Bullet Point Lisbon

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Imagine in a few years Turkey* joins the EU, and many Turkish factories are polluting at levels above those prohibited by EU law.

Now Ankara can say 'don't worry about it Brussels, we'll crack a few heads and execute a few CEO's, then the rest of the companies will soon fall into line, and our government won't get any fines for having too much pollution'.

If we pass Lisbon, and include the charter, then that won't be an option for them.

*Merely an example, even if it's not realistic, to show how the charter might apply.

Okay thats knocked on the head. Any other parts of the charter that should be addressed

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Okay thats knocked on the head. Any other parts of the charter that should be addressed

I just used the death penalty as it's one of the first, and most obvious, rights, but the others would all be applied in the exact same way.

Spiritoftheseventies

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

and this is why I hate it when a discussion turns to quoting other people, the discussion on the issue stops because there is nothing that can be said about quoting other people.

Which is a shame.

A good point but given the time frame (barely six weeks left) I suggest we get down to the nitty gritty. Less talking about procedural issues on debating threads.
And anyone quoting text, attempt to explain the context of it. No straight links without explanation. Maybe some guidelines here that we can get out of the way. I will assume that things are going to get very heated as we draw nearer treaty so its important we don't waste time getting bogged down in off topic stuff.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

A good point but given the time frame (barely six weeks left) I suggest we get down to the nitty gritty. Less talking about procedural issues on debating threads.
And anyone quoting text, attempt to explain the context of it. No straight links without explanation. Maybe some guidelines here that we can get out of the way. I will assume that things are going to get very heated as we draw nearer treaty so its important we don't waste time getting bogged down in off topic stuff.

Everything you need should be already in the charter

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

so the charter...

seems to only apply to EU law and is specified not to conflict with the constitution...So anyway left it can f*ck with Ireland?

But the Charter itself will be EU law, with the "same legal value as the Treaties" (Article 6 TEU). When a member state is found by the ECJ to be in violation of EU law, fines can result and the relevant national legislation annulled. The latter happened happened in the Mangold case (cited by former President Roman Herzog of Germany) where the ECJ struck down a German law intended to help older people get work.

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Everything you need should be already in the charter

appreciate but just sometimes you get people getting into personal arguments and go off the target. Like i said six weeks to go so we have to start getting down to the business end of things now.

ixtlan

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

As someone who voted yes to Amsterdam and Nice (both times), and who actively argued for Nice, even to the extent of going on South East radio to press for a yes vote, I don't have to prove myself to anyone. My pro-European credentials are clear. Indeed, I believe I am pursuing pro-Irish and pro-European goals in opposing Lisbon.

Actually although someone else questioned it, I tend to believe this. I'd be very interested in another thread explaining how you moved sides over the years. Though it might dissolve into a slagging match. Not from me though. I think you're wrong but I respect that you have thought deeply about the issues.

Ix.

Cactus Col

ixtlan wrote: »

Actually although someone else questioned it, I tend to believe this. I'd be very interested in another thread explaining how you moved sides over the years. Though it might dissolve into a slagging match. Not from me though. I think you're wrong but I respect that you have thought deeply about the issues.

Ix.

Have to say ... I read FutureTaoiseach's post to mean that he is still pro Europe, but that this treaty is not in the EU's best interests.

It shouldn't be set that just because someone is voting no to Lisbon he/she is anti EU. It might just mean that they don't believe that this treaty is going to be a benefit to the union.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Cactus Col wrote: »

It shouldn't be set that just because someone is voting no to Lisbon is anti EU. It might just mean that they don't believe that this treaty is going to be a benefit to the union.

I agree, however...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61550193#post61550193

ixtlan

Cactus Col wrote: »

Have to say ... I read FutureTaoiseach's post to mean that he is still pro Europe, but that this treaty is not in the EU's best interests.

It shouldn't be set that just because someone is voting no to Lisbon he/she is anti EU. It might just mean that they don't believe that this treaty is going to be a benefit to the union.

True, people can have all kinds of perspectives which are valid from their point of view. For many people though the Europe and EU they are pro has never existed.

What I found interesting about FT is that he appears to have been so in favour of the direction of the EU for previous treaties and hence has moved to a different viewpoint... whereas many no-votes would always have voted no.

As Pope points out one of FT's issues is with immigration policy, which can be debated. However that has been a core basis of the EU for decades, free movement of people, so it is interesting to ask how he can have spoken in favour of Nice but feel the direction of the EU is now wrong as regards that area.

I believe he has moved viewpoint, I'm just curious how it happened.

ix.

FutureTaoiseach

ixtlan wrote: »

True, people can have all kinds of perspectives which are valid from their point of view. For many people though the Europe and EU they are pro has never existed.

What I found interesting about FT is that he appears to have been so in favour of the direction of the EU for previous treaties and hence has moved to a different viewpoint... whereas many no-votes would always have voted no.

As Pope points out one of FT's issues is with immigration policy, which can be debated. However that has been a core basis of the EU for decades, free movement of people, so it is interesting to ask how he can have spoken in favour of Nice but feel the direction of the EU is now wrong as regards that area.

I believe he has moved viewpoint, I'm just curious how it happened.

ix.

I began having reservations about freedom of movement when our government decided to open our labour market before 12 of the other members of the Old EU had done so, but it was the enormous scale of the influx, together with the Irish Ferries crisis, that really unsettled me in this area. My distrust of the ECJ to handle the immigration-related provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights spring in part from a perceived liberal bias on their part, notably in rulings like Chen and Metock. During the 2 Nice referenda, I swallowed assurances from pro-Nice figures like Dick Roche and Proinsias de Rossa playing down the likely influx:[QUOTE="P. De Rossa Irish Times Letters
20/8/2002"]It is a deliberate misrepresentation to suggest that tens of thousands will suddenly descend en masse on Ireland...The expected trickle of immigration to Ireland will on balance benefit the Irish economy..I estimate that fewer than 2,000 will choose our distant shores each year."[/QUOTE]

Dick Roche transcript of interview with The Irish Catholic, Govt.Buildings 19/9/2002. wrote:

It is the view of the Irish government and a number of other governments that this idea that there is going to be a huge influx of immigrants is just not supported. The evidence is just not there for it. They are not going to flood to the west. The same rules are going to apply in all 15 states. There is no evidence to suggest that the people of the Czech Republic or Poland are less anxious to stay in their home as (sic) we are.

Dick Roche I.T. Letters 12/7/2002 wrote:

There is no reason to believe...... that large numbers of workers willwish to come.

Dick Roche, I.T. Letters Aug/Sept. 2002. wrote:

Mr. XXXX also repeats the line propagated by the No to Nice campaign that only four countries are to permit immigration after enlargement. This statement grossly misrepresents the position of the other member states

"Grossly misrepresents"? I think not. It was three countries rather than four. The fact that Roche and others proved to be wrong on this matter greatly undermined my trust in these figures with respect to Lisbon.

Brian Cowen Sunday Business Post 7/7/2002 wrote:

Efforts have been made to foment fears that migrants from the new member states could flock to Ireland. This is not only unpleasant but plainly wrong...Ireland is already benefiting from the skills and energy of workers from the applicant states, about 7,000 of whom received work permits last year. There is no basis whatever for expecting a huge upsurge in these numbers.

Willie O'Dea Sunday Independent Summer 2002 wrote:

The second myth is that the Nice Treaty will mean mass immigration from the new EU member countries in Eastern Europe. This is probably the most odious of the myths propagated by some in the "No" campaign

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

True, people can have all kinds of perspectives which are valid from their point of view. For many people though the Europe and EU they are pro has never existed.

What I found interesting about FT is that he appears to have been so in favour of the direction of the EU for previous treaties and hence has moved to a different viewpoint... whereas many no-votes would always have voted no.

As Pope points out one of FT's issues is with immigration policy, which can be debated. However that has been a core basis of the EU for decades, free movement of people, so it is interesting to ask how he can have spoken in favour of Nice but feel the direction of the EU is now wrong as regards that area.

In summary, I would say: before Nice, freedom of movement was essentially just freedom of Irish people to emigrate. Other Europeans did come here, but in absolutely penny numbers, apart from the British. It was handy for the tourism as well. Nothing but positives, whether one cared about immigration or not.

After Nice, we had actual large-scale immigration, with a noticeable impact. Suddenly, if you minded immigration, there was a big downside to freedom of movement.

Nothing in the EU's policy of free movement changed, but the context did - which was why, of course, the other governments didn't open their labour markets. Nice didn't contain the immediate right of free movement for the accession states - instead, Ireland quite deliberately chose to tap those labour markets to sustain Irish economic growth. Had we not had free movement via the EU, Ireland would almost certainly have still opened its doors to the Eastern European states anyway, and for exactly the same reasons - however, it would at least be seen as what it was, an Irish government decision.

The funny thing about it, of course, is that freedom of movement wasn't an issue that ever entered the debate before, because Europeans didn't actually move around much. The huge movement of the accession state nationals is, in one sense, a huge success for the freedom of movement principle, because the idea is that the peoples of Europe mingle, and get to know each other by mingling. One can deplore the loss of unique cultures, but, realistically, TV media, the Internet, and commercialisation are far more of a threat there - indeed, they've gone well beyond being a threat at this stage, and a long way towards eradicating the unique cultures that those opposed to immigration are presumably concerned to preserve.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

but it was the enormous scale of the influx, together with the Irish Ferries crisis, that really unsettled me in this area.

What is wrong with migration? On average during the Celtic Tiger, 80,000 jobs were being created every year. Only a certain proportion could be filled by graduates and those returning to the workforce.

If we hadn't had immigrats to fill those jobs, the Irish economy would have slowed.

FutureTaoiseach

taconnol wrote: »

What is wrong with migration? On average during the Celtic Tiger, 80,000 jobs were being created every year. Only a certain proportion could be filled by graduates and those returning to the workforce.

If we hadn't had immigrats to fill those jobs, the Irish economy would have slowed.

What's wrong with food? We need it to live. But too much can make you obese. Like many things that are good in moderation, there is such thing as too much of a good thing with respect to immigration. I blame not the immigrants, but the politicians. Our crumbling schools cannot cope with this kind of influx. Their failure to plan ahead for social infrastructure to cope with the population pressures, together with an ideological agenda of open-borders, has greatly exacerbated existing infrastructural shortcomings in our health and education sectors. This is not the fault of the immigrants, but of a policy of open-borders that has, in the end, brought the economy full circle since its inception. The growth immigration was supposed to bring to the economy is now being reversed, calling into question the economic case for it in the first place.

I make no apology for believing in the old maxim that charity begins at home. I am Irish first and European second. The fact that one of the key principles of the EU has been freedom of movement, does not mean that should remain the case. Indeed it underlines one of the problems with the European project - its rigid adherance to principles regardless of their suitability to the modern world. In that respect, the EU shares flaws with aspects of the US Constitution that are centuries out of date, such as the right to bear arms. I believe that since some immigration is inevitably going to happen, the newcomers have to be assimilated. Multiculturalism, which promotes identity politics amongst the newcomers, has led to racial tensions in countries like France, the UK and Holland, a fact reflected in riots and the rise of the Far Right. It underlines that decades of lecturing by the European Left about the benefits of uncontrolled immigration and multiculturalism has been proven for the folly it is. When resources are scarce, it is not productive to good intercommunal relations to actively seek to increase demand for them. Yet that is what happened in this country with respect to schools and hospitals. Our woefully inefficient health service cannot provide adequately for the people here already. We would be doing immigrants a favour not to subject them to its problems. I speak as someone whose mother acquired a serious infection when in hospital for a cancer operation 7 years ago. I also point to research by respected Professor Robert Puttnam (Bertie's guru on "social capital" some years ago) about how multicultural communities have less social-trust.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

... Our woefully inefficient health service cannot provide adequately for the people here already. ...

So let's send home the Pakistani doctors and the Filipina nurses, and see how we get on.

Immigration is a dangerous thing. We should not allow people from Cork to move to Dublin, nor people from Mayo move to Birmingham. Most of all, let nobody who does not have four grandparents (at least) from the Kingdom be allowed into Kerry -- they might kill off the cultural tradition that gave us John B. Keane, Pat Spillane, and Jackie Healy-Rae.

This mixing of peoples is a bad thing entirely: let nobody travel more than five miles to find a spouse. In fact, to be on the safe side, and to minimise temptation, let nobody travel more than five miles.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

What's wrong with food? We need it to live. But too much can make you obese. Like many things that are good in moderation, there is such thing as too much of a good thing with respect to immigration. I blame not the immigrants, but the politicians. Our crumbling schools cannot cope with this kind of influx. Their failure to plan ahead for social infrastructure to cope with the population pressures, together with an ideological agenda of open-borders, has greatly exacerbated existing infrastructural shortcomings in our health and education sectors. This is not the fault of the immigrants, but of a policy of open-borders that has, in the end, brought the economy full circle since its inception. The growth immigration was supposed to bring to the economy is now being reversed, calling into question the economic case for it in the first place.

That's not really an argument against immigration - it's an argument against poor planning in times of increasing population.In fact, immigration puts far less stress on resources than the equivalent natural increase, because immigrants are preferentially young, single, and healthy, but post-education. They provide maximum labour-force bang for minimum resource buck.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I make no apology for believing in the old maxim that charity begins at home. I am Irish first and European second. The fact that one of the key principles of the EU has been freedom of movement, does not mean that should remain the case. Indeed it underlines one of the problems with the European project - its rigid adherance to principles regardless of their suitability to the modern world. In that respect, the EU shares flaws with aspects of the US Constitution that are centuries out of date, such as the right to bear arms. I believe that since some immigration is inevitably going to happen, the newcomers have to be assimilated. Multiculturalism, which promotes identity politics amongst the newcomers, has led to racial tensions in countries like France, the UK and Holland, a fact reflected in riots and the rise of the Far Right. It underlines that decades of lecturing by the European Left about the benefits of uncontrolled immigration and multiculturalism has been proven for the folly it is. When resources are scarce, it is not productive to good intercommunal relations to actively seek to increase demand for them. Yet that is what happened in this country with respect to schools and hospitals. Our woefully inefficient health service cannot provide adequately for the people here already. We would be doing immigrants a favour not to subject them to its problems. I speak as someone whose mother acquired a serious infection when in hospital for a cancer operation 7 years ago. I also point to research by respected Professor Robert Puttnam (Bertie's guru on "social capital" some years ago) about how multicultural communities have less social-trust.

And one might point out in return, that the lack of social trust is not the necessary workings of divine fiat, but results from the distrust felt by some of the community for people who aren't the same as them, of much the kind you're displaying here.

The arguments you're offering are logically flawed. The strain on Irish resources "caused by immigration" are the result of bad planning and the natural lag of government infrastructural investment behind the economic cycle. The lower social trust in multicultural communities is the outcome of xenophobia, not a justification of it. Blaming the existence of free movement for the decisions of the Irish government is like blaming the bad weather for overflowing gutters. You appear to have a kind of genius for seeing all situations from a predetermined point of view - Beeblebrox in the Total Perspective Vortex.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So let's send home the Pakistani doctors and the Filipina nurses, and see how we get on.

Immigration is a dangerous thing. We should not allow people from Cork to move to Dublin, nor people from Mayo move to Birmingham. Most of all, let nobody who does not have four grandparents (at least) from the Kingdom be allowed into Kerry -- they might kill off the cultural tradition that gave us John B. Keane, Pat Spillane, and Jackie Healy-Rae.

This mixing of peoples is a bad thing entirely: let nobody travel more than five miles to find a spouse. In fact, to be on the safe side, and to minimise temptation, let nobody travel more than five miles.

Which would have the advantage of preserving distinctive local cultures.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So let's send home the Pakistani doctors and the Filipina nurses, and see how we get on.

I'm not calling for the deportation of legal-immigrants already here. I want to distinguish between future would-be immigrants and those already here legally. The latter should perhaps be allowed to stay. There is, however, a humanitarian question as to whether the brain-drain of nurses from the Third World is damaging the health-services of those countries, particularly in the context where some African countries like South Africa have 10% of their populations suffering from HIV/AIDS. But from now on I want tighter controls on non-EEA immigration. It does not make sense to argue that a single labour market of 500 million people cannot fulfill the vast bulk of Ireland's labour demands into the future - not least when unemployment is soaring in this country. The skills-shortages argument lacks credibility when you have 12% unemployment going on 15% by the end of the year.

Immigration is a dangerous thing. We should not allow people from Cork to move to Dublin, nor people from Mayo move to Birmingham. Most of all, let nobody who does not have four grandparents (at least) from the Kingdom be allowed into Kerry -- they might kill off the cultural tradition that gave us John B. Keane, Pat Spillane, and Jackie Healy-Rae.

I didn't say immigration per se is dangerous. What is dangerous is government policies of unregulated immigration in a context where integration and the absorption capacity of society with respect to assimilation of newcomers and public-services is not adequately taken into account.

This mixing of peoples is a bad thing entirely: let nobody travel more than five miles to find a spouse. In fact, to be on the safe side, and to minimise temptation, let nobody travel more than five miles.

I actually support mixing of peoples provided the newcomers assimilate. Intermarriage contributes to that process. You are just showing your immaturity by engaging in the kind of demonisation of those who disagree with you that the Democrats are engaging in with respect to opponents of the health-plan in the US. There is an authoritarian streak to the Irish Left when it comes to freedom of speech, and caricaturing their opponents as cartoon-cutout fascists when they are simply calling for more conservative policies in certain areas. Your post is typical of that. Real social-liberals favour freedom of speech. As Voltaire put it, I disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it. And so it should be with respect to all policy opinions that do not involve physically harming human beings or denying them rights under international law.

Macha

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

. I also point to research by respected Professor Robert Puttnam (Bertie's guru on "social capital" some years ago) about how multicultural communities have less social-trust.

He may be respected by some but to be honest, serious flaws have been pointed out in Putnam's theories by other 'respected' sociologists. Plus the work of DeFillipis and Arnstein shows his theories are in serious need of revision.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is, however, a humanitarian question as to whether the brain-drain of nurses from the Third World is damaging the health-services of those countries, particularly in the context where some African countries like South Africa have 10% of their populations suffering from HIV/AIDS.

It looks like you're just throwing out any argument you can lay your hands on, even if you contradict yourself within the space of 2 posts. Earlier you wrote:

I make no apology for believing in the old maxim that charity begins at home.

But now you're using concerns about developing nations as an argument against immigration? Cognitive dissonance anyone?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

But from now on I want tighter controls on non-EEA immigration.

There already are tight controls on non-EEA immigration. In the 2006 Census, it shows there are less than 150,000 non-EU nationals living here and it is quite likely that this number has since gone down. I used to work in recruitment and we all knew that the minimum salary for getting a visa for a non-EU national was above the national industrial wage In other words, those people were more likely than not contributing in the higher bracket of income tax.

Also, quite a number of these people would be on fixed visas for 1-2 years, particularly all the Australians & New Zealanders.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It does not make sense to argue that a single labour market of 500 million people cannot fulfill the vast bulk of Ireland's labour demands into the future - not least when unemployment is soaring in this country. The skills-shortages argument lacks credibility when you have 12% unemployment going on 15% by the end of the year.

In fairness, do you know the ins and outs of what skills are required by certain companies here? There may be 500 million people but that number is significantly reduced by taking out under-18s and people over 55. Then remove those who don't want to migrate, don't have the exact skill-set (don't speak English, etc) and it's not 500m we're talking about. Throwing out that figure is very misleading.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I didn't say immigration per se is dangerous. What is dangerous is government policies of unregulated immigration in a context where integration and the absorption capacity of society with respect to assimilation of newcomers and public-services is not adequately taken into account.

Well, as Scofflaw said, those are two different issues.

You also seem to be ignoring the flip-side benefit of free movement to Ireland. Emigration is an important pressure-release in times of recession and always has been.

ixtlan

I would also ask this to FutureTaoiseach.

Are you sure that a note vote to Lisbon would help with immigration controls?

1/ Lisbon will not affect free movement of EU citizens, pass or no pass.

2/ The failure of Lisbon will block any EU changes for many years, preventing any changes which you might seek.

3/ The no-side does have right-wing/left-wing elements. You would belong on the rightish wing, which I don't mean in any derogatory sense. So, in the event of Lisbon failing, which policies are changed in the distant future? Some of the left wing elements are concerned about the creation of "fortress Europe" as regards immigration from outside the EU. If their voice is the one heard the controls might be relaxed.

4/ For better or worse, the changes in Lisbon as regards immigration (meaning from outside the EU) are likely to result in more stringent controls.

So, it would seem to me that you should vote yes, and then lobby your elected representatives for changes in the next treaty, since voting no for immigration reasons is completely pointless. You are ironically voting no to protest at the current situation, while re-enforcing that very same system by slowing down any changes.

Ix.

FutureTaoiseach

ixtlan wrote: »

I would also ask this to FutureTaoiseach.

Are you sure that a note vote to Lisbon would help with immigration controls?

1/ Lisbon will not affect free movement of EU citizens, pass or no pass.

2/ The failure of Lisbon will block any EU changes for many years, preventing any changes which you might seek.

3/ The no-side does have right-wing/left-wing elements. You would belong on the rightish wing, which I don't mean in any derogatory sense. So, in the event of Lisbon failing, which policies are changed in the distant future? Some of the left wing elements are concerned about the creation of "fortress Europe" as regards immigration from outside the EU. If their voice is the one heard the controls might be relaxed.

4/ For better or worse, the changes in Lisbon as regards immigration (meaning from outside the EU) are likely to result in more stringent controls.

So, it would seem to me that you should vote yes, and then lobby your elected representatives for changes in the next treaty, since voting no for immigration reasons is completely pointless. You are ironically voting no to protest at the current situation, while re-enforcing that very same system by slowing down any changes.

Ix.

I firmly believe that the provisions in Lisbon enshrining the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law i.e. Article 6 TEU as amended, will lead to increased interference by the ECJ in our asylum-system. Article 51 of the Charter states that the Charter only applies to member states when they are implementing EU law. The reason that doesn't reassure me is that the Charter will itself be EU law, as Article 6 TEU states that it will have "the same legal value as the Treaties". On the question of whether Lisbon would lead to a more liberal or restrictive asylum/immigration system, you only have to look at the ECJ's meddling in the Chen and Metock cases to get an idea what side of the ideological fence they are in.

Also, you fail to recognise that we are not just voting on Lisbon. We are voting to insert language into our Constitution that will allow the Oireachtas to ratify Lisbon - but also to do other things such as (the proposed new Article 29.4.7) joining the passport-free Schengen Area and to surrender the Protocol on the Position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the European Area of Justice and Freedom (the Protocol that allows us to optin/out of common policies in Justice and Home Affairs on a case-by-case basis). I fail to see why the government is seeking the power to revoke the latter Protocol. But I do know that in the context of QMV becoming applicatory to asylum and immigration (as conceded by Judge Frank Clarke, President of the Referendum Commission in an Irish Times Article in recent weeks), that if acted upon, this would reduce the Irish say in this area to a 0.9% population-weight rather than the 100% say we have over new EU laws on JHA applying to Ireland.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I firmly believe that the provisions in Lisbon enshrining the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law i.e. Article 6 TEU as amended, will lead to increased interference by the ECJ in our asylum-system.

I know people who believe eating a slice of toast that a magic man turns into the flesh of a zombie once a week will allow them entry to a magical happy land after their brain stops.

'Belief' is not proof.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

... You are just showing your immaturity by engaging in the kind of demonisation of those who disagree with you that the Democrats are engaging in with respect to opponents of the health-plan in the US. There is an authoritarian streak to the Irish Left when it comes to freedom of speech, and caricaturing their opponents as cartoon-cutout fascists when they are simply calling for more conservative policies in certain areas. Your post is typical of that. Real social-liberals favour freedom of speech. As Voltaire put it, I disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it. And so it should be with respect to all policy opinions that do not involve physically harming human beings or denying them rights under international law.

Even when you mount your high horse, I don't feel that you can look down on me in a way that withers me. Perhaps I lack sensitivity.

Your inability to appreciate irony is noted and, indeed, is emphasised by the portion of your post that I highlighted, for you have already flirted with the idea of denying people who arrive here via some other point in the EU the right to apply for asylum.

I don't think the moderators like things like "You are just showing your immaturity".

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I know people who believe eating a slice of toast that a magic man turns into the flesh of a zombie once a week will allow them entry to a magical happy land after their brain stops.

'Belief' is not proof.

I think Libertas put this on this whole immigration card up in the European elections via the "Blue card" scheme and i think it was one of the reasons why they fared so poorly. Dont think the No campaign will go near the issue of immigration to be honest.

Link below on blue card scheme that was proposed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/stateoftheunion/2009/05/18/libertas-scores-own-goal-in-poland/

Scofflaw

taconnol wrote:

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

It does not make sense to argue that a single labour market of 500 million people cannot fulfill the vast bulk of Ireland's labour demands into the future - not least when unemployment is soaring in this country. The skills-shortages argument lacks credibility when you have 12% unemployment going on 15% by the end of the year.

In fairness, do you know the ins and outs of what skills are required by certain companies here? There may be 500 million people but that number is significantly reduced by taking out under-18s and people over 55. Then remove those who don't want to migrate, don't have the exact skill-set (don't speak English, etc) and it's not 500m we're talking about. Throwing out that figure is very misleading.

It's also interesting in the light it throws on FutureTaoiseach's thinking, because it simply ignores the skills needs and employment markets of every other EU country. I think we may have found ourselves the JC of Politics...

amused,
Scofflaw

joshlismore

NO - The reason I am voting this way is because I will not allow our country and everyone else in the EU to be mollycoddled into losing their independence. Is one referendum not enough? The yes campaign would have us believe that it is in our best interested but we will be kicked out of europe if we say no, its our democratic right to say no, the rest of europe will also say no but for the fact that we have it in our constitution to have a referendum in order to change the constitution. Check any blog online about it and you'll have people in the UK, spain, italy, everywhere begging us not to vote no. I garantee in a few years, if the Yes vote is successful, people will see our laws being changed and will look back on regret with the decision they made.
We have a chance to save the rest of europe, please for the love of god vote NO

meglome

joshlismore wrote: »

NO - The reason I am voting this way is because I will not allow our country and everyone else in the EU to be mollycoddled into losing their independence. Is one referendum not enough? The yes campaign would have us believe that it is in our best interested but we will be kicked out of europe if we say no, its our democratic right to say no, the rest of europe will also say no but for the fact that we have it in our constitution to have a referendum in order to change the constitution. Check any blog online about it and you'll have people in the UK, spain, italy, everywhere begging us not to vote no. I garantee in a few years, if the Yes vote is successful, people will see our laws being changed and will look back on regret with the decision they made.
We have a chance to save the rest of europe, please for the love of god vote NO

Yawn... Now all you need to do is show what's in the Lisbon treaty that would lead to the things you're suggesting. I won't hold my breath.

RoyalMarine

joshlismore wrote: »

NO - The reason I am voting this way is because I will not allow our country and everyone else in the EU to be mollycoddled into losing their independence. Is one referendum not enough? The yes campaign would have us believe that it is in our best interested but we will be kicked out of europe if we say no, its our democratic right to say no, the rest of europe will also say no but for the fact that we have it in our constitution to have a referendum in order to change the constitution. Check any blog online about it and you'll have people in the UK, spain, italy, everywhere begging us not to vote no. I garantee in a few years, if the Yes vote is successful, people will see our laws being changed and will look back on regret with the decision they made.
We have a chance to save the rest of europe, please for the love of god vote NO

you have a severly ancient sense of humanity.
i think its time you left the farm and joined the modern world. a yes vote is needed for humanity to advance to a state where nationality doesn't affect anything. wow you were born in ireland. or germany. or wales. or istanbul. who cares?!? your still a man/woman. end of story.

joshlismore

RoyalMarineComm wrote: »

you have a severly ancient sense of humanity.
i think its time you left the farm and joined the modern world. a yes vote is needed for humanity to advance to a state where nationality doesn't affect anything. wow you were born in ireland. or germany. or wales. or istanbul. who cares?!? your still a man/woman. end of story.

You contracdicted your self, you said to leave the farm and then said it doesn't matter where I'm from so what does it matter if i am or am not from a farm? As for lisbon its my opinon, i never stated it was right. boards.ie is for givinig your opinon not insulting others

joshlismore

meglome wrote: »

Yawn... Now all you need to do is show what's in the Lisbon treaty that would lead to the things you're suggesting. I won't hold my breath.

Article 28c mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Taken with the “start-up fund” and “specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations... for urgent financing of [unspecified] initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy”

I dont believe in war, nothin every came of it. war only exists for the greed of a few