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

Ciaran500

Ckal wrote: »

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

Just as a matter of interest what good points do you see for the no side? None of their points convinced me.

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

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.

I dealt with Article 113 in post No.1531, 2 pages back.

It specifically refers to Indirect taxes eg. VAT, VRT etc. They've had the power to change these for years and still we have VRT.

Again, the EU does not have jurisdiction over Direct taxes like Corporation tax and PAYE.

The relevance in my post is, prostitution is a legal service in Holland. By your argument, it should be made a service everywhere in the EU, by competition policy, exactly the same way you argue Corporation tax can be changed.

As regards your link provided, I'm not in anyway shocked. CCTB is old news. I'm still surprised people get so hot and bothered over this. The Commission can propose all they want, the power is with the Member States, who are largely in support of sovereignty over Direct taxes.

What happens proposals from the Commission?

Ckal wrote: »

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

People who are opposed to it tick the No box!

As regards people voting for the Treaty because they are FF supporters etc. well it wouldn't be my ideal but I suppose if you trust somebody enough to vote for them in a General Election to represent you, many will trust the same candidate or party on the Treaty. In fact, it has been very common throughout Referenda.

Darragh29

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest what good points do you see for the no side? None of their points convinced me.

Where is the benefit to us if we got this thing in??? And I don't want to hear wishy washy sentiments about "European efficiency" or "goodwill generation"...

What will go better for us under Lisbon???

Tar.Aldarion

At present the European Council and the Council of Ministers gather behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon Treaty the Councils must meet in the open providing valuable transparency. Another thing is the way the voting system will work, which I think is better for us. Third it enforces european competition laws for any privitised companies which is good. Up to now public companies which have been privatised have been able to use a loophole to avoid playing by the same rules as the rest of the private sector. This treaty states that all privatised companies must follow all competition law. As far as I can see there are only good things in this treaty, nothing too special for Ireland, but nothing bad.

RoosterIllusion

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I for one welcome another 11Billion threads full of people who can't be bothered to research the issue at hand giving out about how they'll vote 'No' to stick it to the 'gubberment'. May death come swiftly to their enemies.

yay!

meglome

I've said this already over in politics but anyhoo.

I'm not against the EU and I think the EU has been very good for us. So I'd be inclined to vote yes in the re-run.

But...

The consensus amongst the Yes voters from the first vote appears to be that the No voters were ignorant and didn't know what they were doing. I really have a problem with that stance, it's arrogant, doesn't face the full reality and honestly is likely to cause more people to vote No. I would argue it's better to vote no on an important treaty you don't understand than to vote yes. Many people voted yes to this treaty and didn't understand it at all, same as the No's. However it seems it's democratic to keep voting on a treaty until you get the result the government wants but there's no chance of a rerun if it was a close Yes vote. Democracy as long as it suits the Yes side?.

There's every chance that there will be a bigger No vote the next time unless the Yes campaign and the government change their attitudes.

walshb

Seanies32 wrote: »

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!





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



Indeed, at last, sense!

You asked for statistics. I gave you them. What's the problem?

Toiletroll

Seanies32 wrote: »

I dealt with Article 113 in post No.1531, 2 pages back.

It specifically refers to Indirect taxes eg. VAT, VRT etc. They've had the power to change these for years and still we have VRT.

Again, the EU does not have jurisdiction over Direct taxes like Corporation tax and PAYE.

The relevance in my post is, prostitution is a legal service in Holland. By your argument, it should be made a service everywhere in the EU, by competition policy, exactly the same way you argue Corporation tax can be changed.

As regards your link provided, I'm not in anyway shocked. CCTB is old news. I'm still surprised people get so hot and bothered over this. The Commission can propose all they want, the power is with the Member States, who are largely in support of sovereignty over Direct taxes.

What happens proposals from the Commission?



People who are opposed to it tick the No box!

As regards people voting for the Treaty because they are FF supporters etc. well it wouldn't be my ideal but I suppose if you trust somebody enough to vote for them in a General Election to represent you, many will trust the same candidate or party on the Treaty. In fact, it has been very common throughout Referenda.

Dont the government just pay the fines for breaking the EU free trade policy because the profits they make from it far outweigh the cost of the fine?

Essentially the same as the RTE advertising fines which they pay to the EU...

you wonder where our money goes? it goes back the fvcking EU via their fines for us breaking their rules on taxes and procedures deemed against EU policy.

Why the fzck dont the EU put the fines up in incriments every year to make them less affordable to eliminate the problems?? Because the like taking all our money too much!!!

K-9

meglome wrote: »

I've said this already over in politics but anyhoo.

I'm not against the EU and I think the EU has been very good for us. So I'd be inclined to vote yes in the re-run.

But...

The consensus amongst the Yes voters from the first vote appears to be that the No voters were ignorant and didn't know what they were doing. I really have a problem with that stance, it's arrogant, doesn't face the full reality and honestly is likely to cause more people to vote No. I would argue it's better to vote no on an important treaty you don't understand than to vote yes. Many people voted yes to this treaty and didn't understand it at all, same as the No's. However it seems it's democratic to keep voting on a treaty until you get the result the government wants but there's no chance of a rerun if it was a close Yes vote. Democracy as long as it suits the Yes side?.

There's every chance that there will be a bigger No vote the next time unless the Yes campaign and the government change their attitudes.

Some Yes voters I'd say have that attitude just as some No voters think many Yes voters are selling the country to Europe. Annoying, but I tend to ignore know it alls on both sides.

As regards democracy, it's unlikely there will be another vote if it's No again either. Then there will be a Croatian Treaty which if it's anyway similar will probably be voted No on. That is when we have to decide what to do next, not the EU.

walshb wrote: »

You asked for statistics. I gave you them. What's the problem?

Grand, people you have spoken too. You seem to think that is statistical and logical proof. Fair enough, think you should state this when talking about them. I though I'd missed out on some opinion polls there.

Toiletroll wrote: »

Dont the government just pay the fines for breaking the EU free trade policy because the profits they make from it far outweigh the cost of the fine?

Essentially the same as the RTE advertising fines which they pay to the EU...

you wonder where our money goes? it goes back the fvcking EU via their fines for us breaking their rules on taxes and procedures deemed against EU policy.

Why the fzck dont the EU put the fines up in incriments every year to make them less affordable to eliminate the problems?? Because the like taking all our money too much!!!

Them's the breaks for breaking the rules that you have agreed to I suppose!

walshb

Seanies32 wrote: »

Grand, people you have spoken too. You seem to think that is statistical and logical proof. Fair enough, think you should state this when talking about them. I though I'd missed out on some opinion polls there.



Them's the breaks for breaking the rules that you have agreed to I suppose!

You asked and I gave you them. I also added in my initial post that if you were looking for some fancy poll or survey to prove or disprove that one side knew more than the other etc; then you cannot find one and none provide any proof. The statistics are MINE, from my speaking and experience.

So, it is statistical and logical proof, maybe not to your liking; but decisive nonetheless!

Valmont

walshb wrote: »

The statistics are MINE, from my speaking and experience.

So, it is statistical and logical proof, maybe not to your liking; but decisive nonetheless!

Ah now, come on. They are not statistics, not in the slightest. Your speaking and experience does not count unfortunately. Just admit you have ZERO statistics.

walshb

Valmont wrote: »

Ah now, come on. They are not statistics, not in the slightest. Your speaking and experience does not count unfortunately. Just admit you have ZERO statistics.

Lets be real here, seeing as everyone always wants proof and back up etc. They are MY statistics. I wasn't asked for a TYPE; just statistics.

I gave them and now they are NOT worthy?:rolleyes:#

Please define exactly what is wanted?
Maybe because there exists NO official poll or
survey to prove anything is why MY statistics were given!

Ckal

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest what good points do you see for the no side? None of their points convinced me.

The point about the European president not being elected by the people of Europe. This would satisfy me and a lot of No voters, and it would make a lot of people in Europe happy that they have a say. Obviously, the current weighting system would help. I also have a problem with the new weighting system, which apparently won't come into affect until 2014. If it's in this treaty, it should be "activated", if you will, instead of being held off for 6 years due to a small hiccup within the EU.

Seanies32 wrote: »

People who are opposed to it tick the No box!

As regards people voting for the Treaty because they are FF supporters etc. well it wouldn't be my ideal but I suppose if you trust somebody enough to vote for them in a General Election to represent you, many will trust the same candidate or party on the Treaty. In fact, it has been very common throughout Referenda.

The other people of Europe don't have any boxes to tick. Their own Government just decide what they think is right for their country without any consultation to the people which this treaty will affect the most.

Voting Yes for Lisbon because you trust your politicians is just as bad as No voters voting because they didn't understand it. It's "ignorant", as you guys call it.

walshb

Ckal wrote: »

Voting Yes for Lisbon because you trust your politicians is just as bad as No voters voting because they didn't understand it. It's "ignorant", as you guys call it.

A point wasted on many on this thread!

K-9

walshb wrote: »

Lets be real here, seeing as everyone always wants proof and back up etc. They are MY statistics. I wasn't asked for a TYPE; just statistics.

I gave them and now they are NOT worthy?:rolleyes:#

Please define exactly what is wanted?
Maybe because there exists NO official poll or
survey to prove anything is why MY statistics were given!

Well, if you had said that the people I have met who didn't understand the Treaty were evenly split that would have sufficed.

IMO you were overplaying your hand!

Ckal wrote: »

The point about the European president not being elected by the people of Europe. This would satisfy me and a lot of No voters, and it would make a lot of people in Europe happy that they have a say. Obviously, the current weighting system would help. I also have a problem with the new weighting system, which apparently won't come into affect until 2014. If it's in this treaty, it should be "activated", if you will, instead of being held off for 6 years due to a small hiccup within the EU.

I don't think an EU Presidential election would work practically. You could end up with 27 candidates and the weighting system could be a logistical nightmare.

Ckal wrote:

The other people of Europe don't have any boxes to tick. Their own Government just decide what they think is right for their country without any consultation to the people which this treaty will affect the most.

I agree, but Referenda are the exceptions on EU Matters, always have been. They are subject to each countries Constitution, which in our exceptional case, requires a Referenda. There have been court challenges to have Referenda but they've failed.

Ckal wrote:

Voting Yes for Lisbon because you trust your politicians is just as bad as No voters voting because they didn't understand it. It's "ignorant", as you guys call it.

Yep, never said otherwise, just outlined the logic behind it. I will borrow Walshbs statistical model and say the majority of voters on EU Referenda often don't understand the issues.

walshb wrote: »

A point wasted on many on this thread!

Nope, you just seem to ignore Yes voters when they say many Yes voters didn't understand it.

walshb

Seanies32 wrote: »

Well, if you had said that the people I have met who didn't understand the Treaty were evenly split that would have sufficed.

IMO you were overplaying your hand!














Nope, you just seem to ignore Yes voters when they say many Yes voters didn't understand it.

Now, you are simply using semantics.

Bottom line is that the treaty was NOT understood by a pretty equal number of YES&NO voters. It was also understood by a pretty equal number of YES&NO voters.

Following?

Now, those who decided to vote NO based on ignorance and non understanding was pretty equal to those who voted YES and didn't understand.

Those who voted NO and understood was pretty equal to those who voted YES
and understood; and the final little variable is that those who voted YES equalled those who voted NO, as regards 'YES MEN' (Pro government no matter what) and 'SPITE MEN,' (NO to piss off the Government)

This is not hard, it is logic and probability and saying this, had all voters abstained
thru 'ignorance,' I would imagine a NO would still have prevailed!

Please, you show me any polls or surveys or statistics to prove otherwise!

Ckal

Seanies32 wrote: »

I don't think an EU Presidential election would work practically. You could end up with 27 candidates and the weighting system could be a logistical nightmare.

But how about the EU nominate, let's say, 6 presidential candidates and then the citizens of Europe vote for the one they like (and/or agree with) the most? I kinda wasn't hoping that 27 candidates would run :P

K-9

walshb wrote: »

Now, you are simply using semantics.

Bottom line is that the treaty was NOT understood by a pretty equal number of YES&NO voters. It was also understood by a pretty equal number of YES&NO voters.

Following?

Now, those who decided to vote NO based on ignorance and non understanding was pretty equal to those who voted YES and didn't understand.

Those who voted NO and understood was pretty equal to those who voted YES
and understood; and the final little variable is that those who voted YES equalled those who voted NO, as regards 'YES MEN' (Pro government no matter what) and 'SPITE MEN,' (NO to piss off the Government)

This is not hard, it is logic and probability and saying this, had all voters abstained
thru 'ignorance,' I would imagine a NO would still have prevailed!

Please, you show me any polls or surveys or statistics to prove otherwise!

Are you still going on about this? I accept that the above is your opinion based on personal observations, ok.

and the final little variable is that those who voted YES equalled those who voted NO, as regards 'YES MEN' (Pro government no matter what) and 'SPITE MEN,' (NO to piss off the Government)

I'd say far more YES MEN than SPITE MEN, but as you say, I've NO statistics or information to back it up! It's my personal opinion, not statistical based analysis!

But hey, keep digging!

Ckal wrote: »

But how about the EU nominate, let's say, 6 presidential candidates and then the citizens of Europe vote for the one they like (and/or agree with) the most? I kinda wasn't hoping that 27 candidates would run :P

Who and how do they pick the 6 candidates to avoid allegations of bias and accusations of this or that country being too powerful?

I wonder what the voter turn out would be in Ireland on an EU Presidential election with No Irish candidates?

WooPeeA

SligoBrewer wrote: »

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?

Did Ireland said NO to the Treaty? I don't think so.

They voted NO to reasons unknown even to them. Those reasons had nothing to do with the Treaty.

WooPeeA

Darragh29 wrote: »

Where is the benefit to us if we got this thing in??? And I don't want to hear wishy washy sentiments about "European efficiency" or "goodwill generation"...

What will go better for us under Lisbon???

- Power in hands of elected people

- Protection from other member states

- Help from other member states in the case of natural catastrophe

- Less bureaucracy in EU

- Strong position on international stage

- Better co-operation

- Strong role of EU Parliament, elected directly by people

- National parliaments will have greater opportunities to be involved in the work of the EU

- Effective decision-making

- Charter of Fundamental Rights


...and many many more.

walshb

Seanies32 wrote: »

Are you still going on about this? I accept that the above is your opinion based on personal observations, ok.

Says the person who keeps questioning my posts and statistics?:rolleyes:

utick

looking at the poll it looks like its going to be another no vote, by a bigger margin this time.

looks like we are going to see some more democracy

Highsider

utick wrote: »

looking at the poll it looks like its going to be another no vote, by a bigger margin this time.

looks like we are going to see some more democracy

Yeah most polls around the country have the no vote ahead by a distance alright. It's going to take a massive effort by the goverment to turn that figure around and you know what i don't think they have it in them to make that effort.

passive

I think the government should step down and hold a general election 6 months before the treaty. Then people can vote without ousting Fianna Fail in mind. It's just a pity that the future of Ireland and Europe will take the back seat to self-serving politicians unwilling to admit defeat.

Darragh29

passive wrote: »

I think the government should step down and hold a general election 6 months before the treaty. Then people can vote without ousting Fianna Fail in mind. It's just a pity that the future of Ireland and Europe will take the back seat to self-serving politicians unwilling to admit defeat.

If they do that, they'll get a yes vote to Lisbon from me! I'll happily trade my voting preference for a say on this government...

Darragh29

WooPeeA wrote: »

- Charter of Fundamental Rights

Would this be the same charter of fundamantal rights that the privileged elite in Ibec, (who are urging us to vote yes to Lisbon by the way), have stated that they will ignore, (notwithstanding the fact that they want Lisbon to be ratified by this constituency!), because it advocates rights to collective bargaining???

http://www.amcham.ie/download/import..._executive.pdf

And I quote from the above document:

The ICTU met on the 17th April and voted overwhelmingly to enter new national talks on pay and workplace issues. The
unions have set out their priorities for any forthcoming Agreement which include movement on trade union recognition,
treatment of temporary Agency Workers as well as the promised Employment Rights Compliance Bill.
The American Chamber of Commerce have clearly spelled out that any form of statutory Trade Union Recognition would not
be acceptable as part of any new Agreement.

Can someone possibly explain to me how this statement can be reconciled with the charter of fundamental rights as set out in the Lisbon Treaty???

[Jackass]

I'm going to vote exactly the same way as I did before, which was yes, but I would expect everyone to do the exact same and vote the same as last time so it should be a NO again.

I supported it but if the people's opinion wont be respected it tempts me to vote no.

Oswald Osbourne

In the interest of saving the country €€€ during time of recession they should double up Lisbon2 with a general election. What dya think to that suggestion Biffo?

Darragh29

[Jackass] wrote: »

I'm going to vote exactly the same way as I did before, which was yes, but I would expect everyone to do the exact same and vote the same as last time so it should be a NO again.

I supported it but if the people's opinion wont be respected it tempts me to vote no.

And when they tell us after we vote no again that they will hold a 3rd referendum, will you vote yes again??? At what point do you sit down and say, "hang on a minute here, someone is trying to take the p*ss outa me???"

rhapsody!

I think it's funny that even though the majority said no to the treaty they still think they can go off to the EU when they're in trouble with something and expect something to be done about it.

That's all I'm contributing to this thread.