Why I'm thinking of voting yes this time to Lisbon

democrates

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

While I agree that the referendum process is outdated in that it wasnt designed with the notion of approving international treaties.

It may be the case that our constitution was specifically designed to preserve independance by putting a brake on a future EU.
Dev expressed his fears of a USE following a meeting of heads of European nations, warning of how excited they were over the notion of a European military among other things. I'm not sure if that meeting was before or after '37 though.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote: »

As for our media, hopeless, for TV you've got to tune in to Euronews, France24 et al. One might expect that in the only country with a direct say on the Lisbon treaty that there would be a greater market for EU reportage, are we as a people particularly disinterested in politics or something?

Well, this is from the post-referendum Eurobarometer - reasons for not voting:

One-third of respondents (34%) said they did not vote because the political campaign around the referendum had “turned them off”. Three out of 10 respondents (31%) said they had no interest in politics, and a quarter of them (24%) mentioned no interest in European affairs.

...and this:

The socio-demographic analysis showed that women were more likely to have said they had no interest in politics (34% vs. 27% of men) and no interest in European affairs (27% vs. 22%), while men were more liable to state that they were too busy (46% vs. 43% of women) and that they had more important things to do (42% vs. 34%).

...and this:

The youngest respondents (18-24 years-of-age) were more inclined to say they did not participate in the referendum because it was not important enough for them: 59% said they were too busy to vote (vs. 38% of 40-54 year-olds), 44% had something more important to do (vs. 34% of 25-39 year-olds), and 41% expressed no interest in politics (vs. 29% of respondents aged 55 and over).

I know I also saw a piece of research that suggested that Irish people were much less likely to discuss politics....got it: Irish people are not very interested in talking about politics: 40 percent of Irish people say that they never discuss political matters when they get together with friends. Mind you, we're not alone in that - the answers for "when you get together with friends, would you say you discuss political matters frequently, occasionally, or never?" are:

Frequency|EU25|Ireland|Denmark
Frequently|16|11|22
Occasionally|55|48|62
Never|29|40|17


I've picked Denmark as a comparison because they're the only other member state that has regular referendums on EU treaties. We're the third highest for "never" in the EU - after Portugal (48%) and Malta (44%). I'd love to see the figures for Switzerland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

Scofflaw wrote: »

I know I also saw a piece of research that suggested that Irish people were much less likely to discuss politics....got it: Irish people are not very interested in talking about politics: 40 percent of Irish people say that they never discuss political matters when they get together with friends. Mind you, we're not alone in that - the answers for "when you get together with friends, would you say you discuss political matters frequently, occasionally, or never?" are:

I find this hard to believe as we are traditionally known for constantly gabbing on about politics. Perhaps its the way it was phrased or perhaps people don't like to admit they talk about politics i.e. talking about government, taxes, immigration, crime, northern Ireland, Iraq, the US, the economy, better ways of living etc are not considered politics whereas talking about individual TDs/candidates is. Most people I know will talk about about political issues but are less inclined to talk about Enda Kenny's latest gaff or the like.

Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I find this hard to believe as we are traditionally known for constantly gabbing on about politics. Perhaps its the way it was phrased or perhaps people don't like to admit they talk about politics i.e. talking about government, taxes, immigration, crime, northern Ireland, Iraq, the US, the economy, better ways of living etc are not considered politics whereas talking about individual TDs/candidates is. Most people I know will talk about about political issues but are less inclined to talk about Enda Kenny's latest gaff or the like.

I know what you mean...but on the other hand I have met a fair few people who really do only seem to talk about family and social things (plus TV). The most political they would get is about a pothole, but it's not exactly "talking about" it - it gets a mention, along with a sort of ritual curse on all politicians.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I find this hard to believe as we are traditionally known for constantly gabbing on about politics.

I disagree. Throughout my life it's very much been the exception to meet someone interested in politics, never mind how rare it is to come across someone who actively follows politics to any great extent among people my own age (late twenties to early thirties). It's mostly with the older generation that I find people interested in politics in my experience.

democrates

Revealing stats there Scofflaw, it tests ones faith in people of course. If Forrest Gumps phrase "stupid is as stupid does" were the whole truth I'd be guilty of blind faith, but I still come back to the view that people are operating below their potential so there's reason to consider that improvement is possible.

Then again I've also met some types who fit that precise description including the "ritual curse on politicians" Take sports v politics, some take an interest in both while others specialise and I have to confess, if I hear the likes of "I'm United" I often tend to move on, I need a break like anyone else.

If I were in a political party and concerned about low voter turnout and the perception of politics, my instinct would be to integrate the distinction made in posts above into the campaign. Take a sequence of examples eg. a parent collecting a teen from school: "I'm not interested in politics, but I am concerned about third level fees" etc. then finally some memorable strapline to hammer home the message that politics has a real effect on your life. Whether an individual politician would do so is another question given the dog eat dog reality of electioneering. How they do that job I do not know.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote: »

Revealing stats there Scofflaw, it tests ones faith in people of course. If Forrest Gumps phrase "stupid is as stupid does" were the whole truth I'd be guilty of blind faith, but I still come back to the view that people are operating below their potential so there's reason to consider that improvement is possible.

I suffer from the same belief myself...

democrates wrote: »

Then again I've also met some types who fit that precise description including the "ritual curse on politicians" Take sports v politics, some take an interest in both while others specialise and I have to confess, if I hear the likes of "I'm United" I often tend to move on, I need a break like anyone else.

..and that one. I'm completely asportical.

democrates wrote: »

If I were in a political party and concerned about low voter turnout and the perception of politics, my instinct would be to integrate the distinction made in posts above into the campaign. Take a sequence of examples eg. a parent collecting a teen from school: "I'm not interested in politics, but I am concerned about third level fees" etc. then finally some memorable strapline to hammer home the message that politics has a real effect on your life. Whether an individual politician would do so is another question given the dog eat dog reality of electioneering. How they do that job I do not know.

I think that is probably the job of those of us who are interested in politics but not in partisanship - a subset of a subset!

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

democrates wrote: »

Take a sequence of examples eg. a parent collecting a teen from school: "I'm not interested in politics, but I am concerned about third level fees" etc. then finally some memorable strapline to hammer home the message that politics has a real effect on your life. Whether an individual politician would do so is another question given the dog eat dog reality of electioneering. How they do that job I do not know.

Politicians pick and choose, so do voters. More accurately oppositions pick and choose so, anti Lisbon activists pck and choose.

Look, anti Lisbon will pick and choose points to suit their agenda. I've heard the line that Lisbon was changed to reflect the NO opinion and the line that Lisbom wasn't changed and it takes another Treaty.

One is correct but still draws criticism, another is untrue but still draws criticism. Thing is, Lisbon was either changed or it wasn't.

It isn't 2 ways. as we all know, yet No to Lisbon will take both, regardless of truth.

The Govt. has to debate 2 lines of debate, completely wrong, but still widely believed. The No campaign gladly lets the Govt. debate away on pointless crap.

The Govt. ends up debating with 2 untruths. But the public wants debate to define the truth!

Amberman

djpbarry wrote: »

Indeed.
How? You don’t want elected representatives to have any authority? What’s the point in electing someone to a position if they required the constant approval of the electorate to do anything? It’s pointless.
On very basic issues, possibly. But once issues become in any way complex, consensus becomes difficult to obtain. Take for example the aforementioned International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; you would think it a given that most people would think this to be a good thing, right? And yet, there are more states in the world that have not yet ratified this covenant (29) than there are member states in the EU. Granted, most are relatively small nations, but there are some big players on the list; China, Cuba, Laos, Malaysia, UAE and Singapore, among others.
It’s not the fairest way at all. Like I said above, an opinion that is not based on fact is worthless. Your faith in humanity is admirable, but somewhat naive.

I notice you ignored my question regarding the hypothetical situation in which the electorate is consulted on the drafting of the budget. Do you accept that it’s not feasible? OR do you think the government should do whatever the electorate says, regardless of the consequences?

Yip...its just too complex...vote YES like a good sheep and go back to sleep and let the important people decide whats best for you.

We have your best interests at heart...honest.

K-9

Amberman wrote: »

Yip...its just too complex...vote YES like a good sheep and go back to sleep and let the important people decide whats best for you.

We have your best interests at heart...honest.

Great point, except No People vote like Sheep.

Sure it is cool to be anti establishment and stick one up at the Govt. despite not reading or understanding the damn thing.

For every No point the Yes side can usually point out the corollary?

View

K-9 wrote: »

Politicians pick and choose, so do voters. More accurately oppositions pick and choose so, anti Lisbon activists pck and choose.

Look, anti Lisbon will pick and choose points to suit their agenda. I've heard the line that Lisbon was changed to reflect the NO opinion and the line that Lisbom wasn't changed and it takes another Treaty.

One is correct but still draws criticism, another is untrue but still draws criticism. Thing is, Lisbon was either changed or it wasn't.

Almost all of the campaign leadership of the No side are members of Eurosceptic organisations (at EU level). As such, it doesn't actually matter what either Lisbon or any other EU treaty says, as they are guarenteed to oppose them, irrespective of the merits of the treaties.

And even though the overwhelming majority of the electorate want Ireland to be in the EU, the goal of our domestic Eurosceptics appears to be to make it impossible for Ireland to ratify EU Treaties, hence leaving us in a position where our entire membership would most certainly come into question.

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well put. It's bad enough that people only wake up to the EU at referendums, but without referendums they simply wouldn't engage at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why is that bad?

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

Why is that bad?

Legislation that affects people's lives is enacted through the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ionix5891

Hitman Actual wrote: »

...and about Ganley being an "economic hitman". It was one of those posts where it was damn near impossible to know how to reply. Easier to ignore.

Ganley is that you?

democrates

K-9 wrote: »

Politicians pick and choose, so do voters. More accurately oppositions pick and choose so, anti Lisbon activists pck and choose.

Look, anti Lisbon will pick and choose points to suit their agenda. I've heard the line that Lisbon was changed to reflect the NO opinion and the line that Lisbom wasn't changed and it takes another Treaty.

One is correct but still draws criticism, another is untrue but still draws criticism. Thing is, Lisbon was either changed or it wasn't.

It isn't 2 ways. as we all know, yet No to Lisbon will take both, regardless of truth.

The Govt. has to debate 2 lines of debate, completely wrong, but still widely believed. The No campaign gladly lets the Govt. debate away on pointless crap.

The Govt. ends up debating with 2 untruths. But the public wants debate to define the truth!

What we've got is similar to the adversarial situation in a court of law. Each side presents the jig-saw puzzle through an optic, trying to make some pieces look larger and others smaller and in the end the jury must allow for that in reaching conclusions. With politics almost anything is admissable as 'evidence', and for most people it's down to who you believe.

Even if an independant objective third party is established to filter out noise, some people may not believe them to be independant and objective, but that hardly amounts to a case to not bother as failure to reach 100% does not make 0% a better option, the constraint is whether each % gain in enlightenment is worth the marginal expense.
Making some if not all professional advice available to the electorate would be a good start and generally speaking transparency is an implicit requirement for informed decision making.

Besides establishing the facts we've got the question of whether option A or B fits with our value system, and it's all happening in the context of globalisation and now specifically in a global recession. But wait, there's more, every major ecosystem is in decline and the population bubble is driving consumption and pollution exponentially. If our environment is to remain supportive we've got to be as efficient as possible at production at the planetary level, so national protectionism is a bigger problem than simply being a brake on international economic equilibrium.

granite man

http://www.blackouteurope.eu/ Well, eventually this could save some electricity.. another good reason to vote no. Interestingly enough the final sitting for this is slightly after the perceived Lisbon re-run date. No surprises there either.

ionix5891

granite man wrote: »

http://www.blackouteurope.eu/ Well, eventually this could save some electricity.. another good reason to vote no. Interestingly enough the final sitting for this is slightly after the perceived Lisbon re-run date. No surprises there either.

what does that have to do with lisbon treaty?

if people only voted for what was in it...

r14

granite man wrote: »

http://www.blackouteurope.eu/ Well, eventually this could save some electricity.. another good reason to vote no. Interestingly enough the final sitting for this is slightly after the perceived Lisbon re-run date. No surprises there either.

Did you even attempt to look up the proposal yourself before jumping on the bandwagon?

The proposal says this:

(22) Given the increasing importance of electronic communications for consumers and businesses, users should be fully informed of the traffic management policies of the service and/or network provider with which they conclude the contract. Where there is a lack of effective competition, national regulatory authorities should use the remedies available to them under Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) to ensure that users’ access to particular types of content or application is not unreasonably restricted.

How is that seeking to cut us off from the Internet. I suggest you inform yourself further on the proposals before you decide to oppose them. Information can be found here.

Much like the Lisbon treaty if people took the time to read up on these issues rather than just assuming the big bad EU is out to wreck their fun, we could have much more intelligent and worthwhile debates. The internet is a great resource, so use it.

alegrabaroque

My granny, the source of all true wisdom, has written something in her little book (she keeps quotes back to the 60`s) it was said by a famous acedemic at the time that our generation will spend their time fighting their way into the EU and our grandchildren and their grandchildren will be fighting their way out. Its a big mistake.

If we have learned something from our latest economic problems shouldn`t it be the most basic "what goes up must come down". We will at some point ,quite naturally, regain our economy what then?

granite man

Ok, firstly I've taken my information from what the euro M.P's have actually been voting on, http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Fundamental_freedoms_on_the_Internet_resolution_details_by_score?showmep=MarianHarkin Please note point am 5S and define 'controversial'.
I have always believed in free speech so, no, I'm not jumping on any bandwagon.
What this has to do with the Lisbon treaty is the fact that by its ratification laws like this will be slipped in with absolutely no regard to our personal freedom or rights and by their 'legal definition.
Another case which was discovered in a footnote of a footnote mentions the death penalty during times of war or unrest. What is their definition of war? The war on drugs perhaps or their phoney 'war on terror'? Have a look at this http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=10496
I cannot confirm the truth in this as I'm no expert in the field but I presume the respected professor has done his groundwork.
Unlike the majority on the vote yes bandwagon!

molloyjh

granite man wrote: »

Ok, firstly I've taken my information from what the euro M.P's have actually been voting on, http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Fundamental_freedoms_on_the_Internet_resolution_details_by_score?showmep=MarianHarkin Please note point am 5S and define 'controversial'.
I have always believed in free speech so, no, I'm not jumping on any bandwagon.
What this has to do with the Lisbon treaty is the fact that by its ratification laws like this will be slipped in with absolutely no regard to our personal freedom or rights and by their 'legal definition.
Another case which was discovered in a footnote of a footnote mentions the death penalty during times of war or unrest. What is their definition of war? The war on drugs perhaps or their phoney 'war on terror'? Have a look at this http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=10496
I cannot confirm the truth in this as I'm no expert in the field but I presume the respected professor has done his groundwork.
Unlike the majority on the vote yes bandwagon!

Oh dear, oh dear! No expert is a bit of an understatement.

First, how would Lisbon allow "laws like this will be slipped in with absolutely no regard to our personal freedom or rights"? What part of Lisbon allows for that? In case you hadn't noticed this legislation has been voted on and Lisbon hasn't been ratified. Therefore Lisbon has no impact on whether the legislation gets passed or not.

Secondly, if you were to look into this in detail, you would see that this was a section of the legislation whereby the voters put forward a recommendation and that reccomendation was subsequently inserted into the legislation. In this case they were asked to vote on the following:

am 5S: Possibility for expression of controversial political beliefs through the Internet to be subject to criminal prosecution - recommendation

The majority voted against it and as a result the following line of text was inserted into the legislation:

ensure that the expression of controversial political beliefs through the Internet, including with regard to terrorism, is not subject to criminal prosecution;

I've highlighted the important part for you. The text can be found here (point i on page 6):
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-416.306+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

So if anything this is a perfect example of how the EU is working for your beliefs. And because the Lisbon Treaty has no real impact on whether legislation like this is passed or not and in fact aims to make the EU function better this is probably more a reason to vote yes, although a pretty tenuous one admittedly.

It really is starting to bug me that people are just reading small sections of this or that and not getting all the facts before leaping to inaccurate conclusions. I mean after all the electorate are the checks and balances for the Government. If we can't get this stuff right how are we meant to properly perform that function!?

As for the death penalty thing, I'd be curious to know if you think that Hitler, if caught, should have gotten the death penalty?

r14

granite man wrote: »

Ok, firstly I've taken my information from what the euro M.P's have actually been voting on, http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Fundamental_freedoms_on_the_Internet_resolution_details_by_score?showmep=MarianHarkin Please note point am 5S and define 'controversial'.
I have always believed in free speech so, no, I'm not jumping on any bandwagon.

Your own source indicates that the Lambrinidis report recommended against the adoption of a provision criminalising such expressions. Surely this accords with your desire to guarantee fundamental freedoms. If so you will find good company in the European Parliament.

Once again I urge you to look for primary sources rather than immediately believing that the EU is going to take all your freedoms. The relevant part of the report you cite urges the EU to:

(l) ensure that the expression of controversial political beliefs through the Internet is not subject to criminal prosecution;

In fact Lambrinidis himself emphasised the importance of the right to privacy in his speech.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we live in a world where everyone, governments, private companies and criminals alike, seek the greatest possible access to our electronic data, in the most unrestricted way possible.

For this reason, any changes to the e-Privacy Directive must do exactly what its title implies: ensure the greatest possible protection of our personal data and private lives.

I am therefore opposed to any attempt at weakening the definition of a piece of personal data relating to European citizens, because since it is personal, it is protected by law. The exceptions sought, especially for IP addresses, covertly contravene existing European legislation.

Furthermore, I do not think that Internet service providers should be allowed to judge for themselves which breaches of their network security harm their users and which do not. They should not decide for themselves when to inform users and the authorities about even blatant acts of neglect.

I respect the role and contribution of private companies, but the economic interests of the Internet giants must not be allowed to dictate the laws adopted by Europe to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens.

Once again look for primary sources. Read the legislation itself before you come to any conclusions.

granite man wrote: »

What this has to do with the Lisbon treaty is the fact that by its ratification laws like this will be slipped in with absolutely no regard to our personal freedom or rights and by their 'legal definition.

Please explain how this is the case. The ratification of Lisbon would not in any way allow such laws to be slipped through. One of the admirable features of Lisbon is that the co-decision procedure is being transformed into the general legislative procedure and is going to account for the vast majority of European Laws. Thus ratification of the Treaty will give the Parliament (who are evidently concerned with the maintenance of rights, as demonstrated by Lambrinidis) much greater say in the promulgation of laws.

Also the Lisbon Treaty will introduce the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a binding piece of European law with the same status as the Treaties. This means that even Regulations and Directives will be subordinate to the Charter and in particular the guarantees of privacy and free speech contained in the charter at Articles 7 and 11. Also consider the protection of personal data at Article 8. Given the progressive protections contained in the charter which will become binding law if Lisbon is passed, surely someon who cares about free speech like you should be campaigning for a yes vote.

granite man wrote: »

Another case which was discovered in a footnote of a footnote mentions the death penalty during times of war or unrest. What is their definition of war? The war on drugs perhaps or their phoney 'war on terror'? Have a look at this http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=10496
I cannot confirm the truth in this as I'm no expert in the field but I presume the respected professor has done his groundwork.
Unlike the majority on the vote yes bandwagon!

The Lisbon Treaty does not reintroduce the death penalty (only a constitutional amendment could do this in Ireland). The Charter of Fundamental Rights merely gives expression to a right with equivalent protections to Protocol No. 6 of the ECHR. Thus the right to life contained at Article 2 of the charter is qualified in the following circumstance.

(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article
when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
"A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts
committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied
only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

War will be defined by the jurisprudence of the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights and it will not be up to each Member State to invent their own definitions.

While the respected Professor has done his groundwork what he has discovered is that the Lisbon Treaty leaves the status quo unchanged as regards the death penalty. Shocking!!! Yet the no campaign still bring this hoary old chestnut up time after time.

granite man

Thanks for the very interesting replies. I stand happily corrected as I don't necessarily believe half the stuff coming out from either side of the debate.
However, I do believe the whole Euro process is a campaign of globalisation and part of bringing about a 'new world order' as has been vocally prescibed by many so called world leaders and as an undereducated pleb I, and many others, feel distinctly uncomfortable
with.
Who's to say this recession/depression isn't part of a bigger plan, like AIDS, like 9/11, like the invasion of Iraq for its resources, like the possible/probable invasion of Iran(to complete the Isreal,Iraq,Iran,Afghanistan oil/heroin chain) like the latest swine/bird flu that really wasn't developed in a lab somewhere and accidently 'lost'. Like the fact 'our' politicians have blatantly lied to us about more things than enough and completely run this country into the ground. Again, who's to say all of the above was only a case of mild mismanagement.
Maybe I should be more trusting. I'd like to but something somewhere just isn't right. Please prove me wrong and tell me the globalists are on the right track for all humanity.

Dogs & Cats

OK I voted no and will once more vote no, I will not let a corrupt government bustle us into a yes vote, maybe that is why they have pursued a policy of contracting the economy, they are not stupid, if I know their policies to reduce the amount of money in our wages, which reduces our spending power then they know it. Why should after the fight for freedom from one foreign government should we actually vote for another forein govenment to run this country that doesn't give a toss for this country to run the country, just in case you think I am a nationalist I am not I love this country, I have lived here most of my life but was not born her. Oh by the way, a yes vote will mean an end to our right to vote to change the Irish Constitution, Europe will be able to veto everything in the constitution.
I will most definitely vote no again

granite man

p.s re. Hitler, only God has the right to take away life, and apparently God did cos the fecker was never found!

Scofflaw

Dogs & Cats wrote: »

OK I voted no and will once more vote no, I will not let a corrupt government bustle us into a yes vote, maybe that is why they have pursued a policy of contracting the economy, they are not stupid, if I know their policies to reduce the amount of money in our wages, which reduces our spending power then they know it. Why should after the fight for freedom from one foreign government should we actually vote for another forein govenment to run this country that doesn't give a toss for this country to run the country, just in case you think I am a nationalist I am not I love this country, I have lived here most of my life but was not born her.

Oh by the way, a yes vote will mean an end to our right to vote to change the Irish Constitution, Europe will be able to veto everything in the constitution.
I will most definitely vote no again

Well, if you're voting on the basis of that last, you're voting on false assumptions. Indeed, that's a more than usually confused version of that particular falsehood.

cordially,
Scofflaw

granite man

I wouldn't bet on that, you never know what's going to happen once the IMF or Germany(via the EU) takes control of this countries finances.

Hitman Actual

Dogs & Cats wrote: »

Oh by the way, a yes vote will mean an end to our right to vote to change the Irish Constitution, Europe will be able to veto everything in the constitution.

Are you talking about how future revisions of the treaties can take place, or the supremacy issue of EU law over member state law, or something else entirely? Your statement is both very confusing and based entirely on fiction. A Yes vote absolutely does not do what you're suggesting.

r14

Dogs & Cats wrote: »

Oh by the way, a yes vote will mean an end to our right to vote to change the Irish Constitution, Europe will be able to veto everything in the constitution.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Nothing in the Lisbon Treaty will prevent us voting to change the Irish constitution. Please tell us what possible interpretation of the Treaty could possibly indicate this?

If you mean that EU law will be supreme over Irish constitutional law this already exists and we haven't had a huge amount of trouble with it. If we want to change our constitution to conflict with European law we are entirely free to do so but it will mean leaving the union. Since it is not in our interests to leave the union we decide not to enact conflicting laws. How is this a European veto?

molloyjh

granite man wrote: »

Thanks for the very interesting replies. I stand happily corrected as I don't necessarily believe half the stuff coming out from either side of the debate.
However, I do believe the whole Euro process is a campaign of globalisation and part of bringing about a 'new world order' as has been vocally prescibed by many so called world leaders and as an undereducated pleb I, and many others, feel distinctly uncomfortable
with.
Who's to say this recession/depression isn't part of a bigger plan, like AIDS, like 9/11, like the invasion of Iraq for its resources, like the possible/probable invasion of Iran(to complete the Isreal,Iraq,Iran,Afghanistan oil/heroin chain) like the latest swine/bird flu that really wasn't developed in a lab somewhere and accidently 'lost'. Like the fact 'our' politicians have blatantly lied to us about more things than enough and completely run this country into the ground. Again, who's to say all of the above was only a case of mild mismanagement.
Maybe I should be more trusting. I'd like to but something somewhere just isn't right. Please prove me wrong and tell me the globalists are on the right track for all humanity.

If you think politicians in any country are willing to give up their power over their small part of the world in favour of some "new world order" then you don't know politicians. As for this recession and all those other incidents being part of a bigger plan thne I think you need to take that to the conspiracy forum. If you ask me it's a pile of X-Files like nonesense. Things like AIDS and swine flu are natural occurances, unless you think things like the bubonic plague etc were also global conspiracies????? These kinds of outbreaks are always going to happen and in a time when population densities and the ability to travel are as big as they are it's always going to have global impacts. And the recession is just a factor of economics and the whole "what goes up" notion. Greed drove it as high as it went, not some global political conspiracy. And the subsequent drop was always going to be harsh as a result.

I don't think you should trust politicians. Distrust in them is what can make the system work. As I said before we are the checks and balances and it is up to us, noone else, to ensure we get what we want from politicians.

Dogs & Cats wrote: »

OK I voted no and will once more vote no, I will not let a corrupt government bustle us into a yes vote, maybe that is why they have pursued a policy of contracting the economy, they are not stupid, if I know their policies to reduce the amount of money in our wages, which reduces our spending power then they know it. Why should after the fight for freedom from one foreign government should we actually vote for another forein govenment to run this country that doesn't give a toss for this country to run the country, just in case you think I am a nationalist I am not I love this country, I have lived here most of my life but was not born her. Oh by the way, a yes vote will mean an end to our right to vote to change the Irish Constitution, Europe will be able to veto everything in the constitution.
I will most definitely vote no again

Then you voted No based on something utterly untrue. And something that has been discussed umpteen times on these forums. This is yet again another example of someone not getting the facts. Seeing little slogans here and there and leaping on the bandwagon with all the other ignorant individuals. "Europe will be able to veto everything in the constitution" is total tripe, and if you read up on the whole thing and educated yourself on the matter you would see that.

The part of the Treaty you are thinking of just says that nothing in our Constitution conflicts with current EU law (which it doesn't). In terms of the introduction of new EU laws voting still has to take place in the same way as before pretty much, in that if the vote doesn't affect our Constitution the Government and Senead vote on it and this is counted as our vote. If it does affect our Constitution then it must be put to the people and that counts as the Irish vote. Exactly the same as before. Anything affecting our Constitution requires unanimous voting therefore a rejection by th Irish people is a veto on the legislation.

granite man wrote: »

p.s re. Hitler, only God has the right to take away life, and apparently God did cos the fecker was never found!

I respectfully disagree with you there. A few years ago I would have been very much of that opinion, but some of the things I've heard of and seen over the last few years have convinced me that some people this world is better off without, and our society is better off not having to pay for their upkeep! So from that perspective I personally have no issue with the EU leaving the possiblity for the death penalty open in war time. Thinks like the systematic murder of civilians etc deserves no less IMO.