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

BrickWall

brim4brim wrote: »

We'll we know Lisbon is coming this year and is a massively complicated treaty that needs to be explained and yet FF are still sitting around acting like its so far away we might as well not bother starting the education again.

Ever heard the saying "read between the lines"

Maybe FF do not want the people to vote through this treaty. BIFFO says he didn't even read it, the man is not stupid he knew exactly how such comments would be taken.

The Irish government are acting with a gun to their heads, and you and the other little guys cannot even see it.

Quazzie

Just a quick question but seriously. What is so wrong with the Lisbon Treaty??

All we ever say is that things in Ireland are so shit and how we can't seem to be able to run a country so maybe letting go of some of the power and letting the EU have more control we might actually get a decent country to live in.

I for one will be voting YES!!

panda100

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

Just a quick question but seriously. What is so wrong with the Lisbon Treaty??

All we ever say is that things in Ireland are so shit and how we can't seem to be able to run a country so maybe letting go of some of the power and letting the EU have more control we might actually get a decent country to live in.

Uhh you do realise the rest of Europe is sh*t too right?

England,Germany,Spain,Italy etc etc all in a deep depression with continued cutbacks in standards of living,health,education. And even in the good times did we really have a great Health/Education systems, was poverty eradicated, did people have a wonderful life where they didnt have to struggle to pay mortages/bills etc?

Theres no way Im giving a vote in favour of a bunch of EU beuracrats who are so thick they couldnt see this massive recsssion coming. Who handed out loans to countrys and didnt ask for it to be investsed in an indegionous,green way so we could plan for the future.

You say Ireland can't run its own country and giving the EU more control will give us a decent country to live in. You do realise that the EU runs on exactly the same free market chaotic principles as the Irish goverment and all the other countries who are now in a deep recession.

If you want to continue a world of war,vast poverty,inequality,where corporations and multinationals rule, then by all means vote yes. If you want to see a Europe that's economy is planned so we can provide for all on the planet, where people needs and wants come before that of massive profits for a few,then I would vote No. I do think its better when countries do work together,and I am in favour of a united Europe, if not world, but its the EU's neoliberal agenda that has caused this depression.

Oh also I see that massive riots broke out in two more EU countries last week,Latvia and Bulgaria.This is to add to the earlier list I wrote of social revolts happening across the EU.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

Here is the actual wording of Article 294. I have highlighted the relevent text and have also, for ease of reference, moved the 'Special Provisions' from the end of the article to the start.
...
...
...

i thought we'd already taken care of this. read from this post:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58470994&postcount=88
up to post #92. the reason it says that paragraph 9 shall not apply is that it refers to " amendments on which the Commission has delivered a negative opinion" but in the case it's talking about, it's not the commission giving the opinion. the commission proposes something, then the council makes amendments to it and proposes the amendments to the commission. so as i said weeks ago, it's not a secret hidden clause to try to trick us into giving up unanimous voting that you alone have discovered where thousands of legal experts haven't, it's a simple clarification explaining that paragraph 9 doesn't make any sense in that context so it doesn't apply

if you don't believe me, start a thread in the EU forum and have Scofflaw explain it to you


or are you talking about something else?

Sam Vimes

panda100 wrote: »

Theres no way Im giving a vote in favour of a bunch of EU beuracrats who are so thick they couldnt see this massive recsssion coming. Who handed out loans to countrys and didnt ask for it to be investsed in an indegionous,green way so we could plan for the future.

do you think that if you vote no these bureaucrats will lose their jobs or something the same people are going to be running europe whether you vote yes, no or atari jaguar

panda100 wrote: »

If you want to continue a world of war,vast poverty,inequality,where corporations and multinationals rule, then by all means vote yes. If you want to see a Europe that's economy is planned so we can provide for all on the planet, where people needs and wants come before that of massive profits for a few,then I would vote No. I do think its better when countries do work together,and I am in favour of a united Europe, if not world, but its the EU's neoliberal agenda that has caused this depression.

could you explain to me which clause of the treaty proposes "war,vast poverty,inequality,where corporations and multinationals rule" and how voting no, which won't change anything from how it currently is, will end war and poverty?

surely people who want things to "continue as they are" should vote no, since voting no doesn't change anything....?

this treaty is fantastic isn't it? it does everything from legalise abortion to ensure the continuance of war and poverty, which are of course scheduled to end next year if the treaty isn't voted in :rolleyes:

edit:also, i'm pretty sure it was the sub prime lending in america that was the original cause for this depression, not any agenda of the EU, neo-liberal or otherwise

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the commission proposes something

That's the point you are missing. If you read the special provisions, the commission, in this case, does not propose something, the member states do. The commission only 'may' be consulted throughout this whole procedure, and can offer an opinion.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

That's the point you are missing. If you read the special provisions, the commission, in this case, does not propose something, the member states do. The commission only 'may' be consulted throughout this whole procedure, and can offer an opinion.

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

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.

those are the parts that it's saying don't apply. i think you're right, i did have the sequence of events wrong. in that case it's the member states proposing something, not the commission. but that doesn't change what i was saying. i had the sequence of events as "commission proposes, council makes amendments and proposes to the commission, therefore it's not the commission proposing it". you're simply saying "it's the member states proposing it, not the commission". the sequence is different but in the end we're saying the same thing, ie the special provisions apply to a case where the commission is not proposing it

and that is the point!!!!!!! those three sentences don't make any sense if it's not the commission proposing it!!!! that's why it says they don't apply!!!!!!!!. and that's all there is to it. there is no conspiracy!!!!!!

Sam Vimes

also, note this post:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58476628&postcount=1654

where you said that it is the commission doing the proposing

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you're simply saying "it's the member states proposing it, not the commission". the sequence is different but in the end we're saying the same thing, ie the special provisions apply to a case where the commission is not proposing it

and that is the point!!!!!!! those three sentences don't make any sense if it's not the commission proposing it!!!! that's why it says they don't apply!!!!!!!!. and that's all there is to it. there is no conspiracy!!!!!!

You still don't get it. If the commission proposes then unanimity is required. If member states propose then majority voting applies. That is the whole point. No conspiracy as far as I can see just an explanation of how QVM will be implemented in the case of the Ordinary Legislative Procedure.

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

also, note this post:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58476628&postcount=1654

where you said that it is the commission doing the proposing

That is the stage the CCCTB has reached at present. It has been proposed, adopted by Parliament and a legislative proposal was set to be presented in 2008 but has been postponed until after Ireland votes. If, as expected, it is vetoed, then a group of member states will propose it.

Here it is explained by the EU Tax Commission Laszlo Kovacs:

"Speaking in Washingon at a conference cosponsored by Tax Analysts, the transatlantic Business Dialogue, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Kovács said that if one or more member states veto the CCCTB draft legislation to be released in 2008, the European Commission will seek adoption of the plan by the enhanced cooperation procedure.
Enhanced cooperation is a specialized approach for a subgroup of member states to adopt EU legislation if unanimity is unachievable. For enhanced cooperation to be available, three strict conditions would have to be satisfied. Kovács contends these conditions have already been met, meaning that opposition from the likes of Ireland and the United Kingdom would not derail the project.
The first condition, Kovács said, is that there must be no EU legislation currently in place. The CCCTB meets that condition. Second, at least one-third of EU member states would need to approve the legislation. Kovács claims that as many as two-thirds of member states would support the CCCTB. Third, participation in the scheme must be open to member states other than the ones that first approve the measure. That condition would also be met, Kovács said. "The door would be left open," he said. Kovács spelled out an approximate time line for moving forward on CCCTB, which includes two years for internal discussion after the legislation is introduced, hopefully in early 2008. Therefore, the CCCTB could be a reality by as early as 2010."

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

You still don't get it. If the commission proposes then unanimity is required. If member states propose then majority voting applies. That is the whole point. No conspiracy as far as I can see just an explanation of how QVM will be implemented in the case of the Ordinary Legislative Procedure.

i'm afraid it's you that doesn't get it. if the commission proposes it then unanimity is required and If member states propose then....unanimity is still required (if the particular topic they're voting on requires unanimity)

you are simply reading it wrong. if you're so sure, start a thread in the EU forum and have more eloquent people than myself explain to you exactly what it measns and how you are misunderstanding it

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you are misunderstanding it

Do you think that Kovacs is also misunderstanding it?

"Enhanced cooperation is a specialized approach for a subgroup of member states to adopt EU legislation if unanimity is unachievable."

flanzer

Regardless of my understanding of it or not, I'll be voting yes. I'd rather bend over and receive my destiny from the the Irish Governement by voting yes than bending over and receiving my destinyfrom Europe by voting no, in the current climate. I think it's time to stop rocking the boat

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

Do you think that Kovacs is also misunderstanding it?

"Enhanced cooperation is a specialized approach for a subgroup of member states to adopt EU legislation if unanimity is unachievable."

is he talking about that part of the treaty?

i thought that this was your own interpretation and you hadn't got this impression of it from anyone else?

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

is he talking about that part of the treaty?

i thought that this was your own interpretation and you hadn't got this impression of it from anyone else?

Yes he is. Yes it was my own interpretation but I always try to back up what I say with as much information as I can so I check out both sides of any discussion before I actually post anything.

p.s. Did you read my post (previous page) where I quoted exactly what Kovacs said?

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

Yes he is. Yes it was my own interpretation but I always try to back up what I say with as much information as I can so I check out both sides of any discussion before I actually post anything.

p.s. Did you read my post (previous page) where I quoted exactly what Kovacs said?

yes i read it. i also googled it and read the full article. i saw no indication that he was referring to that part of the treaty and in fact no indication that it has anything to do with lisbon. is there some other article on the topic that indicates this?

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

yes i read it. i also googled it and read the full article. i saw no indication that he was referring to that part of the treaty and in fact no indication that it has anything to do with lisbon. is there some other article on the topic that indicates this?

I already posted these two quite a while back:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1013971.shtml

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fears-as-french-to-push-for-taxrate-harmony-1401314.html

Don't know if its the Boards website or my computer but its taking me ages to access anything and I don't have the time right now to check and post more. Will continue later.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

I already posted these two quite a while back:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1013971.shtml

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fears-as-french-to-push-for-taxrate-harmony-1401314.html

Don't know if its the Boards website or my computer but its taking me ages to access anything and I don't have the time right now to check and post more. Will continue later.

the second article states:

The plans will not be affected by the Lisbon Treaty, which, if passed, will allow us retain our veto on tax matters.

so not exactly backing you up and neither of them say they're referring to that part of the treaty.


btw, you don't seem to want to start a thread in the EU forum so i went ahead and did it for you. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58715205

hopefully now we'll get a definitive answer

Sam Vimes

look at it this way:

The eu are saying we keep our veto on tax matters
The irish government are saying we keep our veto
Ibec are saying we keep our veto
The irish independent are saying we keep our veto

The list could go on and on because the only person saying we don't keep our veto is you, a single solitary poster on an internet forum. You posted links to articles but none of them said that we lose our veto under lisbon and none of them referred to the part of the treaty that you're taking about

Think about it rationally for a second. Do you honestly think it's likely that all of these people are wrong and you're right, even though you.ve been given a perfectly rational explanation of what the text actually means?
Do you think it's likely that such a glaring hole exists in the treaty and you are the only person in the world to have noticed it?

twinytwo

Mark200 wrote: »

Is it going to be exactly the same thing or are they negotiating to get things changed in it?

see here lies the problem.. they were saying that ireland gets all these things but it turns out that these concessiopns or what ever wont be leglisated(spelling?) on until 2010/2011 ie we will never get them because they will find a way to not give them to us. Fu*k all those suits in the EU they can suck my proud irish c*ck because ill be damed if im handing our hard earned freedom over to those bunch of headless tossers.

They put pressure on the irish government to have the vote by the end of this year because elections next year in england and gordan brown who stabbed his own country in the back is gone and the other party (name?) will want a vote.

They totally disrespected out right to say no. I hope the irish people stand tall together smile towards brussels and give them a glorious 2 fingered salut.

Besides i love being the torn in their side.. the itch they just cant reach:D

Hitman Actual

whatisayis wrote: »

Here is the actual wording of Article 294. I have highlighted the relevent text and have also, for ease of reference, moved the 'Special Provisions' from the end of the article to the start.

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,

Again, your selective quoting skills are masterful. What about the rest of the post where I showed that there are only two chapters where member states can actually propose legislation, and they have nothing to do with the Internal Market? So I ask you one question- Do you accept that, even if what you're saying about 294 is true, it has nothing to do with corporation tax? I mean, your argument, while vague in the extreme, was to do with Ireland's corporation tax status, correct?

As regards 294, seeing as there's now a post on the EU forum (fair play, Sam Vimes) it will be dealt with fairly quickly, and I'm sure your argument will be shown to be wrong. But I would like an answer to the above question, as there's far too much BS thrown around about Ireland's corporation tax status and Lisbon, and it just muddies the water for the general public.

Edit to add: I realize I'm being selective in my quoting there as well, but it's the only relevant part of your argument to my argument.

Sam Vimes

twinytwo wrote: »

see here lies the problem.. they were saying that ireland gets all these things but it turns out that these concessiopns or what ever wont be leglisated(spelling?) on until 2010/2011 ie we will never get them because they will find a way to not give them to us. Fu*k all those suits in the EU they can suck my proud irish c*ck because ill be damed if im handing our hard earned freedom over to those bunch of headless tossers.

They put pressure on the irish government to have the vote by the end of this year because elections next year in england and gordan brown who stabbed his own country in the back is gone and the other party (name?) will want a vote.

They totally disrespected out right to say no. I hope the irish people stand tall together smile towards brussels and give them a glorious 2 fingered salut.

Besides i love being the torn in their side.. the itch they just cant reach:D

What are these concessions exactly?

Would they address the issues you had with the treaty?

What were the issues you had with the treaty exactly? And in your response please quote an article of the treaty, what it will do and why you object to it

twinytwo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What are these concessions exactly?

Would they address the issues you had with the treaty?

What were the issues you had with the treaty exactly? And in your response please quote an article of the treaty, what it will do and why you object to it

consession is prob the wrong word... tax, trade, neutrality etc.. wont happen because if we wont on it with these "added" it is not the same treaty that everyone else voted on thus they are entitled to vote again.

The main problem that i have is the fact the lisbon treaty is the eu consituation which was already voted down

Sam Vimes

twinytwo wrote: »

consession is prob the wrong word... tax, trade, neutrality etc.. wont happen because if we wont on it with these "added" it is not the same treaty that everyone else voted on thus they are entitled to vote again.

lisbon does nothing to tax or neutrality. what was your objection with trade?

twinytwo wrote: »

The main problem that i have is the fact the lisbon treaty is the eu consituation which was already voted down

no it's not. the french and the dutch had objections to the original treaty so five years was spent negotiating the objections until everyone was happy


anything else?


edit:unless you expand on your statement about trade in a valid way, it sounds to me like you were one of the hundreds of thousands of people who voted no based on a pack of lies spread by people with an anti-EU agenda. can you not see why the EU wants us to vote again when there are so many people such as yourself who voted no based on lies but would most likely vote yes to the treaty if it was explained to them?

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

That is the stage the CCCTB has reached at present. It has been proposed, adopted by Parliament and a legislative proposal was set to be presented in 2008 but has been postponed until after Ireland votes. If, as expected, it is vetoed, then a group of member states will propose it.

Here it is explained by the EU Tax Commission Laszlo Kovacs:

"Speaking in Washingon at a conference cosponsored by Tax Analysts, the transatlantic Business Dialogue, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Kovács said that if one or more member states veto the CCCTB draft legislation to be released in 2008, the European Commission will seek adoption of the plan by the enhanced cooperation procedure.
Enhanced cooperation is a specialized approach for a subgroup of member states to adopt EU legislation if unanimity is unachievable. For enhanced cooperation to be available, three strict conditions would have to be satisfied. Kovács contends these conditions have already been met, meaning that opposition from the likes of Ireland and the United Kingdom would not derail the project.
The first condition, Kovács said, is that there must be no EU legislation currently in place. The CCCTB meets that condition. Second, at least one-third of EU member states would need to approve the legislation. Kovács claims that as many as two-thirds of member states would support the CCCTB. Third, participation in the scheme must be open to member states other than the ones that first approve the measure. That condition would also be met, Kovács said. "The door would be left open," he said. Kovács spelled out an approximate time line for moving forward on CCCTB, which includes two years for internal discussion after the legislation is introduced, hopefully in early 2008. Therefore, the CCCTB could be a reality by as early as 2010."

And we and the UK, together with a few other states, will not be in the enhanced cooperation group that have higher CT Rates than us. The group could propose 100% tax rates and it wouldn't apply to Ireland.

twinytwo wrote: »

see here lies the problem.. they were saying that ireland gets all these things but it turns out that these concessiopns or what ever wont be leglisated(spelling?) on until 2010/2011 ie we will never get them because they will find a way to not give them to us. Fu*k all those suits in the EU they can suck my proud irish c*ck because ill be damed if im handing our hard earned freedom over to those bunch of headless tossers.

They put pressure on the irish government to have the vote by the end of this year because elections next year in england and gordan brown who stabbed his own country in the back is gone and the other party (name?) will want a vote.

They totally disrespected out right to say no. I hope the irish people stand tall together smile towards brussels and give them a glorious 2 fingered salut.

Besides i love being the torn in their side.. the itch they just cant reach:D

Ach yeah, the EU will ditch the promises. That will really help in future Referenda.

twinytwo wrote: »

consession is prob the wrong word... tax, trade, neutrality etc.. wont happen because if we wont on it with these "added" it is not the same treaty that everyone else voted on thus they are entitled to vote again.

The main problem that i have is the fact the lisbon treaty is the eu consituation which was already voted down

Nope it isn't, but sure what's the point in me saying it.

twinytwo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

lisbon does nothing to tax or neutrality. what was your objection with trade?



no it's not. the french and the dutch had objections to the original treaty so five years was spent negotiating the objections until everyone was happy


anything else?


edit:unless you expand on your statement about trade in a valid way, it sounds to me like you were one of the hundreds of thousands of people who voted no based on a pack of lies spread by people with an anti-EU agenda. can you not see why the EU wants us to vote again when there are so many people such as yourself who voted no based on lies but would most likely vote yes to the treaty if it was explained to them?

ok firstly... Both sides agree that the Lisbon Treaty preserves the main substance of the EU constitution. that puts an end to that point.

Secondly have you actually read the full proper text all 270 pages of it which has so much complex legal jargon in it that experienced barristors cannot fully understand it( maybe you are more in the know than they are) I mean if we voted no based on a pack of lies or because we did not understand it then the yes voters are more the fool for voting on something they didnt fully understand it( im sure you wont admit this) i mean how could the vast majority of people understand it.. the simple answer is that they dont not all of it anyway. So then it is fair to say that some people voted yes because they believe the government. Kind of bad idea trusting the government wouldnt you say? You accuse us of being misguided and not informed but maybe it is the other way around?

Even though yes our neutrality is protected we would have to increase our military spending 3 fold.

We are the only country to keep our comissioner(according to the suits) now tell me if you were say spain or poland is that in the treaty that you agreed on? Thus this makes the vote void as it is not the same treaty.

can i refer to the Redistribution of voting weights between member states

"
Within those areas to be decided by qualified majority voting, the current rules require the support of a little over 72% of member states for a law to be passed. Under the new system due to come into effect from 2014, a vote can be passed if it is backed by 55% of member states, and secondly, if these countries represent 65% of the EU’s population. It can also be passed if less than four countries oppose it. The changes mean
that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation."


so what france as more of a right to do something just because they are bigger than us?


I think that the irish people have the right to decide what is best for this country and not a bunch of muppets in brussels.


The Treaty supercedes our own constituation hell that point alone makes it worth while voting no to.. now this country fought too long and hard for that piece of paper i for one will no give it up so easily.

There is an opt out clause in the treaty(ie opt out of the eu)... there is no reason why this cant be used on smaller nations as do as we say or your out.

ALso the fact that the EU has ignored a democratic vote (one of the cornerstones of the eu) because it did not suit them. i would say are we to let this happen again but sure there will be no more voting if the treaty is passed. If the vote had been passed the first time and the no campaign had responded we the call that the population had not been informed correctly you can bet where they would be told to shove that.

You are the very person who (in a couple of years time when you realise what a mistake the lisbon treaty actually is) will come on here giving out as to why we voted yes in the first place

twinytwo

Seanies32 wrote: »

And we and the UK, together with a few other states, will not be in the enhanced cooperation group that have higher CT Rates than us. The group could propose 100% tax rates and it wouldn't apply to Ireland.





Ach yeah, the EU will ditch the promises. That will really help in future Referenda.



Nope it isn't, but sure what's the point in me saying it.

yes it is the main body of the treaty is the exact same as the constituation they only changed minor details like the introduction of an eu anthem.

What are you on about future referenda there will be none if the treaty is passed. Because the treaty supercedes our own constituation:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

twinytwo wrote: »

ok firstly... Both sides agree that the Lisbon Treaty preserves the main substance of the EU constitution. that puts an end to that point.

no it doesn't mate. "preserves the main substance" does not mean it's the same thing. it was rejected, it was re-negotiated and then it was accepted by the same people who previously rejected it. they changed the parts that people didn't want!

twinytwo wrote: »

Secondly have you actually read the full proper text all 270 pages of it which has so much complex legal jargon in it that experienced barristors cannot fully understand it( maybe you are more in the know than they are) I mean if we voted no based on a pack of lies or because we did not understand it then the yes voters are more the fool for voting on something they didnt fully understand it( im sure you wont admit this) i mean how could the vast majority of people understand it.. the simple answer is that they dont not all of it anyway. So then it is fair to say that some people voted yes because they believe the government. Kind of bad idea trusting the government wouldnt you say? You accuse us of being misguided and not informed but maybe it is the other way around?

of course i haven't read the full text, very few people have. but i read summaries of it and looked at the arguments for and against the treaty that were being stated by people who had read it. and i found that every single objection that was being spouted by the no side was not true. and so i said to myself "if the people who are most against the treaty can't come up with a single true reason to vote no to it, then there's probably nothing wrong with it)

twinytwo wrote: »

Even though yes our neutrality is protected we would have to increase our military spending 3 fold.

which part says that? and you said the issue was neutrality, which is of course not affected as you just said

twinytwo wrote: »

We are the only country to keep our comissioner(according to the suits) now tell me if you were say spain or poland is that in the treaty that you agreed on? Thus this makes the vote void as it is not the same treaty.

i don't know what you mean by this

twinytwo wrote: »

can i refer to the Redistribution of voting weights between member states

"
Within those areas to be decided by qualified majority voting, the current rules require the support of a little over 72% of member states for a law to be passed. Under the new system due to come into effect from 2014, a vote can be passed if it is backed by 55% of member states, and secondly, if these countries represent 65% of the EU’s population. It can also be passed if less than four countries oppose it. The changes mean
that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation."


so what france as more of a right to do something just because they are bigger than us?

yes, they do. that's how democracy works, the majority rules. i know the voting system is changing so it's harder to block things but i have no problem with that mostly because the areas that are voted on that way are generally unimportant. i thnk one of them is sport for example

twinytwo wrote: »

I think that the irish people have the right to decide what is best for this country and not a bunch of muppets in brussels.

then start a campaign to leave the EU. we currently don't have that right

twinytwo wrote: »

The Treaty supercedes our own constituation hell that point alone makes it worth while voting no to.. now this country fought too long and hard for that piece of paper i for one will no give it up so easily.

in what way does it supersede our own constitution? and we're not giving it up btw, it'll still be our constitution

twinytwo wrote: »

There is an opt out clause in the treaty(ie opt out of the eu)... there is no reason why this cant be used on smaller nations as do as we say or your out.

i'm not sure what you mean here. are you saying that due to the opt out clause, countries could be forced out of the EU? you do know what "opt out" means right? ie you decide not to do something. if you're forced not to do it it's not called opting out

twinytwo wrote: »

ALso the fact that the EU has ignored a democratic vote (one of the cornerstones of the eu) because it did not suit them. i would say are we to let this happen again but sure there will be no more voting if the treaty is passed. If the vote had been passed the first time and the no campaign had responded we the call that the population had not been informed correctly you can bet where they would be told to shove that.

a report has shown that the vast majority of people voted no for no apparent reason. some because of the lies like yourself and some because of objections to fianna fail which has f*ck all to do with the treaty. i think the final statistic was that between 4% and 8% of no voters had a good reason. they have every right to ask us to do it again

also, ireland had several referenda on divorce and abortion. was that undemocratic?

and we vote in a new government every 5 years. is that undemocratic? and if you don't support fianna fail i must ask you, how dare you go against the democratic will of ireland!?!?!?

twinytwo wrote: »

You are the very person who (in a couple of years time when you realise what a mistake the lisbon treaty actually is) will come on here giving out as to why we voted yes in the first place

no i won't. you have yet to give me anything that hasn't been said a thousand times and proved to be wrong each and every time. i have 169 posts in this thread including this one. i've already taken care of everything you've said here weeks ago

K-9

twinytwo wrote: »

yes it is the main body of the treaty is the exact same as the constituation they only changed minor details like the introduction of an eu anthem.

What are you on about future referenda there will be none if the treaty is passed. Because the treaty supercedes our own constituation:rolleyes:

Back up your statement.

Sam Vimes

twinytwo wrote: »

yes it is the main body of the treaty is the exact same as the constituation they only changed minor details like the introduction of an eu anthem.

What are you on about future referenda there will be none if the treaty is passed. Because the treaty supercedes our own constituation:rolleyes:

Having just read this post, i wouldn't even bother replying to me if i was you. I'm so bored of this thread, every day or two a new person who's completely misinformed comes on and spouts their particular misconceptions and the informed people spend days picking it apart and telling them what's wrong with it

I'm just going to say "there will definitely be future referenda" but i'm not going to go to any effort to back it up because you're the one making a ridiculous claim so the onus is on you to back it up, which of course you can't because it's BS