Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

djpbarry

worldrepublic wrote: »

Do people think it is right that Ireland fails to play a role in the fight against terror?

We do? So what was all that malarkey involving the IRA all about?

FutureTaoiseach

djpbarry wrote: »

What about the ‘Yes’ votes in Spain and Luxembourg? What do they indicate?

Consent for the EU Constitution. But it's like this. I believe in the principle of self-determination, whereby only individual nations can determine whether to transfer sovereignty to supranational institutions. That means there needs to be unanimity.

worldrepublic

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What articles refer to the War on Terror?

What articles mention Al Qaida or any Islamic faction?

Four or five articles mention terrorism and various way to combat it. I have posted the text of one, and another poster provided the others. You will need to check back through the threads, if you are interested in learning more. I did not say that the articles specifically mention Al qaeda. Thank you for raising the point though as it simply means the Treaty recognises that terrorism is a global problem and goes way beyond any single group. As evidenced by the recent incursions in Pakistan, terrorism is not abbating and the Treaty will enable everyone to play their part in bringing democracy to all peoples of the world, especially those we need to trade with (Europe needs increasingly high amounts of oil and gas). Voting yes will bring stability and social cohesion to Europe.

Spiritoftheseventies

marco_polo wrote: »

It is up to us to respect our own neutrality. We already have the right to inspect Military Flights that pass through Shannon and the Government has never choosen to excercise that right. This is a seperate issue from the EU and Lisbon entirely. That the US may be engaging in the illegal transportation of prisoners through our airports has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU 'respecting' our neutrality.

We were put in a very difficult position with renditioning. Everyone knows that the American multi nationals provides countless jobs here. So as such we had to play along here. Yes we inspected flights but does that mean there were no prisoners on them. Unlikely. What were american soldiers passing through Shannon for . Buying guinness t shirts? And there are incidents of suspects being lifted off other European cities as well. So it does affect the EU.

worldrepublic

bayviewclose wrote: »

We were put in a very difficult position with renditioning. Everyone knows that the American multi nationals provides countless jobs here. So as such we had to play along here. Yes we inspected flights but does that mean there were no prisoners on them. Unlikely. What were american soldiers passing through Shannon for . Buying guinness t shirts? And there are incidents of suspects being lifted off other European cities as well. So it does affect the EU.

as it rightly should -the terrorists are everywhere now. And you are talking about years ago, the War on Terror is much bigger now. This is an all-pervasive dilemma. Vote yes for positive change and hope.

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

We were put in a very difficult position with renditioning. Everyone knows that the American multi nationals provides countless jobs here. So as such we had to play along here. Yes we inspected flights but does that mean there were no prisoners on them. Unlikely. What were american soldiers passing through Shannon for . Buying guinness t shirts? And there are incidents of suspects being lifted off other European cities as well. So it does affect the EU.

Well Shannon is also a refueling stop so there can be plenty of normal military transportationflights through there. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that more than a handful of flights are even suspected of such activity. (Just to be clear my position is that such flights are abhorrent, but not a treaty issue)

This is up to individual member states to investigate, the EU has zero jurasdiction. So the relevance of all of this to Lisbon is exactly nil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/23/usa.eu

The EU powers in such matter extend to 'urgeing member states to investigate'

The European parliament today urged member states to investigate so-called rendition flights by the CIA, and condemned the UK for failing to cooperate properly with its inquiry into the matter.The final report by a European parliament committee said more than 1,200 CIA-operated flights had used European airspace between 2001 and 2005.

It accused some European countries of "turning a blind eye" to the flights, a number of which were allegedly used to transport terrorism suspects illegally.

The US intelligence agency may also have operated secret jails for terrorism suspects at US military bases around Europe, according to the report, which MEPs are due to vote on next month.

However, the committee members said it was now not possible to say conclusively whether a secret detention centre was located in Poland. An earlier draft of the report, in November, said such a facility was thought to have operated at Stare Kiejkuty in the country.

The European parliament's committee on CIA activities in Europe, led by the Italian MEP Claudio Fava, with the British Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford as vice-president, condemned a "lack of co-operation of many member states".

The committee specifically criticised Britain, Austria, Italy, Poland and Portugal for what it said was their obstructive attitude.

The committee concluded that "the serious lack of concrete answers to the questions raised by victims, NGOs, media and parliamentarians has only strengthened the validity of already well documented allegations".

Claims that the CIA was holding terrorism suspects in eastern Europe, Thailand and Afghanistan first emerged in the Washington Post in November last year.

According to the US newspaper, the so-called black sites were established after the September 11 attacks, and held around 30 suspects.

It is claimed that rendition flights allowed suspects to be questioned in countries where they had no rights under US law. Amnesty International and other human rights groups have heavily criticised the US over the allegations.

Washington has refused to say whether secret CIA jails exist, but says all its anti-terrorism operations fall within international law. It has also rejected claims by some detainees that they were tortured in captivity.

Human rights groups have called on Britain and other EU nations to explain what they know about the flights. It is alleged that Prestwick airport in Scotland was used for CIA flights.

The committee called the renditions "an illegal instrument used by the USA in the fight against terrorism", and condemned some European states for their "acceptance and concealing" of the process.

The report concluded by recommending that national governments and parliaments launch their own independent investigations into what happened. It also urged states to have specific laws to "regulate and monitor the activities of third countries' secret services on their national territories".

djpbarry

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

What about the ‘Yes’ votes in Spain and Luxembourg? What do they indicate?

Consent for the EU Constitution. But it's like this. I believe in the principle of self-determination, whereby only individual nations can determine whether to transfer sovereignty to supranational institutions.

Ah, but you were generalising about “the peoples of Europe” a few posts back. Four nations voted on the constitution by way of popular (or “consultative”) referendum; two were ‘for’, two ‘against’. If the tallies from the four nations are combined, then we have 54% ‘for’ and 46% ‘against’. I don’t know how you can thus conclude that “European integration is reaching the limits of what the peoples of Europe are prepared to accept.”

djpbarry

worldrepublic wrote: »

as it rightly should -the terrorists are everywhere now. And you are talking about years ago, the War on Terror is much bigger now. This is an all-pervasive dilemma. Vote yes for positive change and hope.

So you’re just going to keep posting this nonsense without actually addressing anyone’s points?

Spiritoftheseventies

djpbarry wrote: »

So you’re just going to keep posting this nonsense without actually addressing anyone’s points?

a high profile judge said recently we should vote no because it leaves our borders vulnerable.

ei.sdraob

bayviewclose wrote: »

a high profile judge said recently we should vote no because it leaves our borders vulnerable.

source?

FutureTaoiseach

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, but you were generalising about “the peoples of Europe” a few posts back. Four nations voted on the constitution by way of popular (or “consultative”) referendum; two were ‘for’, two ‘against’. If the tallies from the four nations are combined, then we have 54% ‘for’ and 46% ‘against’. I don’t know how you can thus conclude that “European integration is reaching the limits of what the peoples of Europe are prepared to accept.”

You also have to factor in the inevitable no vote were/if this was put to the British electorate and most likely the Scandinavian countries too. In any case, I don't believe any nation has the right to force others to relinquish sovereignty - even if the country supporting integration wants to relinquish its own. Nothing is taken from a country that votes yes to surrender sovereignty but ends up keeping it by virtue of anothers no votes. In contrast, if yes votes are allowed to supersede the no votes (or the spirit thereof) of other countries, then that is almost imperialism, as it would amount to nations being forced against their respective wills to surrender sovereignty.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

source?

I know what he's talking about.

The Corkman wrote:

JUDGE Michael Pattwell has spoken out against the Lisbon Treaty, saying he believed its implementation would further undermine Ireland's ability to control its own borders.

The judge made his comments during the trial of an unemployed 23-year-old Polish national at Fermoy District Court last Friday on five separate counts of theft.

Thomas Chlebda, 3 Ballydaheen West, Mallow, was already serving a threemonth jail term for theft imposed on him at a special sitting of the court on the previous Monday.

Chlebda was convicted on each of the five new theft charges, and sentenced to an additional five months in prison, one month for each charge.

Speaking in court Judge Pattwell said the case clearly showed that "something needs to be done" to prevent foreign criminals from entering the state.

"I will tell you why I would vote against the Lisbon Treaty and indeed the EU generally, in spite of the advantages it has brought to us. My problem is that we have already lost control of our borders," said the judge.

"We should have the power to say no to thieves, drug dealers and troublemakers who want to enter the country," he added..

PopeBuckfastXVI

"I will tell you why I would vote [conditional future] against the Lisbon Treaty and indeed the EU generally, in spite of the advantages it has brought to us. My problem is that we have already lost [past] control of our borders," said the judge.

I see no argument against Lisbon, I see an argument against either Nice, or having joined the EU in the first place.

Anti-EU person in 'would vote against Lisbon' shocker - hold the front page... :rolleyes:

fligedlyflick

Martin 2 wrote: »

Yes, the treaty gives me no reason to vote no.
Yes because its acceptance is best for the economy in the long run.
Yes, at heart I’m pro European.
Yes, because a No would leave Ireland isolated in Europe.

LOL
isolated in europe, i love this scaremongering

Martin 2

fligedlyflick wrote: »

LOL
isolated in europe, i love this scaremongering

You quote a post from page 1, 65 pages and over 1 month ago. This topic has been discussed numerous times since in this very thread.

Learn some net etiquette please

fligedlyflick

Martin 2 wrote: »

You quote a post from page 1, 65 pages and over 1 month ago. This topic has been discussed numerous times since in this very thread.

Learn some net etiquette please

forgive my lack of net etiquette, i was under the illusion i could freely quote, reply and post my views here

djpbarry

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

You also have to factor in the inevitable no vote were/if this was put to the British electorate and most likely the Scandinavian countries too.

No I don’t. You said that the rejection of the EU Constitution in referenda in France and The Netherlands demonstrates that “European integration is reaching the limits of what the peoples of Europe are prepared to accept”. But you’re taking the ‘No’ vote in those two countries in isolation, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the context of ‘Europe’. That’s before we even begin to get into the reasons for the ‘No’ vote, which has already been discussed on numerous occasions on this forum. In short, treating the outcome of these two referenda as some sort of watershed is just a touch ridiculous.

FutureTaoiseach

djpbarry wrote: »

No I don’t. You said that the rejection of the EU Constitution in referenda in France and The Netherlands demonstrates that “European integration is reaching the limits of what the peoples of Europe are prepared to accept”. But you’re taking the ‘No’ vote in those two countries in isolation, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the context of ‘Europe’. That’s before we even begin to get into the reasons for the ‘No’ vote, which has already been discussed on numerous occasions on this forum. In short, treating the outcome of these two referenda as some sort of watershed is just a touch ridiculous.

It's true that I am hypothesising. But so is interpreting the 2 yes votes as some sign that a majority of Europeans want Lisbon. Solution: let's have referenda in all member states.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

In any case, I don't believe any nation has the right to force others to relinquish sovereignty - even if the country supporting integration wants to relinquish its own.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It's true that I am hypothesising. But so is interpreting the 2 yes votes as some sign that a majority of Europeans want Lisbon. Solution: let's have referenda in all member states.

We don't have the right to force anyone to relinquish sovereignty, but we do have the right to insist that they accept our method of ratifying treaties?

You say "let's have" referenda: how? Who will call for these referenda? What happens if one member state refuses to hold a referendum?

These are not minor quibbles. "Let's have referenda" is like "let's have world peace" - it's a completely meaningless suggestion.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It's true that I am hypothesising. But so is interpreting the 2 yes votes as some sign that a majority of Europeans want Lisbon.

As a completely separate point: do the majority of the world population want the UN? Until we've had a referendum in every country, do you think we should disband the UN?

Or will you fall back on the ultimate lazy response: "that's different" - which would only go to prove that all this talk of referenda is a thin veneer over the standard Euroskeptic attitude of "let's find a high-sounding reason for our objection to the EU"?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Yes OB, but so long as your position is based on an unaddressable demand, you don't have to either examine, or change it.

It makes sense from the point of view of justifying an already held position, which you refuse to review.

Spiritoftheseventies

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayviewclose
a high profile judge said recently we should vote no because it leaves our borders vulnerable.

source?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

source?

http://www.corkman.ie/news/pattwell-weve-lost-control-of-our-borders-1846262.html
was also picked up elsewhere. Not high profile judge but Judge nonetheless.

djpbarry

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It's true that I am hypothesising. But so is interpreting the 2 yes votes as some sign that a majority of Europeans want Lisbon.

Indeed it is, but of course, I never proffered any such interpretation.

djpbarry

bayviewclose wrote: »

http://www.corkman.ie/news/pattwell-weve-lost-control-of-our-borders-1846262.html
was also picked up elsewhere. Not high profile judge but Judge nonetheless.

It would appear from the article that Judge Pattwell is against the EU’s provision for the free movement of people rather than any particular aspect of the Lisbon Treaty.

worldrepublic

djpbarry wrote: »

It would appear from the article that Judge Pattwell is against the EU’s provision for the free movement of people rather than any particular aspect of the Lisbon Treaty.

Irish people want free movement and a more diverse culture anyway. Same goes for other peoples. Kind of like a student-exchange program, but on a somewhat bigger scale.

FutureTaoiseach

worldrepublic wrote: »

Irish people want free movement and a more diverse culture anyway. Same goes for other peoples. Kind of like a student-exchange program, but on a somewhat bigger scale.

Our country is already extremely diverse. Diversity is okay in moderation, just like food. Too much diversity though will only lead to the societal problems seen in countries like France and the UK, where societal cohesion is undermined by an absence of communality. That is not - of course - the fault of the immigrants but it is something for politicians to consider.I would also, in that context, remind you of the studies by respected professor Robert Puttnam (whom FF consulted on "social capital" in 2004) to the effect that more multicultural societies have less social-trust.

Putnam's recent study on diversity involved nearly 30,000 people in 41 communities. He found that the more diverse neighborhoods are the less social capital they create. People in diverse communities volunteer less, give to charity less, vote less and work on less community projects. The simple fact is that people do not trust people they share little in common with. As President Clinton's Secretary of Labor Robert Reich pointed out, the rich do not want pay taxes to help the poor when they do not see any commonality with them.

djpbarry wrote:

It would appear from the article that Judge Pattwell is against the EU’s provision for the free movement of people rather than any particular aspect of the Lisbon Treaty.

But couldn't it also said that perhaps he came to this view from experience, rather than having opposed it originally? Was there not a major difference in demographic trends arising from the 2004 Enlargement relative to past Enlargements e.g. Spain/Portugal with respect to the impact on Ireland? Speaking personally, I am not sure I would have voted for Nice had I known the scale of the influx that would come after Enlargement. It's not that I am against immigration - I am not. But I believe there are only so many people this island can support.

djpbarry

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

But couldn't it also said that perhaps he came to this view from experience, rather than having opposed it originally? Was there not a major difference in demographic trends arising from the 2004 Enlargement relative to past Enlargements e.g. Spain/Portugal with respect to the impact on Ireland? Speaking personally, I am not sure I would have voted for Nice had I known the scale of the influx that would come after Enlargement. It's not that I am against immigration - I am not. But I believe there are only so many people this island can support.

All of which is totally irrelevant to Lisbon.

worldrepublic

Ireland has a small population -we could accelerate it to c. 20 million. An influx of nationalities and skills in the years ahead will provide economic and cultural benefits. The point of the European Union is to emphasis diversity not to erect barriers. Lisbon is the logical step forward and the faster it happens the better. With the right attitudes, and the right groundwork, we could become a significant part of the European project.

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

Ireland has a small population -we could accelerate it to c. 20 million.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055645157

some already are breeding away

P. Breathnach

worldrepublic wrote: »

Four or five articles mention terrorism and various way to combat it. I have posted the text of one, and another poster provided the others. You will need to check back through the threads, if you are interested in learning more. I did not say that the articles specifically mention Al qaeda. Thank you for raising the point though as it simply means the Treaty recognises that terrorism is a global problem and goes way beyond any single group. As evidenced by the recent incursions in Pakistan, terrorism is not abbating and the Treaty will enable everyone to play their part in bringing democracy to all peoples of the world, especially those we need to trade with (Europe needs increasingly high amounts of oil and gas). Voting yes will bring stability and social cohesion to Europe.

There is a difference between concern about terrorism, or having a co-ordinated approach to terrorism, or even participating in a struggle against terrorism, and being involved in the "War on Terror" -- because the "War on Terror" is a label applied by the Bush administration to a US policy approach that is focused on the Islamic world, and is something of a scattergun approach, based on a highly questionable view of the world.

Bear in mind that terrorism is not solely the preserve of extreme Islamists. ETA, for example, have been active again recently.

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055645157

some already are breeding away

I think the judge was referring to the criminal element abroad who enter here. But how do you screen it properly.