

    Good one, so according to you the reasonable assumption that the promised joke "assurances" might encounter some objection from other countries somehow makes me a mad conspiracy theorist. I think yourself and humanji are only on here to stir up argument, because i dont believe anyone in their right mind would share your outlook.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1087
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Ckal wrote: »
    Yes, some of those are very good reasons and thanks for taking the time out to list them. But the people I've asked keeping saying "Um, 'yes' will make the EU more efficient..." Which is true, but they don't know the individual changes (like the ones you've listed) that will make it more efficient. It seems they are voting yes, but they are unaware of the details.

    Then they're morons.


  • Options
    #1088
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    ben bedlam wrote: »
    because i dont believe anyone in their right mind would share your outlook.

    I agree with his outlook


  • Options
    #1089
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    ben bedlam wrote: »
    Good one, so according to you the reasonable assumption that the promised joke "assurances" might encounter some objection from other countries somehow makes me a mad conspiracy theorist.

    The assurances, if they follow the same idea as the seville declaration, are assurances that our neutrality won't be compromised, we won't have abortion forced upon us, our corporation tax is our own business.

    Seeing as these are already in the treaty, i'm struggling to comprehend how someone might object and on what grounds.
    If you have a theory, go for it. I'm all ears.
    ben bedlam wrote: »
    I think yourself and humanji are only on here to stir up argument, because i dont believe anyone in their right mind would share your outlook.

    New study by scientists reaveals: "Not everyone thinks like you do".
    More on this shocking new discovery at 11.


  • Options
    #1090
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    ben bedlam wrote: »
    Good one, so according to you the reasonable assumption that the promised joke "assurances" might encounter some objection from other countries somehow makes me a mad conspiracy theorist. I think yourself and humanji are only on here to stir up argument, because i dont believe anyone in their right mind would share your outlook.

    I agree with him mostly.

    I mean technically I don't we need assurances so even if they are objected to at a later date, I don't see what is so wrong with it.

    France can object to something all they want, it doesn't mean they'll be listened to.


  • Options
    #1091
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Here's why i think this is worth voting yes

    Thanks. This has been exactly what I was looking for. I have a few questions if you have the time.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    • The creation of a single Foreign Affairs post
    I assume that if Ireland feels differently to the general concensus of the EU about a particular matter, we have a way of pulling out of any action the EU would take?
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    • Charter of Fundamental Rights is now legally binding
    Do you have a link to this Charter that I can read?
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    • The Legislative meetings of the EU council to be held in public
    Will these be broadcast in some way?
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    • Mutual solidarity obliged
    As above, what pull-out options are there?
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    • Citizens' petitions
    Can't see an issue with this.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    • Membership withdrawal clause -
    Or this.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    • Amending nature
    This is an obvious danger zone for me. What limitations are put on these amendments? I mean, they can be seen as a way of circumventing our referendum procedures if there are not safeguards in place.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    • Combating climate change is now a stated abjective.
    Agree with this, though it should take a treaty for it to happen anyway.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    • More power to the directly elected Parliament
    We barely have confidence in our current elected officials, but then again, that's our issue.

    Again, thanks for the response.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1092
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    brim4brim wrote: »
    France can object to something all they want, it doesn't mean they'll be listened to.

    France proposes crazy **** all the time, and usually they get shot down. I think they've been trying to harmonise council tax for about 40 years or so.

    Never gets beyond the proposal stage.


  • Options
    #1093
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    The EU has done wonderful things for Ireland and continue to do so. Look at all our European financed motorways stretching from one end of the country to the other. There is no way we could have afforded those without EU funding.

    We can also look back in History at the Romans and Nazi Germany building high quality roads. Hitler built a vast amount of Autobahn across Germany prior too the rise of his Third Reich for the rapid deployment of troops.

    How dare you compare the third reich to our glorious european superstate project with it's puppet parliament and unelected president. Outrageous :pac:

    And even if the comparison was valid, once we sign up to lisbon (on the thrid or fourth go if necessary) then we will have in our hands a piece of paper that will ensure.. emmmm :D


  • Options
    #1094
    ben bedlam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 261 ✭✭ben bedlam


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    The assurances...

    ...are already in the treaty

    If you are as familiar with the treaty as you claim to be, you will know that they are not.


  • Options
    #1095
    skelliser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭skelliser


    just looking at the poll(i know its not really accurate) and the gap between yes and no is widening.
    The no's have a clear majority.


  • Options
    #1096
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Otacon wrote: »
    Thanks. This has been exactly what I was looking for. I have a few questions if you have the time.

    sure.
    Otacon wrote: »
    I assume that if Ireland feels differently to the general concensus of the EU about a particular matter, we have a way of pulling out of any action the EU would take?

    Basically, the foreign affairs post can only speak for the EU provided all 27 nations agree. So if we decide we don't agree with something, then the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs couldn't represent the EU.
    Otacon wrote: »
    Do you have a link to this Charter that I can read?

    Here and a FAQ


    Otacon wrote: »
    Will these be broadcast in some way?
    A video stream. I also assume (though i'm not 100% sure) that minutes etc would be stored and available to the public on request.
    Otacon wrote: »
    As above, what pull-out options are there?

    None, as far as i can see. The idea being that if there is a humanitarian crisis we will be obliged to assist and vice-versa. I can't imagine a scenario whereby we'd want to deny aid to an EU nation what was struck by a earthquake or outbreak of a disease or whatever.

    Otacon wrote: »
    This is an obvious danger zone for me. What limitations are put on these amendments? I mean, they can be seen as a way of circumventing our referendum procedures if there are not safeguards in place.

    Any changes would still have to go through the normal chanels. So that's proposed by the commission, voted on by the Parliament, then voted on in unaminity by the European Council (heads of state). Then it has to be ratified by each member state in accordance with it's own mechanisms.

    I would think that the government would present each item on a case by case basis to the high court to see if it's in need of a referendum, in keeping with the crotty ruling. If not, then it would be put to a vote in the Dail and then the Seanad (as is my understanding).


  • Options
    #1097
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    ben bedlam wrote: »
    If you are as familiar with the treaty as you claim to be, you will know that they are not.

    Really?
    Go on then. Back that claim up.


  • Options
    #1098
    ben bedlam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 261 ✭✭ben bedlam


    skelliser wrote: »
    just looking at the poll(i know its not really accurate) and the gap between yes and no is widening.
    The no's have a clear majority.

    Agreed. The rejection of Lisbon 2 will be even greater than first time. However,the only polls that the media will listen to is an MRBI Irish Times poll, and only if the 'yes' side is in the majority


  • Options
    #1099
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Nehaxak wrote: »
    Link for the report or are you just making things up now again ?
    i haven't made anything up thank you very much. it was actually someone else who referenced the report earlier on in thread thread and i can't remember the link so you can go back and look
    Nehaxak wrote: »
    I read a report once that said the yes campaign was funded by the nazi party. I can't quote the report as it's super secret but a poll within it said that more men than women eat boiled eggs. Shocked I was !

    godwinned

    /thread


  • Options
    #1100
    skelliser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭skelliser


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Really?
    Go on then. Back that claim up.

    Well if you say they are already in the treaty of lisbon then whats the point of these new assurances that will be in the next treaty?


  • Options
    #1101
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Basically, the foreign affairs post can only speak for the EU provided all 27 nations agree. So if we decide we don't agree with something, then the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs couldn't represent the EU.

    Would that be in the same way that the lisbon treaty could only be ratified if we all agreed to it? :p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1102
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Ckal wrote: »
    "because it makes the eu run more efficiently." - This seems to be the only reason why some Yes people are voting Yes. (Not directly from here, but from asking people I know too). Surely if you are going to decide the fate of nearly 500 million people, you'd want more than that, right?
    not really no, that's all the treaty is. and "deciding their fate" is a bit dramatic. despite what the no side say it won't bring in conscription or anything of the sort
    Ckal wrote: »
    No voters are not anti-EU. We are not "sticking it to the government".
    many are
    Ckal wrote: »
    We want a better deal. If we get a better deal (legally binding, that is), we will vote yes.
    if you want a better deal ask for an additional treaty. loads of people are giving out that that treaty doesn't do this and that but that's not a reason to vote against it. the treaty also doesn't make breakfast for you
    Ckal wrote: »
    From what I can see and from what I've been told, No voters have more relevant reasons to vote no than yes voters have relevant reasons to vote yes.

    no voters have many many reasons to vote no but many of them are lies and many more have nothing to do with the treaty. i have seem very very few actual valid objections to the treaty and personally i don't have a problem with any of them. i can't even remember what they were now tbh


  • Options
    #1103
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Then they're morons.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    New study by scientists reaveals: "Not everyone thinks like you do".
    More on this shocking new discovery at 11.
    Intriguing stuff.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    godwinned

    /thread

    It was godwinned a good while ago.
    Scroll up to post 1083 and see RTDH try to put the fear of the Nazis and the Romans into us.


  • Options
    #1104
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Terry wrote: »
    Intriguing stuff.
    I see what you did there.


    Terry wrote: »
    It was godwinned a good while ago.
    Scroll up to post 1083 and see RTDH try to put the fear of the Nazis and the Romans into us.

    Yeah, but what have the Nazi Romans ever done for us?


  • Options
    #1105
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    ben bedlam wrote: »
    Agreed. The rejection of Lisbon 2 will be even greater than first time.

    this is unfortunately true. i think at this stage even if a clause was put in guaranteeing every irish citizen a million euro and an ice cream they'd still vote no because "HOW DARE THEY ASK US TO HAVE ANOTHER GO AND ACTUALLY READ THE THING THIS TIME?!?!?!!?12££/1£~##, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE"


  • Options
    #1106
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Yeah, but what have the Nazi Romans ever done for us?

    The nazi Romans combined with the communists to bring you our new modern socialised capitalism.


  • Options
    #1107
    ben bedlam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 261 ✭✭ben bedlam


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    this is unfortunately true. i think at this stage even if a clause was put in guaranteeing every irish citizen a million euro and an ice cream they'd still vote no because "HOW DARE THEY ASK US TO HAVE ANOTHER GO AND ACTUALLY READ THE THING THIS TIME?!?!?!!?12££/1£~##, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE"


    When is it ok to ignore the voice of the people? NEVER.


  • Options
    #1108
    Gingervitis
    Registered Users Posts: 690 ✭✭✭Gingervitis


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    We can also look back in History at the Romans and Nazi Germany building high quality roads. Hitler built a vast amount of Autobahn across Germany prior too the rise of his Third Reich for the rapid deployment of troops.
    Ahem, hate going OT :obut
    http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth08.htm


  • Options
    #1109
    whatisayis
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭whatisayis


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Corporation tax isn't an area of EU compitance, this doesn't apply.

    By that comment I would have to assume you have never heard of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base(CCTB) which is an attempt to harmonise corporate tax in the EU. Please read the link below and then explain why it has been put on hold due to Ireland's rejection of Lisbon.

    http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1013971.shtml


  • Options
    #1110
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    ben bedlam wrote: »
    When is it ok to ignore the voice of the people? NEVER.

    they didn't ignore the voice of the people. they very clearly heard the voice of the people and that voice clearly showed that it had no idea what it was talking about and voted no for a variety of BS reasons.

    so instead of just letting a perfectly good treaty die they're (hopefully) going to have an information campaign and explain it properly to us and show us that the no side were scare mongering liars and there's nothing to be afraid of. is that so unreasonable?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1111
    tolosenc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,889 ✭✭✭tolosenc


    Absolutely loved the way Billy Timmins put down that Libertas eejit on Q and A. "Who are the unelected elite?". Quality!
    ben bedlam wrote: »
    When is it ok to ignore the voice of the people? NEVER.

    Oh, I'm sorry, was the Lisbon treaty passed? DIDN'T THINK SO.

    There is no NEVER option on the ballot paper.

    The will of the people is not being ignored. The will is, quite rightly, being questioned - based on research that showed that a great number of people who rejected the treaty did so without any/adequate information, or with a lot of disinformation. The treaty is of such importance to Ireland that we are being allowed a second opportunity to actually get properly informed on the issues, and not the condiments with which the EU will enjoy eating our unborn children.

    I could never bring myself to vote Fianna Fáil. They can't be trusted, based on their record. They are a bunch of mobsters out to serve themselves. In this instance, their interests are as Irish citizens. They are not out to get you, and, like it or lump it, they're trying to serve your best interest.
    skelliser wrote: »
    Well if you say they are already in the treaty of lisbon then whats the point of these new assurances that will be in the next treaty?

    There isn't. People were too lazy to read the thing, took Libertas' word on it, and now we have to go over the top to point out that they lied by getting legally binding assurances on things that would be legally binding anyway. It makes this country come across as a nation of idiots on the European stage, but if that's waht it takes, I guess those informed voters among us will just have to accept that ridicule for the greater good.


Advertisement