Bullet Point Lisbon

Spiritoftheseventies

No. the euro allowed retailers to screw us when we converted over.
No. No doesn't mean no apparently.
No. how many countries have actually put this to a referendum.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

No. the euro allowed retailers to screw us when we converted over.
No. No doesn't mean no apparently.
No. how many countries have actually put this to a referendum.

1. Vote with your wallet, don't shop at rip off merchants. Lisbon has no affect on the Euro.

2. If 'No' doesn't mean 'No', then why are you bothering to vote? What is your opinion of the extra legally binding guarantees secured by the govt from the other EU member states. What is your opinion of the change in the number of commissioners? Ratifying or rejecting Lisbon will have no affect on the constitutional right of the Irish government to propose referenda to the people.

3. None, but all have ratified it in accordance with their constitutional requirements. If you claim that you have the right to dictate to e.g. Spain how they ratify a treaty, do you accept that your position means that Spanish people should have the right to dictate that Ireland doesn't have a referendum? Ratifying or rejecting Lisbon will have no affect on the ratification methods of the other member states.

None of your 'reasons' are in any way related to the content of the Lisbon treaty.

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

1. Vote with your wallet, don't shop at rip off merchants. Lisbon has no affect on the Euro.

2. If 'No' doesn't mean 'No', then why are you bothering to vote? What is your opinion of the extra legally binding guarantees secured by the govt from the other EU member states. What is your opinion of the change in the number of commissioners? Ratifying or rejecting Lisbon will have no affect on the constitutional right of the Irish government to propose referenda to the people.

3. None, but all have ratified it in accordance with their constitutional requirements. If you claim that you have the right to dictate to e.g. Spain how they ratify a treaty, do you accept that your position means that Spanish people should have the right to dictate that Ireland doesn't have a referendum? Ratifying or rejecting Lisbon will have no affect on the ratification methods of the other member states.

None of your 'reasons' are in any way related to the content of the Lisbon treaty.

I would not concur. its one thing for a country to ratify a treaty. its another to put it before the people. and on second point. Has the wording of the treaty been changed since we voted no.

molloyjh

bayviewclose wrote: »

I would not concur. its one thing for a country to ratify a treaty. its another to put it before the people. and on second point. Has the wording of the treaty been changed since we voted no.

No but the overall package has.

Spiritoftheseventies

some facts. we took on the EURO currency when some countries didn't. We have opened our borders to accession states when others didn't. we held a referendum on treaty when others didn't. seems to me as if EU is trying to paint us as big bad wolves for saying no to a referendum that was put before us. in terms of neutrality same fears were raised in Nice treaty and they were still there for Lisbon. Is it that Irish people dont feel Europe is listening to them because we are a small country.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

I would not concur. its one thing for a country to ratify a treaty. its another to put it before the people.

So you think you have the right to dictate how other countries ratify treaties?

Would it be acceptable for an Italian to say 'Ireland should not ratify treaties by referendum, and I will block anything Ireland wants until such time as they remove the vote'? I would contend that that would be completely unacceptable interference in internal Irish affairs, wouldn't you? Just like your interference in internal Italian affairs is unacceptable. Either way voting 'yes' or 'no' to Lisbon will not have any affect on it.

When was the last EU Treaty that was subject to referenda in every Member State, out of curiosity, and in your opinion does the legal rules in that treaty represent the only legitimate format for the EU? If no, what makes Lisbon different?

bayviewclose wrote: »

and on second point. Has the wording of the treaty been changed since we voted no.

No but the wording of the referendum will have changed to take account of the additional guarantees and probably for the commissioner numbers too, so it's a different referendum, and a different proposition, even if part of it refers to the same treaty.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

in terms of neutrality same fears were raised in Nice treaty and they were still there for Lisbon. Is it that Irish people dont feel Europe is listening to them because we are a small country.

No it's because some people who are against the idea of the EU being any more than a tariff free trade organisation are aware that neutrality is a 'hot button' issue with the Irish electorate, and therefore cast fear, uncertainty and doubt about every EU Treaty in this area. They dishonestly hint and cast aspersions that each Treaty will dilute Neutrality, and somehow wind up with Ireland in the middle of a military alliance like NATO. They do this because they want to destroy the EU, and they know the easiest way to do that is to block the progress of the EU, by any means necessary.

Spiritoftheseventies

wouldn't say by any means necessary. Think irish people are happy to send our troops out for peace keeping purposes but we would have certain issues with how Europe overall aligns itself with other blocks of countries over Military issues.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

wouldn't say by any means necessary. Think irish people are happy to send our troops out for peace keeping purposes but we would have certain issues with how Europe overall aligns itself with other blocks of countries over Military issues.

I'm not talking about the Irish people, I'm talking about nefarious ultra nationalist elements/right wing nuts like Justin Barrett, Libertas and Coir who abuse the honest and decent intentions of the Irish people, by attempting to fool them in relation to multiple treaties affects on Irish neutrality.

Spiritoftheseventies

well the Libertas ship has sailed albeit not because of the neutrality. Think their blue card scheme went down like a lead balloon.

oscarBravo

bayviewclose wrote: »

in terms of neutrality same fears were raised in Nice treaty and they were still there for Lisbon.

Which begs the question: were we forced to join NATO after Nice? Have any of us been concripted into an EU army since Nice?

No? Could that be because Nice had the same protocols recognising Ireland's policy of neutrality as Lisbon will?

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

well Libertas shipped has sailed albeit not because of the neutrality. Think their blue card scheme went down like a lead balloon.

Yes thank goodness, they totally miscalculated the mood of Irish people towards immigration.

But don't worry like a hydra there'll be someone to jump into the space they occupied by the time the next campaign gets going, just wait and see.

Neutrality will not die as an 'issue' as long as there are people willing to exploit our collective worries about it for their own ends.

K-9

bayviewclose wrote: »

No. the euro allowed retailers to screw us when we converted over.

Ah come on. That was an Irish problem. The Govt. should have had better consumer protection. Not the EU's.

Spiritoftheseventies

K-9 wrote: »

Ah come on. That was an Irish problem. The Govt. should have had better consumer protection. Not the EU's.

yeah we have moved on from that but still we got screwed on the conversion.

Martin 2

K-9 wrote: »

Ah come on. That was an Irish problem. The Govt. should have had better consumer protection. Not the EU's.

As K-9 says that wasn’t the EU’s fault

-The government didn’t enforce consumer protection laws
-We were taken advantage of by unscrupulous retailers
-At the time we had more money than sense; we didn’t check labels or even do the conversions.
What’s more we were all given a free Euro Conversion calculator, but I think it stayed at home most of the time:)

Anyway that’s all history now.

Yes to the Euro for all it represents and the convenience it offers… but not really a Lisbon issue.

ixtlan

oscarBravo wrote: »

Imagine you and some friends sit down to discuss where to have dinner. After some discussion (some of it heated), all of you arrive at a decision that you're all pretty happy with.

Does that mean that your friends have dictated to you where you should eat? Has the restaurant dictated to you where you should eat?

adr wrote: »

The issue is that maybe sometimes I want to eat alone or pick the restaurant myself. If the Lisbon is passed I will have to eat at the same restaurnat that suits the rest even if I don't like it.

Is it more constructive for you?

I'm sorry. I can't resist an analogy. Certainly sometimes you want to eat alone or pick the restaurant, but all the big restaurants give big discounts to the group and without this you can't afford to eat there at all. In addition it's impossible to get a booking for one in the places you want to go, and anyhow eating alone gets boring very quickly. So maybe it's worth putting up with the group even when you would rather not, for the 95% of the time when you are delighted to be part of the group?!

Also, sometimes you will be able to convince the others to go to your choice. You don't want someone to have a veto on Indian, when you love Indian! So you are happy to give up your veto on Italian, which you can live with or without!

Ix

Spiritoftheseventies

ixtlan wrote: »

I'm sorry. I can't resist an analogy. Certainly sometimes you want to eat alone or pick the restaurant, but all the big restaurants give big discounts to the group and without this you can't afford to eat there at all. In addition it's impossible to get a booking for one in the places you want to go, and anyhow eating alone gets boring very quickly. So maybe it's worth putting up with the group even when you would rather not, for the 95% of the time when you are delighted to be part of the group?!

Also, sometimes you will be able to convince the others to go to your choice. You don't want someone to have a veto on Indian, when you love Indian! So you are happy to give up your veto on Italian, which you can live with or without!

Ix

lads may i point to following link. German coalition party, the Christian Social Union of Bavaria looking for more rights on Lisbon
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4454702,00.html.
a lot of dealing to be done here before referendum is passed.

Hitman Actual

bayviewclose wrote: »

lads may i point to following link. German coalition party, the Christian Social Union of Bavaria looking for more rights on Lisbon
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4454702,00.html.
a lot of dealing to be done here before referendum is passed.

There's already a thread on the German situation. It seem to be accepted that the worst that will happen is that ratification in Germany will be delayed, but that's all. The issues with the Treaty are much more to do with internal politicking in Germany than anything else. There's no real fear that they won't ratify, now that it has been ruled in the Constitutional courts that the Treaty is compatible with the German Constitution.

On the other hand it's hard to know what Klaus will do in The Czech Republic, although if the Treaty is ratified in Ireland he won't have much room left to manoeuvre. I think the situation is similar in Poland.

steady on now

Yes--- Clear demarcation of areas of competence makes unwanted superstate or federal state less likely.

steady on now

Yes

---

A good balance struck between State sovereignty and EU power. State remains central actor and holder of real power. Lip service given to closer union. Essential sovereignty remains with the state.

steady on now

smithcity wrote: »

Article 28, Paragraph 3, TEU post Lisbon
...Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities....

NO The Lisbon Treaty will give the EDA the power to take measures to ensure member states, including Ireland, increase military spending (a ridiculous notion in a country that claims it can't afford 10 million euros for cervical cancer innoculations for little girls)

I can't keep dumbing it down guys, that's as simply as I'm going to put it. Ok?

Wrong.
There are 2 debates to be had.

1----How much we should spend money on our military full stop. This is a debate that is in our hands and not for the EU to decide.

2

---

If we spend money should we do it in the most efficient and co-operative way or should we go it alone and spend in-efficiently.

The role of the EU only has influence on the second debate.

The EDA allows us to spend in a way that means our equipment and training can link in with other nations that we are likely to work with on UN missions. WE get the benefit of scale in research and procurement. We get more bang for our buck. I agree that it is shameful that Ireland cannot find €10 million for cancer innoculation but I believe that this is more of a reason for us to be sensible and efficient when we do spend money.

steady on now

Mayo1 wrote: »

No - the Lisbon Treaty will give larger countries, Germany, France, Britian, etc, more say with a larger percentage of voting rights. Ireland's voting weight will be reduced to less than 1%!

This is completely wrong.It was again repeated by Patricia Mckenna the other night.
A double majority is required on the council, 1 number of states and 2 population.

If you look at just the population then we have less than 1% of voting weight but that is like saying that in Ireland anyone can legally drink and drive without saying that you need to stay under the drink drive limit.

Scofflaw

steady on now wrote: »

Wrong.
There are 2 debates to be had.

1----How much we should spend money on our military full stop. This is a debate that is in our hands and not for the EU to decide.

2

---

If we spend money should we do it in the most efficient and co-operative way or should we go it alone and spend in-efficiently.

The role of the EU only has influence on the second debate.

The EDA allows us to spend in a way that means our equipment and training can link in with other nations that we are likely to work with on UN missions. WE get the benefit of scale in research and procurement. We get more bang for our buck. I agree that it is shameful that Ireland cannot find €10 million for cancer innoculation but I believe that this is more of a reason for us to be sensible and efficient when we do spend money.

Indeed, this is from the guarantees:

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed, this is from the guarantees:



cordially,
Scofflaw

its the Big C i think people are still worried about. Ie conscription.

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

its the Big C i think people are still worried about. Ie conscription.

That one is also in Section C:

Section C wrote:

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

steady on now wrote: »

This is completely wrong.It was again repeated by Patricia Mckenna the other night.
A double majority is required on the council, 1 number of states and 2 population.

If you look at just the population then we have less than 1% of voting weight but that is like saying that in Ireland anyone can legally drink and drive without saying that you need to stay under the drink drive limit.

Interesting analogy! This misrepresentation of how voting works is such a big recurring issue. The referendum commission needs to print a brightly coloured leaflet on it, and we probably need posters to tell people to read them. It's sad that the percentage of people in the country who understand it is so small and that most just don't care.

Spiritoftheseventies

No. We are good Europeans but we are not being listened to. What other country has to vote twice on two differerent referendums.

PopeBuckfastXVI

The Danes voted twice on the same treaty.

Do you not think the result of the second Nice referendum justified it's being held?

I'll reserve judgement on the second Lisbon referendum until the result is known. Obviously if it's another 'no' it's been waste of time to have it.

petronius

The Lisbon Treaty supports Nuclear power in europe (by the energy open market, the investement in research and the funding the clean up after the nuclear industries) and its passing will mean more jobs for BNFL in Sellafield!

Lisbon will maintain Sellafield and keep it storing Nuclear waste in there and beneath the Irish Sea.
http://www.ulike.net/news/Plans-bring-hope-of-jobs-bonanza-for-Sellafield

oscarBravo

Looks like FutureTaoiseach has a competitor in the making-****-up stakes.