Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?
Options
Comments
-
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
EU law regarding certain issues maybe, i'm talking about our constitution which the EU will have primacy over, i was not dragged into this blindly, i sourced my information from the expected, so-called impartial bodies, fianna fail basically called me a liar as did FG, the referendum comission explained that yes, the treaty will lead to a constitiution which will supercede our own0 -
this campaign has become a bit of a farce now, with the government's scaremongering Vs the gangley/higgins barrage of lies
unfortunately these have both overshadowed any logical discussion on the issues, and it is Labour's support of the treaty that has decided it imo, such is the popularity of Eamonn Gilmore0 -
The gap might even reach 100 by the polling day.the groutch wrote: »this campaign has become a bit of a farce now, with the government's scaremongering Vs the gangley/higgins barrage of lies
unfortunately these have both overshadowed any logical discussion on the issues, and it is Labour's support of the treaty that has decided it imo, such is the popularity of Eamonn Gilmore
0 -
What a stupid statement. By yet another person who hasn't read it. They can change whatever they want about it with no consent or vote after it's passed. Herein lies the danger. I reccommend anyone who has trusted our government (clearly a fool), that they go READ the damn thing. Also, found a cool youtube channel called 'respectthevote'... loads of interviews with ex-MEP's and everything.
Vote yes if you don't like Ireland as a soverign nation.
Vote yes so the intel lobby can make weapon systems on our soil.
Vote yes so 9% of our GDP can go to 'DEFENSE DEVELOPMENT'.
I think it's self explanatory that our neutral days are also numbered.
Vote yes, and we can walk ourselves into another fine mess.
Actually, If we vote yes can we can be guaranteed an appropriate level of adult literacy when it comes to politics in the future? Not like the bloody mess of idiots we have voting yes now. What are the 'Yes Facts'... that it'll save the economy, that it'll make us stronger? All lies and deceipts. All 'guarantees' given have no legal remit. So if we don't like it we can just go and suck it. There will be no financial benefit from this. However, there are 4 1/2 times as many references to giving banks rights as the individual. And watch what they give us dwindle.
Our country is more important than having easy times with money. We've only had it for 90 odd years and look at what we're doing! Giving it back to the same oligarchy that took it from us in the first place.0 -
Haahaha. Post of the day! Declan Ganley would be proud.0
-
Advertisement
-
Brilliant.
Votes YES to legalise Paedophilia.
Suppose we let them get away with it for years here, pre the EU.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
VOTE YES! - If you think they should legalise paedophilia. Look it up, that's true. Not a crime.
Vote yes if you don't like Ireland as a soverign nation.
Vote yes so the intel lobby can make weapon systems on our soil.
Vote yes so 9% of our GDP can go to 'DEFENSE DEVELOPMENT'.
I think it's self explanatory that our neutral days are also numbered.
Vote yes, and we can walk ourselves into another fine mess.
....
....
euabc.eu = Website http://euabc.eu -ABC of the EU.
:0
more about euabc...Dinner wrote:Haahaha. Post of the day! Declan Ganley would be proud.
the person who created euabc was advisor to Ganley.... (see above)0 -
Fair point, I was just of on a rant. Does it honestly matter who set up what though?
We can argue about who's who all damn day but what matters is the facts, and while I haven't offered a very complete picture my point remains.
There are 0 FACTS for the yes side, and that is worrying. It's just slogans. There is a very deep and worrying trend of the facts supporting a no vote and that's what people should be looking at; facts not slogans.
So if anyone here wishes to vote yes based on slogans or without looking to both sides first, or debate with me on skype, i'm more than happy to help kick your arse.
Despite an ill-loaded and off the cuff rant, the fact remains, there's more info in there alone than the yes side have bothered to produce.0 -
-
Fair point, I was just of on a rant. Does it honestly matter who set up what though?
We can argue about who's who all damn day but what matters is the facts, and while I haven't offered a very complete picture my point remains.
There are 0 FACTS for the yes side, and that is worrying.
can you point the relevant articles in the Treaty that support any of your claims
the pedophilia one is a new one i tell ya
if you want information then go here > http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/0 -
Advertisement
-
There is no 'known abscence' of information. There's a hell of a lot of information. While i'll take your shallow point, you're still wrong. The fact remains that we're screwed if we go through with it. Point out all I said wrong, but here's a challenge. Point out the things you can't disprove also, if you're so brave. The debate remains, then. I'll always side with regular people who are out every day trying to talk to people, than believe the government that have no credibility left. That's just having cop on. The thing is, without going into specifics - the people who will even debate that Lisbon is good don't know crap about how the world works. It's all a globalist consolidation and to that I say no. And no, i'm not talking about some Jim Corr ****e either.
59% are saying no (that's the gael poll boys and girls).. same poll that pretty much was dead on last time. And what about the farmers, jeez, the're not happy with the IFA right now i can tell you. Another head of an organisation sells the whole lot out for lisbon. Let's all forget about it and go fishing, no wait, we can't.
As for http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/ ... I couldn't find one reference to the actual text on there. So it's obviously a yes campaign website. Duh. Commission is fixed. Peoples movement are the only good people really. They're not fearmongering or lying like Ganley or Coir. And for my next trick, i'd like to quote article 48 of the treaty YOU HAVEN'T READ... you know, the part that allows them to not follow through on any promise. It's the absoloute definition of dictatorship by design, incremental setting and purpose. It has no place in any democracy. And before you read that, i'd also like to point out that the finalised Lisbon EU provides NO POWER TO THE ELECTORATE OR THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS. IT ONLY GIVES POWER TO THE COMMISSION, WHO ELECT AMONG THEMSELVES. This is tyranny. But you wouldn't know that as you're only on here to give more biased crap.
Without further ado, ACTUAL LEGISLATION (unlike my detractora) and not just quotes on what they expect to happen.
ARTICLE 33 OF THE LISBON TREATY
An Article 48 shall be inserted to replace Article 48 of the TEU:
"Article 33
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.
Ordinary revision procedure
2. The government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.
3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4
The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.
4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.
Simplified revision procedures
6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.
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.
The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.
7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.
Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.
Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.
For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.".
In short: They can change whatever they like after it's passed and there's not a damn referendum or vote or anything all the people of europe can do, even united, if power fell into the wrong hands. Which we're aware it already has. Finally, how many countries have had their right to vote vetoed and have pleaded with us to say No? Quick count how many EU citizens don't want it? A good 80% it seems.
So stop with all this yes crap and cut to the article that saves the economy. Wait, wait... doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, not a whole lot of financial reform in here, given that the whole thing is based on an economic system that allowed this mess to happen. ei.sdraob, you got nothin but hot air and poking fun. so screw the 20% of things I got wrong. Come on, prove I'm wrong about all this. I've said my part and instead you'll just pick and choose parts of it instead of forming an argument on the solid points.0 -
There is no 'known abscence' of information. There's a hell of a lot of information. While i'll take your shallow point, you're still wrong. The fact remains that we're screwed if we go through with it. Point out all I said wrong, but here's a challenge. Point out the things you can't disprove also, if you're so brave.
The debate remains, then. I'll always side with regular people who are out every day trying to talk to people, than believe the government that have no credibility left. That's just having cop on. The thing is, without going into specifics - the people who will even debate that Lisbon is good don't know crap about how the world works. It's all a globalist consolidation and to that I say no. And no, i'm not talking about some Jim Corr ****e either. Or did Bilderberg not help give the euro a nudge back in 1994?
59% are saying no (that's the gael poll boys and girls).. same poll that pretty much was dead on last time. And what about the farmers, jeez, the're not happy with the IFA right now i can tell you. Another head of an organisation sells the whole lot out for lisbon.
Let's all forget about it and go fishing, no wait, we can't.
you are the one making claims
the onus is on you to provide references to backup your statements0 -
There is no 'known abscence' of information. There's a hell of a lot of information. While i'll take your shallow point, you're still wrong. The fact remains that we're screwed if we go through with it. Point out all I said wrong, but here's a challenge. Point out the things you can't disprove also, if you're so brave.
I don't need to, your copypasta has already been destroyed:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62155877&highlight=copperfasten+Laval#post62155877
Looks like you need a new single transferable post...0 -
noodledog
Your 13 facts were discussed many times here and have been debunked,
So much so that Wylo one of the users here wrote up a text document to email back to everyone who sends them to him.
link:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055616894&page=2&highlight=critical0 -
Have I not stated they were a copy and paste job? I'll be sure to only make direct references. Also removed that line about paedophiles. This was all done in haste, but the point remains, it's how all the amendments play into eachother and what they're amending.
Can anyone give me any positives? Because I did used to think Europe was great and god bless the UN. Then you find out how many maoists have run europe and how many mass child killing countries we are supporting by proxy.0 -
fligedlyflick wrote: »EU law regarding certain issues maybe, i'm talking about our constitution which the EU will have primacy over, i was not dragged into this blindly, i sourced my information from the expected, so-called impartial bodies, fianna fail basically called me a liar as did FG, the referendum comission explained that yes, the treaty will lead to a constitiution which will supercede our own
I don't know who you sourced your information from but firstly the treaty is not the constitution despite how many times the liars on the no side say it is. One of the main objections to the constitution was that it was too close to statehood so all of those things were removed, including all reference to it being a constitution. This is an amendment treaty just like the others were
And I'm just going to say it again because there's nothing else I can really do here. I'll try underlining it this time. EU law already has primacy over Irish law and over the Irish constitution and has had it since 1972 because of the third amendment to the constitution. Acknowledgement of the superiority of EU law was a requirement of entry into the EU because otherwise we could sign up to treaties and then refuse to honour them by making Irish laws to overrule the treaties. Please read the third amendment to the constitution and stop listening to the liars and naysayers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_IrelandThe Third Amendment of the
Constitution of Ireland permitted
the state to join the European
Communities and provided that
European law would take
precedence over the
constitution.0 -
Can anyone give me any positives? Because I did used to think Europe was great and god bless the UN. Then you find out how many maoists have run europe and how many mass child killing countries we are supporting by proxy.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=20556330860 -
How can the No side get away with using terms like 'scaremongering'
that's our word for them. 0 -
mostly because when a no side scaremongers, they quote half an article (or just the number) to make it look like fact and leave out the 2nd half, in televised debates on posters it just looks boring having someone going. Now see here you left out this part thats says C)herefore etc etc etc.
cant fit it on a poster and as seen from today nobody wants to hear that on a televised debate they just want to see idiots shout at each other.
Take for example MR Higgins today, he threw out article 207 as an argument that lisbon was going to privitise health care etc
he quotedArticle 207
(ex Article 133 TEC)
1. . The common commercial policy shall be based on uniform principles, particularly with regard
to changes in tariff rates, the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and
services, and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, foreign direct investment, the
achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalisation, export policy and measures to protect trade
such as those to be taken in the event of dumping or subsidies. The common commercial policy shall
be conducted in the context of the principles and objectives of the Union's external action.
but of course he wouldnt quote the whole article down to paragraph 4 where it then states:4. For the negotiation and conclusion of the agreements referred to in paragraph 3, the Council
shall act by a qualified majority.
For the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the fields of trade in services and the commercial
aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, the Council shall act unanimously
where such agreements include provisions for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal
rules.
The Council shall also act unanimously for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements:
(a) in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these agreements risk prejudicing
the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity;
(b) in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously
disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member
States to deliver them.
or even as far as paragraph 66. The exercise of the competences conferred by this Article in the field of the common
commercial policy shall not affect the delimitation of competences between the Union and the
Member States, and shall not lead to harmonisation of legislative or regulatory provisions of the
Member States in so far as the Treaties exclude such harmonisation.
its actually getting pretty f*cking awful, a certain poster on boards actually has a video linked in his signature that argues that article 311 will allow the EU force its own tax on us.
in the video the quote of article 311 actually leaves out the last line of the 2nd paragraph which states *member states will ratify any changes by their constitutional requirements*
You cant make this sh*t up anymore, its no longer about the truth when you purposely start cutting bits out of the treaty to suit you.0 -
I don't know who you sourced your information from but firstly the treaty is not the constitution despite how many times the liars on the no side say it is. One of the main objections to the constitution was that it was too close to statehood so all of those things were removed, including all reference to it being a constitution. This is an amendment treaty just like the others were
And I'm just going to say it again because there's nothing else I can really do here. I'll try underlining it this time. EU law already has primacy over Irish law and over the Irish constitution and has had it since 1972 because of the third amendment to the constitution.
as i said, information regarding the primacy of the EU constitution over our own was sourced from the referendum commission, your still arguing the point over EU law which has, in certain issues superseded our own law making capabilities, which is a travesty in it's own right.
this treaty is a mere mirror image of the EU constitution rejected by the french, dutch and more recently........us. (but in the creation of an empire people are not allowed decide their masters)0 -
Advertisement
-
fligedlyflick wrote: »as i said, information regarding the primacy of the EU constitution over our own was sourced from the referendum commission, your still arguing the point over EU law which has, in certain issues superseded our own law making capabilities, which is a travesty in it's own right.
this treaty is a mere mirror image of the EU constitution rejected by the french, dutch and more recently........us. (but in the creation of an empire people are not allowed decide their masters)
there is no EU constitution....
get over it
here we have yet another treaty, we had plenty of these before
and not surprisingly non of the scaremongering from the NO side such as SF @ Nice haven't come true0 -
This is the third amendment to the Irish constitution:fligedlyflick wrote: »as i said, information regarding the primacy of the EU constitution over our own was sourced from the referendum commission, your still arguing the point over EU law which has, in certain issues superseded our own law making capabilities, which is a travesty in it's own right.The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community (established by Treaty signed at Paris on the 18th day of April, 1951), the European Economic Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957) and the European Atomic Energy Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957). No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the Communities, or institutions thereof, from having the force of law in the State.
Every one of the current EU treaties supersedes our constitution. The Lisbon treaty will supersede our constitution just like all of the other treaties have since 1973. Do you accept this fact?
And if so, are you saying that you will vote no to every EU treaty that is ever put forward?
And do you think we should withdraw from the EU since the primacy of their law over our constitution is a travesty to you?
No, it's not. The problems the French and the Dutch had with it were related to references that made the EU seem state-like, such as it being called a constitution. Any state like references were removed along with a few other things and some parts were added at the request of the Dutch. You have to stop listening to the liars on this, the EU is not an evil empire!fligedlyflick wrote: »this treaty is a mere mirror image of the EU constitution rejected by the french, dutch and more recently........us. (but in the creation of an empire people are not allowed decide their masters)
why would they remove parts that no one objected to?0 -
there is no EU constitution....
get over it
here we have yet another treaty, we had plenty of these before
and not surprisingly non of the scaremongering from the NO side such as SF @ Nice haven't come true
not in name, it was slimmed down after the french and dutch rejections and re-evaluated to a treaty in order to dispense with the normal protocols of referendum, he first chink in the armour of this lie came with the leak of a letter written by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to other EU leaders, describing how she wanted the new version of the Constitution:
"... to use different terminology without changing the legal substance... [making only] the necessary presentational changes..."
these days, however, it is openly admitted – by everyone except the yes camp europhiles and business men with a capitalist agenda – that the old Constitution and the new Lisbon Treaty are essentially the same.
"The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel
"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
"There's nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed."
Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister
"... all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left."
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Pirme Minister
"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."
Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister
"All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but they will be hidden and disguised in some way... the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary."
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, chair of the body that drew up the original Constitution.0 -
Yet another lie I'm afraid. Only the Irish and the Danish have any clauses in their constitutions requiring referendums, the French and the Dutch were never legally obliged to have one and referendums are now illegal in The Netherlands.fligedlyflick wrote: »not in name, it was slimmed down after the french and dutch rejections and re-evaluated to a treaty in order to dispense with the normal protocols of referendum,
Yes I know it's 90% the same and the "core" is still there. The French and the Dutch didn't object to the core, they objected to the references to a state-like union such as an official anthem and flag. Again, why change something that no one objected to?fligedlyflick wrote: »"... to use different terminology without changing the legal substance... [making only] the necessary presentational changes..."
these days, however, it is openly admitted – by everyone except the yes camp europhiles and business men with a capitalist agenda – that the old Constitution and the new Lisbon Treaty are essentially the same.
"The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel
"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
"There's nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed."
Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister
"... all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left."
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Pirme Minister
"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."
Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister
"All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but they will be hidden and disguised in some way... the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary."
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, chair of the body that drew up the original Constitution.
As Merkel said "making only the necessary presentational changes...". Why make unnecessary changes?0 -
An I suppose I'll make this point one more time for the craic. Maybe they did make changes to avoid referendums but to be honest I'd have done the same. Not because the treaty is bad, because the same thing would happen there as happened here. Liars and extremists would spread their lies and people would reject it out of fear. That's why other countries aren't having referendums, because a complex document full of legal language designed to define how 27 member nations interact is difficult to make an informed decision on and Betty from Mayo doesn't have the time, the inclination of the expertise to make an informed decision on it. Issues like this are why we vote in governments who employ experts. And the fact that the treaty is so long and complex makes it very easy to make up all manner of crap about it and very difficult to refute it so benign and beneficial treaties get voted down because of extremists with ulterior motives fooling people. It's the reason referendums are illegal in Germany and the Netherlands.0
-
And do you think we should withdraw from the EU since the primacy of their law over our constitution is a travesty to you?
and is it not a shameful waste of hard fought sovereignty to you?
i'm in no way advocating withdrawal from the EU, you lot seem to think, and try to tell undecided voters, that this is exactly what no voters want, this assumption you have is an aberration of our right to say enough is enough. i don;t believe ireland signed up to the EEC to waive it's right to sovereign decision making, i don;t believe signing up to increase our trade and competitivness compells us to ratify every sinister document and secret blueprints for a federal union of europe0 -
i don't take kindly to be called a liar.
say, "betty from mayo", has issues regarding the lisbon treaty, she seeks clarification, she then passes on this clarification to her friend "tessie from mayo" and tesie informs her she is a liar.
in essence, you are tessie, maybe not from mayo, and i am betty, not from mayo but from a small border town untouched by the celtic tiger and force fed a constant stream of lies for years by untrustworthy career politicians.
apaprently, a yes vote will stop cross border fuel smuggling????
how? will the EU ;
station a EU helicopter gunship halfway between castleblaney and keady?, erect fortifications on the ballyconnel to derylin road?, or open up more fictional garda stations?, the old ones were unsightly and did'nt blend in with the ambience of the countryside0 -
No it's not. The EU is a union, not an empire. Some people have this idea that the pooling of power is self evidently bad but I see all the benefits it can bring. Their goals are very similar to ours and 500 million voices shout an awful lot louder than 4 million. I see the huge benefits that membership of the EU and this power sharing that you consider a travesty has brought us.fligedlyflick wrote: »and is it not a shameful waste of hard fought sovereignty to you?
If I was to suggest to you that every county in Ireland should have a veto on every law change you'd rightly call me mad. We'd never get anything done because there'd always be some issue for people to block changes on. But spread this out over Europe and suddenly a veto is something to be clutched like a lifeline. Remember that where we don't have a veto, no one else has one either and something can go against Germany just as easily as it can go against us. I think a system where 15 member states have to agree and they have to represent 65% of the population is perfectly democratic and fair.
And I say that with two important qualifications:
1. The really important stuff is still done unanimously such as taxation, social issues, defence and foreign policy
2. Because it's not an empire, we can take all our sovereignty back any time we want by choosing to leave.
i'm in no way advocating withdrawal from the EU, you lot seem to think, and try to tell undecided voters, that this is exactly what no voters want, this assumption you have is an aberration of our right to say enough is enough.
[/quote]
you described EU law having supremacy over our constitution as a "travesty". Is it not reasonable to assume that you want us to withdraw from the EU since you have described the current situation as a travesty?fligedlyflick wrote: »i don;t believe ireland signed up to the EEC to waive it's right to sovereign decision making, i don;t believe signing up to increase our trade and competitivness compells us to ratify every sinister document and secret blueprints for a federal union of europe
The EU you describe with sinister documents and secret blueprints is not one I've ever come across. I see a union of 27 nations working together for their mutual benefit. Most of our progressive legislation such as women's rights and working rights for disabled people has come from the EU. Before you worry about the EU forcing new laws on us maybe you should take a look at our own laws and ask if they don't need updating, while keeping in mind that we still have the power to block significant changes.
Also, we didn't waive our right to sovereign decision making, we have representatives in the parliament, the council and the commission just like everyone else. We're involved in the decision making.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
sorry I'm not calling you a liar. I'm sure you completely believe everything you're saying. You have been lied to.fligedlyflick wrote: »i don't take kindly to be called a liar.
I don't really get your analogy. Are you saying that you sought clarification on the treaty and then I called you a liar? Firstly I'm not calling you a liar as I explained and secondly, whatever source you sought clarification from was the wrong one because none of it is true. You were given the choice of siding with these untrustworthy career politicians or these other people who seemed to be looking out for your best interests and seemed to have nothing to gain. It's perfectly understandable why you would take that side but you picked the wrong side mate. The untrustworthy career politicians are only one group advocating a yes, every reputable organisation is calling for one and the only groups calling for a no are the people who hate the EU, who have been against it from the start and would love nothing more than to see it dismantled.fligedlyflick wrote: »say, "betty from mayo", has issues regarding the lisbon treaty, she seeks clarification, she then passes on this clarification to her friend "tessie from mayo" and tesie informs her she is a liar.
in essence, you are tessie, maybe not from mayo, and i am betty, not from mayo but from a small border town untouched by the celtic tiger and force fed a constant stream of lies for years by untrustworthy career politicians.
apaprently
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61254481&postcount=740
The lies they're pumping our now are the same ones they pumped out for Nice and Maastricht:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZKepX8VopRQ/SkqHGwCTAAI/AAAAAAAAAc8/EMzgh3Rs0bg/s800/mastr2.jpg
Haven't heard that one myselffligedlyflick wrote: », a yes vote will stop cross border fuel smuggling????how? will the EU ;0
Advertisement