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

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

No, my argument isn't flawed but I can understand why you don't understand what it is. That is the nature of the Lisbon Treaty, it has been deliberately designed to be incomprehensible. Democrates in the above referenced post has articulated, in a much more eloquent manner than I ever could, exactly my objections to the Treaty. All I have been trying to do is to get Yes voters to take their heads out of the sand and to see that the reality is that Lisbon is not good for Ireland

So your argument isn't against Lisbon, it's against previous Referenda that have been Democratically accepted?

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

So your argument isn't against Lisbon, it's against previous Referenda that have been Democratically accepted?

Such as?

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Such as?

What you said you agreed with.

democrates wrote:

It's a fair system if you assume the EU should have some role as central government.

I think the EU has already gone too far down that road and Lisbon seeks to have more decisions taken by QMV that were previously based on concensus, it is a transfer of power from the nation state to the EU central government. I think a fairer system would be where the EU operates on concensus alone and does not have the power to force anything on nation states.

I'm happy enough with us being in the eurozone with the ECB setting interest rates to tackle inflation. Despite the fact that Ireland had high interest rates when we needed low and visa versa, overall it has been worth it especially with the credit crunch. Crucially it was introduced on a voluntary basis, without Lisbon, and without anyone having to be forced into any measure through QMV.

There are plenty of areas in which we can co-operate in mutual intrerest, and while some horse trading is inevitable we should always retain the capacity to opt out of a particular redline measure.

More EU central government allows national politicians to deflect more accountability since they can come back to their people and claim the latest directive was what the EU voted for. If our EU neighbours force more things upon us via QMV it can sow the seeds of division and run counter to a major reason given for the European experiment - to preserve peace.

The other reason given is that no economic alliance has ever lasted without political union, but what kind of economic union does the increased political union of Lisbon offer? A few years ago I would have asserted that laudable values of social cohesion were primary motives, and cited equality directives and such as evidence.

That is still there to an extent but it seems a right-wing agenda has entered the fray. I was shocked to read about the Bolkenstein directive as originally attempted, clearly designed to serve business interests at the expense of employees.

My fear of centralising more power would easily be assuaged with evidence that those driving the EU were fully loyal to the people and ready to listen. In fact the evidence shows the opposite, less appetite for listening to the people. It seems that like the Washington concensus we now have a Brussels concensus, an elite determined to have their way, and the only thing standing in their way is the people of Ireland.

He said it, as you said yourself, far better than you could.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

What you said you agreed with.



He said it, as you said yourself, far better than you could.

so your point is?

K-9

PS. Your problem isn't Lisbon, it is Nice etc.

You should declare your agenda from the start, if you want to be honest with readers.

Your problem isn't Lisbon, it is Nice or some previous Referenda!

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

so your point is?

Stop saying you are opposed to Lisbon and name the point where you became opposed to the EU.

Where was it exactly?

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Stop saying you are opposed to Lisbon and name the point where you became opposed to the EU.

Where was it exactly?

Actually it was when I joined this forum! I am not anti EU. I think the common market concept is acceptable. I only object when it becomes political.

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Actually it was when I joined this forum! I am not anti EU. I think the common market concept is acceptable. I only object when it becomes political.

I have no problem with that.

Your problem isn't Lisbon though, nor Nice.

Could well be Maastricht or the SEA. In fairness you should state that from now on. You have an agenda, though you'll probably never see it!

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

I have no problem with that.

Your problem isn't Lisbon though, nor Nice.

Could well be Maastricht or the SEA. In fairness you should state that from now on. You have an agenda, though you'll probably never see it!

No, my problem is Lisbon.

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

No, my problem is Lisbon.

Well obviously. that isn't the isuue. Forget LISBON FOR A SEC!

If you agree with Democrates, you disagreed with the EU before LISBON.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Well obviously. that isn't the isuue. Forget LISBON FOR A SEC!

If you agree with Democrates, you disagreed with the EU before LISBON.

ok Seanie tell me why should I vote for Lisbon?

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

ok Seanie tell me why should I vote for Lisbon?

Ah sidetracking.

YOU AGREE WITH DEMOCRATES.

Who doesn't like Nice never mind LISBON.

YOU QUOTED HIM.

WHY?

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Ah sidetracking.

YOU AGREE WITH DEMOCRATES.

Who doesn't like Nice never mind LISBON.

YOU QUOTED HIM.

WHY?

No, you referenced him actually. Can you not answer the question?

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

No, you referenced him actually. Can you not answer the question?

Nope you quoted him and said you agreed.

How exactly?

K-9

Post No. 1741, please post why you agree with him!

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Well obviously. that isn't the isuue. Forget LISBON FOR A SEC!

If you agree with Democrates, you disagreed with the EU before LISBON.

There.

whatisayis

whatisayis wrote: »

ok Seanie tell me why should I vote for Lisbon?

second request

K-9

Seanies32 wrote: »

Post No. 1741, please post why you agree with him!

Please state why you agree with him.You just agreed, never said why.

K-9

Common Environmental policy. Common Energy policy is amazing, one point wins it alone for me.

Now back to Democrates post.

democrates wrote:

Thanks. I would prefer nothing be decided by qmv at the EU, Lisbon offers the opposite direction on that issue.

I agree on a weakness of democracy being the tyranny of the majority, but by moving decision making from our ~4.4m country to the EU of ~500m that doesn't solve the problem, it makes it bigger, and with less accountability at EU than at the national level it makes it worse.

I'm not at all happy that the EU has any power to ignore "silly objections" or "uninformed masses". We've seen government fall here over outrageous measures before, but if such a measure came from Brussels by qmv we don't have that safeguard, our own government may fall but the EU decision would still stand.

When you talk about progress, just who makes progress remains a question. The more EU decision-makers can ignore the people the less assurance we have that our best interests will be served.

Which you replied

whatisayis wrote:

No, my argument isn't flawed but I can understand why you don't understand what it is. That is the nature of the Lisbon Treaty, it has been deliberately designed to be incomprehensible. Democrates in the above referenced post has articulated, in a much more eloquent manner than I ever could, exactly my objections to the Treaty. All I have been trying to do is to get Yes voters to take their heads out of the sand and to see that the reality is that Lisbon is not good for Ireland

K-9

democrates wrote:

I'm not at all happy that the EU has any power to ignore "silly objections" or "uninformed masses".

Strange!

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Please state why you agree with him.You just agreed, never said why.

Because he's right.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Strange!

Ok Seanie Here's Your chance. Why should we vote yes?

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Because he's right.

Why? If you don't explain you are confirming my theory.

You are a Xenophobe nothing else. Do prove me wrong!

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Ok Seanie Here's Your chance. Why should we vote yes?

Posted earlier. You aren't reading.

Starts to close thread!

K-9

Whatisayis, I credited you with a brain. ARGUED over a few points of the Treaty which was interesting.

I'm sadly disappointed now. You are back to the default Democrates opinion which we can't debate on.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Posted earlier. You aren't reading.

Starts to close thread!

Starts to give up having said nothing of any consequence?

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Starts to give up having said nothing of any consequence?

Yep you did say stuff of consequence. I respected it.

You agreed with Democrates. i posted earlier he's entitled to his opinion, but it's undemocratic.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Yep you did say stuff of consequence. I respected it.

You agreed with Democrates. i posted earlier he's entitled to his opinion, but it's undemocratic.

But Seanie do you not realise you have not actually said anything?

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Why? If you don't explain you are confirming my theory.

You are a Xenophobe nothing else. Do prove me wrong!

I would be so interested in your definition of xenophobe.

K-9

Seanies32 wrote:

Common Environmental policy. Common Energy policy is amazing, one point wins it alone for me.

You missed that part.

Now do elaborate on Democrates' points?

Post 1741.