Have you been conscripted into a European Army

Scofflaw

partholon wrote: »

so now you accept the yes side lied about mass immigration are you willing to accept they lied about not losing the comissioner now as well?

remeber that? the thing were being told to vote for lisbon 2 to "Retain" ?

Er, no. We were told to vote No to retain our Commissioner. Remember?



Let's at least try and retain a level of accuracy about who said what. And let's face it, the claim that by voting No we would retain our Commissioner really doesn't wash. There's no allowance for keeping the Commissioner under Nice, but it can be done under Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, no. We were told to vote No to retain our Commissioner. Remember?



Let's at least try and retain a level of accuracy about who said what. And let's face it, the claim that by voting No we would retain our Commissioner really doesn't wash. There's no allowance for keeping the Commissioner under Nice, but it can be done under Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We have to vote YES to keep our Commissioner.

I do accept the point that voting NO has made it an issue, though I disagree it is an issue and think Libertas played on ignorance of the EU by most people.

The Govt. has now addressed it. But that seems to be the NEW problem introduced by the NO side! Moving the goal posts IMO.

Zebra3

Furious-Dave wrote: »

What about The Schengen Convention? This actually includes Norway and Iceland who are not even in the EU. As far as I always understood, though I could be wrong, Ireland and Britain are not included because of security issues, IRA etc. Am I right in saying that Bulgaria and Romania are also not included?

Ireland isn't part of it. Exactly. Despite all the pro-European superstate political parties saying we would be.

So despite all their bull about a two-tier Europe, it exists at many levels already.

1) Not all EU countries are (or will be for the foreseeable future) in the EU.

2) A different set of countries will be using the €.

3) A different set of countries will be involved in Schengen.

Not signing up to the LT ain't quite the disaster that out lying government and it's so-called main opposition parties would have us believe.

Interesting article....
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1224/1229728523303.html

lostexpectation

conscription is just another word for militarism for mothers

read this for good arguement about it
Lisbon 'alliance' is a step too far
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1224/1229728523303.html

oscarBravo

Zebra3 wrote: »

So despite all their bull about a two-tier Europe, it exists at many levels already.

1) Not all EU countries are (or will be for the foreseeable future) in the EU.

2) A different set of countries will be using the €.

3) A different set of countries will be involved in Schengen.

Not signing up to the LT ain't quite the disaster that out lying government and it's so-called main opposition parties would have us believe.

The thrust of your argument seems to be that being in the slow lane of a two-speed Europe would be perfectly acceptable. Let's take a single one of your examples: the Euro. One of the countries that opted out of the single currency was Denmark. I recall reading that at the height of the banking crisis, Denmark spent one quarter of its national reserves defending the value of the Krone, and as a result there's a newfound enthusiasm for Euro membership in Denmark.

This is illustrative of the wider point: there's a tendency to ask, "what has Europe ever done for us?" Which is fair enough, apart from the reluctance to learn from counter-examples.

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote: »

conscription is just another word for militarism for mothers

I think you're probably right there.

lostexpectation wrote: »

read this for good arguement about it
Lisbon 'alliance' is a step too far
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1224/1229728523303.html

I have a serious issue with Dr Devine's argument. This is her summary:

(1) Legally, the meaning of "obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power" is sufficiently wide to include military means; the only way to exclude military means is to ensure the clause expressly stipulates this exclusion.

(2) The existence of the separate solidarity clause in Article 188R of the Lisbon Treaty indicates that Article 28A(7) collective defence clause is not merely a solidarity clause mandating a non-military response.

(3) "By all the means in their power" does not imply that member states can pick and choose what to help with. It arguably involves a greater commitment of aid for a member state subject to armed aggression than Nato's article V guarantee.

What's interesting is that when Devine quotes Article 28(7) she does not quote it in full:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Essentially, Devine's argument is that the clause does not preclude the use of military means - and that by virtue of not precluding that option, "by all the means in their power" necessarily includes military means.

However, if the article "shall not prejudice" the specific character of Ireland's security and defence policy - neutrality - then the article cannot mandate the use of military force by Ireland, because, as Devine argues, if the article did require Ireland to use military means, then it would unquestionably prejudice our neutrality.

So we have an explicit statement that the article shall not prejudice Ireland's neutrality, against Devine's argument that the article implies something that would prejudice Ireland's neutrality.

It seems to me that the explicit statement directly contradicts the implication Devine is concerned with. This is not uncommon in contracts where a general statement of obligation is qualified by a statement of exemption.

By the way, the Solidarity Clause does not cover the same occurrences as 28(7), and is different in scope as well - it covers terrorist actions and natural or man-made disasters, and specifies a joint union response rather than an obligation for member states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

partholon

oscarBravo wrote: »

So far the list of things they've been "lying their arses off" about amounts to having been wrong in the predictions as to the number of expected immigrants.

Considering how earth-shatteringly devastating every single EU treaty to date has been predicted as being, I would have thought a list containing more than a single item would have emerged by now.

and the commissioner ?

the thing pointed out TWICE TO YOU GUYS ?

if the NO for NICE had stood we would not NOW be in the situation where we'd have to vote YES to Lisbon 2 to retain it. something some of you have problems understanding .


a yes that i should point out only guarantees a commissioner in the short term and as such is worth feck all, possibly as little as 6yrs

we lost the commissioner with NICE.

your side lied. deal with it.

But if you want another lie. we were told enhanced co operation wouldnt result in groups of countries going off on their own in order to circumvent unanimity.

now that looks to be the likely outcome of a second NO to lisbon with the rest of the union going on with lisbon and us on the side lines.

dont you feel proud voting for NICE now ?

djpbarry

partholon wrote: »

we lost the commissioner with NICE.

your side lied. deal with it.

How so?

partholon

we were told we WOULDNT lose the comissioner if we voted yes to NICE.

Pretty simple man.

now dick roche is actively using that fact we WILL lose it as a stick to bludgeon people into voting for lisbon. which already the taoisech has to admit STILL doesnt secure it long term.

not forgetting of course that with lisbon we only have the right to suggest a comissioner to europe, not a right to decide the individual which we've had to date.

Scofflaw

partholon wrote: »

we were told we WOULDNT lose the comissioner if we voted yes to NICE.

Pretty simple man.

Pretty inaccurate, though. We weren't told we'd keep our Commissioner. Here's Bertie on the subject:

Some of the sceptics suggest that we will lose power and influence, that we will lose our right to appoint a member of the European Commission, if this Treaty is ratified. This argument is a red herring. In fact, passage of this Treaty establishes for the first time equality among member states with regard to membership of the Commission. At present, the five larger countries -- Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Britain -- have a right to nominate two members of the European Commission. Smaller states such as Ireland have the right to nominate one member. But now, Ireland like all other members will have one Commissioner after 2005. And that will be the case until membership reaches 27 nations. From that point forward, the right to nominate a Commissioner will be rotated among the member states on the basis of strict equality.

What was pointed out at Nice was that we'd have equal representation for the first time with the big countries - something we retain under Lisbon.

partholon wrote: »

now dick roche is actively using that fact we WILL lose it as a stick to bludgeon people into voting for lisbon. which already the taoisech has to admit STILL doesnt secure it long term.

not forgetting of course that with lisbon we only have the right to suggest a comissioner to europe, not a right to decide the individual which we've had to date.

That's also inaccurate. We don't now have the "right to decide the individual" except by putting forward only one name - the Irish Commissioner is chosen by the Council, and must be accepted by the Parliament. The individual Ireland puts forward has invariably been accepted, and Ireland only puts forward one individual. That will continue to be the case under Lisbon - there is nobody with the right to put forward a nominee for the Irish Commissioner but the Irish government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pepsicokeacola

where can i sign up?