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

justcallmetex

thelordofcheese wrote: »

S'funny. I thought being arrogant was meant to be the defining trait of the YES side.

Oh but it is a defining trait I'm only going by pan Europen Polls

Sam Vimes

DaDumTish wrote: »

but im willing to reconsider if we get bound consessions - and the presnt gov is gone.
( 3rd way to get rid of a government - make it look powerless in the eyes of the world )

europe cannot provide that no matter which way we vote. unless you think they'll invade or something?

DaDumTish wrote: »

1/ the gov cannot be trusted - they have p1ssed all over democracy - and treated it with the contempt they hold for the people of ireland.

irrelevant to the treaty

DaDumTish wrote: »

2/ the gov are incompetent puffed up fat cat buffoons - who treat the people they are voted in to serve - as their own cash cow servants .

irrelevant to the treaty

DaDumTish wrote: »

3/ the gov needs to go for the good of the country

irrelevant to the treaty

DaDumTish wrote: »

4/ if the gov go and a new fresh one put in - lisbon will pass - fact.

irrelevant to the treaty and impossible to know, although since so many people think that fianna fail has something to do with lisbon you may well be right, unfortunately

DaDumTish wrote: »

as it stands - this gov is doomed to lose again , be booted out of power , and ireland booted out of europe .

the government are not losing, the people of ireland are losing. the government of ireland are not proposing this treaty, the EU is. why does nobody understand that??

DaDumTish wrote: »

if the gov resigns now - we have a chance at rebuilding both the country and our standing in europe
with a fresh gov and a yes vote.

irrelevant to the treaty

DaDumTish wrote: »

so will our gov do its patriotic duty and resign - ? will they fcuk !

so why even bring it up? does that not mean that voting no will do no good?

DaDumTish wrote: »

5/ arent you gone from this thread Sam ?

as i just said, i'm reserving posting for responding to special posts just like this



edit:still waiting for a valid reason to vote no

justcallmetex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

would it now? well jesus if you already know that why even bother having a referendum? why don't we just ask justcallmetex the next time we have to vote on something and save all that hassle.

Best idea I've heard in a long long time but please just call me Tex

whatisayis

Ciaran500 wrote: »

http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/Irelands_Lisbon_Treaty_Tax_Fears_Unfounded_xxxx33419.html
Mark Redmond, Chief Executive of the Irish Taxation Institute welcomed the Irish government's recent re-affirmation of Ireland's 12.5% corporate tax rate, but he also pointed out that the Lisbon Treaty would have allowed Ireland to retain its veto on tax issues, and the treaty would not have forced harmonized EU tax rates on the country.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10009975.shtml
The Irish Taxation Institute (ITI) has said that the report outlined today by EU Commissioner for Taxation, Lászlo Kovács for common corporate taxes in all EU Member States remains “dangerously fuzzy”.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/mccreevy-slams-ec-hidden-tax-plan-655022.html
Mr McCreevy told a business lunch in Dublin the proposal currently under consideration, and due to become Community law next year, is a "sinister" idea that "refuses to die".
It was clear from 50 years of history "and the reality of the institutional continuity of the Commission and its culture" that no matter how often certain proposals might be turned down, the officials sneak them out in different guises, he said.
"What is envisaged by those seeking to foist a CCCTB on Europe is quite different to what appears on the label.
"It is important that member states understand fully what is going on," he said.

Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty, the plan has been put on hold thanks to "Good old Ireland". Pure coincidence?
As a business owner this issue is very important to me. It should also be at least investigated by others because it will have an impact on everyone in Ireland.

[/FONT]

thelordofcheese

justcallmetex wrote: »

Oh but it is a defining trait I'm only going by pan Europen Polls

I just like how people who cry so much at the imagined "EU Fat Cats" are bulling ireland and tell us what to do have no problem telling the rest of the EU what they should do.

Darragh29

Sam Vimes wrote: »

give the government a kick in the nads, i'm all for it. i'll be standing in line behind you. but must you bring the rest of europe into it? can you not find a more appropriate way of doing it that doesn't make it look like we'll make europe grind to a halt every time we have a domestic issue?

I have a HUGE problem with this notion that because we disagree with a treaty for WHATEVER reason, that next thing we know, we have all this stuff apparently taken from us, intangible things like "goodwill" and "solidarity" and all sorts of things that seem to exist only in politicians minds...

I used to work in a place where in order to get promoted or to get anywhere with your career, you had to agree with everything that the management said and did, no dissent was entertained or tolerated, the whole place got by on cosy side deals in back rooms and brown nosing and licking arse to build up "goodwill and "solidarity" with the business management, so that after you had built up enough "goodwill" and other such sh*te with the movers and the shakers, you would be welcomed into the management club.

The way the EU are treating us reminds me of this place I used to work in, which was an absolute hell hole, completely corrupt and rotten to the very core. There was no transparency and nobody was treated objectively, a small number of people won, and the majority of people lost and ultimately the company lost. It got to the stage where no matter what your skill level or ability, if you wanted to get promoted, you had to spend your time building up "goodwill" with your manager. The end result of all of this was that you had a load of bone idle lazy politically enabled b*ll****ters promoted into management and you had a load of very capable and better qualified people who never got anywhere because they hadn't built up "goodwill" with their manager by licking his arse...

What is happening now with Lisbon and how we are being threatened and molested by the EU with talk of "goodwill" being withdrawn and all sorts of isolation being threatened. This brings scary reminders of this past employment experience for me. I've seen the inevitable outcome when the rules as they are on paper go out the window and another set of "unofficial" rules come into play, and this is exactly what is happening here...

We can never ever tolerate an EU that is unable to take no for an answer.

tolosenc

FoldedShirt wrote: »

Let's put it in black and white. Reasons for voting Yes:

32% It was in the best interest of Ireland (vague, doesn't really mean anything. You could argue that 100% of Yes-voters thought it was in our interests and 100% of No-voters thought it wasn't. That's why they voted that way!)

19% Ireland gets a lot of benefit from the EU (nothing to do with Lisbon Treaty)

9% It keeps Ireland fully engaged in Europe (nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty unless by "engaged" people meant further integrated)

9% It will help the Irish economy (nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty)

5% It gives the EU a more effective way of making decisions (the first totally relevant reason, and it's only 5%!)

4% It makes the EU more effective on the global stage (relevant)

A few relevant reasons getting 1-2% such as co-operation on crime etc.

Reasons for voting No:

22% Don't understand and don't want to vote for something I'm not familiar with (legitimate reason - you don't sign a contract you don't understand. It has been argued by some that these people shouldn't have voted)

12% To protect Irish identity (loosely related to the Lisbon Treaty in that it brings about more integration)

6% Neutrality (there was a lot about a military identity/funding for the EU in the Lisbon Treaty, so this probably relates to that as well as neutrality. A valid reason)

6% I do not trust our politicians (irrelevant, although they did write the Treaty)

6% Commissioner (irrelevant)

5% Against unified Europe (probably votes No to all treaties)

4% Protest against government (irrelevant)

4% To avoid an EU that speaks as one on global issues! (relevant)

4% Large EU states decide on EU matters (relevant)

3% Protect the influence of small states (relevant, the same as the reason above just worded differently)

I have no problem with your figures. I question greatly your determination of what is relevant. On this treaty, you vote yes based on the goals and no based on the methods of achieving them. You can agree with the goals and object to some methods, you can disagree with the goals, whatever.

Therefore:

32% It was in the best interest of Ireland (relevant, one of the benefits of a more efficient EU, ie the goal of the treaty)

19% Ireland gets a lot of benefit from the EU (arguable, Lisbon Treaty would increase our voice and possibly allow us to get more out of it. The meaning of this is ambiguous, so I'll take 7% as an allowable valid reason.)

9% It keeps Ireland fully engaged in Europe (relevant, a method of the treaty allows us a greater voice in Europe, therefore fully engaged)

9% It will help the Irish economy (relevant, a more efficient EU means a more prosperous European economy which leads to aiding the ailing Irish economy)

5% It gives the EU a more effective way of making decisions (relevant)

4% It makes the EU more effective on the global stage (relevant)

A few relevant reasons getting 1-2% such as co-operation on crime etc. (relevant)

Reasons for voting No:

22% Don't understand and don't want to vote for something I'm not familiar with (invalid reason - you should find out what your voting on. This isn't the Leaving Cert, you can't just ignore the study and drop down to Foundation level on the day)

12% To protect Irish identity (irrelevant, see Article 4 Paragraph 2)

6% Neutrality (invalid, again see Art 4, Par 2, among others)

6% I do not trust our politicians (irrelevant)

6% Commissioner (irrelevant)

5% Against unified Europe (probably votes No to all treaties)

4% Protest against government (irrelevant)

4% To avoid an EU that speaks as one on global issues! (relevant)

4% Large EU states decide on EU matters (relevant - but wrong/misunderstanding, probably based on lies etc.)

3% Protect the influence of small states (Again wrong, Malta is the state who gains the most leverage in the Lisbon Treaty, Ireland is up there, 3rd or 4th, I think)

Therefore, it's more like this:

(% = %age of those who voted that way in June)
Valid reason for voting yes: 68%
Invalid reason for voting yes: 12% {Where'd the other 20% go}
Valid reason for voting no: 4%
Invalid reason for voting no: 68% {We're missing 28% here}

ShooterSF

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I just like how people who cry so much at the imagined "EU Fat Cats" are bulling ireland and tell us what to do have no problem telling the rest of the EU what they should do.

As much as I respect a lot of the Yes side opinions this one really grates me. We're not telling the rest of the E.U what to do we're looking out for ourselves when making this decision (Is the treaty good for Ireland) if as a consequence it gives them a headache tough. The system is unanimous or nothing, not our fault that's how the system works.
Would you like we just vote yes because the rest want us to?

Sam Vimes

Darragh29 wrote: »

I have a HUGE problem with this notion that because we disagree with a treaty for WHATEVER reason, that next thing we know, we have all this stuff apparently taken from us, intangible things like "goodwill" and "solidarity" and all sorts of things that seem to exist only in politicians minds...

I used to work in a place where in order to get promoted or to get anywhere with your career, you had to agree with everything that the management said and did, no dissent was entertained or tolerated, the whole place got by on cosy side deals in back rooms and brown nosing and licking arse to build up "goodwill and "solidarity" with the business management, so that after you had built up enough "goodwill" and other such sh*te with the movers and the shakers, you would be welcomed into the management club.

The way the EU are treating us reminds me of this place I used to work in, which was an absolute hell hole, completely corrupt and rotten to the very core. There was no transparency and nobody was treated objectively, a small number of people won, and the majority of people lost and ultimately the company lost. It got to the stage where no matter what your skill level or ability, if you wanted to get promoted, you had to spend your time building up "goodwill" with your manager. The end result of all of this was that you had a load of bone idle lazy politically enabled b*ll****ters promoted into management and you had a load of very capable and better qualified people who never got anywhere because they hadn't built up "goodwill" with their manager by licking his arse...

What is happening now with Lisbon and how we are being threatened and molested by the EU with talk of "goodwill" being withdrawn and all sorts of isolation being threatened. This brings scary reminders of this past employment experience for me. I've seen the inevitable outcome when the rules as they are on paper go out the window and another set of "unofficial" rules come into play, and this is exactly what is happening here...

We can never ever tolerate an EU that is unable to take no for an answer.

this situation is absolutely nothing like the above. we voted no and no one could give a valid reason why. the eu needs this treaty so we've been asked to do it again. if we'd been able to give a valid reason why we voted no there would have been talks and negotiations and deals and concessions but we weren't. we just spouted libertas lies and anti-fianna fail bs.

they're treating ireland exactly the way it deserves to be treated. as a country that's holding up the progress of 500 million people and can't quite explain why

ShooterSF

obl wrote: »

6% Commissioner (irrelevant)

I won't nitpick over the rest but how is that irrelevant. The path the commission was taking was very much a part of Lisbon. I don't agree with most No voters on this issue but they did not like the path it was taking.
Hell, it's been changed since so you could argue that this 6 percent wee very relevant.

Just because you don't agree with a person's opinion on how the commission is run does not make their opinion "irrelevant".
FFS.

tolosenc

ShooterSF wrote: »

I won't nitpick over the rest but how is that irrelevant. The path the commission was taking was very much a part of Lisbon. I don't agree with most No voters on this issue but they did not like the path it was taking.
Hell, it's been changed since so you could argue that this 6 percent wee very relevant.

Just because you don't agree with a person's opinion on how the commission is run does not make their opinion "irrelevant".
FFS.

I assumed that 6% was reffering to the loss of a comissioner. That is irrelevant. One we don't have a comissioner, and two, the reduction in the size of the comission was agreed to in Nice. I'm really surprised the EU caved on that one.

thelordofcheese

ShooterSF wrote: »

As much as I respect a lot of the Yes side opinions this one really grates me. We're not telling the rest of the E.U what to do we're looking out for ourselves when making this decision (Is the treaty good for Ireland) if as a consequence it gives them a headache tough. The system is unanimous or nothing, not our fault that's how the system works.
Would you like we just vote yes because the rest want us to?

Well it was more of a dig at people who don't realise the hypocrisy of saying they don't like being told what to do by the EU and that they should stay out of our affairs and then demand that the nations of the EU do as we do and criticize them for the methods by which they ratify treaties.

And you're quite right, the only issue should be "Is the treaty good for Ireland". I say should because that seems to be the furthest thing from many peoples minds.

Darragh29

Sam Vimes wrote: »

this situation is absolutely nothing like the above. we voted no and no one could give a valid reason why. the eu needs this treaty so we've been asked to do it again. if we'd been able to give a valid reason why we voted no there would have been talks and negotiations and deals and concessions but we weren't. we just spouted libertas lies and anti-fianna fail bs.

they're treating ireland exactly the way it deserves to be treated. as a country that's holding up the progress of 500 million people and can't quite explain why

It is exactly identical, I've seen this way of doing things in action before and I can tell you that it ends in abject failure and it is a terribly destructive way of administrating an organisation.

We are not holding up any progress, none whatsoever, this is just another pillar of rubbish that has been fabricated to heap more pressure on us.

Sam Vimes

Darragh29 wrote: »

It is exactly identical, I've seen this way of doing things in action before and I can tell you that it ends in abject failure and it is a terribly destructive way of administrating an organisation.

We are not holding up any progress, none whatsoever, this is just another pillar of rubbish that has been fabricated to heap more pressure on us.

well we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. i think that a treaty that took 5 years and millions to prepare is progress and you think it's a pillar of rubbish. seems we're not going to agree

justcallmetex

And you're quite right, the only issue should be "Is the treaty good for Ireland". I say should because that seems to be the furthest thing from many peoples minds.[/quote]

reality check cheese the Treaty wont be voted on on that basis

FoldedShirt

obl wrote: »

I have no problem with your figures. I question greatly your determination of what is relevant. On this treaty, you vote yes based on the goals and no based on the methods of achieving them. You can agree with the goals and object to some methods, you can disagree with the goals, whatever.

We can agree on that point. Everyone's determination of what is "relevant" depends on whether they view the Treaty in isolation or not. I doubt anyone views it completely in isolation so there would be a sliding scale of "relevance" for pretty much every reason given by that poll for both sides. For example, there isn't anything explicit about immigration in the Treaty, but if you take it as something which enables enlargement of the union, immigration could be argued as a relevant issue. I suspect a lot of those "protect Irish identity" voters were in fact concerned about immigration but not willing to say it.

If you're wondering about the missing 20% on each one, there were several 1-2% reasons such as fighting crime (for Yes) and immigration (for No). There were also quite a few "don't knows" on both sides (it was roughly the same for each). I don't really understand how you could not know why you voted for or against something. I suspect on the No side, some of the "don't knows" were concerned about immigration but unwilling state it (like the identity question). I haven't got a clue what the "don't knows" on the Yes side were thinking, perhaps it was because the local Fianna Fail man told them to vote Yes and they were a little embarassed to admit it.

justcallmetex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. i think that a treaty that took 5 years and millions to prepare is progress and you think it's a pillar of rubbish. seems we're not going to agree

ok so the Nazi's should have been allowed to control europe after all the time effort and money they put into it? Not to mention the fact the believed it's was what was best for Europe

Sam Vimes

justcallmetex wrote: »

ok so the Nazi's should have been allowed to control europe after all the time effort and money they put into it? Not to mention the fact the believed it's was what was best for Europe

godwinned again. i hope with the godwinning the rules of the internet can now keep me away from this thread

thelordofcheese

justcallmetex wrote: »

reality check cheese the Treaty wont be voted on on that basis

I know, oh god how i know.

justcallmetex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

godwinned again. i hope with the godwinning the rules of the internet can now keep me away from this thread

yup about time! Can't be doing with people expressing themselves

justcallmetex

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I know, oh god how i know.

So get used to it.

Darragh29

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. i think that a treaty that took 5 years and millions to prepare is progress and you think it's a pillar of rubbish. seems we're not going to agree

I'm saying that the notion that we are holding everything up is a pilliar of rubbish, not the treaty itself. I think someone has to press the stop button here and as no other country is getting a democratic say, then it falls to us...

i57dwun4yb1pt8

you can keep banging down " irrelevant to the treaty " til your blue in the face mate - but it's completly relevant -

if the gov issues arent dealt with the treaty fails - cos it gets voted down again.



* knock knock *

* opens door*

"Hey , well, if it isnt simple logic - come on in "

justcallmetex

Anyway I'm out a here Sam!! But will be back in a bit

thelordofcheese

justcallmetex wrote: »

So get used to it.

I'd rather not sink to the level of embracing voter ignorance.

Jimpsta

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. i think that a treaty that took 5 years and millions to prepare is progress and you think it's a pillar of rubbish. seems we're not going to agree

You dis-credited yourslef ages ago to anyone who reads the entuire thread. Why dont you give up like you keep saying you are?

Terry

justcallmetex wrote: »

A Europe wide vote would reject the Treaty we're representing those people

Really?

justcallmetex wrote: »

Oh but it is a defining trait I'm only going by pan Europen Polls

Proof?

All I'm seeing is conjecture here and no proof whatsoever.

briantwin

I think that people being nthe stubbourn crettins they are willo vote No again even after all of the concessions and legally binding assurances just because they'd hate to be proven wrong. People voting no to piss off the government are the worst kind of fool. Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face. As far as im concerned this should never have gone to a referendum in the first place, if the was Ireland building nuclear weapons or something of the like it would not be put to your typical potato munching irish people. Some decisions have to be made on our behalf.

Does anyone have any genuine reasons to vote no that you havent memorised off a Libertas flyer?

Sam Vimes

Jimpsta wrote: »

You dis-credited yourslef ages ago to anyone who reads the entuire thread. Why dont you give up like you keep saying you are?

you see now i can't just let a statement like that go. twice now you've said i discredited myself and haven't given anything to back that statement up. how did i discredit myself? what are you talking about?

edit: or are you just flinging mud in the hope that something will stick?


declan?

Jimpsta

Sam Vimes wrote: »

godwinned again. i hope with the godwinning the rules of the internet can now keep me away from this thread

If you are the kind of person who supports restriction of websites or in fact would support an internet where only government approved websites are allowed to exist then you, my enemy, would be better off leaving this thread and actually fulfill your own empty threats which you place upon yourself.

It seems you want the wrath of someone to dictate to you, whether it be yourself or someone else.

EDIT - Or - Maybe you dont support it... If you dont then dis-regard the above post