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

Ckal

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

You'll find that's completely inaccurate. It all depends what you think is relevant to the treaty.

Folded Shirt made a good post. It's here. I agree with that post. I find some of the reasons why people voted yes ridiculous. But somebody else posted breaking it down again and found that the yes side voted more for the treaty.

These reports aren't reliable because it's up to you, the reader, to determine what you think is relevant and what isn't.

Dob74

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

Untrue, go to www.isml.ie all the facts are there in black and white. Will people on the YES side stop listening to politians bulls**t about why people voted no. People voted no because they did not like the treaty or trust the politians pushing it.
Most people I know voted no because of article 2. The free movement of labour is a new form of slavery

Sam Vimes

Ckal wrote: »

You'll find that's completely inaccurate. It all depends what you think is relevant to the treaty.

Folded Shirt made a good post. It's here. I agree with that post. I find some of the reasons why people voted yes ridiculous. But somebody else posted breaking it down again and found that the yes side voted more for the treaty.

These reports aren't reliable because it's up to you, the reader, to determine what you think is relevant and what isn't.

i know some people who voted yes voted for ridiculous reasons. i've mentioned some of them on this thread. but the fact that people voted yes for ridiculous reasons doesn't mean i can't point out that people voted no for ridiculous reasons


i was referring to that post actually and my interpretation is slightly different:





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)

(he says legitimate, i say not. if you don't understand something you don't vote on it. i'd compare it to your pilot dies and someone else steps up to fly the plane and you wrestle him to the ground because you don't know how to fly so you're afraid he'll do it wrong, when really you should have just stayed in your seat)




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

(he says loosely related, i say completely irrelevant. we don't lose our identity either way)


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)

(he say valid, i say not. there was some stuff about the military but our neutrality was not affected. in fact since we had to make changes because of these irrational fears, ireland may not be able to take part in peace keeping missions. you may have seen threads about it)


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)

(he says relevant, i say irrelevant. they do that anyway and it doesn't change that much under lisbon)


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


i'm not totally against the reasons of one eu voice and protecting the influence of smaller states so i'll count them for the craic. that means that 11% of the people who voted no did so for valid reasons. (so 5.5% of the people who voted)

so the whole of europe is grinding to a halt because of 5.5% of irish voters

Sam Vimes

Dob74 wrote: »

Untrue, go to www.isml.ie all the facts are there in black and white. Will people on the YES side stop listening to politians bulls**t about why people voted no. People voted no because they did not like the treaty or trust the politians pushing it.
Most people I know voted no because of article 2. The free movement of labour is a new form of slavery

it wasn't politician's bull****, it was a report. in 109 pages no one's been able to give me a part of the treaty that they object to that wasn't just a misinterpretation. how exactly is article 2 a new form of slavery?

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it wasn't politician's bull****, it was a report. in 109 pages no one's been able to give me a part of the treaty that they object to that wasn't just a misinterpretation. how exactly is article 2 a new form of slavery?

i just had a read of article 2 looking for something that might suggest slavery or subservience of some kind but i can't see anything like that.

are you saying that allowing eu citizens free movement between member states without visas etc is a form of slavery? if so how?

honestly i have no idea how you got slavery from "the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime"

do you have any references?

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

all i can get when i search for that article is the copies text of the treaty...
do you have anything to back up what you're saying other than your own interpretation of the text?

If you look up the link that scofflaw provided for the consolidated treaty
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655.en08.pdf
and look at Article 294 (page 228/229) the full text is there.

And, to be honest, I don't have anything to back up what I'm saying other than a copy of the treaty and my own interpretation! I do hope I'm wrong but I have yet to be convinced by anyone else's interpretation.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

If you look up the link that scofflaw provided for the consolidated treaty
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655.en08.pdf
and look at Article 294 (page 228/229) the full text is there.

And, to be honest, I don't have anything to back up what I'm saying other than a copy of the treaty and my own interpretation! I do hope I'm wrong but I have yet to be convinced by anyone else's interpretation.

yeah i have a copy of the full treaty that i've been working off and i had a read of the whole article before posting. sure i posted the whole thing on the eu forum if you look at my link

i really think you're wrong on this one. i just don't think it's possible that they snook in a clause that can remove unaninmous voting whenever they feel like it and no one noticed. that would be as bad for germany etc as it would for us

Dob74

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it wasn't politician's bull****, it was a report. in 109 pages no one's been able to give me a part of the treaty that they object to that wasn't just a misinterpretation. how exactly is article 2 a new form of slavery?

The free movement of labour allows the cheapest labour to win the contract everytime. In the USA they have the Davis Bacon Act, that enforces the provailing wage. Contrator most pay the correct wage as it applies to each state. And it is enforced. In this country the likes of GAMA can come in, bring workers that will work for one euro an hour. When they are caught nothing happens to them. Except of course receiving even more state and EU contracts. The EU is run by the neo-cons like Bush. Instead they call themselves in europe neo-liberals they are in favour of the freedom of movement of labour as long as it does not affect them. I am sure we could get a bunch of turks to be our TD's for one euro an hour

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

yeah i have a copy of the full treaty that i've been working off and i had a read of the whole article before posting. sure i posted the whole thing on the eu forum if you look at my link

i really think you're wrong on this one. i just don't think it's possible that they snook in a clause that can remove unaninmous voting whenever they feel like it and no one noticed. that would be as bad for germany etc as it would for us

I did look at your link and you posted Article 251 not Article 294!
They didn't sneak in a clause that removes unanimous voting whenever they like, only when it is assumed to distort competition in the internal market.

Ckal

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

(he says loosely related, i say completely irrelevant. we don't lose our identity either way)

I don't care if four million Polish or Swedes come into Ireland. They're more than welcome, so please don't (I mean anyone) throw the "you sound like a 'keep the foreigners out' freak" argument at me because you will have nothing to say after I'm finished with you. It's all about our laws and the way we live. If somebody in Germany or France can change a law in 27 countries because they go on a power-trip, then I'm going to do everything to try and stop it... and so will most Irish when push comes to shove. Nobody but the Irish have the right to change our laws or constitution.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

(he says relevant, i say irrelevant. they do that anyway and it doesn't change that much under lisbon)

Yes, they do that. Why let it continue when you have a chance to change it?

Sam Vimes

Dob74 wrote: »

The free movement of labour allows the cheapest labour to win the contract everytime. In the USA they have the Davis Bacon Act, that enforces the provailing wage. Contrator most pay the correct wage as it applies to each state. And it is enforced. In this country the likes of GAMA can come in, bring workers that will work for one euro an hour. When they are caught nothing happens to them. Except of course receiving even more state and EU contracts. The EU is run by the neo-cons like Bush. Instead they call themselves in europe neo-liberals they are in favour of the freedom of movement of labour as long as it does not affect them. I am sure we could get a bunch of turks to be our TD's for one euro an hour

so these workers would be working for one euro an hour in their homeland but instead will be working for one euro an hour in ireland. what's the difference?

is your problem with the exploitation of these people or them taking your job?

also, you can't blame the lisbon treaty if existing labour laws are not enforced.

and finally, if what you're describing is already happening, what exactly will lisbon change?

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

I did look at your link and you posted Article 251 not Article 294!
They didn't sneak in a clause that removes unanimous voting whenever they like, only when it is assumed to distort competition in the internal market.

i posted the article that had the bit about paragraph 9 not applying thereby removing unanimity, is that not what we're talking about? there is the part about distorting the market but that only matters if unanimity can be removed

as scofflaw said, the reason for the special provisions saying that those three sentences don't apply is simply that in that case they are not applicable. they're not being removed, those sentences simply don't make any sense in that context because they only apply when the commission has propsed something. does that not make much more sense than the idea that they can over rule our right to unanimity if they think we have a competitive edge over them?

also as scofflaw said, any nations' tax system is not considered distorting the market as long as it's applied evenly to all companies in the country

Ckal wrote: »

If somebody in Germany or France can change a law in 27 countries because they go on a power-trip, then I'm going to do everything to try and stop it... and so will most Irish when push comes to shove. Nobody but the Irish have the right to change our laws or constitution.

well they can't do that so it's all good there. and anyway, what you're arguing against is the eu, not the lisbon treaty. if you don't like being in the eu, go to your td with some signatures and ask for a referendum on ireland's membership of the eu. that's not what we're voting on

Ckal wrote: »

Yes, they do that. Why let it continue when you have a chance to change it?

who says you do? voting no changes no laws so how can voting no change that?

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

those sentences simply don't make any sense in that context because they only apply when the commission has propsed something.

As I've already posted, the commission has already proposed something!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so the whole of europe is grinding to a halt because of 5.5% of irish voters

How is the whole of Europe grinding to a halt? It didn't grind to a halt when France and Holland voted No in 2005. What's changed since then?

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

As I've already posted, the commission has already proposed something!

it's referring to the point after it's been proposed and the council and parliament have made amendments which are then sent back to the commission

whatisayis wrote: »

How is the whole of Europe grinding to a halt? It didn't grind to a halt when France and Holland voted No in 2005. What's changed since then?

it's grinding to a halt because no one can give a clear indication of what exactly ireland wants changed in the treaty. all the eu can do is give us assurances that all the reasons we voted no weren't actually in the treaty

K-9

Ckal wrote: »

I don't care if four million Polish or Swedes come into Ireland. They're more than welcome, so please don't (I mean anyone) throw the "you sound like a 'keep the foreigners out' freak" argument at me because you will have nothing to say after I'm finished with you. It's all about our laws and the way we live. If somebody in Germany or France can change a law in 27 countries because they go on a power-trip, then I'm going to do everything to try and stop it... and so will most Irish when push comes to shove. Nobody but the Irish have the right to change our laws or constitution.

You obviously are opposed to the EU then. That's grand. BTW, You'll find that nobody in France or Germany can change a law in 27 countries if they go on a power trip.

As for nobody but the Irish having the right to change laws, unfortunately the Irish people have democratically voted before giving the EU power in some areas of our laws.

whatisayis wrote: »

As I've already posted, the commission has already proposed something!

Indeed, what happens with the proposal now?

Ckal

The EU is not grinding to a halt. It states in the treaty that if it is rejected, the EU will continue to perform as usual. You can't argue with that... it's in the treaty after all.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well they can't do that so it's all good there. and anyway, what you're arguing against is the eu, not the lisbon treaty. if you don't like being in the eu, go to your td with some signatures and ask for a referendum on ireland's membership of the eu. that's not what we're voting on

I'm not anti-EU. They have done great things for us. But I'm concerned that if this treaty is ratified, then we will be made do things that we don't want to do... Such as lifting our corporation tax, resulting in thousands of jobs being lost. The assurances mean jack. The assurances are not in the lisbon treaty. They are in a different treaty altogether. We are assured NOTHING.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

who says you do? voting no changes no laws so how can voting no change that?

Voting no and asking for it to change [like the French and Dutch did] is in our democratic right. I see nothing wrong with that. Maybe this EU thing isn't as democratic as people make it out to be?

RedPlanet

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it's grinding to a halt because no one can give a clear indication of what exactly ireland wants changed in the treaty.

If the government was actually interested in finding out what people didn't like about Lisbon, they wouldn't have barred the public from making representations to the Oireachtas Report on Lisbon.
In my opinion, people are against further "integration" of the EU.

sink

whatisayis wrote: »

How is the whole of Europe grinding to a halt? It didn't grind to a halt when France and Holland voted No in 2005. What's changed since then?

It's grinding to a halt because the difficult issues are not being tackled the only directives being passed are pretty benign EC and some PJCCM stuff. However even in these areas there needs to be greater co-operation and communication. What's not being tackled is anything to do with with CFSP and most importantly energy.

Sam Vimes

Ckal wrote: »

The EU is not grinding to a halt. It states in the treaty that if it is rejected, the EU will continue to perform as usual. You can't argue with that... it's in the treaty after all.

well it looks to me like it's not performing as usual. and maybe they spent 5 years and millions of euro drafting the treaty because the way the eu is currently running is inefficient and they want to make it better. no?

Ckal wrote: »

I'm not anti-EU. They have done great things for us. But I'm concerned that if this treaty is ratified, then we will be made do things that we don't want to do... Such as lifting our corporation tax, resulting in thousands of jobs being lost. The assurances mean jack. The assurances are not in the lisbon treaty. They are in a different treaty altogether. We are assured NOTHING.

the assurances aren't in any treaty. the only reason for those assurances is that there was never anything in the treaty remotely resembling something that can affect our corporate tax.....but no one will ****ing believe them

Ckal wrote: »

Voting no and asking for it to change [like the French and Dutch did] is in our democratic right. I see nothing wrong with that. Maybe this EU thing isn't as democratic as people make it out to be?

but no one's asking for it to change. all they're asking for is for it, for example, not to affect our tax...but it already doesn't so there's nothing to change

RedPlanet wrote: »

If the government was actually interested in finding out what people didn't like about Lisbon, they wouldn't have barred the public from making representations to the Oireachtas Report on Lisbon.
In my opinion, people are against further "integration" of the EU.

well i'd say they're very interested because they're putting it to us again and if they don't find out why people voted no and reassure them they're just going to vote no again.


tbh, they'd actually have to be mentally retarded to put it to us again while simultaneously not caring why we voted no the last time. it's possible they don't want to put the effort into finding out but they certainly care

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it's referring to the point after it's been proposed and the council and parliament have made amendments which are then sent back to the commission

Exactly!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it's grinding to a halt because no one can give a clear indication of what exactly ireland wants changed in the treaty. all the eu can do is give us assurances that all the reasons we voted no weren't actually in the treaty

But what is actually grinding to a halt?

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, what happens with the proposal now?

It has been taken off the agenda for 2009 and will not surface again until after Ireland votes at the end of this year.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

Exactly!

i'm confused. the commission propses something, then the council and the parliament make amendments and propose these amendments to the commission, meaning it's no longer the commission doing the proposing, so the 3 sentences which refer to the commission propsing something no longer apply, as stated in paragraph 15.

that doesn't mean that unanimity doesn't apply in a case where it normally would, it means that it's not the commission doing the proposing

whatisayis wrote: »

But what is actually grinding to a halt?

the process of ratification of the treaty. after the french and dutch voted there were clear objections so there was a clear path to follow but no one can give a clear reason why we voted no so all they can do is reassure us that all the reasons we voted no were never in the treaty and tell us to try again

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

It has been taken off the agenda for 2009 and will not surface again until after Ireland votes at the end of this year.

Indeed, what happens the proposal then?

Ckal

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well it looks to me like it's not performing as usual. and maybe they spent 5 years and millions of euro drafting the treaty because the way the eu is currently running is inefficient and they want to make it better. no?

So? Just because they spent millions of Euro doesn't mean they can deny an answer.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the assurances aren't in any treaty. the only reason for those assurances is that there was never anything in the treaty remotely resembling something that can affect our corporate tax.....but no one will ****ing believe them

It has been announced that these assurances will be put into the Treaty of Croatia. All the corporation tax laws are in the Lisbon treaty. Vetoed or not, it can all be changed very easily.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but no one's asking for it to change. all they're asking for is for it, for example, not to affect our tax...but it already doesn't so there's nothing to change

Says who? There could be plenty of people who voted no because they wanted it changed. It was in the report that 4% of the voters voted no because of this.

sink

Ckal wrote: »

It has been announced that these assurances will be put into the Treaty of Croatia. All the corporation tax laws are in the Lisbon treaty. Vetoed or not, it can all be changed very easily.

No it can't. If one word of the treaty itself is changed then the 25 states that have fully ratified have to start the process all over again and it also opens the door for everyone to try and get their pet project negotiated back in opening up the possibility of many more years of negotiating most likely leading us back to an almost identical document with our wallets lighter and valuable time thrown out the window.

Ckal wrote: »

Says who? There could be plenty of people who voted no because they wanted it changed. It was in the report that 4% of the voters voted no because of this.

Then 4% of the people were conned. Why would IBEC and the American Camber of Commerce Ireland support a treaty that even had the slightest chance of increase their corporate tax rates.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, what happens the proposal then?

That depends on the outcome of the vote.

Sam Vimes

Ckal wrote: »

So? Just because they spent millions of Euro doesn't mean they can deny an answer.

what do you mean? i'm saying that the people who know an awful lot more about running a union of 27 member states put a lot of effort into this treaty because they feel that it's necessary because the eu is not running as well as it should. i just don't think it's good enough to say "i like things the way they are", especially because that logic can be applied to any change they ever want to make no matter how good or necessary

Ckal wrote: »

It has been announced that these assurances will be put into the Treaty of Croatia.

i hadn't heard that they were being put in the treaty of croatia, fair enough. but i'm sure you understand the definition of the word "assurance". an assurance doesn't change anything, all it does is confirm something for people that are worried, e.g. you're about to do a bungee jump and i assure you that there are regular safety checks. saying that doesn't change anything other than your state of mind

Ckal wrote: »

All the corporation tax laws are in the Lisbon treaty. Vetoed or not, it can all be changed very easily.

there are no corporation tax laws in the lisbon treaty and no it cannot be changed very easily, at the very least because any change to our constitution requires a referendum. this is the problem that the yes side has, the no side can spout any manner of crap and the only way i can prove them wrong is to bring you through the entire treaty word by word and explain every bit. instead i'll do what the eu did and assure you that the lisbon treaty cannot possibly have any effect on our corporation tax

Ckal wrote: »

Says who? There could be plenty of people who voted no because they wanted it changed. It was in the report that 4% of the voters voted no because of this.

the 4% who voted no did so for reasons such as they don't want more eu integration. that's not something that can be changed in the treaty, they're hardly going to change the whole thing to increase divisions between us

edit:i misread that. i was referring to the only people who had a valid reason for voting no. the ones who voted no because of corporation tax didn't have a valid reason because they were simply voting based on a libertas lie

sink

whatisayis wrote: »

That depends on the outcome of the vote.

Well done you have just discovered our veto aswell as all other members veto over a CCCTB. Members opposed to CCCTB are as follows

• United Kingdom
• Ireland
• Denmark
• Poland
• Czech Republic
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Estonia
• Slovakia
• Romania
• Bulgaria
• Hungary
• Slovenia

Amongst others! If even one of them vetoes the proposal does not pass.

On the other hand there are fewer countries that are pushing for it.

• France
• Germany
• Italy

The rest are open to it but are not actively pursuing it.

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

Well done you have just discovered our veto aswell as all other members veto over a CCCTB. Members opposed to CCCTB are as follows

• United Kingdom
• Ireland
• Denmark
• Poland
• Czech Republic
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Estonia
• Slovakia
• Romania
• Bulgaria
• Hungary
• Slovenia

Amongst others! If even one of them vetoes the proposal does not pass.

On the other hand there are fewer countries that are pushing for it.

• France
• Germany
• Italy

The rest are open to it but are not actively pursuing it.

and even if it was voted on by QMV it wouldn't pass because under QMV if 4 member states vote no it doesn't pass

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i'm confused. the commission propses something, then the council and the parliament make amendments and propose these amendments to the commission, meaning it's no longer the commission doing the proposing, so the 3 sentences which refer to the commission propsing something no longer apply, as stated in paragraph 15.

that doesn't mean that unanimity doesn't apply in a case where it normally would, it means that it's not the commission doing the proposing

By that reasoning the commission would never propose anything.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and even if it was voted on by QMV it wouldn't pass because under QMV if 4 member states vote no it doesn't pass

Well done Sam! You really have been studying the Treaty! You are the only other person that has actually spotted that in this whole discussion. That is the only way this proposal can be defeated if Lisbon is ratified.
Lets just hope that those who currently oppose CCCTB remain so.

K-9

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and even if it was voted on by QMV it wouldn't pass because under QMV if 4 member states vote no it doesn't pass

whatisayis wrote: »

By that reasoning the commission would never propose anything.

Why? They can propose away, but it doesn't mean it will not be sent back again or binned!

whatisayis wrote:

Well done Sam! You really have been studying the Treaty! You are the only other person that has actually spotted that in this whole discussion. That is the only way this proposal can be defeated if Lisbon is ratified.
Lets just hope that those who currently oppose CCCTB remain so.

Read his quote again, it says even if it was QMV.

Which it isn't!