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

oscarBravo

fligedlyflick wrote: »

anyway, regardless of all this economic, capitalist pondering over this lisbon part 2, legal guarantees and gentlemen agreements on commissioners, the fact remains, brian cowen had'nt the balls to accept our first vote, and this notion of a changed treaty without re-ratification by already subscribed nations is a myth, no doubt i shall be informed that this was answered elsewhere by some sarcasm infused reply, never before has a failing economy being so brutally utilized to hoodwink voters,
regarding immigration issues, i thought the re-voted nice treaty catered for that.....oh wait, it did.

I have no idea what any of that means.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

might be more transparent if they focused on these concerns than use the growing unemployment problem as a cynical ploy.

anyway, regardless of all this economic, capitalist pondering over this lisbon part 2, legal guarantees and gentlemen agreements on commissioners, the fact remains, brian cowen had'nt the balls to accept our first vote, and this notion of a changed treaty without re-ratification by already subscribed nations is a myth, no doubt i shall be informed that this was answered elsewhere by some sarcasm infused reply, never before has a failing economy being so brutally utilized to hoodwink voters,
regarding immigration issues, i thought the re-voted nice treaty catered for that.....oh wait, it did.

The Irish people voted no for a number of reasons, notably abortion, corporate tax, neutrality, conscription, the loss of a commissioner and the biggest reason by far was lack of understanding.

Those issues have been addressed through legally binding guarantees, the changing of the rules on the commissioner (which didn't require a change to the treaty) and most importantly through giving people more time to learn about it

so what's the problem?


Btw, please don't post back with "it's the same treaty", unless you can show me the parts of the treaty that should have been changed to address those issues

fligedlyflick

there's that phrase again, "legally binding guarantees", it has morphed into the political "at the end of the day" cliché.
so it's a matter of trust.

""We have not let a single substantial point of the constitution treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
Jose Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain


a few cosmetic changes to fool brian cowen and the irish people is not the drafting of a new treaty. There was never any question of respecting the will of the people – the only question was how blatantly and quickly it could be ignored. shame.

oh and oscar bravo, - pardon me if i don't measure up to your level of intellect, obviously the more a sentence or phrase is twisted up in meaningless words and promises the easier it is for you to understand

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

there's that phrase again, "legally binding guarantees", it has morphed into the political "at the end of the day" cliché.
so it's a matter of trust.

no, it's not. They're legally binding and they will remain so no matter how many liars say otherwise

fligedlyflick wrote: »

""We have not let a single substantial point of the constitution treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
Jose Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain


a few cosmetic changes to fool brian cowen and the irish people is not the drafting of a new treaty. There was never any question of respecting the will of the people – the only question was how blatantly and quickly it could be ignored. shame.

Could you please point to the parts of the treaty that should have been changed to address the issues of abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner?

Btw, take a look at this newpaper cutting from the Maastricht referendum. Look familiar?
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZKepX8VopRQ/SkqHGwCTAAI/AAAAAAAAAc8/EMzgh3Rs0bg/s800/mastr2.jpg

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no, it's not. They're legally binding and they will remain so no matter how many liars say otherwise

Could you please point to the parts of the treaty that should have been changed to address the issues of abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner?


"abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner"
ah yes, the reasons we were TOLD why we voted NO on the first occasion.


Article 48 speaks volumes on these guarantees, this self amending clause or escalator clause allows the EU to escalate it's power into new areas without referendum or consent, It is a flexible treaty free to be amended by the EU elite as they wish. imagine that, having the legal power to change and forfeit any promises you made to deluded people, "i'm sorry ireland, them promises we gave you mean nothing right now, you should have gone to specsavers, muuuhahahahahahahahahahahah"

Dinner

fligedlyflick wrote: »

Article 48 speaks volumes on these guarantees, this self amending clause or escalator clause allows the EU to escalate it's power into new areas without referendum or consent, It is a flexible treaty free to be amended by the EU elite as they wish. imagine that, having the legal power to change and forfeit any promises you made to deluded people, "i'm sorry ireland, them promises we gave you mean nothing right now, you should have gone to specsavers, muuuhahahahahahahahahahahah"

Is this the same Article 48 which explicitly states that any changes must be ratified according to each countries constitutional requirements?

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

"abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner"
ah yes, the reasons we were TOLD why we voted NO on the first occasion.

Are you accusing the 3 independent organisations who surveyed the no voters of corruption?

Millward Brown might want to have words with you about that very serious accusation

fligedlyflick wrote: »

Article 48 speaks volumes on these guarantees, this self amending clause or escalator clause allows the EU to escalate it's power into new areas without referendum or consent, It is a flexible treaty free to be amended by the EU elite as they wish. imagine that, having the legal power to change and forfeit any promises you made to deluded people, "i'm sorry ireland, them promises we gave you mean nothing right now, you should have gone to specsavers, muuuhahahahahahahahahahahah"

Article 48 is not self amending. It's not, in any way whatsoever. you have been lied to. Please correct your understanding

fligedlyflick

Dinner wrote: »

Is this the same Article 48 which explicitly states that any changes must be ratified according to each countries constitutional requirements?

funny how they changed it for brian cowen... or did they??????

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

funny how they changed it for brian cowen... or did they??????

No, they didn't. No one ever claimed they did. It was never self amending

fligedlyflick

what accusation are you implying i have made?
what did these conglomerates do to justify the reason they told brian cowen to tell us, i don't recall being asked, in fact i cannot recall ever been asked to participate in a study or a poll regarding lisbon 1 or 2, did they ask 1000 people? 10.000?

Dinner

fligedlyflick wrote: »

what accusation are you implying i have made?
what did these conglomerates do to justify the reason they told brian cowen to tell us, i don't recall being asked, in fact i cannot recall ever been asked to participate in a study or a poll regarding lisbon 1 or 2, did they ask 1000 people? 10.000?

They asked about 1600 people, which gives a statistical accuracy of within 2-3%.

This is solid maths, so it's an accurate representation of the wider public.

Johnnnybravo

fligedlyflick wrote: »

what accusation are you implying i have made?
what did these conglomerates do to justify the reason they told brian cowen to tell us, i don't recall being asked, in fact i cannot recall ever been asked to participate in a study or a poll regarding lisbon 1 or 2, did they ask 1000 people? 10.000?

I was trying to find the accusations myself. Just some scaremongering, comes 2nd nature to yes voters.

Daftendirekt

fligedlyflick wrote: »

no, it's not. They're legally binding and they will remain so no matter how many liars say otherwise

Could you please point to the parts of the treaty that should have been changed to address the issues of abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner?


"abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner"
ah yes, the reasons we were TOLD why we voted NO on the first occasion.


Article 48 speaks volumes on these guarantees, this self amending clause or escalator clause allows the EU to escalate it's power into new areas without referendum or consent, It is a flexible treaty free to be amended by the EU elite as they wish. imagine that, having the legal power to change and forfeit any promises you made to deluded people, "i'm sorry ireland, them promises we gave you mean nothing right now, you should have gone to specsavers, muuuhahahahahahahahahahahah"

Perhaps it's you who should have gone to Specsavers, given you seem to have misread Article 48:

Treaty on European Union wrote:

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after
consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case
of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is
approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Or maybe you just didn't bother to read the article in question in the first place? Maybe you heard the self-amending rumour, but didn't bother checking the text to confirm your suspicions?

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

what accusation are you implying i have made?

You have implied that the reasons we voted no we doctored, which would mean that three survey companies which are independent of the government would have to be corrupt. Are you accusing them of corruption or will you withdraw your insinuation?

fligedlyflick wrote: »

what did these conglomerates do to justify the reason they told brian cowen to tell us, i don't recall being asked, in fact i cannot recall ever been asked to participate in a study or a poll regarding lisbon 1 or 2, did they ask 1000 people? 10.000?

dinner has already clarified this

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Millward Brown might want to have words with you about that very serious accusation

Article 48 is not self amending. It's not, in any way whatsoever. you have been lied to. Please correct your understanding

I think he means Article 40.2

And honestly I don't think calling Millward Brown a paid shill (which incidentally I am not doing) is really going to have any real effect. Come now - have you not seen the mud throwing that has been going on already? (I am apparently a loony and a communist and/or nazi according to my own government's understanding of members of the electorate such as myself)

No to nuts!
Hmmmm... nuts....

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick, I'm hoping you'll finally be able to answer this question because I keep asking it and people keep disappearing when I do.

The government wants a yes vote to this treaty so what would they have to gain from deliberately not addressing the issues anyone had with the treaty? How could they get anything other than an even more resounding no if they did that?

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

fligedlyflick, I'm hoping you'll finally be able to answer this question because I keep asking it and people keep disappearing when I do.

The government wants a yes vote to this treaty so what would they have to gain from deliberately not addressing the issues anyone had with the treaty? How could they get anything other than an even more resounding no if they did that?

Sorry for interceding, but the answer is pretty straight forward...

Assume that I am taking on the aggrieved tone that yes-men in this forum take along the lines of 'This straw-man that you keep raising has been repeatedly addressed. If you do not see reason. you will be banned, etc.'

The text of the Lisbon Treaty could not be changed retrospectively. Brian Cowan could not tread on any of the other EU leaders' toes (i.e. could not affect the implementation of Lisbon), and if any demand came from the Irish public that was inimical to the nature of Lisbon (e.g. opposition to increased legislative strength of the Commission) then it would have to have been ignored anyway.



In the event Brown was selected on behalf of the other EU leaders to see whether it adversely affected the other EU states. Brown (after several hours) concluded that the guarantees did not change Lisbon in the slightest. Granted, Ireland is meant to be exclusive in terms of these opt-outs (pending the government's approval of the opt-outs, presumably). Although admittedly it is true that the provision of the Economic and Monetary Union of the Edinburgh Agreement has actually held true for Denmark (although the UK hardly required such an elaborate provision).

Although I am not convinced that by voting no we lose a Commissioner. Lisbon, after all, implements the reduction of EU state Commissioners (it also makes their selection subject to Council suggestion)

Besides which: the question was never about 'why did the Irish vote no' it was 'how will the Irish vote yes'. It is a slight difference, but significant insofar that the Irish are not the main issue; the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty was not promulgated as a means to benefit Ireland, and the Irish are seen as a mere nuisance to the ratification procedure.

fligedlyflick

if this EU constit......sorry lisbon treaty was so important to ireland and it's honest population, (not multinational corp. or anti-union numptys like ryanair), they would have discussed it in depth last time, last time the economy was not an issue, brian cowen sat back and imagined a thousand year boom economy and half arsededly pushed this treaty upon us, when it was rejected he looked bewildered and jetted of to europe to apologise, if democracy had to have prevailed the powers within the EU would have said, fair enough, lets change it for everyone and let all of europe vote, seeing as it's their future we're discussing here, did they? no, they fobbed mr cowen off with some tale of legal binding guarantees.
brian thinks and schemes on how this treaty can be bullied through, to his enormous relief, the former minister for finance saw our economy lapse further into 3rd world territory and comissioned homer simpson to create a poster ad campaign, "yes for jobs", "yes for the economy", "yes and we'll qualify for the world cup", these issues had no bearing the first time, now it's all that matters even though the treaty will not create jobs, it will highten your chances of getting a job apparently, so!, if the banks start doing their job again soon that will increase job chances also.
can you blame a persons cynicism

ei.sdraob

@fligedlyflick


you are very active today

why dont you join the debates?

they are looking for enthusiastic NOooes

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055689554


@RandomName2 same for yourself

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

The text of the Lisbon Treaty could not be changed retrospectively. Brian Cowan could not tread on any of the other EU leaders' toes (i.e. could not affect the implementation of Lisbon), and if any demand came from the Irish public that was inimical to the nature of Lisbon (e.g. opposition to increased legislative strength of the Commission) then it would have to have been ignored anyway.

They made changes for the French and the Dutch, what makes you so sure they wouldn't have made changes for the Irish?

RandomName2 wrote: »

In the event Brown was selected on behalf of the other EU leaders to see whether it adversely affected the other EU states. Brown (after several hours) concluded that the guarantees did not change Lisbon in the slightest. Granted, Ireland is meant to be exclusive in terms of these opt-outs (pending the government's approval of the opt-outs, presumably).

No one said we're exclusive in these guarantees. They're not opt outs, they're clarifications that stuff we thought was in the treaty actually wasn't

Two incorrect things so far, I'm not hopeful for the rest of this post. On we go.....

RandomName2 wrote: »

Although admittedly it is true that the provision of the Economic and Monetary Union of the Edinburgh Agreement has actually held true for Denmark (although the UK hardly required such an elaborate provision).

Sorry is this supposed to explain the motivation for deliberately not addressing any issues thereby ensuring that another referendum that couldn't result in anything but a no? If so I'm lost. You seem to be explaining why he couldn't get changes, which I don't accept in any way. You haven't explained why he would corrupt three organisations that he had no control over to make up fake issues that no one actually had and pretended to address them so he could spend money on a referendum that was doomed to failure because of his own pointless deception

RandomName2 wrote: »

Although I am not convinced that by voting no we lose a Commissioner. Lisbon, after all, implements the reduction of EU state Commissioners (it also makes their selection subject to Council suggestion)

No Nice states that the size of the commission will be reduced, Lisbon just defined how it would be done. The only way to have an automatic right to a commissioner is to vote yes

fligedlyflick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@fligedlyflick


you are very active today

why dont you join the debates?

they are looking for enthusiastic NOooes

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055689554


@RandomName2 same for yourself

nah, there's only so much refutations and cynical reprimands i can endure

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

if this EU constit......sorry lisbon treaty was so important to ireland and it's honest population, (not multinational corp. or anti-union numptys like ryanair), they would have discussed it in depth last time, last time the economy was not an issue, brian cowen sat back and imagined a thousand year boom economy and half arsededly pushed this treaty upon us, when it was rejected he looked bewildered and jetted of to europe to apologise, if democracy had to have prevailed the powers within the EU would have said, fair enough, lets change it for everyone and let all of europe vote, seeing as it's their future we're discussing here, did they? no, they fobbed mr cowen off with some tale of legal binding guarantees.
brian thinks and schemes on how this treaty can be bullied through, to his enormous relief, the former minister for finance saw our economy lapse further into 3rd world territory and comissioned homer simpson to create a poster ad campaign, "yes for jobs", "yes for the economy", "yes and we'll qualify for the world cup", these issues had no bearing the first time, now it's all that matters even though the treaty will not create jobs, it will highten your chances of getting a job apparently, so!, if the banks start doing their job again soon that will increase job chances also.
can you blame a persons cynicism

Just to be clear, you're saying that Fianna Fail are useless, therefore the Lisbon treaty is useless?

Could you not put this down as one more to add to the litany of Fianna Fail failures and judge the treaty of it's merits? I know I'm voting yes in spite of the yes campaign, they're mostly pathetic but that doesn't automatically mean the treaty is bad

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No one said we're exclusive in these guarantees. They're not opt outs, they're clarifications that stuff we thought was in the treaty actually wasn't

oh, so we were stupid the first time, sarcozy must have been correct when he blamed the limited intellect of the irish people

PopeBuckfastXVI

fligedlyflick wrote: »

oh, so we were stupid the first time, sarcozy must have been correct when he blamed the limited intellect of the irish people

Hmm... quote & link please?

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just to be clear, you're saying that Fianna Fail are useless, therefore the Lisbon treaty is useless?

Could you not put this down as one more to add to the litany of Fianna Fail failures and judge the treaty of it's merits? I know I'm voting yes in spite of the yes campaign, they're mostly pathetic but that doesn't automatically mean the treaty is bad

i don't think it's necessary to say useless whenever fianna fail is in the same sentence.
i'm voting no, not because of cóir or any of the no people, nor because of the absurdity of their campaign, i'm voting no because of the yes side and the absurdity of their campaign and contempt in which they treat us, the lisbon treaty may have it's merits but the negatives far outweigh any positives, i'm voting no because i believe there is a better transparent argreement for every state in the EU, where it's laws and opinions will not *supercede our constitution (*denotes fact gained from the referendum commission)

PopeBuckfastXVI

fligedlyflick wrote: »

i don't think it's necessary to say useless whenever fianna fail is in the same sentence.
i'm voting no, not because of cóir or any of the no people, nor because of the absurdity of their campaign, i'm voting no because of the yes side and the absurdity of their campaign and contempt in which they treat us, the lisbon treaty may have it's merits but the negatives far outweigh any positives, i'm voting no because i believe there is a better transparent argreement for every state in the EU, where it's laws and opinions will not *supercede our constitution (*denotes fact gained from the referendum commission)

Does current EU law not supersede ours?

Dinner

fligedlyflick wrote: »

i'm voting no because i believe there is a better transparent argreement for every state in the EU, where it's laws and opinions will not *supercede our constitution (*denotes fact gained from the referendum commission)

It's laws and opinions have already superceded ours since 1973 and they haven't exactly danced all over us since then, so why would they start now.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

oh, so we were stupid the first time, sarcozy must have been correct when he blamed the limited intellect of the irish people

When we look at these guarantees, yes the Irish people appear stupid. We had to get similar guarantees after Nice because the same nonsense claims were made. I am embarrassed that our government had to get more guarantees to guarantee the same things we'd already been guaranteed and that were never at risk. And I am further embarrassed by the people now saying these guarantees aren't legally binding and the EU is actually going to do all these things. There people are not in touch with reality and unfortunately large sections of the Irish people are believing them. The only change we got was on the commissioner issue and that was because of misunderstanding that the commissioners represent their country

Yes it's embarrassing, yes it makes us look stupid but that does not stop it being true

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

i don't think it's necessary to say useless whenever fianna fail is in the same sentence.
i'm voting no, not because of cóir or any of the no people, nor because of the absurdity of their campaign, i'm voting no because of the yes side and the absurdity of their campaign and contempt in which they treat us, the lisbon treaty may have it's merits but the negatives far outweigh any positives, i'm voting no because i believe there is a better transparent argreement for every state in the EU, where it's laws and opinions will not *supercede our constitution (*denotes fact gained from the referendum commission)

As has been explained, EU law already superceder ours and has since 1972. This myth that Lisbon makes this happen is yet another lie you've been taken in by. Don't trust me, look up the third amendment to the Irish constitution

fligedlyflick

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hmm... quote & link please?

my apologies, cannot find it. i shall expect a few "oooh right, you can't find it", but i remember reading it and being so overcome with hatred for that man