Vote yes, sure you can trust all politicians..

BlitzKrieg

maybe they should arrange lisbon treaty reading groups

Dr. Baltar

I agree with everything in the treaty and would vote yes, but I'm going to vote no for the simple fact that I view the Lisbon Treaty as an attack on democracy.
There are so many countries in Europe that want to have a referendum on the issue and can't.
Also, it is basically the European Constitution which was rejected by THe Netherlands and France Already so in my eyes that's three countries who have rejected it.
It's the will of the people. We don't need another referendum.

Hitman Actual

Sir Baralot wrote: »

I agree with everything in the treaty and would vote yes, but I'm going to vote no for the simple fact that I view the Lisbon Treaty as an attack on democracy.
There are so many countries in Europe that want to have a referendum on the issue and can't.
Also, it is basically the European Constitution which was rejected by THe Netherlands and France Already so in my eyes that's three countries who have rejected it.
It's the will of the people. We don't need another referendum.

There's already a ton of threads on this. Is every single thread going to be bogged down in this BS?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hitman Actual wrote: »

There's already a ton of threads on this. Is every single thread going to be bogged down in this BS?

Agree, can we have a quarantine thread for pollution like this please?

It seems to spring up every time there's a bit of consensus building about what a particular important aspect of the treaty actually means.

Dr. Baltar

Hitman Actual wrote: »

There's already a ton of threads on this. Is every single thread going to be bogged down in this BS?

This 'BS' is my opinion and thoguh it may be a minority of an opinion on this board I would appreciate it if you were to respect it. I don't consider your opinion 'BS'.
That's my personal view and that's why I'll vote no.

Hitman Actual

Sir Baralot wrote: »

This 'BS' is my opinion and thoguh it may be a minority of an opinion on this board I would appreciate it if you were to respect it. I don't consider your opinion 'BS'.
That's my personal view and that's why I'll vote no.

Apologies for the bluntness, but every single thread posted here these days gets dragged off-topic with this issue of democracy. This thread saw the first discussion on a real, tangible aspect of the Treaty in what seems like months, but now we're back to the same old issue. Why didn't you post your comments here.

Dinner

Sir Baralot wrote: »

I view the Lisbon Treaty as an attack on democracy.

It's not an attack on democracy because it is being ratified according to each countries constitutional requirements. Simple as that. In some countries, referenda are illegal and in others it is not necessary. We have to respect their constitutions in the same way that ours is being respected by having a referendum.

In France Sarkozy was elected partly on a platform of ratifying Lisbon without a referendum. So it shouldn't be a surprise to the French that there isn't a referendum. More to the point there seems to be very few, if any, demonstrations in Paris to try and get a referendum. (and we know how much the French love a good riot :pac:)

More of an attack on democracy would be to force European countries to override their constitutions and have a referendum.

Rabble

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You just have to be very careful reading it. It's in relatively plain English, but you still need to be careful that you understand exactly what's being said, and what each term refers to.

Just see the amount of bother and confusion you've caused yourself by mixing up the conference with the convention.

I'd imagine the whole thing is littered with possible slip ups like that, if you're not very very careful when reading it.

Dont confuse what I was confused about! :rolleyes:

I did not mix up the conference and the convention as you stated In fact I recognised that the latter case did not need a convention but still needed a conference. If you follow what I said it was that in the first part of paragraph 3 there was a direct reference to a conference as outlined in paragraph 4. In the second part it referred to a conference for which the terms are to be set by European Council but it did not indicate it was the same as outlined in paragraph 4.

At least other posters have understood my confusion correctly and also without taking the arrogant tone that you have.

RandomName2

Hey, didn't anybody notice something?

Run-up to Lisbon I there were plenty on the Yes side who berrated the No campaign for claiming that Irish law on abortion or tax regulation could be changed by Brussels following Lisbon. This, they claimed, [and still claim] were blatant lies.

Those same proponents of the treaty are now seeking guarantees that these areas of legislation will be protected. Either their former arguments were lies, or the guarantees are nonsense.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rabble wrote: »

Dont confuse what I was confused about! :rolleyes:

I did not mix up the conference and the convention as you stated In fact I recognised that the latter case did not need a convention but still needed a conference. If you follow what I said it was that in the first part of paragraph 3 there was a direct reference to a conference as outlined in paragraph 4. In the second part it referred to a conference for which the terms are to be set by European Council but it did not indicate it was the same as outlined in paragraph 4.

At least other posters have understood my confusion correctly and also without taking the arrogant tone that you have.

I was not trying to be arrogant, I was genuinely trying to help.

In this post:

Rabble wrote: »

ALL amendments to the the Treaty even ones that dont justify a conference must be passed back to the member state for raitification by the Oireachtas and most likely a referendum.

You confused the conference and the convention, by stating 'even ones that don't justify a conference' when you surely meant ones that don't justify a convention, as all amendments require a conference.

Several times I have taken time out of my day to clarify and help you understand the article in question, not because I am arrogant, but because I care that people understand exactly what is being stated.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hey, didn't anybody notice something?

Run-up to Lisbon I there were plenty on the Yes side who berrated the No campaign for claiming that Irish law on abortion or tax regulation could be changed by Brussels following Lisbon. This, they claimed, [and still claim] were blatant lies.

Those same proponents of the treaty are now seeking guarantees that these areas of legislation will be protected. Either their former arguments were lies, or the guarantees are nonsense.

The guarantees are not needed, as there was no danger in the first place. But people seem more comfortable with explicit statements I guess.

Perhaps the government just wanted it written in plain English, so there could be no lies told about it in future?

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hey, didn't anybody notice something?

Run-up to Lisbon I there were plenty on the Yes side who berrated the No campaign for claiming that Irish law on abortion or tax regulation could be changed by Brussels following Lisbon. This, they claimed, [and still claim] were blatant lies.

Those same proponents of the treaty are now seeking guarantees that these areas of legislation will be protected. Either their former arguments were lies, or the guarantees are nonsense.

The former arguments were not lies, but nor are the guarantees nonsense. It's a testament to the strength of the lies of the No campaign that the Government has to come back and say "we really, really, reeeaally mean it when we say that that abortion and corporation tax and neutrality is safe under the Lisbon Treaty". Please stop trying to use the consequences of the negative issues in your campaign to provide arguments against Lisbon II.

How about trying to argue something directly related to the Treaty? You've yet to do that in your time on this forum. All you do is try to muddy the waters, in a continuation of the No campaign from last year.

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hey, didn't anybody notice something?

Run-up to Lisbon I there were plenty on the Yes side who berrated the No campaign for claiming that Irish law on abortion or tax regulation could be changed by Brussels following Lisbon. This, they claimed, [and still claim] were blatant lies.

Those same proponents of the treaty are now seeking guarantees that these areas of legislation will be protected. Either their former arguments were lies, or the guarantees are nonsense.

Good God of almighty. It's because of the lies that the assurances are needed.

The guarentees are actually nonsense.

RandomName2

K-9 wrote: »

Good God of almighty. It's because of the lies that the assurances are needed.

The guarentees are actually nonsense.

Thank you.

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hey, didn't anybody notice something?

Run-up to Lisbon I there were plenty on the Yes side who berrated the No campaign for claiming that Irish law on abortion or tax regulation could be changed by Brussels following Lisbon. This, they claimed, [and still claim] were blatant lies.

Those same proponents of the treaty are now seeking guarantees that these areas of legislation will be protected. Either their former arguments were lies, or the guarantees are nonsense.

The guarantees are not 'nonsense' but they are redundant (apart from the commission one). Essentially they're to clear things up for anyone who didn't get that taxation, abortion and neutrality were unaffected by the Lisbon treaty the first time round. Legally they're pointless and are purely for the benefit of those who were taken in by the lies of the no side first time round.

NotoriousFin

sink wrote: »

The guarantees are not 'nonsense' but they are redundant (apart from the commission one). Essentially they're to clear things up for anyone who didn't get that taxation, abortion and neutrality were unaffected by the Lisbon treaty the first time round. Legally they're pointless and are purely for the benefit of those who were taken in by the lies of the no side first time round.

I find this post more deserving of the "thank you".

Hitman Actual

The assurances have been listed in The Times today. Three protocols (which are legally binding) on "Right to Life, Family and Education), "Taxation", and "Security and Defence", and one Declaration (not legally binding) on Workers Rights/Social Policy. I have to say I'm impressed with the wording of the Protocols; they don't give the No campaign much to work with at all. I think the best the No campaign will be able to do is argue about when the Protocols become active (e.g. in the next Accession Treaty or whatever).

The wording may change before the end of the week, of course.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Not bad.

I personally really like this bit:

The Union’s action on the international scene is guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

Now they just need to save that document somewhere and copy&paste it into every subsequent EU treaty...

oscarBravo

NotoriousFin wrote: »

I find this post more deserving of the "thank you".

Me too. Not only do I not expect it to be thanked; I expect that the post that was thanked will be quoted out-of-context at some future point, and sink's post will be ignored.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

Me too. Not only do I not expect it to be thanked; I expect that the post that was thanked will be quoted out-of-context at some future point, and sink's post will be ignored.

And the fact that it was a loaded question will be ignored too!

BlitzKrieg

I think the best the No campaign will be able to do is argue about when the Protocols become active (e.g. in the next Accession Treaty or whatever).

but if lisbon passess, doesnt the dynamic treaty element allow them to come into effect once all the states approve of them?

conchubhar1

well the people who were taken in by the lies are not at fault

you can blame the referendum commission and the government

they were not trusted by the people, and did not even pretend to put up a common strong stand

and actual trey to convince people

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well the people who were taken in by the lies are not at fault

you can blame the referendum commission and the government

they were not trusted by the people, and did not even pretend to put up a common strong stand

and actual trey to convince people

Refcom is required, by law, to give an impartial summary of the treaty. This wasn't good enough for Libertas & Coir as their lies weren't in the summary (being not part of the treaty).

I absolutely blame people who were taken in by the lies, as they chose, of their own free will, to believe a bunch of nonsense that nutjobs ran up lamp posts, over the independent and impartial referendum commission, and why? Because sure they must be up to something, only giving a summary, and not the whole treaty...

If you choose to believe a bunch of shíte on a lamp post, that's your business, but you are not absolved of the blame for your own ignorance.

conchubhar1

where was the refcom posters....?

you have to blame them and others


they had ample time, experience etc to deal with the issues the no side claimed (lies for the most part)

if they cant convince the people, you blame them. not the people

who was to know they were nutjobs at the time..?

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

where was the refcom posters....?

you have to blame them and others


they had ample time, experience etc to deal with the issues the no side claimed (lies for the most part)

if they cant convince the people, you blame them. not the people

who was to know they were nutjobs at the time..?

They sent a fooking booklet, to every fooking house in the motherfooking country. What do you want them to do ffs?

They don't have to convince, they deal in truth. If the people choose not to believe them, you blame the people.

Are you serious, who was to know? Anyone who had a mouth to ask, who are Coir?

As if adult human beings should automatically believe every bit of shíte that's run up a lamp post, until they know for sure it's from a bunch of god bothering lie merchants.

conchubhar1

the sent a summary booklet....... that fed into the no lies of asking ''what is in the rest of it'' - yes that was complete crap but it didnt help

the tds advocating a yes vote had to convince people - fair eneough?

coir are no one - cóir were set up to campaign against the treaty? so nothing to go on except that. i could be wrong

well if people did not vote fianna fáil, gael labour or certain greens
why would they trust their word either?

tonycascarino

Whatever about the merits of the Lisbon Treaty itself, the way it has been ratified leaves serious questions about democracy in Europe. France and Holland reject it? Grand, we'll drop the EU flag and anthem, then pass it without another referendum. The UK government promises a referendum, and when it become obvious it won't pass, we'll just drop that promise. Ireland votes no? Ah sure, have another go of it there lads so you can give us the 'right answer' the next time. It just doesn't set a great precedent by any means. Have the people who are running this Treaty given us a reason as to why they do not accept the will of the people as previously expressed? Why is it so difficult for them to answer this question??

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

the sent a summary booklet....... that fed into the no lies of asking ''what is in the rest of it'' - yes that was complete crap but it didnt help

the tds advocating a yes vote had to convince people - fair eneough?

coir are no one - cóir were set up to campaign against the treaty? so nothing to go on except that. i could be wrong

well if people did not vote fianna fáil, gael labour or certain greens
why would they trust their word either?

Well, as the standard response to Lisbon was the standard AH response:

TLDR

A summary was fair enough to me.

I often heard from normal, everyday people with lives (not EU Boards typical types) that it was too complicated and too long to read. Fair point. They didn't know what it was about and didn't have the time to find out. Whether we like it or not, we are the exception, not the rule.

I do remember pointing out to others on another site, read the Referendum Commission 8 page (or whatever it was) booklet. Some did, some said that was too difficult. I give up!

Some didn't read either and chose to believe Kathy Synnots booklet!

So, what would you suggest?

PS. FF/FG/LAB and certain Greens got 85/90% of the vote in the GE, also SF got 6/7%. Only about 5/6% voted on non party lines
Though going from a poll I seen, party lines isn't that significant come EU Election time. SF are actually the most loyal type.

K-9

The main issues people voted No?

Taxation - if you'd read up on it, it was debunked.

Commissioner - if you'd read up on it, it wasn't that important

Abortion and Neutrality - If you'd read up on it, debunked.

Lack of Knowledge - fair point - though it takes an interest to acquire knowledge to help, see above points.

Protest vote - fair enough - people will choose to do this no matter what

Too complicated - fair point - It's a complicated Treaty.

EU Sceptics - fair point - Always will be there and will increase as each Treaty gives more power to the EU.

Immigration - it has been done to death.

tonycascarino

K-9 wrote: »

The main issues people voted No?

Taxation - if you'd read up on it, it was debunked.

Commissioner - if you'd read up on it, it wasn't that important

Abortion and Neutrality - If you'd read up on it, debunked.

Lack of Knowledge - fair point - though it takes an interest to acquire knowledge to help, see above points.

Protest vote - fair enough - people will choose to do this no matter what

Too complicated - fair point - It's a complicated Treaty.

EU Sceptics - fair point - Always will be there and will increase as each Treaty gives more power to the EU.

Immigration - it has been done to death.

You can add in a new one for this time around which I know will influence No voters.

Democracy - Ignored the last time which many people won't take kindly to.