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

Mrmoe

One of the things that depresses me more is that most of the main stream political parties all supported the same side. If each elected representative was allowed voice their own opinion on the matter then we might get more debate and people who voted no last time might then be convinced to vote yes. If this was to happen I believe that we would get a more reasoned debate. It time our elected representatives were let of the leash and make their arguments to us to vote yes or no. More opposition (from main stream sources) might seem strange but it could be exactly the type of discourse that could prompt a yes vote. Even if there was another no vote I would be more satisfied that our Republic was alive and healthy.

Darragh29

WooPeeA wrote: »

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.

It's nothing less than scary that someone can be of this view. Even the losers of this campaign/government can accept that Ireland said NO to Lisbon...

Ckal

rhapsody! wrote: »

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.

'No' voters are rejecting a text. They aren't rejecting Europe.

I think most 'No' voters are pro-EU, but they don't agree what was put in front of them.

WooPeeA

Darragh29 wrote: »

It's nothing less than scary that someone can be of this view. Even the losers of this campaign/government can accept that Ireland said NO to Lisbon...

Officially yes, but we all know the reasons behind them.

walshb

[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.

Mate, I would personally vote NO even if I voted YES the first time to send a clear message that the people should be respected.

That's just me!

walshb

Darragh29 wrote: »

It's nothing less than scary that someone can be of this view. Even the losers of this campaign/government can accept that Ireland said NO to Lisbon...

but the GOVT did NOT accept the NO vote. That's why we're voting again. I thought this was glaringly obvious!:(

Michael39

nay.

Flesh Gorden

scrap vrt and they'll have my vote

passive

Flesh Gorden wrote: »

scrap vrt and they'll have my vote

There is no emoticon for what I'm feeling...


oh, wait.. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Voting on stuff; YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

the-island-man

Ckal wrote: »

'No' voters are rejecting a text. They aren't rejecting Europe.

I think most 'No' voters are pro-EU, but they don't agree what was put in front of them.

Well i voted NO because i was rejecting Europe in its current form! People don't have enough of a say in Europe at the moment plus there are too many laws or "directives" as the E.U like to put it!

the-island-man

rhapsody! wrote: »

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.

Why wouldn't we expect something to be done otherwise the E.U would be discriminating against Ireland merely because we exercised our democratic right?!

epictetus2009

I think your opening header before a person votes may prime the no voting more positively than the yes voting or inabsentia. It auto cued a schema in me to vote no but after lots of research i think yes outweights the no in terms of where a yes vote positions this country in the medium term.

Toiletroll

rhapsody! wrote: »

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.

That shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.

WooPeeA

the-island-man wrote: »

Well i voted NO because i was rejecting Europe in its current form! People don't have enough of a say in Europe at the moment plus there are too many laws or "directives" as the E.U like to put it!

You voted NO to document that was made to change it. Well done..

the-island-man

WooPeeA wrote: »

You voted NO to document that was made to change it. Well done..

Show me!

K-9

the-island-man wrote: »

Well i voted NO because i was rejecting Europe in its current form! People don't have enough of a say in Europe at the moment plus there are too many laws or "directives" as the E.U like to put it!

Grand, if you can provide sources for this Opinion that would be great.

the-island-man wrote: »

Why wouldn't we expect something to be done otherwise the E.U would be discriminating against Ireland merely because we exercised our democratic right?!

The EU and your Govt. are working on some solutions. They are trying to answer your concerns. You may not like the answer, but hey, maybe wait for the solutions first and then decide and tick the NO box if you so wish.

the-island-man wrote: »

Show me!

You should be able to come back with a better answer than that to back up the above opinion. You might actually get a few thinking then!

sink

the-island-man wrote: »

Well i voted NO because i was rejecting Europe in its current form! People don't have enough of a say in Europe at the moment plus there are too many laws or "directives" as the E.U like to put it!

With the internet all the information is at your fingertips all you have to do is look for it.

DFA Lisbon treaty white paper

Ireland's Future in Europe: Scenarios and Implications

Consolidated EU treaties as amended by Lisbon

There is a lot of information there and if you get through it you can consider yourself well informed. If you are not bothered than don't attempt to try and act like you are well informed it will be obvious to anyone who has taken their time and informed themselves.

Mal-Adjusted

this is probably old news to most ppl here, but i heard that the treaty is the E.U. constitution with either 5% added or removed. can anyone verify?

niceirishfella

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

this is probably old news to most ppl here, but i heard that the treaty is the E.U. constitution with either 5% added or removed. can anyone verify?

Yes, the treaty that was voted down was a regurgitated EU constitution document. The Irish were'nt so silly after all.;)

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

Article 116

Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law,regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.

If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall issue the necessary directives. Any other appropriate measures provided for in the Treaties may be adopted.

1. Where reference is made in the Treaties to the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of an act, the following procedure shall apply.

2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council

First reading

3. The European Parliament shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the Council.

4. If the Council approves the European Parliament's position, the act concerned shall be adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the European Parliament.

(5-12 cover second and third readings and a conciliation procedure if the proposal is voted down.) Too long to include here but easily available several places online.

9. The Council shall act unanimously on the amendments on which the Commission has delivered a negative opinion.

Special provisions

15. Where, in the cases provided for in the Treaties, a legislative act is submitted to the ordinary legislative procedure on the initiative of a group of Member States, on a recommendation by the European Central Bank, or at the request of the Court of Justice, paragraph 2, the second sentence of paragraph 6, and paragraph 9 shall not apply.


The stumbling block all along has been paragraph 9 which demands a unanimous vote. The special provision negates that requirement. (All the other steps are done be majority vote.) And, you have my utmost respect for asking!

i finally found something that could keep me away from this thread. you posted that and i had neither the time nor the inclination to go researching it on my holidays

but now that i'm back i asked over in politics about it. here's the post:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58470994&postcount=88

read up to post 92

the gist of it is:

the reason the 3 paragraphs don't apply under the special provision is because they only apply in cases where the initiative came from the commission. as in it doesn't make sense for them to apply when the commission didn't propose it.
and most importantly, it doesn't change whether anything is voted on by unanimity, QMV or majority.

i haven't read any of the thread since then so this may have already been dealt with but anyway, as of today i'm still waiting for a reason to vote no

edit:also, i'd prefer if you get a new source for the reasons to vote no. the source you got the last three from has been proven wrong each time. they're clearly misrepresenting the treaty

Sam Vimes

Darragh29 wrote: »

WooPeeA wrote:

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.

It's nothing less than scary that someone can be of this view. Even the losers of this campaign/government can accept that Ireland said NO to Lisbon...

you call it scary, i call it fact. as the report into the reasons for voting no found, only 4% voted no for reasons that were relevant to the treaty

Sam Vimes

Flesh Gorden wrote: »

scrap vrt and they'll have my vote

and if they save the whales i'll vote no.

the above statement is as relevant as yours

Sam Vimes

the-island-man wrote: »

Show me!

you say you reject the eu in its current form so you voted no, thereby keeping it in its current form. logical no?

Sam Vimes

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

this is probably old news to most ppl here, but i heard that the treaty is the E.U. constitution with either 5% added or removed. can anyone verify?

it was mostly the same. there were objections to the constitution and so these objections were noted and the text was changed so that the stuff people objected to was removed. it was then put back to the vote by the same people who had previously objected to it

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i finally found something that could keep me away from this thread. you posted that and i had neither the time nor the inclination to go researching it on my holidays
but now that i'm back i asked over in politics about it. here's the post:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58470994&postcount=88
read up to post 92
the gist of it is:
Quote:

Quote:
the reason the 3 paragraphs don't apply under the special provision is because they only apply in cases where the initiative came from the commission. as in it doesn't make sense for them to apply when the commission didn't propose it.
and most importantly, it doesn't change whether anything is voted on by unanimity, QMV or majority.

edit:also, i'd prefer if you get a new source for the reasons to vote no. the source you got the last three from has been proven wrong each time. they're clearly misrepresenting the treaty

The EU Commission have already submitted a non-legislative document in support of the the CCCTB which has already been adopted by the European Parliament (INI/2005/2120).
A legislative proposal was due to be submitted to the European Commission 'Competitveness Council' at the July 08 meeting but was removed from the agenda until after Ireland voted.
Article 116 allows a proposal to be submitted if something is assumed to be 'distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market.' This is done using the 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure'.
Article 294 describes the Ordinary Legislative Procedure indluding the special provision negating the need for unanimity.
So, therefore the gist of your statement above is invalid in this instance.

And, as regards your edit, I'm sorry but unless you can tell me how to get a brain transplant then I cannot change my source!

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it was mostly the same. there were objections to the constitution and so these objections were noted and the text was changed so that the stuff people objected to was removed. it was then put back to the vote by the same people who had previously objected to it

No, it wasn't put back to the vote. It was reworded so that it was no longer a constitution but a treaty thereby not needing to be put to referendum in any country except Ireland.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

The EU Commission have already submitted a non-legislative document in support of the the CCCTB which has already been adopted by the European Parliament (INI/2005/2120).
A legislative proposal was due to be submitted to the European Commission 'Competitveness Council' at the July 08 meeting but was removed from the agenda until after Ireland voted.
Article 116 allows a proposal to be submitted if something is assumed to be 'distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market.' This is done using the 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure'.
Article 294 describes the Ordinary Legislative Procedure indluding the special provision negating the need for unanimity.
So, therefore the gist of your statement above is invalid in this instance.

you'll have to take it up with Scofflaw on the EU forum because he's the one that said your interpretation of it was wrong. did you read his responses and what is your response?

edit:here's what he said:

Scofflaw wrote: »

Reading the article in context, these are the bits that don't apply:

2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council.
6. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament fully of its position.
9. The Council shall act unanimously on the amendments on which the Commission has delivered a negative opinion.

And the case in which they don't apply is:

15. Where, in the cases provided for in the Treaties, a legislative act is submitted to the ordinary legislative procedure on the initiative of a group of Member States, on a recommendation by the European Central Bank, or at the request of the Court of Justice, paragraph 2, the second sentence of paragraph 6, and paragraph 9 shall not apply.

The bits that don't apply are the bits that mention the Commission, and they don't apply in the case where the legislative initiative does not come from the Commission. In that case what will apply is either QMV or unanimity, depending on the area under consideration - in taxation, unanimity.

Paragraph 9 is a special unanimity requirement applicable only when the Commission has delivered a negative opinion on legislation originated by the Commission and amended by Parliament and Council, and where unanimity would not otherwise apply. Striking it has no effect on the 'ordinary' unanimity required on tax matters, which I presume is the concern here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

And, as regards your edit, I'm sorry but unless you can tell me how to get a brain transplant then I cannot change my source!

right so:P

whatisayis wrote: »

No, it wasn't put back to the vote. It was reworded so that it was no longer a constitution but a treaty thereby not needing to be put to referendum in any country except Ireland.

i meant that it was voted for in the eu, not necessarily by the people of each state

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you'll have to take it up with Scofflaw on the EU forum because he's the one that said your interpretation of it was wrong. did you read his responses and what is your response?

Yes, I read his responses and what you just read was my response.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

Yes, I read his responses and what you just read was my response.

well you just kind of repeated what you'd already said. you say that the "distorting competition" clause can be used to over rule our tax system and he says it can't. but who's right?


personally i'd be inclined to believe scofflaw because i think that if there was a clause in the treaty that allowed the eu to over ride unanimity pretty much whenever it felt like it, it would have been mentioned somewhere else before now. all i can get when i search for that article is the copies text of the treaty and the treaty of amsterdam i think it was where most of it comes from originally. no one else is talking about it!

do you have anything to back up what you're saying other than your own interpretation of the text?

edit:i've emailed these guys:http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm asking about it anyway

K-9

This is all very interesting but we will get an assurance that Our Direct Taxation rates will not be affected by the Treaty.