Lisbon 2 The Return!

K-9 · 30-08-2009 12:09am

PrivateEye wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zJZ7mT7fIY

Interesting, this seems to be a coalition of unionists (Trade unionists, not the other kind!) like Jimmy Kelly from Unite (who were involved in the Waterford workers occupation) and the political party left (Joe Higgins, Mary Lou McDonald, PBPA etc.)

I seen the first No posters lately too, Eirigis fantastic Sex Pistols mock up
'NEVER MIND THE B0LL0CKS- ITS THE SAME TREATY' and the new 'Coir the Christians' efforts.

Love some of the No posters, though blatant lies should not be allowed.

Will be interesting to see what SIPTU decides. They could be the most influential organisation in the referendum as most of the solvable issues have been dealt with.

An Fear Aniar · 30-08-2009 12:15am

K-9 wrote: »

The main reason there has been no wars in EU countries over the last 65 years is the EU.

No, the main reason is the US and the Soviet Union standoff.

.

K-9 · 30-08-2009 12:30am

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

No, the main reason is the US and the Soviet Union standoff.

.

Bosnia, Croatia?

An Fear Aniar · 30-08-2009 12:41am

K-9 wrote: »

Bosnia, Croatia?

Happened after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The point is, our European leaders are going off the rails again and the people have to keep them in their place, while we still have the chance to vote.

.

K-9 · 30-08-2009 12:47am

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Happened after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The point is, our European leaders are going off the rails again and the people have to keep them in their place, while we still have the chance to vote.

.

Shows you what can happen without the EU.

Europe and countries in the EU: 0 Wars.

Outside the EU: 1 war that springs to mind.

Well vote and then vote in the next referenda.

Unless you fell for that No lie? You're are to smart to fall for the No further Referenda lie!

Run_to_da_hills · 30-08-2009 12:53am

K-9 wrote: »

Shows you what can happen without the EU.

Europe and countries in the EU: 0 Wars.

Outside the EU: 1 war that springs to mind.

Well vote and then vote in the next referenda.

Unless you fell for that No lie? You're are to smart to fall for the No further Referenda lie!

And the past troubles in the North?

Jim236 · 30-08-2009 12:53am

K-9 wrote: »

Shows you what can happen without the EU.

Europe and countries in the EU: 0 Wars.

Outside the EU: 1 war that springs to mind.

Wasn't that the war that was partly caused by some EU countries?;)

thomond2006 · 30-08-2009 1:07am

Why can't it be called the ****ing treaty?

As in ****ing, Austria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****ing,_Austria

K-9 · 30-08-2009 1:10am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

And the past troubles in the North?

1968 I'm afraid RTDH. Nothing to do with the EU. Seeing as you mentioned, surprised they let us and the UK in at the same time.

Edit: 800 years!

So, we joined at war with each other and now have peace. So, based on that, the EU brings peace.

Any FACTS to prove otherwise RTDH?

marco_polo · 30-08-2009 1:12am

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Why do you put your faith in European governments? Look at what European leaders did in the 20th century... millions and millions and millions of dead. Why would anyone ever trust the ruling elites?

.

Perhaps you should do a little research into the historical motivations for European Integration? The ignorance of that statement is breaktaking. The EEC/EC/EU record in terms of pacifism and respect for human rights is beyond reproach in my opnion.

Schuman Delaration 1950
The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification.

This production will be offered to the world as a whole without distinction or exception, with the aim of contributing to raising living standards and to promoting peaceful achievements. With increased resources Europe will be able to pursue the achievement of one of its essential tasks, namely, the development of the African continent. In this way, there will be realised simply and speedily that fusion of interest which is indispensable to the establishment of a common economic system; it may be the leaven from which may grow a wider and deeper community between countries long opposed to one another by sanguinary divisions

TheZohanS · 30-08-2009 1:17am

marco_polo wrote: »

Perhaps you should do a little research into the historical motivations for European Integration?

He can start here www.jimcorr.com

Let me know when you're finished.

marco_polo · 30-08-2009 1:26am

TheZohan wrote: »

He can start here www.jimcorr.com

Let me know when you're finished.

Lol. Given the last few pages I keep checking every so often to make sure I am still in After Hours and not Conspiracy Theories

Jim236 · 30-08-2009 1:29am

K-9 wrote: »

1968 I'm afraid RTDH. Nothing to do with the EU. Seeing as you mentioned, surprised they let us and the UK in at the same time.

Edit: 800 years!

So, we joined at war with each other and now have peace. So, based on that, the EU brings peace.

Seen as you're ignoring my previous post I'll put it to you again, if the EU brings peace, why didn't the EU prevent 6 of it's member states from invading Iraq in 2003? And why didn't it withold entry into the bloc for Latvia, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, and Czech Republic until they withdrew their forces from Iraq?

I'm not saying the EU should or shouldn't impose such restrictions or sanctions on it's members, but don't say the EU brings about peace when it clearly doesn't.

The peace process in the North was largely because of mediation from the US, the EU played little part in the formation of the Good Friday Agreement. They have though been key to rebuilding the North's infrastructure through the Regional Development Fund.

K-9 · 30-08-2009 1:37am

Jim236 wrote: »

Seen as you're ignoring my previous post I'll put it to you again, if the EU brings peace, why didn't the EU prevent 6 of it's member states from invading Iraq in 2003? And why didn't it withold entry into the bloc for Latvia, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, and Czech Republic until they withdrew their forces from Iraq?

I'm not saying the EU should or shouldn't impose such restrictions or sanctions on it's members, but don't say the EU brings about peace when it clearly doesn't.

The peace process in the North was largely because of mediation from the US, the EU played little part in the formation of the Good Friday Agreement. They have though been key to rebuilding the North's infrastructure through the Regional Development Fund.

I didn't ignore it. I was researching it! I know it is frowned upon in Lisbon debates!

You do realise you are arguing for a stronger EU, far stronger than Lisbon brings?

If you want the EU to have power over situations like Iraq, vote YES!*

If you want accession countries to agree to EU Foreign policy, Vote YES.*

I'm well aware of the peace process. It was a reply to RDTH, who is well known for Conspiracy theories.

*EDIT Lisbon doesn't bring about these things.

An Fear Aniar · 30-08-2009 1:05pm

marco_polo wrote: »

Perhaps you should do a little research into the historical motivations for European Integration? The ignorance of that statement is breaktaking. The EEC/EC/EU record in terms of pacifism and respect for human rights is beyond reproach in my opnion.

Wars happen because of people putting blind faith in their leaders and handing over all their powers to them, which is what is happening now with the EU.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, we don't know what the EU might evolve into further into the future, right now it's displaying a strongly anti-democratic streak. It would be crazy to hand over any more of our national powers to this arrogant chauvinistic institution.

.

Dinner · 30-08-2009 1:36pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

right now it's displaying a strongly anti-democratic streak.

Except it's not though.

Attempting to address peoples concerns is not undemocratic.

Jim236 · 30-08-2009 1:50pm

K-9 wrote: »

I didn't ignore it. I was researching it! I know it is frowned upon in Lisbon debates!

You do realise you are arguing for a stronger EU, far stronger than Lisbon brings?

If you want the EU to have power over situations like Iraq, vote YES!*

If you want accession countries to agree to EU Foreign policy, Vote YES.*

I'm well aware of the peace process. It was a reply to RDTH, who is well known for Conspiracy theories.

*EDIT Lisbon doesn't bring about these things.

Fair enough, but no I don't want an EU that strong, just makin the point that its not really the peacemaker some people like to think it is. Its more like the rich parent that just throws money at it's kids in the hope they'll end up ok...

An Fear Aniar · 30-08-2009 2:21pm

Dinner wrote: »

Except it's not though.

Attempting to address peoples concerns is not undemocratic.

They're building an empire, dude. Did anyone consult the people of Europe about this?

.

K-9 · 30-08-2009 2:23pm

Jim236 wrote: »

Fair enough, but no I don't want an EU that strong, just makin the point that its not really the peacemaker some people like to think it is. Its more like the rich parent that just throws money at it's kids in the hope they'll end up ok...

It never had the chance, except Sarkozy and Georgia, though that was more France. Would loved to have seen Blair stopped in Iraq, but it will never happen, just like an EU army never will.

RasTa · 30-08-2009 2:33pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Why do you put your faith in European governments? Look at what European leaders did in the 20th century... millions and millions and millions of dead. Why would anyone ever trust the ruling elites?

.

What the hell has this statement got to do with the Lisbon Treaty. I'll be voting yes again, free abortions for all!

Jim236 · 30-08-2009 3:27pm

Dinner · 30-08-2009 5:14pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

They're building an empire, dude. Did anyone consult the people of Europe about this?

Thats a nice video. I find it interesting that to back up your point that the EU is undemocratic you use a video in which Barrosso explicitly states democratic. The reason why the people of Europe were not consulted about turning the EU into an empire is because it hasn't been turned into an empire. So if the EU was being turned into an Empire, I'm sure we would have had a vote on it. But, as we all know, Lisbon does nothing of the sort.

The EU is still not demonstrating an anti-democracy streak.

FutureTaoiseach · 30-08-2009 5:18pm

Heard Ruairi Quinn on The Right Hook (Newstalk) the other night claiming erroneously that 1/3rd of national parliaments will have veto powers over EU legislation. That is flat-out false. I have read the relevant Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the EU and on Subsidiarity. The Commission cannot be forced to withdraw anything - only to consider the objections. But it isn't binding on them to withdraw the legislation or even to amend it. They will just consider it. It's a figleaf designed to create a veneer of democracy to disguise the further centralisation of policy making at EU level, notably at the Council of Ministers through the abolition of 50 vetoes. From the EU's own website, here is a list of the vetoes surrendered. The ones in bold - while subject to our optouts - in reality are threatened where they concern Justice and Home Affairs e.g. policing, asylum and immigration - because of the wording of the referendum-legislation (which contains the wording of the proposed changes to our constitution to be voted on in the Lisbon 2 referendum) which explicitly allows them to surrender the optout protocol on Justice and Home Affairs. As shown in 7(ii) below, the legislation also allows the govt to take us into the Schengen Area, abolishing all passport checks on travellers arriving from its 25 member countries:

28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 wrote:

7° The State may exercise the options or discretions—
i to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union
relating to enhanced cooperation applies,
ii under Protocol No. 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated
into the framework of the European Union annexed to that 25
treaty and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (formerly known as the Treaty
establishing the European Community), and
iii under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, 30
security and justice, so annexed, including the option that
the said Protocol No. 21 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.

leitrim lad · 30-08-2009 5:26pm

can no one else see that the corruption that put this treaty together is a bunch of powermad , second generation hitlers, who want us all to kneel and bow to them like the ****ing queen wanted for the last 800 years

i say no and i mean it

An Fear Aniar · 30-08-2009 5:38pm

Dinner wrote: »

Thats a nice video. I find it interesting that to back up your point that the EU is undemocratic you use a video in which Barrosso explicitly states democratic. The reason why the people of Europe were not consulted about turning the EU into an empire is because it hasn't been turned into an empire. So if the EU was being turned into an Empire, I'm sure we would have had a vote on it. But, as we all know, Lisbon does nothing of the sort.

The EU is still not demonstrating an anti-democracy streak.

If his version of democracy is "well, the Dutch, the French and the Irish people have voted NO but we're going ahead with it anyway" then yes, he's a democrat.

.

Dinner · 30-08-2009 5:44pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

If his version of democracy is "well, the Dutch, the French and the Irish people have voted NO but we're going ahead with it anyway" then yes, he's a democrat.

.

I think you'll find his version is more like;

"Well the Dutch and French voted no to the Constitution, so some parts that caused a problem have been removed, additional pieces have been added by the Dutch and the remaining content + new parts are reformated into a reform treaty which is now called Lisbon.

Lisbon was then rejected by the Irish mostly because lots of people didn't understand and for reasons that weren't in the treaty. Let's address those points and see if the Irish Government want to rerun the treaty + guarantees".

But hey! I'm only including the bits that you left out because it doesn't seem as undemocratic. I have no doubt the within the next page or 2 you will repost something similar to the post I quoted ignoring the democratic parts and the whole circle starts again.

Johnnnybravo · 30-08-2009 5:47pm

Oh I can just imagine all the further cuts theyd bring in if this goes ahead. But its not us Blame Europe!! Be a nice scape goat for them to screw us here a bit more.

No thanks!

RandomName2 · 30-08-2009 5:49pm

Dinner wrote: »

Except it's not though.

Attempting to address peoples concerns is not undemocratic.

The EU itself addressed nobody's concerns (that is members of the public).

The EU had no obligation to address any of the electorates' concerns in the 27 states, and there was no need in 26 as there was no vote there so who cares anyway.

The EU didn't address the Irish public concerns either before or after the referendum.

Fianna Fail went on a reassurance provision trip off its own bat due to the fact that 1) Rejection of Lisbon is pretty bad for the Fianna Fail in Europe and 2) Rejection of Lisbon II would probably make Fianna Fail have to withdraw from government.

So yes: a very obvious representation of the EU's democratic streak.

P.S.> sarcozy visiting to urge a yes vote does not count as the EU providing for the public's concerns

zenno · 30-08-2009 5:50pm

RasTa wrote: »

What the hell has this statement got to do with the Lisbon Treaty. I'll be voting yes again, free abortions for all!

free abortions for all ? what are you talking about, even if the yes side wins the lisbon vote women in this country will still not be allowed to have an abortion. get your facts straight.

RandomName2 · 30-08-2009 6:05pm

Dinner wrote: »

I think you'll find his version is more like;

"Well the Dutch and French voted no to the Constitution, so some parts that caused a problem have been removed, additional pieces have been added by the Dutch and the remaining content + new parts are reformated into a reform treaty which is now called Lisbon.

Lisbon was then rejected by the Irish mostly because lots of people didn't understand and for reasons that weren't in the treaty. Let's address those points and see if the Irish Government want to rerun the treaty + guarantees".

But hey! I'm only including the bits that you left out because it doesn't seem as undemocratic. I have no doubt the within the next page or 2 you will repost something similar to the post I quoted ignoring the democratic parts and the whole circle starts again.

Let us suppose a referendum was brought before the public on the issue of.... unifying Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

This Bill is called the Unification Bill.

There is meant to be a referendum in the Republic, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom for it to pass. There is a vote... a narrow victory in the Republic and overwhelming rejection in Northern Ireland. There is no vote in the United Kingdom as a the Bill has already been rejected.

The Bill is renamed the Progress Bill, and the Union Jack is to be kept in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein and SDLP have a majority in Stormont so they decide they will not give the public a second referendum.

The United Kingdom reject the Bill. Because Westminster cannot get around giving the British a vote on the matter, they claim that after the Progress Bill is passed, that an addendum will be added stating that the Irish state will have no power to shut down Protestant Churches in Northern Ireland. The Protestant Churches Proviso has nothing to do with the specific wording of the Bill, and does not influence the major problems concerning unification.

There is the implication that the Troubles will reignite if the Bill is not passed.

The public's concerns were seen to be 'addressed' in the hypothetical situation (or alternatively the public didn't know what they were talking about, so they actually had no concerns in the first place).

Lisbon 2 The Return!

Comments