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

K-9

No mention of direct taxation there. On the plus side, our high VAT rates, VRT and high excise duties on alcohol and cigarettes could be reduced.

Vote No to Lisbon to avoid higher Cancer rates and more Alcoholism.

PS. Why didn't the No side do posters on this, HELL, at least it is in the Treaty!

whatisayis

obl wrote: »

Terry/other mods, can I be locked out of this thread? I really want to have nothing more to do with it.

As far as I know, you don't yet have to ask permission to stay or leave. Is this yet another hiddden agenda in the Lisbon Treaty? Go on, be brave and think for yourself. You can't always depend on others to make your decisions!

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

As far as I know, you don't yet have to ask permission to stay or leave. Is this yet another hiddden agenda in the Lisbon Treaty? Go on, be brave and think for yourself. You can't always depend on others to make your decisions!

LOL, but if Ireland wants to leave there is an established mechanism to do so in Lisbon.

whatisayis

quote=Seanies32;58331454]LOL, but if Ireland wants to leave there is an established mechanism to do so in Lisbon.[/quote]
Sorry Seanie, have been out all day. In the european context that means I'm tired but in the Irish context it means I'm wrecked! Won't demean your comments by trying to respond now. Is it only one o'clock?
I must be getting old!

tolosenc

whatisayis wrote: »

As far as I know, you don't yet have to ask permission to stay or leave. Is this yet another hiddden agenda in the Lisbon Treaty? Go on, be brave and think for yourself. You can't always depend on others to make your decisions!

This thread is both compulsive and annoying. Hence I want to be forced into cold turkey. I dunnay have the wull poower, cap'n.

whatisayis

obl wrote: »

This thread is both compulsive and annoying. Hence I want to be forced into cold turkey. I dunnay have the wull poower, cap'n.

!

K-9

obl wrote: »

This thread is both compulsive and annoying. Hence I want to be forced into cold turkey. I dunnay have the wull poower, cap'n.

Don't look up the Politics section then! Groundhog day!

lucozader

the neck on the government and eurioe asking use to vote again

i am going to vote no

the government are liars

walshb

andrew wrote: »

To say that if ignorant voters on both sides abstained then a No would've been returned is stupidly presumptious.




.

Presumptuous? How?

It's a prediction mate. I am not saying a definite; but I would say that on both sides there was pretty equal ignorance and pretty equal knowledge; logically, I would then say that if ignorance was discounted, 'NO' would still prevail. It's got nothing to do with presumption or stupidity. It has to do with logic and statistics and probability!

K-9

walshb wrote: »

Presumptuous? How?

It's a prediction mate. I am not saying a definite; but I would say that on both sides there was pretty equal ignorance and pretty equal knowledge; logically, I would then say that if ignorance was discounted, 'NO' would still prevail. It's got nothing to do with presumption or stupidity. It has to do with logic and statistics and probability!

What is your logic, statistic and probabilities then ?

Look, we know Voters were told by the No campaign to vote No if you don't understand. Estimates say it could be as high as 30/40%.

There is nothing wrong with that. Same as there is nothing wrong in not understanding it but going with the opinion of your TD that you elected to represent you in a General Election. The No campaign counteracted that with Vote No if you don't understand slogan.

walshb

Seanies32 wrote: »

What is your logic, statistic and probabilities then ?

Look, we know Voters were told by the No campaign to vote No if you don't understand. Estimates say it could be as high as 30/40%.

There is nothing wrong with that. Same as there is nothing wrong in not understanding it but going with the opinion of your TD that you elected to represent you in a General Election. The No campaign counteracted that with Vote No if you don't understand slogan.

You answer a question with a question?

The statistics showed that a pretty equal amount knew nothing and voted and a pretty equal amount knew something and voted. It's bloody self
explanatory. So, logic suggests that if all was equal on both sides, removing the persons who knew nothing will leave those who knew something; hence, the vote is more than likely STILL a NO vote! Add in those who voted NO because the NO side said so and add in those who voted YES because the YES side said so. It evens itself out no matter what spin you put on it!

I don't see what is hard to fathom from this!

ShooterSF

obl wrote: »

This thread is both compulsive and annoying. Hence I want to be forced into cold turkey. I dunnay have the wull poower, cap'n.

Agreed. I was hoping it would be moved to the politics forum ages ago. I drag myself out of there and back to the easy going fun loving AH forum only to get stuck in this thread.

Poor work mods tut tut :pac: (joking by the way just in case)

doonothing

The tags are fuuunneee
I wish the op hadn't omitted "yo"
That's all the input I wanna make

K-9

walshb wrote: »

You answer a question with a question?

The statistics showed that a pretty equal amount knew nothing and voted and a pretty equal amount knew something and voted. It's bloody self
explanatory. So, logic suggests that if all was equal on both sides, removing the persons who knew nothing will leave those who knew something; hence, the vote is more than likely STILL a NO vote! Add in those who voted NO because the NO side said so and add in those who voted YES because the YES side said so. It evens itself out no matter what spin you put on it!

I don't see what is hard to fathom from this!

Nope, you answered a question that you have statistics, logic and probability. Any chance of a source for these statistics?

doonothing

walshb wrote: »

You answer a question with a question?

You answer a question with a question with the question "You answer a question with a question?"?

Sorry

Pegasus15

Gonna be honest, I haven't read this thread in full. Just saw it there and had to post this.

If we had have votted yes originally, would the no camp have been allowed a re-vote? I doubt it. So what makes the yes camp think that they should be allowed make us vote again?

I hope to God it comes out as a no again, but I somehow can't help feel that we're just going to keep voting until we vote yes.

walshb

Seanies32 wrote: »

Nope, you answered a question that you have statistics, logic and probability. Any chance of a source for these statistics?

Yes, any persons I spoke to told me they knew and didn't know and the amount was pretty equal on the know and did not know side!

Taking those statistics, I applied logic and probability and came to the conclusion, that had the 'ignorant' voters on BOTH sides abstained, 'NO' still, OR more than likely (as nothing is a certainty with probability) would have prevailed

Is that OK for you, or were you looking for more detailed and documented stats? Like say, RTE polls or 'Independent.ie' polls, etc?

Because, if you were, there are no polls or stats to show that one side was more knowledgeable than the other or that one side voted shrewdly and the other ignorantly. There are NO polls or
proof for any of this. Therefore, it is my assertion, from my experience and my speaking to many folks, that the sides were pretty damn equal!

walshb

Out of curiosity, should the YES vote be again rejected, what will the excuse be?

That we knew too much?:rolleyes:

BravoSierra

I would have thought the first no should have sufficed. Doesn't the second run through basically say to the public "we think you got it wrong the first time".

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Long time No campaigner, from when I can remember EU Referenda.

New consolidated EU treaties incorporating Lisbon Article 113 (ex Article 93 TEC below): "The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition."
Existing Treaty on European Community Article 93:"The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonization of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market within the time limit laid down in Article 14."

PS. Yep, 9 countries can form a club and decide they want tax harmonisation. Again, it's a little unlikely Ireland would be in that if it involved raising our Corporation tax rate!

The Irish Independent June 07 2008
The Irish Independent has seen copies of the agenda prepared for the July 2 meeting of the European Commission's 'Competitiveness Council'. It shows the plans have now developed to the point that Laszlo Kovacs, the EU Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, and the main driver of the tax harmonisation plans, was due to give a presentation on the subject to the Council.
A Commission spokesman confirmed that the item has been removed from the latest edition of the agenda. One source said it was specifically taken off because of sensitivities over the Irish poll on the treaty.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fears-as-french-to-push-for-taxrate-harmony-1401314.html

As I've been saying, the reasoning that will be used to push through this proposal will be based on 'distortion of competition' through Article 116.
Using the ordinary legislative procedures in Article 294 which has a provision added that removes the need for unanimity at the final stage.
That explains why the proposal was 'put on ice' 'thanks to good old Ireland' several days after the Irish vote.

WooPeeA

<3BeingIN6th wrote: »

IWait. So elected representatives are the unelected elite.
I see. This is highly interesting stuff.

Would they be in the same boat as the TDs MEPs Town councillors unelected people that libertas refer to in their propaganda?
Libertas, a body headed by an English born man who is currently the CEO of a US military defence contractor, who will lose money if oil is traded in Euros.
A man who has ties to an institute with ties to Richard Nixon.
A man who has military contracts with the Pentagon.
A man who owns a company whose agenda is to carry on the business of a European political party.
A man who is quite rich, but unelected.

Yeah. Let's listen to him.

I oppose Libertas and their weird ideology. I just want power in the hands of Parliament.

WooPeeA

DaDumTish wrote: »

I too will be voting NO so this government is taken out ,

if thats what it takes to get rid of them then fine so be it .

this bunch of morons WILL FALL if lisbon 2 is no again .

The government won't fall if lisbon 2 is no again. The government will fall if you go and vote for another party during next elections.

Don't put the Treaty into that.

SligoBrewer

WooPeeA wrote: »

The government won't fall if lisbon 2 is no again. The government will fall if you go and vote for another party during next elections.

Don't put the Treaty into that.

The position of the current government would be untenable if there was another no vote. They might be re-elected in yes, but it should force a general election.

K-9

doonothing wrote: »

You answer a question with a question with the question "You answer a question with a question?"?

Sorry

Indeed LOL, Thought I misread there!

Pegasus15 wrote: »

Gonna be honest, I haven't read this thread in full. Just saw it there and had to post this.

If we had have voted yes originally, would the no camp have been allowed a re-vote? I doubt it. So what makes the yes camp think that they should be allowed make us vote again?

I hope to God it comes out as a no again, but I somehow can't help feel that we're just going to keep voting until we vote yes.

Difference is, if you vote YES, you are accepting and assenting to an International Treaty. Voting No, you are Not. So, you mighn't like it, but Yes, there is nothing illegal or undemocratic with asking again.

You mighn't like it, so tick the No vote box that is there. Very democratic mechanism that!

walshb wrote: »

Yes, any persons I spoke to told me they knew and didn't know and the amount was pretty equal on the know and did not know side!

Taking those statistics, I applied logic and probability and came to the conclusion, that had the 'ignorant' voters on BOTH sides abstained, 'NO' still, OR more than likely (as nothing is a certainty with probability) would have prevailed

Is that OK for you, or were you looking for more detailed and documented stats? Like say, RTE polls or 'Independent.ie' polls, etc?

Because, if you were, there are no polls or stats to show that one side was more knowledgeable than the other or that one side voted shrewdly and the other ignorantly. There are NO polls or
proof for any of this. Therefore, it is my assertion, from my experience and my speaking to many folks, that the sides were pretty damn equal!

Where is the Logic and statistics you spoke of? Not in your posts anyway!

Did you speak to the whole of Ireland or a large, representatitive sample. Is your sample representative of voters?

I think you've been caught out there, but sure you'll probably deny and convince yourself of a conspiracy!

As regards the YES Side knowing more than NO Voters, please point out were I said that. It is easy, it's on this thread from your quote, not in the Treaty, so go on!

EDIT. I only joined this thread yesterday. Not too hard to find my posts

In my experience many No voters voted on scare mongering from Libertas and Coir. Very effective campaigns and posters they have.

Vote no if you don't understand was class!

EG. Corporation Tax has been disproved on this thread but Damn it, it wasn't on a poster!

walshb wrote: »

Out of curiosity, should the YES vote be again rejected, what will the excuse be?

That we knew too much?:rolleyes:

Ach, do you really think there'll be a 3rd vote?

whatisayis wrote: »

The Irish Independent June 07 2008
The Irish Independent has seen copies of the agenda prepared for the July 2 meeting of the European Commission's 'Competitiveness Council'. It shows the plans have now developed to the point that Laszlo Kovacs, the EU Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, and the main driver of the tax harmonisation plans, was due to give a presentation on the subject to the Council.
A Commission spokesman confirmed that the item has been removed from the latest edition of the agenda. One source said it was specifically taken off because of sensitivities over the Irish poll on the treaty.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fears-as-french-to-push-for-taxrate-harmony-1401314.html

As I've been saying, the reasoning that will be used to push through this proposal will be based on 'distortion of competition' through Article 116.
Using the ordinary legislative procedures in Article 294 which has a provision added that removes the need for unanimity at the final stage.
That explains why the proposal was 'put on ice' 'thanks to good old Ireland' several days after the Irish vote.

So if IRELAND Puts a paper for Abortion for all, should everybody get up in arms?

If Holland wants Legalised Prostitution should we all go mad and say Prostitution will be legalised everywhere?

SligoBrewer wrote: »

The position of the current government would be untenable if there was another no vote. They might be re-elected in yes, but it should force a general election.

Indeed, at last, sense!

SligoBrewer

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, at last, sense!

I demand both thanks and a vote.
****ing voting age bollocks.

WooPeeA

SligoBrewer wrote: »

The position of the current government would be untenable if there was another no vote. They might be re-elected in yes, but it should force a general election.

If that was some inside law referendum, do whatever you want. But it's not inside law referendum, it's inter-national referendum with interest of 27 countries and half of billion people.

And now those 500 million people will have to suffer because of internal problems of some country, a problems about which they don't even know.

SligoBrewer

WooPeeA wrote: »

If that was some inside law referendum, do whatever you want. But it's not inside law referendum, it's inter-national referendum with interest of 27 countries and half of billion people.

And now those 500 million people will have to suffer because of internal problems of some country, a problems about which they don't even know.

You make it sound like a famine is going to break out if a No vote happens.:rolleyes:
Suffer my arse.

And if we vote no (as we already did), are they gonna come back again? We can't be kicked out of Europe for just standing our ground. It'll continue they way it is now. And for an international referendum to pass, all countries have to agree to it. If one doesn't it should die. We have already said no, and yet it's not dead. How?

I haven't said which way I'm voting btw.

K-9

Well similar to the UK and many others with the EURO, We say move along lads, we're staying here.

We're opting out here, way yous go on ahead!

Others would prefer we hold the rest to ransom after a second, third etc. vote.

If we keep voting No eg. on the Croatian treaty, well it's time to decide were we are in Europe, rather than Europe deciding what to do with us!

whatisayis

whatisayis wrote: »

The Irish Independent June 07 2008
The Irish Independent has seen copies of the agenda prepared for the July 2 meeting of the European Commission's 'Competitiveness Council'. It shows the plans have now developed to the point that Laszlo Kovacs, the EU Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, and the main driver of the tax harmonisation plans, was due to give a presentation on the subject to the Council.
A Commission spokesman confirmed that the item has been removed from the latest edition of the agenda. One source said it was specifically taken off because of sensitivities over the Irish poll on the treaty.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fears-as-french-to-push-for-taxrate-harmony-1401314.html

As I've been saying, the reasoning that will be used to push through this proposal will be based on 'distortion of competition' through Article 116.
Using the ordinary legislative procedures in Article 294 which has a provision added that removes the need for unanimity at the final stage.
That explains why the proposal was 'put on ice' 'thanks to good old Ireland' several days after the Irish vote.

Seanies32 wrote: »

So if IRELAND Puts a paper for Abortion for all, should everybody get up in arms?

If Holland wants Legalised Prostitution should we all go mad and say Prostitution will be legalised everywhere?

I don't see the relevance to my post in your response but, just for the record, I would be pro-choice and if legalising prostitution would lead to increased safety and health for the women (or men) involved then why shouldn't it be legalised?
I do want to thank you for introducing me to Anthony Coughlan. I had never heard of him before so I checked him out. He argues that corporate tax will be fought under Article 113 whereas I think it will be 116. As he is a professor in Trinty College his intellectual qualifications are superior to mine. But it doesn't mean I agree with him for that reason alone. I am going to try to contact him by email and ask him for his opinion on my theory. I will post his reply here if and when I receive one. So, there I will let the matter rest for the time being.

Ckal

WooPeeA wrote: »

And now those 500 million people will have to suffer because of internal problems of some country, a problems about which they don't even know.

What about the people who don't want this treaty passed? There are a lot of people opposed to it... so they should 'suffer' instead?

I don't think that argument would have any legs if put to the people of Europe.

Just for the record, I totally understand where people are coming from as regards some No voters voting against the Government etc.. But I also understand the no voter argument against Yes voters voting yes because they like FF or because they hate SF.

I don't know what to vote for now. There are good points on both sides. Maybe I shouldn't vote? :P