Poland: Please, say No to Lisbon Treaty

Scofflaw

Mayo1 wrote: »

Exactly, that's what the Lisbon Treaty is, a change to the Irish Constitution! Good of you to admit that, the amount of people in the Yes side to deny that to me is appalling. :rolleyes:

It's neither accurate, nor what OB said. What change does the Treaty make to the Constitution?

Scofflaw

the_dark_side

oscarBravo wrote: »

And maybe if Poland was in Ireland I'd be interested in considering the Polish perspective when deciding whether or not to allow a change to the Irish constitution.

I didnt realise that there was a change to our constitution in question :eek:

PopeBuckfastXVI

Mayo1 wrote: »

8. Be a self-amending Treaty which would permit the EU Prime Ministers to shift most of the remaining policy areas where unanimity still exists, to majority voting, without a need for new EU Treaties or referendums (Art.48 TEU);

This jumped out at me.

I'll just assume the rest of your claims are as accurate as this one, and save myself the time it would take to read them...

the_god_swan

Mayo1 I do admire your knowledge in the whole area and believe me scaremongering is not my plan on this topic. But I can only vote based on my future, not the future of a Poland or Czech lad living in his native country.

I also don’t believe the theory that if Ireland says 'No' that the treaty is collapse in a domino effect, even bar your references to various leaders. I want a stronger Union with more power and influence on the world stage and I want Ireland to be a partner within that Union.

The scaremongering was very much the trump card that won a 'No' first time round, convincing the majority of the voters that were about to be enlisted for the Union army, and throw in an abortion along the way!

I want to live in an Ireland which attracts investment based on our educated work force, connection to the EU, and competitive tax rates etc... To me a 'Yes' vote will secure this. And if an Irish constitution change is needed, hell ill even supply the bottle of Tipp-Ex.

PopeBuckfastXVI

the_dark_side wrote: »

I didnt realise that there was a change to our constitution in question :eek:

The change is to allow the government to ratify the treaty. The changes from the first one (28th Amendment) are as follows:

* Deletion of entirety of Article 29.4.9:

The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

* Deletion of entirety of Article 29.4.11:

The State may ratify the Agreement relating to Community Patents drawn up between the Member States of the Communities and done at Luxembourg on the 15th day of December, 1989.

* (Existing subsection 10 of Article 29.4 retained but renumbered as subsection 9)
* Insertion of new Article 29.4.10:

The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty.

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.11:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.12:

The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.22, 2.64, 2.65, 2.66, 2.67, 2.68 and 2.278 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10 of this section and Articles 1.18 and 1.20 of Protocol No. 1 annexed to that Treaty, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.13:

The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.14:

The State may agree to the decisions, regulations or other acts under —

i. Article 1.34(b)(iv),
ii. Article 1.56 (in so far as it relates to Article 48.7 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 4 of this section),
iii. Article 2.66 (in so far as it relates to the second subparagraph of Article 65.3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union),
iv. Article 2.67 (in so far as it relates to subparagraph (d) of Article 69A.2, the third subparagraph of Article 69B.1 and paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 69E of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union),
v. Article 2.144(a),
vi. Article 2.261 (in so far as it relates to the second subparagraph of Article 270a.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), and
vii. Article 2.278 (in so far as it relates to Article 280H of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10 of this section, and may also agree to the decision under the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 137.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (as amended by Article 2.116(a) of the Treaty referred to in the said subsection 10), but the agreement to any such decision, regulation or act shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.15:

The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to —

i. Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section, or
ii. Article 1.49 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10 of this section, where that common defence would include the State.

I'd imagine the next one will be similar, but will contain extra changes for the additional guarantees (but maybe not, if they don't affect the constitution).

P. Breathnach

Mayo1 wrote: »

... I'll land some reasons, oh and with evidence, unlike the Yes side, which has given no reasons to vote Yes backed up with evidence from the treaty.
<big snip>

Why not just link the rubbish, acknowledging the source, rather than posting a big lump of stuff and inviting people to believe that you had composed it? I found it here: http://www.selisboninfo.org/campaign_support_leaflet1.html but I am sure that the same stuff is doing the rounds of the no camp.

I'm not going to waste my time dealing with this kind of crap.

Scofflaw

Mayo1 wrote: »

Where does it show the majority will vote Yes? Haha, that's a joke, considering your side has admitted that the people across Europe would reject the treaty, that's a pretty bold statement.

I'll land some reasons, oh and with evidence, unlike the Yes side, which has given no reasons to vote Yes backed up with evidence from the treaty:

http://www.selisboninfo.org/campaign_support_leaflet1.html

You mean that Charlie McCreevy has made an entirely unsupported claim to that effect. "Admit" would suggest that he was doing something other than shooting his mouth off.

regards,
Scofflaw

Iwasfrozen

Mayo1, I can't be bothered to respond to each of your statments individualy, but I can assure you your concerns are ill-informed.

There will be no Federation of Europe following this treaty.

Germany needs a larger say because they have a larger population.
Unless you think that you deserve a larger say in the EU than a German citizen.

Irish commissioners do not speak for Ireland. A Commissioner Irish or not swears allegiance only to the EU as a whole.

The European Commission is unelected, by cutting the number of Commissioners and reducing their power inexchange for the parliament Lisbon gives us a more democratic and transparent Europe.

MEP's do swear allegiance to their home Countries

The Rights of Human Beings enshrined in Lisbon compliments the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and does not over power them, they are additional rights.

For the last time, Lisbon is not self ammending. To make a treaty that over-rides Irelands constitution is legally impossible.

Mayo1

I have come to the conclusion that a lot of people on here, on the Yes side, are ill-informed and refuse to listen to proper, informed and 'grown-up' arguments. The fact that some people here don't even know that the treaty will affect our Constitution speaks for itself. I, however, will devote my arguments to politics.ie, where people know how to speak politics. All the above from the Yes posters is complete rubbish and to respond would insult my intelligence, as even to argue with these people would draw me down to their level. I have a saying: 'never argue with an idiot, because they'll only drag ou down to their level and beat you with experience'. That phrase is especially true here. So, slán go fóill and thank you for making me realise how pathetic and petty the Yes side really are.

Iwasfrozen

And the above confirms that No voters are immature soap boxers who come here to voice their opinion not to discuss.
Good Riddence.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And the above confirms that No voters are immature soap boxers who come here to voice their opinion not to discuss.
Good Riddence.

Not all of them, or even most of them, to be fair.

Cheerio Mayo1, you'll fit right in over on p.ie

turgon

Mayo1 wrote: »

That comment has just convinced me that a lot of the Yes side on here haven't a clue what they're talking about. Poland have said if Ireland rejects the treaty, they will do likewise.

So the Poles are so stupid they cant make the decision for themselves and will wait for Ireland to make it for them. Is that what your suggesting?

Mayo1 wrote: »

In fact some Yes voters are even changing sides.:)

And some No siders have also changes "sides."

oscarBravo

Mayo1 wrote: »

The fact that some people here don't even know that the treaty will affect our Constitution speaks for itself.

The treaty won't affect our constitution. We are voting on whether to amend our constitution in order to facilitate the ratification of the treaty.

If you're going to accuse people of not being able to have a grown-up discussion, it helps to actually understand what you're discussing first.

I, however, will devote my arguments to politics.ie, where people know how to speak politics. All the above from the Yes posters is complete rubbish and to respond would insult my intelligence, as even to argue with these people would draw me down to their level. I have a saying: 'never argue with an idiot, because they'll only drag ou down to their level and beat you with experience'. That phrase is especially true here. So, slán go fóill and thank you for making me realise how pathetic and petty the Yes side really are.

Buh-bye.

turgon

Mayo1 wrote: »

So, slán go fóill and thank you for making me realise how pathetic and petty the Yes side really are.

Will your "sister" be staying with us?

Iwasfrozen

turgon wrote:

Will your "sister" be staying with us?

LMAO, Seeing as they are "two completely different people" with two "completely different opinions", I assume so. :rolleyes:
Goodbye Mayo1, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

oscarBravo

Let's not personalise the debate. Back on topic.

K-9

Mayo1 wrote: »

Exactly, that's what the Lisbon Treaty is, a change to the Irish Constitution! Good of you to admit that, the amount of people in the Yes side to deny that to me is appalling. :rolleyes:

YEP, That's why we are voting. If anybody tells you otherwise they are talking crap. Now, if anybody tells you the Treaty is self amending, they are talking crap.

Mayo1 wrote: »

I have come to the conclusion that a lot of people on here, on the Yes side, are ill-informed and refuse to listen to proper, informed and 'grown-up' arguments. The fact that some people here don't even know that the treaty will affect our Constitution speaks for itself. I, however, will devote my arguments to politics.ie, where people know how to speak politics. All the above from the Yes posters is complete rubbish and to respond would insult my intelligence, as even to argue with these people would draw me down to their level. I have a saying: 'never argue with an idiot, because they'll only drag ou down to their level and beat you with experience'. That phrase is especially true here. So, slán go fóill and thank you for making me realise how pathetic and petty the Yes side really are.

The problem seems to be you ignore others posters.

You seem to be confusing why we are having a Referendum and the self amending part. It makes you seem idiotic to confuse both, especially when the difference has been pointed out clearly.

oscarBravo

K-9 wrote: »

It makes you seem idiotic...

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's not personalise the debate.

*ahem*

Almanac

hawker1 wrote: »

Hi, i'm from Poland.
Yes, i know, our goverment sucks.
Yes, i also know that immigrants from Poland are stupid and etc.
But, please vote for No.
We hadn't chance to vote.
You are our only hope.

Sry for my English.

Thanks for taking the time to post Hawker. We certainly realise that we are representing the rest of Europe and voting for them by proxy as well. The very fact that the rest of Europe is being denied a say is enough to vote no before even looking at the contents.

Almanac

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why? The Spanish and the Luxembourgers gave it a resounding Yes.

Also, thanks for the poll, but how does it show that the majority of people in Europe would vote No?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Resounding? Turnout in Spain was abysmal- 40% and in a poll conducted just before the referendum 9/10 stated that they did not know what was in the European Constitution. Luxembourg has a tiny population and has always been closely involved in the EU project.

Scofflaw

Almanac wrote: »

Resounding? Turnout in Spain was abysmal- 40% and in a poll conducted just before the referendum 9/10 stated that they did not know what was in the European Constitution. Luxembourg has a tiny population and has always been closely involved in the EU project.

An interesting pair of posts. First, you claim that we should vote No because others are 'denied' a vote, then you dismiss the countries that voted Yes - giving as your reasons to do so issues that equally applied to the No vote here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Almanac wrote: »

We certainly realise that we are representing the rest of Europe and voting for them by proxy as well.

So if we vote "yes", we can take it that everyone in Europe is in favour of the treaty? By proxy, like?

Almanac

Scofflaw wrote: »

An interesting pair of posts. First, you claim that we should vote No because others are 'denied' a vote, then you dismiss the countries that voted Yes - giving as your reasons to do so issues that equally applied to the No vote here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't dismiss them. I just point out factors which indicate that the results were not quite as "resounding" as portrayed. I would like all countries to consult their electorates. This is especially important given the unanimity requirement.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if we vote "yes", we can take it that everyone in Europe is in favour of the treaty? By proxy, like?

Apparently it's OK for No voters to decide on behalf of Europe, but not for Yes voters. There is, apparently, no need to examine whether No is the right choice, or to find out whether most people in Europe want us to vote No. No proponents have looked into their hearts and found the right way for Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Almanac

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if we vote "yes", we can take it that everyone in Europe is in favour of the treaty? By proxy, like?

See above. Sovereignty lies with the people and only the people can give permission for it to be ceded. Hence every country should be required to ask their people. Then there is also the EU's own unanimity requirement, which means that it's actually more important to know if individual electorates are against the proposal than for it.

Almanac

Scofflaw wrote: »

Apparently it's OK for No voters to decide on behalf of Europe, but not for Yes voters. There is, apparently, no need to examine whether No is the right choice, or to find out whether most people in Europe want us to vote No. No proponents have looked into their hearts and found the right way for Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No but according to the EU's own rules it's actually more important to know if an individual country is against further integration. I agree with this because of the momentous nature of the decision.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Almanac wrote: »

I agree with this because of the momentous nature of the decision.

I'm interested to know how Lisbon is momentous, as compared against Rome, Amsterdam, Maastricht?

If anything I would have thought it pretty tame?

Can you clarify please?

Scofflaw

Almanac wrote: »

I don't dismiss them. I just point out factors which indicate that the results were not quite as "resounding" as portrayed. I would like all countries to consult their electorates. This is especially important given the unanimity requirement.

They will be doing so, of course, Countries ratify according to their constitutional requirements, and their elected governments then face their voters in the usual way. Why do you feel Lisbon should be different from any other policy decision?

If voters around Europe are "opposed to Lisbon" - as we are constantly told, albeit without any evidence - and if it is important to them - as we are told it is - then any government ratifying the Treaty can expect a thorough drubbing at the next election - right?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Iwasfrozen

Almanac wrote:

No but according to the EU's own rules it's actually more important to know if an individual country is against further integration. I agree with this because of the momentous nature of the decision.

Mayo1 ?

Almanac wrote:

See above. Sovereignty lies with the people and only the people can give permission for it to be ceded. Hence every country should be required to ask their people. Then there is also the EU's own unanimity requirement, which means that it's actually more important to know if individual electorates are against the proposal than for it.

Other countries don't need a referendum as the Treaty does not conflict on the constitution.

oscarBravo

Almanac wrote: »

We certainly realise that we are representing the rest of Europe and voting for them by proxy as well.

Almanac wrote: »

Sovereignty lies with the people and only the people can give permission for it to be ceded.

I'm confused. Are you arguing that only the Irish people can give permission for Polish sovereignty to be ceded?

Or are you just another in a long line of people arguing that we need to respect the sovereignty of other countries by dictating to them how they should manage their affairs?