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

andrew

whatisayis wrote: »

Under Article 116, A complaint can be lodged if a member can be assumed to be distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market.
The procedure to do this is stipulated in Article 294 (Ordinary Legislative Procedures). In the Lisbon Treaty a provision has been added to this article whereby if a group of member states request something then paragraph 9 of Art 294 does NOT apply. Paragraph 9 calls for a unanimous vote.
If a group of states, led by Germany and France, go down this route to attempt to enforce their stated agenda on Corporate taxation (which they say is distorting the conditions of competition) the outcome will be decided by majority vote.
And that is why, several days after the No vote, the French Financial Minister put the plans on hold and said "thanks to good old Ireland".

First of all, you havn't linked countries 'making a complaint' and us being forced to change our taxes. Second, France and Germany aren't the only countries in the EU, it's not as if they can pass whatever they want. In fact, with QMV being introduced in Lisbon, it'll become harder. Third of all, some business leader has come out in favour of Lisbon, someone mentioned him a few posts back, mentioning explicitly that there's not threat to our tax. I'd tend to go with the jusgement of someone who would be adversely affected by a higher tax rate.

Ckal wrote: »

Eurobarometer - "For the 'yes' voters, the main motivation was the feeling that it was in Ireland’s best interest (32%) and that Ireland benefits from the EU (19%). Helping the economy (9%) and keeping Ireland engaged in Europe (9%) were other reasons." - Can you tell me how most of that links to the treaty? It links to the EU, but not specifically the treaty.

EDIT: "Over half of the people who did not vote in the referendum said this was due to a lack of understanding of the issues." Well look at that!





Pfft. Because Yes voters know what the other 500 million people in the EU think. Yes, that makes perfect sense.


As regards the Tax Harmonization. If we have vetoed it, what conditions have the EU thrown at us?

No yes voter has ever condoned an ignorant yes vote. Stop implying they have. Voting in ignorance is bad. Anyone who doesn't understand what they're voting on shouldn't vote, simple as.

walshb wrote: »

I will tell you a damn good reason now. The first vote being rejected and not respected is
the best reason in the world and tells you exactly what sort of folk are running Europe!

Bunch of bully boys who don't get the answer they want and they won't accept it?
That is enough alone for me!

justcallmetex wrote: »

well here's one we voted b4 said no and we were ignored.

Could people please stop asserting that voting again is undemocratic. First of all, a second vote has been held on issues before: abortion,voting, divorce and Nice. Second of all, by holding a second vote we're not being ignored - ignoring us would mean passing the Treaty anyway. Voting is democratic, we're being given another chance to exercise that right in light of the circumstances under which the treaty was voted down the first time.

James Hogan wrote: »

I voted No before and shall again. To those who argue that "Ireland has done well from the EU and should not be turning its back on Europe now," I agree that since the inception of the original Common Market, yes, Ireland has benefitted from closer economic ties. So let's leave things at that, and not complicate things by becoming politically subservient to a bloated institution with its record of meddling and centralized, authoritarian thinking. The laws and regulations governing Ireland should be products of people who live here and share Ireland's culture and traditions, not unelected foreign bureaucrats. In particular, I don't want any part of Europe's obedient servility in supporting America's wars of aggression.

A further strong reason is the shameful laws that a number of European states have passed, making it a criminal offence to dispute certain aspects of history that the state authorities deemed to be true, and demand that its citizens accept. Political lawyers have no business dictating what constitutes historical fact, and imprisioning people for their beliefs is worthy of the Dark Ages. Again, I want no part of a Europe in which official prosecutors can tell me what I should think, what I can express, and what I'm permitted to debate. I will cast no vote that might be seen as approving a move toward such laws ever being passed over Ireland.

As to the allegation that the "No" voters would return us to being lackeys of England, this is nonsense. Sinn Fein, the most Republican party of all, was the _only_ one to remain solidly against the Lisbon Treaty.

Voting no to lisbon because you don't like some of what other countries do is the same as not voting in a general election in your constituancy because you don't like a candidate in another constituancy. What frustrates Yes proponents is cases like this - people voting for reasons unrelated to the treaty itself. It's frustrating because it means people bring up issues which Yes voters feel to be irrevelant. Please all of you - if you're going to vote for a reason like the one stated above, explain how it's relevant to lisbon.


I fully expect my arguments to be ignored because the no side have no substantive arguments to bring to bear. No substantive arguments?! I hear you cry.. Thats elitist! Thats a disrespect for the feelings of the no side! Well no. No it isn't. And just saying that my attitude is as such is no argument, it's an empty retort which allows you to dodge the issues. So yes, i can say your arguments aren't substantive without looking down on you, because arguments aren't equal. As far as I can tell, the only substantive argument the no side have have been given by the few No voters voting on whats in the treaty. For example, theres a guy who doesn't believe in the petition thing being introduced. Now thats a substantive argument, its an argument about whats in the treaty and about set beliefs on an issue. There are others, like arguments about increased privitisation too. Incidently, I feel that the citizens inititiave is good because it gives a voice to minorities, and that the time wasted considering silly proposals is well wort it. I trust the judgement of EU workers not to bring in something as retarded as creationism. As far as privitisation, I think that the water supply should be privitised, because as it is our system is innefficant and I believe that companies have a profit motive sufficiant such that they'd provide a better service for all. I feel that the govt. should pick up some of the tab though.

THESE are the arguments which this thread should have been about, and would be about if it wasn't for people coming in without reading what has been said before and saying irellevant things, often in order to get a rise out of some posters. In particular, asking, incessantly, where someone is from, is stupid. If I want to go and be a dickhead, then I go to 4chan. I suggest you do to.

I'M DECLAN GANLEY, AND I SUPPORT THIS MESSAGE.

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

look people, you are not voting to voice your approval or lack thereof of fianna fail. You are not voting as a favour to fianna fail. You are not voting to voice your opinion on ireland's membership of the eu. You are not voting on any perceived direction the eu may or may not be heading towards a super state. You are not voting on tax. You are not voting as a protest vote about whatever your particular cause might be. Etc etc etc

You are voting on the content of the lisbon treaty and nothing else. If you give something as a reason to vote no and it does not mention an article of the treaty and how it's bad for us and/or europe (and accurately represents what the quoted article is saying) then there is no point in posting in the thread because this thread is about the lisbon treaty and nothing else

Sorry to pull this back but have stayed out of the topic for a day or two.
So can I also add that you're not voting on any percieved direction that the rest of the E.U may kick us out if we vote No.
Just while we're discussing potential hypothetical outcomes I keep hearing.

Tar.Aldarion

Nearly time to break out the Lisbon posters again...



http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/PaulGildea/motivator8064447.jpg

Onion11

How are we supposed to give a Yes in 2009 for "concrete assurances" that will only come in a treaty in 2010???
Silly, silly, silly.
Was considering voting yes this time around there for a few hours, but seriously a vote against Lisbon is a vote FOR the people of Europe.
Give every member state a referendum on this, then i'll consider it.

Tar.Aldarion

Onion11 wrote: »

Was considering voting yes this time around there for a few hours, but seriously a vote against Lisbon is a vote FOR the people of Europe.

Why?

Give every member state a referendum on this, then i'll consider it.

People voted in a system/government where they do not require a referendum. Forcing them to have one is undemocratic, no?
Why should they have one? We don't have referendums on lots of things, they don't have one on this.

walshb

andrew wrote: »

Voting no to lisbon because you don't like some of what other countries do is the same as not voting in a general election in your constituancy because you don't like a candidate in another constituancy. What frustrates Yes proponents is cases like this - people voting for reasons unrelated to the treaty itself. It's frustrating because it means people bring up issues which Yes voters feel to be irrevelant. Please all of you - if you're going to vote for a reason like the one stated above, explain how it's relevant to lisbon.




THESE are the arguments which this thread should have been about, and would be about if it wasn't for people coming in without reading what has been said before and saying irellevant things, often in order to get a rise out of some posters. In particular, asking, incessantly, where someone is from, is stupid. If I want to go and be a dickhead, then I go to 4chan. I suggest you do to.

I'M DECLAN GANLEY, AND I SUPPORT THIS MESSAGE.

Andrew, why can't you accept that we have the right to VOTE NO?
What is so hard to fathom from this?

Excuses excuses excuses!!!

Sam Vimes

Onion11 wrote: »

How are we supposed to give a Yes in 2009 for "concrete assurances" that will only come in a treaty in 2010???

just popping in to say that the only purpose of those "concrete assurances" is to confirm for all those people who believed the lies that the lies are actually lies. the assurances do not change anything, they just emphatically state what's already there.

this has been explained many times

and i'm gone again--->

Ace2007

walshb wrote: »

Andrew, why can't you accept that we have the right to VOTE NO?
What is so hard to fathom from this?

Excuses excuses excuses!!!

You also have the right to vote yes -
Many people who are voting no is because they don't like the government - i've heard 100's say it - but FG want people to vote yes just as much as FF do.

Davidius

People who don't vote the way I vote are stupid and don't deserve free speech.

I'll also have you know that I'm not old enough to vote so if I catch anybody going out to vote, so help me God!

Tchaikovsky

Ace2007 wrote: »

Many people who are voting no is because they don't like the government.

The same C*nts (with a capital c) who voted Fianna Fail in in 2007 :mad:

irish_bob

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

The same C*nts (with a capital c) who voted Fianna Fail in in 2007 :mad:

and who will vote for them again at the next election but feel clever about what they saw as having given the goverment a sly dig over lisbon

Nehaxak

Ace2007 wrote: »

You also have the right to vote yes -
Many people who are voting no is because they don't like the government - i've heard 100's say it - but FG want people to vote yes just as much as FF do.

This isn't RTE and there's not many people out there in the real world that would even consider FG as an alternative to FF, wouldn't even consider them the well banded about "opposition party" either.
FF/FG more or less the same, both have their own vested interests in big business/low wages, dodgy developers, backhanders, brown envelopes and protection of their own assests, arses and cabbage patch politics. Surprise, surprise that they're backing FF then :rolleyes:

andrew

walshb wrote: »

Andrew, why can't you accept that we have the right to VOTE NO?
What is so hard to fathom from this?

Excuses excuses excuses!!!

Erm, I never said we don't have the right to vote no...we do have the right to vote no. I don't think you understand what i'm getting at here.

Nehaxak

andrew wrote: »

Erm, I never said we don't have the right to vote no...we do have the right to vote no. I don't think you understand what i'm getting at here.

I don't either, what exactly are you getting at ?

walshb

andrew wrote: »

Erm, I never said we don't have the right to vote no...we do have the right to vote no. I don't think you understand what i'm getting at here.

You are implying that the vote was NO because the folks didn't understand. I say, so bloody what. We have that right as a democracy to be 'thick':rolleyes: and 'ignorant,':rolleyes: so just allow us our right to vote how we see fit.

Hey, just thought of another reason which I also used to vote NO.

The very fact that all the major parties were in agreement on a YES vote. That spelt disaster and highly sussy' to me. You cannot trust this.

andrew

walshb wrote: »

You are implying that the vote was NO because the folks didn't understand. I say, so bloody what. We have that right as a democracy to be 'thick':rolleyes: and 'ignorant,':rolleyes: so just allow us our right to vote how we see fit.

Well, I'm not denying you your right to vote as you see fit, or denying that that right exists. What I'm trying to do is to explain why it'd be good to vote how I see fit, and why I think that you are wrong, and why I think you're voting for the wrong reasons. Such is the nature of debate. If you'd rather not listen to anything anyone says thats your perogitave, you don't have to listen to what i'm saying. I might think you're an affront to democracy for doing so, but thats the price we pay for not being free and all that.

Ckal

andrew wrote: »

No yes voter has ever condoned an ignorant yes vote. Stop implying they have. Voting in ignorance is bad. Anyone who doesn't understand what they're voting on shouldn't vote, simple as.

I never said that. I said that some Yes voters voted for something else entirely. It's proven in the Eurobarometer. I think it's time some people get it into their heads that some yes voters didn't vote on the contents of the Lisbon Treaty. I also think it's time that some yes voters stopped taking the "I'm a yes voter, I know better" attitude, when you clearly don't "know better".

andrew

Ckal wrote: »

I never said that. I said that some Yes voters voted for something else entirely. It's proven in the Eurobarometer. I think it's time some people get it into their heads that some yes voters didn't vote on the contents of the Lisbon Treaty. I also think it's time that some yes voters stopped taking the "I'm a yes voter, I know better" attitude, when you clearly don't "know better".

I completely agree.Some Yes and No voters are guilty of voting in ignorance. This is bad, it's a bad attitude to have, bad bad bad.

walshb

andrew wrote: »

Well, I'm not denying you your right to vote as you see fit, or denying that that right exists. What I'm trying to do is to explain why it'd be good to vote how I see fit, and why I think that you are wrong, and why I think you're voting for the wrong reasons. Such is the nature of debate. If you'd rather not listen to anything anyone says thats your perogitave, you don't have to listen to what i'm saying. I might think you're an affront to democracy for doing so, but thats the price we pay for not being free and all that.

Andrew, that's all well and good; but after you FAIL to show me why a YES vote is the BEST option, then I would say, respect my NO vote. You don't seem to want to
accept the vote; just like the govt. This to me is baffling and flat out WRONG!

You seem to think it is OK for the govt to keep putting it to
the electorate until they GET their way, whilst saying that, 'at least we get a vote' and that this is democratic.
It is not, it is only because the constitution says we have to VOTE on this.

They may well be implementing democracy for democracies sake, but they are not RESPECTING democracy, that is a definite!

That's not democracy!

andrew

walshb wrote: »

Andrew, that's all well and good; but after you FAIL to show me why a YES vote is the BEST option, then I would say, respect my NO vote. You don't seem to want to
accept the vote; just like the govt. This to me is baffling and flat out WRONG!

You seem to think it is OK for the govt to keep putting it to
the electorate until they GET their way, whilst saying that, 'at least we get a vote' and that this is democratic.
It is not, it is only because the constitution says we have to VOTE on this.

They may well be implementing democracy for democracies sake, but they are not RESPECTING democracy, that is a definite!

That's not democracy!

Posters before me have given lists as to why the Yes vote is good - Citizens Inititaves, Implementation of QMV, A Foreign minister type post, a President (with limited powers both of them), introduction of a means by which to leave and legal recognition of the human rights charter. All good things, but don't take my list as exhaustive because it isn't.

I like citizens initives because it gives minorities a chance to have their views heard.

I like the intro of QMV because it makes the decisions made more fair.

I like having a fixed president because it allows someone to take the role and own it, becoming a European figurehead people can relate to. I don't think this is undemocratic because A) He/she will have limited power and No represtntative is elected into the position they hold anyway, so I don't see why he/she should require a vote.

Same logic with the foreign minister thing as well, bearing in mind that he only represents on issues on which every country is in agreement.

I like that it'll introduce a means by which to leave, because it means that if RTDH's dreams come true then we have a way of backing out.

I like the human rights charter because it implements legally ideals which I agree fully with.

So there are some reasons to vote Yes. Do you think they're bad reasons? Bad enough reasons to vote no instead? Why? But again, it's not an ehaustive list. AFAIK Lisbon will make Europe a bit more streamlined too, but i don't fully understand how.

As far as the govt. not accepting your vote: we have had more than one vote on issues before - do you object to the fact we had 2 votes on Divorce? Do you think that once we reject something, we should never question it again?

walshb

andrew wrote: »

As far as the govt. not accepting your vote: we have had more than one vote on issues before - do you object to the fact we had 2 votes on Divorce? Do you think that once we reject something, we should never question it again?

Andrew, some great points; but I a worried that you have a very poor memory.
I know well that 2nd votes happen; but time and respect should always be afforded. Man, if second votes didn't happen, we would be still in the dark ages. This is NOT what is happening with the 2nd Lisbon vote and to compare it to the Divorce vote is very
misleading. What has happened here is simply a non acceptance and the measly year proves it. This is what is so obvious and damaging for democracy!

You have already stated that TIME means ZERO and that you would, if you could, accept
vote after vote after vote and see no problem. I find this bewildering!

deadwood

Are the "yes" side looking for More Ya?

Dyr

Ckal wrote: »

I never said that. I said that some Yes voters voted for something else entirely. It's proven in the Eurobarometer.

the eurobarometer of course being an element of what? The EU. Nice independent source that.

Ckal

Bambi wrote: »

the eurobarometer of course being an element of what? The EU. Nice independent source that.

Which most Yes voters take pride quoting from. Funny, that.

andrew

walshb wrote: »

Andrew, some great points; but I a worried that you have a very poor memory.
I know well that 2nd votes happen; but time and respect should always be afforded. Man, if second votes didn't happen, we would be still in the dark ages. This is NOT what is happening with the 2nd Lisbon vote and to compare it to the Divorce vote is very
misleading. What has happened here is simply a non acceptance and the measly year proves it. This is what is so obvious and damaging for democracy!

You have already stated that TIME means ZERO and that you would, if you could, accept
vote after vote after vote and see no problem. I find this bewildering!

It's because I think that in the main people voted no for superficial reasons which don't warrent a huge reflection period. People voted no due to misleading facts, you set them straight, then you vote again.If people voted no again then i'd be wary of another vote so soon because a)it wouldn't pass b) it'd be indicitave of a bigger issue than people just not understanding. Well, I would hope that's what would be the case, but this thread isn't giving me much faith.

Ace2007

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

The same C*nts (with a capital c) who voted Fianna Fail in in 2007 :mad:

Nehaxak wrote: »

This isn't RTE and there's not many people out there in the real world that would even consider FG as an alternative to FF, wouldn't even consider them the well banded about "opposition party" either.
FF/FG more or less the same, both have their own vested interests in big business/low wages, dodgy developers, backhanders, brown envelopes and protection of their own assests, arses and cabbage patch politics. Surprise, surprise that they're backing FF then :rolleyes:

Of all the leaders of all the parties at this moment and time - brian cowen is the best for the taioseach's job - fact - there may be better leaders out there- i could name one for example - but that idiot kenny is head of FG and as long as he's there - they'll get no were -

Dyr

andrew wrote: »

It's because I think that in the main people voted no for superficial reasons which don't warrent a huge reflection period.

Ya gotta admire the sheer arrogance of people who come out with a line like that, the EU shoved a poll out straight after we voted and this line has snowballed since then. lets make this clear, you don't get to second guess, qualify or invalidate a vote in a democracy.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -Some commie from russia

funny bedfellows alright

andrew

Bambi wrote: »

Ya gotta admire the sheer arrogance of people who come out with a line like that, the EU shoved a poll out straight after we voted and this line has snowballed since then. lets make this clear, you don't get to second guess, qualify or invalidate a vote in a democracy.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -Some commie from russia

funny bedfellows alright

Well wanna put me straight then? What are the main reasons for which people voted no?

Dyr

Allow me to put you straight so: They voted no.

In a democracy you're supposed to accept the people's verdict, do you accept it?

Just like i have to accept that fianna fail will be in power until judgment day.

andrew

Bambi wrote: »

Allow me to put you straight so: They voted no.

In a democracy you're supposed to accept the people's verdict, do you accept it?

Just like i have to accept that fianna fail will be in power until judgment day.

So you're saying the reasons for which people voted no are unimportant? Why?