why are we voting again

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well the 53% that voted last time was not anti eu.....

You sure about that, the whole 53%?

It is generally accepted that 15/20% of the electorate will always vote No.

conchubhar1

yes i can garuntee that they were not all anti eu

altho it would suit the yes side to keep stating they are and the lie of anti lisbon was anti eu

15-20% will always vote no, on what? - or in general?

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes i can garuntee that they were not all anti eu

altho it would suit the yes side to keep stating they are and the lie of anti lisbon was anti eu

15-20% will always vote no, on what? - or in general?

This is where I bow out.

You've twisted what you originally said which was:

conchubar1 wrote:

well the 53% that voted last time was not anti eu.....

What's the point in me addressing the points you raise when you then twist YOUR very own points, never mind mine!

In general, there is an Irish Euro sceptic vote. It has always been there but it has had no UKIP to voice it coherently. EU Referenda bear this out.

People who are opposed to Maastricht will be opposed to Nice and Nice2.

People not opposed to Maastricht but also opposed to Nice will add onto the people opposed to Maastricht.

People opposed to Lisbon will add on to people opposed to Maastricht and Nice and just Nice alone? Yes? It's the ever present problem the EU faces. As it gains more power it gains more opposition as that appeals to the Nationalistic tendencies of electorates. Doesn't really matter if it's a good thing, ppeople automatically distrust a loss of control.

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes i can garuntee that they were not all anti eu

altho it would suit the yes side to keep stating they are and the lie of anti lisbon was anti eu

15-20% will always vote no, on what? - or in general?

About 20% of the electorate vote No in every EU treaty referendum. The figures are:

Treaty|No as % of electorate
Accession|12%
SEA|13.2%
Maastricht|17.64%
Amsterdam|21.04%
Nice I|18.46%
Nice II|18.29%
Lisbon|28.26%


The No campaigns are usually the same people - Sinn Fein, SWP, SP, PANA, etc etc - and their supporters. It's not at all uncommon to find voters who have voted the same way on every EU treaty they've voted in.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

There is a political rule of thumb that you can be pretty much guarenteed that around 20% of the electorate will always be opposed to any measure, irrespective of what the measure might be.

There is probably an underlying pyschological basis for it

View

conchubhar1 wrote: »

if these concessions are actuall worth while

i think we can all agree

1 - the no side was right

Well, no actually.

The Government and the other member states might make a concession on an issue, such as the Commissioner, in order to get the treaty passed. That doesn't mean that it is good for either the EU or Ireland.

The view of the member states (including Ireland) was that a smaller Commission would be less cumbersome and more efficient. It doesn't follow that a more cumbersome and less efficient (large) Commission is actually good for Ireland (or the EU) just because a certain percentage of the No side fell for the "Save our Commissioner" line.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

2 - for the next time people can make up there mind about the actual issues

(except sheep, like the 24% in the last elections - sigh.)

If you glanced at the post-referendum polls, you'd see there isn't a whole lot of evidence to suggest that the people voted on "actual issues" that related to the actual contents of the treaty.

A large part of the No campaigners operated on the basis that if you can persuade people to vote No by scaremongering then the end justifies the means.

gizmo555

oscarBravo wrote: »

If they voted "yes" purely because they were annoyed at the claims from the "no" campaign: yes, that's a pretty daft reason for voting that way. You yourself quoted the Independent earlier: "Many opposed also said they deeply resented being asked to vote a second time on the referendum."

I don't recall speculating as to how many people feel this way. If there are a grand total of (say) three people prepared to vote "no" because they "deeply resent" being asked the same question twice, then that's three people with a pretty stupid rationale behind their vote.

Perhaps you feel it's a perfectly logical and sensible reason for voting that way?

I quoted the Indo article, but it's you and you alone who have jumped to the conclusion with no evidence that there is nothing more to this section of voter opinion than an irrational emotional reaction.

conchubhar1

K-9 wrote: »

This is where I bow out.

You've twisted what you originally said which was:

no i still said that the 53% was not all anti eu......

several polls of around 1000 each is where people get this attitude that the majority voted no on ''non issues''

yes, i agree there will always be people who are anti eu and therefore will vote down a treaty trying to reform and imporve europe but the way people state this opinion is over the top a lot of the time

and sometimes shows complete disregard of the majority of people who were arsed to vote
it throws their opinions out and simply puts it down to being misinformed

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no i still said that the 53% was not all anti eu......

several polls of around 1000 each is where people get this attitude that the majority voted no on ''non issues''

yes, i agree there will always be people who are anti eu and therefore will vote down a treaty trying to reform and imporve europe but the way people state this opinion is over the top a lot of the time

and sometimes shows complete disregard of the majority of people who were arsed to vote
it throws their opinions out and simply puts it down to being misinformed

What do you think yourself where the main issues, not personally, but in the general No vote?

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

several polls of around 1000 each is where people get this attitude that the majority voted no on ''non issues''

yes, i agree there will always be people who are anti eu and therefore will vote down a treaty trying to reform and imporve europe but the way people state this opinion is over the top a lot of the time

It's an "attitude" based on sound statistical methodology carried out by professionals in the field. Plenty of people come on here with vague idealogical notions about the EU and reform treaties, but nobody can offer credible (i.e. mathematical) arguments against the numbers borne out by the polls. I personally don't have much interest in the idealogical threads, but I put a lot of stock in numbers.

realismpol

hey don't you love how the yes side come on and tell you are ignorant and stupid thats why you voted no. That you are so stupid because you didn't read the treaty in full which is impossible to do by the way for any of you who actually did read it. That they have carefully studied your reasons for voting no and that they have changed the treaty to 'suit your needs' thus you must now vote yes. Its put to you not as a choice but its put as a directive to you. Thats why they are asking a second time. Forget the first time we have determined you lot are just ignorant here..heres milked down version of 'certain elements' of the treaty look over here just ignore the whole execution, military growth unlimited powers to procescute citizens thing and look over here.....WE PROMISE YOU WE WILL RESPECT NEUTRALITY despite the fact that would require changes to the military doctrine of the proposed treaty...whoopppeee doooo! we also promise you we won't change this law ourselves once you vote in this second referendum...right....


Its made hard to follow for a reason you know...hidden agendas etc. This has even been admitted by e.u politicians in france and the netherlands. Even our own politicians admitted they didn't read the treaty. Now that shows you whats really going on. They are simply the message boys for the larger nations demands france, germany old imperalist tendencies coming back again i see and not even 70 years since the last war. Anyway if the fact our own politicans were urging you to vote yes despite the fact they hadn't even read the treaty and examined its content then why do they think we should vote again on it.


They are just minature versions of the bullies in office who want to set up the european dictatorship to which you will be serfs. Get this straight the people voted no because that is their democratic right..Do you understand that. They VOTED NO BECAUSE THAT IS THEIR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT..something obvioulsy you don't respect and wish to do away with with your little elitist club.

molloyjh

realismpol wrote: »

hey don't you love how the yes side come on and tell you are ignorant and stupid thats why you voted no. That you are so stupid because you didn't read the treaty in full which is impossible to do by the way for any of you who actually did read it. That they have carefully studied your reasons for voting no and that they have changed the treaty to 'suit your needs' thus you must now vote yes. Its put to you not as a choice but its put as a directive to you. Thats why they are asking a second time. Forget the first time we have determined you lot are just ignorant here..heres milked down version of 'certain elements' of the treaty look over here just ignore the whole execution, military growth unlimited powers to procescute citizens thing and look over here.....WE PROMISE YOU WE WILL RESPECT NEUTRALITY despite the fact that would require changes to the military doctrine of the proposed treaty...whoopppeee doooo! we also promise you we won't change this law ourselves once you vote in this second referendum...right....


Its made hard to follow for a reason you know...hidden agendas etc. This has even been admitted by e.u politicians in france and the netherlands. Even our own politicians admitted they didn't read the treaty. Now that shows you whats really going on. They are simply the message boys for the larger nations demands france, germany old imperalist tendencies coming back again i see and not even 70 years since the last war. Anyway if the fact our own politicans were urging you to vote yes despite the fact they hadn't even read the treaty and examined its content then why do they think we should vote again on it.


They are just minature versions of the bullies in office who want to set up the european dictatorship to which you will be serfs. Get this straight the people voted no because that is their democratic right..Do you understand that. They VOTED NO BECAUSE THAT IS THEIR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT..something obvioulsy you don't respect and wish to do away with with your little elitist club.

1. Noone here or in politics ever said stupid. Ignorance and stupidity are very, very different.

2. The ignorance line came straight from the mouths of the electorate, not the politicians or the "Yes side". Many admitted to voting against Lisbon due to a lack of understanding, which is exactly what ignorance is. Others admitted due to the fact that they believed things that were not true of the treaty.

3. Noone has said that people must vote Yes this time.

Knock off the melodrama and the fiction please.

evercloserunion

Nothing wrong with not reading the Treaty yourself. It is a complex legal document and chances are reading it without prior experience of legal documents or of the EU would only mislead you. Reading the Treaty does not automatically give you a knowledge of it, and not reading it does not automatically mean you can't possibly know anything about it.

Several government members, like McCreevy and Cowen, admitted to not reading the Treaty an were criticized for it. But as I said, not having read it does not mean they didn't know about it. First of all, the government did help negotiate it so it's going to be in a fairly good position to know what's in it regardless. Second of all, they would have sought legal advice from the attorney general and maybe privately as well on the Treaty.

As for average Joe Soap who didn't read or negotiate the Treaty and doesn't have access to legal advice, the best thing to do is obviously to listen to those who you think know best. That is hard to do when you have all these other people telling you different things about the Treaty. But if you're looking for who knows best, the Yes side would seem to be the obvious choice. Among the active supporters of the Treaty were the people who negotiated it, people who have worked in the EU and represented Ireland there for many years, people with access to legal advice, and a whole cohort of lawyers including many senior counsel. Evidently a lot of people chose to believe the likes of Libertas and SF over these people. Why they chose to do so is something we have to figure out and remedy in order to win Lisbon II. It certainly doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe it's because Ganley loved to go around boasting the fact that he had read the Treaty. As I have said though, this means very little. One of the strangest moments for me was when I was talking to a Libertas member and he said he had only read Lisbon but not any of the other treaties. This, of course, is the height of silliness because all Lisbon is is a bunch of amendments to the other treaties so in order to know what Lisbon actually does you'd have to read it in conjunction with those treaties. This is the main reason why sitting down and reading Lisbon is helpful only if you want to sound educated; not if you want to be educated.

I suppose the point of this rant is that
1) You don't have to read the Treaty to know what it does
2) If you do read it, don't read it cover to cover like a novel; read it properly, and in conjunction with the other treaties. When someone makes a particular claim about Lisbon, ask them to back it up with an article number, then go and find the article in question, see which treaty it amends and go find the other treaty to contrast the old and new versions.
3) If you don't read the Treaty, the best way to make an informed choice is to listen to those you think would know best. People with experience working for Ireland in the EU and people with legal education and experience would know best IMO.

PopeBuckfastXVI

evercloserunion wrote: »

When someone makes a particular claim about Lisbon, ask them to back it up with an article number, then go and find the article in question, see which treaty it amends and go find the other treaty to contrast the old and new versions.

+1

That's one of the best pieces of advice I've seen on these fora in relation to the Lisbon debate.

conchubhar1

K-9 wrote: »

What do you think yourself where the main issues, not personally, but in the general No vote?

voting, like life, is not that simple

you cant dump the ''majority'' of voters into a category of reason for voting that way

just like if i support a politician i don't agree with everything they say

--
i am not debating those polls
they do exactly what they say on the tin - give responses of around 1000 people to why they voted no

conchubhar1

molloyjh wrote: »

Many admitted to voting against Lisbon due to a lack of understanding, which is exactly what ignorance is. Others admitted due to the fact that they believed things that were not true of the treaty.

3. Noone has said that people must vote Yes this time.

Knock off the melodrama and the fiction please.

many of the people that took part in the opinion polls
say even 10,000 were asked
out of how many that voted? it gives a jist not a precise picture tho


ah but history tends to repeat itself - people voted yes to nice2 only 3 months after they voted no
and everyone knows this while most likely happen with lisbon2

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

voting, like life, is not that simple

you cant dump the ''majority'' of voters into a category of reason for voting that way

just like if i support a politician i agree with everything they say

--
i am not debating those polls
they do exactly what they say on the tin - give responses of around 1000 people to why they voted no

That's a fair enough summary. The Govt. have done what they could do in the circumstances. Another No vote will raise serious questions on want we want from the EU.

conchubhar1

no, it will raise serious questions of this treaty and its effect on ireland

it is not in any way a referendum on the eu - the majority in ireland support or membership in the eu

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no, it will raise serious questions of this treaty and its effect on ireland

it is not in any way a referendum on the eu - the majority in ireland support or membership in the eu

That isn't what I posted, it had nothing to do with support or membership of the EU.

conchubhar1

''Another No vote will raise serious questions on want we want from the EU.''

of what we want from the eu? no

of what we want from this treaty? yes


this may just be a misunderstanding on the wording you chose.

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

''Another No vote will raise serious questions on want we want from the EU.''

of what we want from the eu? no

of what we want from this treaty? yes


this may just be a misunderstanding on the wording you chose.

Well it will depend on the reasons people vote No. Unfortunately some people will not be voting on this Treaty but on our existing relationships with the EU.

sink

conchubhar1 wrote: »

''Another No vote will raise serious questions on want we want from the EU.''

of what we want from the eu? no

of what we want from this treaty? yes


this may just be a misunderstanding on the wording you chose.

I'm sorry i'm not really following you. They aren't separate issues, the Lisbon treaty reforms the EU. Any discussion about what we want from the Lisbon treaty is ultimately a discussion on what we want for the EU. So what are you on about?

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

voting, like life, is not that simple

you cant dump the ''majority'' of voters into a category of reason for voting that way

just like if i support a politician i don't agree with everything they say

--
i am not debating those polls
they do exactly what they say on the tin - give responses of around 1000 people to why they voted no

No, this is not good enough at all. Polling may be an inexact science, but it's based on sound statistical sampling methods, and gives a good representation of the opinions of the people as a whole. For example, the Millward Brown Survey used a sample size of 2100 people from a wide demographic range (county, age, social class, etc). The margin of error for a 2100 sample size is +/-2.1%.

You seem to be disregarding the fact that such a poll gives a good representation of the opinions of the nation; if so, you need to give a good mathematical reason for such an opinion.

wailim_2002

I think everyone confuses anti-lisbon with anti-europe. The two are not the same at all. I am very much in favour of an expanding Europe. I like the benefits we have been given from our involvement. I like the Euro and the protection / convenience it affords. But these are all given. The Lisbon treaty is more about modifying how Europe works. Ireland has a unique position in this vote. To protect all the citizens of Europe and not just our own. By all means streamline and expand Europe but do it right for cryin' out loud.

If 42% of 'NO' voters voted no simply because they didn't understand the treaty, why bother getting any clarifications from other EU leaders? With a simple education campaign, those 42% will then vote YES and swing it right?

Why not simply educate and re-run?

The fact is there were some very serious concerns which needed to be addressed. Some have, and some have not. But nothing has been done to simplify the treaty wording and make it accessible to the ordinary citizen.

The treaty remains very complex so should we just rest assured that our politicians have obtained explicit legally binding changes on our behalf?

I don't think that is wise! In fact this is one of the main points of OUR CONSTITUTION. It sits in front of each and every one of us and protects us from unjust aspects of the civil LAWs which are based on legislation drafted by politicians in Ireland, EU-wide and Worldwide. That legislation is only one interpretation of what is written in a constitution. The simple fact is politicians can and do get it wrong repeatedly. They are only human afterall. That they want us to change our constitution and lower the level of protection it affords in certain areas should be of concern to each and every one of us.

This is not about Europe or its expansion. I am sure the majority of people who voted 'NO' last time and who may vote 'NO' again are actually pro Europe, including me. But that does not mean that it need be at the expense of our constitutional rights.

Whatever way you intend to vote, listen carefully to both sides' argument in relation to what is important to YOU. Vote 'YES' if you feel comfotable with the changes and vote 'NO' if you are not comfortable or do not understand. Abstain if you wish, this is your protected right in Ireland at least.

For me personally, I do like to think that freedom to travel and work is a good thing but why should that jeopardise the living standards of the workers in a country such as Sweden or Ireland when 'transient' workers come in under the umbrella of a contract firm, undercut local wages, and then return home but only after there have been local job losses?

Also for me personally I think the term 'common market' should be addressed to ensure it really is that before we sign up to more concessions! Why should it cost 6.50 to post a parcel to Germany from Ireland and not 2.50 as is the case to post the same parcel from France to Germany. How can small Irish businesses compete on that basis? How can prices of food and clothes in Ireland be competitive with mainland on that basis? Doesn't seem relevant? Well it is... this is the position in one direction while in the other direction, an Irish company can hire a foreign contract company to bring in staff to replace Irish jobs with transient workers paid according to their home country minimum wages and not ours? Nothing in the Lisbon treaty or its clarifications addresses this issue as best I can tell.

The Lisbon treaty remains as it was, unaltered and very complex.

The additional guarantees sought and in some cases obtained by our politicians may not hold in a world court. Its tantamount to signing a contract to buy a house with a flaw, on the basis that you have a note in your hand from the vendor promissing to fix the flaws. The fact is... if you buy the house, you cannot give it back whether the vendor comes good or not! The note may or may not be legally binding but will you have the money to force the vendor's hand? Or what if the vendor goes bust after the sale? You have a defective house... simple example I know but over simple?

That so many people, including politicians can not understand the wording of the Lisbon treaty is a warning sign of itself.

That highly respected law professionals cannot agree on whether the Lisbon treaty usurpes the position of the Irish Constitution in many areas is a huge concern.

You should never vote in favour of something you don't understand. In fact that is a perfectly valid reason for voting NO. Its a message to the political powers that be to draft 'pretty important' legislation that governs the people, in a way that those people can actually understand it.

I don't like being told by a politician that I have another chance to give the right answer. Address the fundamental issues first, redraft the legislation and then ask me again.... otherwise I will vote 'NO' again!

conchubhar1

wailim_2002 wrote: »

I think everyone confuses anti-lisbon with anti-europe.

The two are not the same at all. I am very much in favour of an expanding Europe. I like the benefits we have been given from our involvement. I like the Euro and the protection / convenience it affords. But these are all given.

The Lisbon treaty is more about modifying how Europe works.

Ireland has a unique position in this vote. To protect all the citizens of Europe and not just our own. By all means streamline and expand Europe but do it right for cryin' out loud.

If 42% of 'NO' voters voted no simply because they didn't understand the treaty, why bother getting any clarifications from other EU leaders?

With a simple education campaign, those 42% will then vote YES and swing it right?

Why not simply educate and re-run? because it was not the only issue or in fact the biggest - it was in select polls

The fact is there were some very serious concerns which needed to be addressed. Some have, and some have not. But nothing has been done to simplify the treaty wording and make it accessible to the ordinary citizen.

exactly - it is exactly the same

The treaty remains very complex so should we just rest assured that our politicians have obtained explicit legally binding changes on our behalf?

I don't think that is wise! In fact this is one of the main points of OUR CONSTITUTION. It sits in front of each and every one of us and protects us from unjust aspects of the civil LAWs which are based on legislation drafted by politicians in Ireland, EU-wide and Worldwide. That legislation is only one interpretation of what is written in a constitution. The simple fact is politicians can and do get it wrong repeatedly.

indeed they can

They are only human afterall. That they want us to change our constitution and lower the level of protection it affords in certain areas should be of concern to each and every one of us.

yes, we should read the treaty - it changes our constitution and is vital

This is not about Europe or its expansion. I am sure the majority of people who voted 'NO' last time and who may vote 'NO' again are actually pro Europe, including me. But that does not mean that it need be at the expense of our constitutional rights.

im sick of making this point - but people still use the crap of '' a no vote is a no to europe'' and how can you be pro europe and anti lisbon nonsense

Whatever way you intend to vote, listen carefully to both sides' argument in relation to what is important to YOU. Vote 'YES' if you feel comfotable with the changes and vote 'NO' if you are not comfortable or do not understand. Abstain if you wish, this is your protected right in Ireland at least.

indeed, or read it if you can. it is sad that that right is not protected unless you vote as the majority of tds want you to

For me personally, I do like to think that freedom to travel and work is a good thing but why should that jeopardise the living standards of the workers in a country such as Sweden or Ireland when 'transient' workers come in under the umbrella of a contract firm, undercut local wages, and then return home but only after there have been local job losses?

Also for me personally I think the term 'common market' should be addressed to ensure it really is that before we sign up to more concessions! Why should it cost 6.50 to post a parcel to Germany from Ireland and not 2.50 as is the case to post the same parcel from France to Germany. How can small Irish businesses compete on that basis? How can prices of food and clothes in Ireland be competitive with mainland on that basis? Doesn't seem relevant? Well it is... this is the position in one direction while in the other direction, an Irish company can hire a foreign contract company to bring in staff to replace Irish jobs with transient workers paid according to their home country minimum wages and not ours? Nothing in the Lisbon treaty or its clarifications addresses this issue as best I can tell.

well, it costs more to do so....... it is only right in fairness

The Lisbon treaty remains as it was, unaltered and very complex.

ah but the ''concessions'' (we will have to wait an see....)

The additional guarantees sought and in some cases obtained by our politicians may not hold in a world court. Its tantamount to signing a contract to buy a house with a flaw, on the basis that you have a note in your hand from the vendor promissing to fix the flaws. The fact is... if you buy the house, you cannot give it back whether the vendor comes good or not! The note may or may not be legally binding but will you have the money to force the vendor's hand? Or what if the vendor goes bust after the sale? You have a defective house... simple example I know but over simple?

well we will have to trust on that issue
it will be binding in the agreement with coratia (i think) when they enter the eu

That so many people, including politicians can not understand the wording of the Lisbon treaty is a warning sign of itself.

meh, they did negotiate on it and would have a knowlegde of it

That highly respected law professionals cannot agree on whether the Lisbon treaty usurpes the position of the Irish Constitution in many areas is a huge concern.

as it should, it should be discussed and debated - not fobbed off

You should never vote in favour of something you don't understand. In fact that is a perfectly valid reason for voting NO. Its a message to the political powers that be to draft 'pretty important' legislation that governs the people, in a way that those people can actually understand it.

wether that is possible is often called in here
off course it is - simpler words do not negate the valdity of a treaty
also having all the info in one simple place would help

I don't like being told by a politician that I have another chance to give the right answer. Address the fundamental issues first, redraft the legislation and then ask me again.... otherwise I will vote 'NO' again!

unfortunatelt that is their ''right'' but it is not right in the actual sense of the word

+1

conchubhar1

sink wrote: »

I'm sorry i'm not really following you. They aren't separate issues, the Lisbon treaty reforms the EU. Any discussion about what we want from the Lisbon treaty is ultimately a discussion on what we want for the EU. So what are you on about?

yes and no

voting no on lisbon is not a no on europe


we want something different/more/less from that treaty if and when we vote(d) no
in a way i can see how we want something diff from europe - but in saying that it implied
we want something different from the eu as we are unhappy with it and are anti eu

that is why i am making that distinction - its a fine line but its meaning cant be twisted or misinterpretated

evercloserunion

I don't think that is wise! In fact this is one of the main points of OUR CONSTITUTION. It sits in front of each and every one of us and protects us from unjust aspects of the civil LAWs which are based on legislation drafted by politicians in Ireland, EU-wide and Worldwide. That legislation is only one interpretation of what is written in a constitution. The simple fact is politicians can and do get it wrong repeatedly. They are only human afterall. That they want us to change our constitution and lower the level of protection it affords in certain areas should be of concern to each and every one of us.

This doesn't really make sense at all. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean in this paragraph?

For me personally, I do like to think that freedom to travel and work is a good thing but why should that jeopardise the living standards of the workers in a country such as Sweden or Ireland when 'transient' workers come in under the umbrella of a contract firm, undercut local wages, and then return home but only after there have been local job losses?

So what you're saying is, you think you should be able to travel and work, but others should not? I disagree with that. If people have a right to travel and work within the EU, then they have that right and to restrict or destroy that right would, at best, create a two-tier EU and, at worst, destroy the common market altogether.

Also for me personally I think the term 'common market' should be addressed to ensure it really is that before we sign up to more concessions! Why should it cost 6.50 to post a parcel to Germany from Ireland and not 2.50 as is the case to post the same parcel from France to Germany. How can small Irish businesses compete on that basis? How can prices of food and clothes in Ireland be competitive with mainland on that basis? Doesn't seem relevant? Well it is... this is the position in one direction while in the other direction, an Irish company can hire a foreign contract company to bring in staff to replace Irish jobs with transient workers paid according to their home country minimum wages and not ours? Nothing in the Lisbon treaty or its clarifications addresses this issue as best I can tell.

If nothing in Lisbon addresses the problem then how is it relevant?

The Lisbon treaty remains as it was, unaltered and very complex.

That's because it's a legal document. It can't afford to contain simple, fluffy language because simple fluffy language is far too open to interpretation. At the end of the day the language is for the benefit of the lawyers and legislators who actually work with the treaty, not the layman.

The additional guarantees sought and in some cases obtained by our politicians may not hold in a world court. Its tantamount to signing a contract to buy a house with a flaw, on the basis that you have a note in your hand from the vendor promissing to fix the flaws. The fact is... if you buy the house, you cannot give it back whether the vendor comes good or not! The note may or may not be legally binding but will you have the money to force the vendor's hand? Or what if the vendor goes bust after the sale? You have a defective house... simple example I know but over simple?

That's a bad analogy because they are two completely different areas of the law, and besides, in that situation you could recover the cost of repairing your house.

That highly respected law professionals cannot agree on whether the Lisbon treaty usurpes the position of the Irish Constitution in many areas is a huge concern.

Ahem, what? I don't know of any highly respected law professionals who think Lisbon would "usurp" the Irish Constitution.

You should never vote in favour of something you don't understand. In fact that is a perfectly valid reason for voting NO. Its a message to the political powers that be to draft 'pretty important' legislation that governs the people, in a way that those people can actually understand it.

As I have said, we can't afford to draft the Lisbon Treaty in layman terms. It would leave the treaty too open to interpretation.

sink

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes and no

voting no on lisbon is not a no on europe


we want something different/more/less from that treaty if and when we vote(d) no
in a way i can see how we want something diff from europe - but in saying that it implied
we want something different from the eu as we are unhappy with it and are anti eu

that is why i am making that distinction - its a fine line but its meaning cant be twisted or misinterpretated

You say you're anti-Lisbon but you're pro-EU. You can't say what it is in Lisbon that bothers you and you can't give any alternate suggestions because you want to keep it secret. Your only argument seems to be against the ratification method used in other countries which has nothing to do with the EU and is purely an issue of their domestic politics. You don't like being asked a second time by our government because being asked to vote in a democratic referendum a second time with slightly changed conditions is somehow undemocratic.

Forgive me if I'm not really convinced that you are pro-EU.

conchubhar1

you are forgiven

you seem to be good at tracking my posts and opinions

track up how i will wait and see what is changed before making up my mind this time

why i voted no was stated before, track it up if ya want - it isnt relevant to this thread

Dinner

conchubhar1 wrote: »

track up how i will wait and see what is changed before making up my mind this time

You'll wait and see what is changed in what?