Lisbon 2 The Return!

King of Kings

what gets me about the yes side is that don't respect people who vote no.

I voted No the last time. I believe in europe as a trade entity/economic bloc only but I don't believe it should be unified territorially, politically, socially etc...
I believe Lisbon is a step to a Federal State (a US of E if you will) and I'm out.

But yet I'm told that Declan Ganley brainwashed me the last time.

1. Well I didn't like Ganley.
2. I hate the Shinners.
3. I did vote for Joe Higgins into europe, but that was my first socialist vote and it came post-lisbon.
4. I don't subscribe to pro-life people like youth defence.

I'm just a guy , a floating voter with FF tendencies (at times)
respect my right to vote how I want - that is aimed at you Dick Roche you are an almighty cock cos your warbling post lisbon 1 on the radio was pitiful. a nation embarrassment that a sniveling cock like you is in public office. We voted - you lost - deal with it.

another bugbear - this abortion thing...some lunatic fringe bring up abortion. They may have 20/30 followers and suddenly that it reported as loads who voted no did so cos of a fear of abortion being introduced. ****ing media.

G_R

Jim236 wrote: »

What makes you think every single person in every other country supports the treaty?

i dont but tbh weather you agree with it or not its a moot point since they can get it ratified everywhere else

zenno wrote: »

im sure their multi-million euro spent is in no way as expensive as their bed and pillow that kind of money to them is like 1 cent to you and me.

that's irrelevant, throwing out the document is a waste of time and resources, no matter how much its worth to them

Bob_Harris wrote: »

It's legally impossible for any member to be kicked out.

well i'll hold my hands up and say i didn't know that. I presumed there would be a mechanism for removing member states

zenno

dannym08 wrote: »

i dont but tbh weather you agree with it or not its a moot point since they can get it ratified everywhere else



that's irrelevant, throwing out the document is a waste of time and resources, no matter how much its worth to them



well i'll hold my hands up and say i didn't know that. I presumed there would be a mechanism for removing member states

When we vote on October 2nd, we face a major national choice. Some say it will make no difference, that “they can’t throw us out, we’re still in even if we vote No”. While it is true in law that we remain a member state however we choose to vote, the EU is not about them and us. No one wants to or will throw us out.

Sam Kade

What's this baloney that the NO campaigners have on their posters about the min wage of €1.84 if you vote yes? They don't say if it's an hour maybe it's for 15 minutes work.

zenno

Sam Kade wrote: »

What's this baloney that the NO campaigners have on their posters about the min wage of €1.84 if you vote yes? They don't say if it's an hour maybe it's for 15 minutes work.

i think K-9 had this answer to your question.
The sign would be COIR, basically Youth Defence, the Irish Monster Raving Looney party, though that's a sleight on Lord Sutch!

Basically go your average pro life rally and you'll see COIR members.

Anybody that says our voting weight is down to .8% can't be trusted to be objective.

TheZohanS

marco_polo wrote: »

The Posting of workers directive would stop you.

The European Commission issued Directive 96/71/EC, which was adopted in 1996, which guarantees application of the host country's provisions relating to work periods, minimum paid holidays, minimum rates of pay and the conditions of hiring-out of workers and the supply of workers by temporary employment undertakings.

Edit: And I am aware of the problems surrounding the Laval and Vikinig cases with regard to local bargaining agreements, but the implications of these judgement and ways to improve matters are being worked on, and in any case are not related to Lisbon.

The Ratfication of the Lisbon Treaty Would copperfasten the Laval and related judgements of the EU Court of Justice, which put the competition rules of the EU market above the rights of Trade Unions to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum wage for migrant workers. At the same time Lisbon would give the EU full control of immigration policy (Art.79 TFEU).

marco_polo

King of Kings wrote: »

what gets me about the yes side is that don't respect people who vote no.

I voted No the last time. I believe in europe as a trade entity/economic bloc only but I don't believe it should be unified territorially, politically, socially etc...
I believe Lisbon is a step to a Federal State (a US of E if you will) and I'm out.

But yet I'm told that Declan Ganley brainwashed me the last time.

1. Well I didn't like Ganley.
2. I hate the Shinners.
3. I did vote for Joe Higgins into europe, but that was my first socialist vote and it came post-lisbon.
4. I don't subscribe to pro-life people like youth defence.

I'm just a guy , a floating voter with FF tendencies (at times)
respect my right to vote how I want - that is aimed at you Dick Roche you are an almighty cock cos your warbling post lisbon 1 on the radio was pitiful. a nation embarrassment that a sniveling cock like you is in public office. We voted - you lost - deal with it.

another bugbear - this abortion thing...some lunatic fringe bring up abortion. They may have 20/30 followers and suddenly that it reported as loads who voted no did so cos of a fear of abortion being introduced. ****ing media.

Nobody disputes that there are many reasons for voting no such as your reason above that deserve respect. However the research clearly showed that many people had major misconceptions as to what the Lisbon Treaty contained. So the claim that the lies spread about abortion, neutrality clearly had a large impact seems to hold some water.

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/ucd%20geary%20institute%20report.pdf

Sample of some answers to question 19

Q.19 Which of the following do you think are included in the Lisbon Treaty? (Percentage are people who answered yes)

Ending of Ireland’s right to decide its own corporate tax rate - 43 %
The introduction of conscription to a European army - 33%
The end of Ireland’s control over its policy on abortion - 34%
The erosion of Irish Neutrality - 42%

More people believed that the treaty affected our neutrality and corporation tax than believed it contained the Charter of Fundamental Rights. (Note these figures applies to both Yes and No voters) All anybody wants is an open an honest debate based around the serious questions that are truely relevant to the treaty.

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

The Ratfication of the Lisbon Treaty Would copperfasten the Laval and related judgements of the EU Court of Justice, which put the competition rules of the EU market above the rights of Trade Unions to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum wage for migrant workers.

Have you an opinion of your own or do you consider copying and pasting from the Libertas 13 reasons to vote no as debate. Could you point me towards the relevant article in the treaty as I have the Annotated version open here.

At the same time Lisbon would give the EU full control of immigration policy (Art.79 TFEU).

Article 79 is put in to help with the entire immigration situation by mentioning incentives, not laws, and put in measures to help prevent human trafficking of women and children. It also stresses that each country keeps its own laws and powers regarding immigration.

Article 79
1. The Union shall develop a common immigration policy aimed at ensuring, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member States, and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings.

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt measures in the following areas:

(a) the conditions of entry and residence, and standards on the issue by Member States of long-term visas and residence permits, including those for the purpose of family reunification;

(b) the definition of the rights of third-country nationals residing legally in a Member State, including the conditions governing freedom of movement and of residence in other Member States;

(c) illegal immigration and unauthorised residence, including removal and repatriation of persons residing without authorisation;

(d) combating trafficking in persons, in particular women and children.

3. The Union may conclude agreements with third countries for the readmission to their countries of origin or provenance of third-country nationals who do not or who no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, presence or residence in the territory of one of the Member States.

4. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish measures to provide incentives and support for the action of Member States with a view to promoting the integration of third-country nationals residing legally in their territories, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.

5. This Article shall not affect the right of Member States to determine volumes of admission of third-country nationals coming from third countries to their territory in order to seek work, whether employed or self-employed.

TheZohanS

dannym08 wrote: »

i wouldn't be so sure sbout us not being kicked out if we say no.

Ireland has less than 1% of the population of europe. the no side (judging by the last time) represents 52% (i think) of us. So thats less than 0.52% of Europe holding back the treaty. Do you really think they are going to say ok fine we'll just throw the 300 page multi million euro document in the shredder and forget it was ever mentioned?

There are no provisions in any EU Treaty to force a country out of the EU because of a failure to ratify treaties.

K-9

TheZohan wrote: »

You've missed my point K-9.

Minimum wage here is a hell of a lot higher than in the accession states, I believe the figure is €1.84.

So what would stop me closing my company here, relocating it to one of these countries and bringing workers over here?

Answer that question.

Logistics? Practicalities? I regard you highly as a poster, just think about it! How is it practical?

(It's AH, love you too!)

This is why I pointed out SIPTU is THE most important group left to decide whether to change their vote or not.

marco_polo wrote: »

The Posting of workers directive would stop you.

The European Commission issued Directive 96/71/EC, which was adopted in 1996, which guarantees application of the host country's provisions relating to work periods, minimum paid holidays, minimum rates of pay and the conditions of hiring-out of workers and the supply of workers by temporary employment undertakings.

Edit: And I am aware of the problems surrounding the Laval and Vikinig cases with regard to local bargaining agreements, but the implications of these judgement and ways to improve matters are being worked on, and in any case are not related to Lisbon.

Cheers, well put. There seems to be a view out there that once the EU decides something that is it! As the No side points out, it is 27 Political Govts, who are politicians! They'll flip flop as national elections are far more important than EU ones!

King of Kings wrote: »

what gets me about the yes side is that don't respect people who vote no.

I voted No the last time. I believe in europe as a trade entity/economic bloc only but I don't believe it should be unified territorially, politically, socially etc...
I believe Lisbon is a step to a Federal State (a US of E if you will) and I'm out.

But yet I'm told that Declan Ganley brainwashed me the last time.

1. Well I didn't like Ganley.
2. I hate the Shinners.
3. I did vote for Joe Higgins into europe, but that was my first socialist vote and it came post-lisbon.
4. I don't subscribe to pro-life people like youth defence.

I'm just a guy , a floating voter with FF tendencies (at times)
respect my right to vote how I want - that is aimed at you Dick Roche you are an almighty cock cos your warbling post lisbon 1 on the radio was pitiful. a nation embarrassment that a sniveling cock like you is in public office. We voted - you lost - deal with it.

another bugbear - this abortion thing...some lunatic fringe bring up abortion. They may have 20/30 followers and suddenly that it reported as loads who voted no did so cos of a fear of abortion being introduced. ****ing media.

A touch sensitive?

The mention of abortion is still important in this country.

Your post is too sweeping for me to address it!

It is so sweeping I'll offend some group in defending my position!

zenno wrote: »

When we vote on October 2nd, we face a major national choice. Some say it will make no difference, that “they can’t throw us out, we’re still in even if we vote No”. While it is true in law that we remain a member state however we choose to vote, the EU is not about them and us. No one wants to or will throw us out.

..

Exactly, that is the EU! I wish you switch sides!

TheZohan wrote: »

The Ratfication of the Lisbon Treaty Would copperfasten the Laval and related judgements of the EU Court of Justice, which put the competition rules of the EU market above the rights of Trade Unions to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum wage for migrant workers. At the same time Lisbon would give the EU full control of immigration policy (Art.79 TFEU).

Where'd you get that from?

TheZohanS

K-9 wrote: »

Where'd you get that from?

From very bad men.

Have a read of this.

marco_polo

K-9 wrote: »

Where'd you get that from?

It originated from Anthony Coughlans 13 reasons to vote no, which have been doing the rounds of all the major no sites.

It is a features staple collection of lies such as Charter of Fundamental right has effect over national law, self ameding treaty, etc.

He also thinks the corporation tax is an indirect taxation :rolleyes:.

Each one has been roundly debunked, but like zombies, the no lies keep on getting up again just when you think they are dead.

Incidently he has been claiming in every single referendum that the next treaty would bring in abortion and has yet to be correct yet.

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=991 (point 2 cut and paste job by the Zohan)

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

From very bad men.

Have a read of this.

Could you elaborate on how the setting up of a special European Union labour court copperfastens the judgements.

Incidendly the Eurpean Parliament is currently applying major pressure on the commission to alter European Law with regard to this matter (They cannot initiate legislation themselves). Which is why organisations such as the Labour party have no problem supporting Lisbon. Because it has nothing to do with the matter of the Services or Posting of Workers Directives, or the various judgemenrts at all.

http://www.nho.no/getfile.php/filer%20og%20vedlegg/andersson-rapporten.pdf

K-9

TheZohan wrote: »

From very bad men.

Have a read of this.

Discriminatory practice of the trade unions' treatment of domestic and foreign-owned is not allowed unless it is justified in "only on grounds of public policy, public security or public health". This is stipulated in the 18.12.07 judgement.

In e.g. Ireland the implications is that no trade union can act legally for salaries above the minimum salary around 9 € an hour.

Examples?

Surely the recent Electricians strike is in breach?

How does Lisbon change it?

zenno

they say the legal guarantees are empty political promises. I as a no voter have a problem with that. it say's Its most widely cited article is article 26 - which starts 'Pacta sunt servanda' (Agreements must be kept - arguably the oldest principle in international law). 'Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. I believe that. The agreement on the Irish guarantees will in effect be a treaty in its own right. It would come into force on the same day as the Lisbon treaty (if it is ratified). Both would then be registered at the UN under the terms of the Vienna Convention. So the guarantees would be binding in international law, not just EU law or Irish law. well i honestly believe that will be the case. even though i have my reasons to vote no i don't like the irregularities in that report on the no side.

marco_polo

K-9 wrote: »

Discriminatory practice of the trade unions' treatment of domestic and foreign-owned is not allowed unless it is justified in "only on grounds of public policy, public security or public health". This is stipulated in the 18.12.07 judgement.

In e.g. Ireland the implications is that no trade union can act legally for salaries above the minimum salary around 9 € an hour.

Examples?

Surely the recent Electricians strike is in breach?

How does Lisbon change it?

My understanding (and the issues here are quite subtle and complex so I am open to correction) here is that in countries where collective agreements are not legally binding (such as Sweden) then workers from a third country can legally be posted to a third country on their own wage once that wage meets the mimimum legal wage requirements for the country. And in that case unions may not legally strike.

In Ireland in general such agreements are have no legal basis unless the agreement is registered with the Labour court, which is routinely the case with Construction agreements but not all such agreements. Hence there are no Plumbers or Electricians here on 8 euro an hour. This is why the European Parliament is putting pressure on the Commission to implement a new Social Directive.

Again it must be stressed that while it is a serious issue, and I fully support the Parliaments resolution, how it all ultimately pans out has nothing to do with Lisbon.

TheZohanS

marco_polo wrote: »

Have you an opinion of your own or do you consider copying and pasting from the Libertas 13 reasons to vote no as debate.

I have.

My opinion is that the some of the Yes campaigners on here are doing the Yes campaign more harm than good by stating that anyone who is misinformed is a liar or is telling lies, and anyone that has a different view to them is scaremongering.

It was this very same attitude that helped the No campaign win last time around.

If someone asked me about a particular topic that I had a great interest in and had extensive knowledge on I would help them out, if they were misinformed I would not accuse them or telling lies.

I would show a positive attitude towards helping people understand something I have a passion for and/or something I believe in.

K-9

zenno wrote: »

they say the legal guarantees are empty political promises. I as a no voter have a problem with that. it say's Its most widely cited article is article 26 - which starts 'Pacta sunt servanda' (Agreements must be kept - arguably the oldest principle in international law). 'Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. I believe that. The agreement on the Irish guarantees will in effect be a treaty in its own right. It would come into force on the same day as the Lisbon treaty (if it is ratified). Both would then be registered at the UN under the terms of the Vienna Convention. So the guarantees would be binding in international law, not just EU law or Irish law. well i honestly believe that will be the case. even though i have my reasons to vote no i don't like the irregularities in that report on the no side.

Great post.

One thing strikes me in this vote.

The only party that votes on party lines is SF.

FF, FG and Labour supporters do not!

So, the party line only applies to SF!

This FF = Yes vote line could backfire!

K-9

TheZohan wrote: »

I have.

My opinion is that the some of the Yes campaigners on here are doing the Yes campaign more harm than good by stating that anyone who is misinformed is a liar or is telling lies, and anyone that has a different view to them is scaremongering.

It was this very same attitude that helped the No campaign win last time around.

If someone asked me about a particular topic that I had a great interest in and had extensive knowledge on I would help them out, if they were misinformed I would not accuse them or telling lies.

I would show a positive attitude towards helping people understand something I have a passion for and/or something I believe in.

Well, No voters should point out lies, like Zenno!

I have no problem in pointing out Yes side lies or spin.

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

I have.

My opinion is that the some of the Yes campaigners on here are doing the Yes campaign more harm than good by stating that anyone who is misinformed is a liar or is telling lies, and anyone that has a different view to them is scaremongering.

It was this very same attitude that helped the No campaign win last time around.

If someone asked me about a particular topic that I had a great interest in and had extensive knowledge on I would help them out, if they were misinformed I would not accuse them or telling lies.

I would show a positive attitude towards helping people understand something I have a passion for and/or something I believe in.

I appreciate that but it is hard to tell all from a message board what a posters motivations are. It is hard to tell when someone has read misinformation somewhere and genuinely taken it as fact, or when a poster is fully aware that it is BS and continues to repeat ad infinium. I routinely see posters being corrected on a point only to be peddling the exact same line a few days later, hence my rising blood pressure levels in threads like this.

If you are in the former category then I apologise wholeheartedly, I am a nice person in real life I swear

I any case point is taken, I will default to assuming the former of someone in future.

zenno

marco_polo wrote: »

I appreciate that but it is hard to tell all from a message board what a posters motivations are. It is hard to tell when someone has read misinformation somewhere and genuinely taken it as fact, or when a poster is fully aware that it is BS and continues to repeat ad infinium. I routinely see posters being corrected on a point only to be peddling the exact same line a few days later, hence my rising blood pressure levels in threads like this.

If you are in the former category then I apologise wholeheartedly, I am a nice person in real life I swear

I any case point is taken, I will default to assuming the former of someone in future.

i fully understand where you are coming from. i've being going through this stuff today non stop for a little over twelve hours now and the last few months as well and i am seeing alot of bulls*hit from both sides. the way things are going i can see myself voting yes by october 2nd. the flaws in the no camp are troubling to me. i have gone over and over this for so long now i'm starting to swing my vote. the state this country is in now and the corrupt government I and the rest of us have to deal with imo just makes me think am i doing the right thing in voting no when the time comes. I have absolutly no time for either sides lies especially from the no side i have to say i'm angry with this. as for lisbon does the good outweigh the bad of voting yes for lisbon ? i have to say after studying this for some time i think a yes vote is the right vote. I would not have come to this conclusion if i didn't get rid of the lies and deceit from all sides. anyone else not sure about what way to vote just study as much as you can about it. but i do have to say you will have a hell of a time tracking down the lies.

zenno

reason for voting yes. (1) : If you are against abortion, you should reject the treaty, writes RICHARD GREENE. "well i'm for abortion"
reason for voting yes. (2) : they say the legal guarantees are empty political promises. "as i have found out this is complete rubbish" LOOKING FOR A PROTOCALL IS RIDICULOUS AS THE NEW GUARANTEES ARE FLAWLESS.
reason for voting yes (3) : this rubbish as well. Lisbon contains a zealot’s type of blind commitment to one by now spectacularly failing economic model. It will erode the flexibility we need to meet the economic social and environmental challenges that we Europeans now face. crazy.. Zealots were a group of Jews that formed under the rule of Herod the Great, a Judaic king. The Zealots are famous for their strong convictions and their resistance against Roman rule. In A.D. 6, when Jerusalem was completely under Roman rule, authorities dictated that a census be taken to calculate the taxation of the Jewish people. As a result, the Zealots called for a rebellion.
One extremist group of Zealots, called Sicarri (dagger men) used terrorist tactics, killing and assassinating Romans and Jews who favored the Roman authority. That rebellion was quickly put down. A lot of them were killed. Still, the Zealots continued to fight for freedom from the Romans.
The group of Zealots that rebelled against the Romans and fled to Masada lived approximately in A.D. 66. Just like the Macabees, they used hit and run tactics against the Romans. They were able to hold out the Romans for about seven months but the Romans, being so powerful, fought back. "well this isn't AD 66.AND I DON'T THINK THAT HOLDS ANY MERIT.
REASON FOR VOTING YES (4) : PASSING LISBON You are not a real citizen of the EU because the EU is not a real Union and citizenship is stated as “notional” [ theoretical - not real - imaginary. WELL IT'S S*HIT LIKE THIS THAT MAKES ME WONDER IF I'M ACTUALLY ON THE CORRECT PLANET.
REASON FOR VOTING YES (5) : PASSING LISBON Would permit the EU to impose its own EU-wide taxes directly on us for the first time in order to raise its own resources for the EU itself, without the need of further Treaties or referendums. "IT HAS BEEN STATED CLEARLY THAT OUR TAXES WILL BE LEFT TO OUR OWN DEVICES WE KNOW THAT NOW.
REASON FOR VOTING YES (6) : PASSING LISBON Would militarize the EU further, requiring Member States “progressively to improve their military capabilities”(Art.42.3 TEU) and to aid and assist other Member States experiencing armed attack “by all the means in their power” (Art.42.7 TEU)."SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. THE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE U.S.A I CAN GET THE BETTER. PEOPLE STILL THINK IRELAND IS A NEUTRAL COUNTRY AND THERE THEY ARE OLE U.S.A LANDING THOUSANDS OF MILITARY JETS IN SHANNON TO REFUEL EACH YEAR.
REASON FOR VOTING YES (7) : WE WILL BE FORCED INTO A MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. AS HAS BEING STATED IN THE NEW GUARANTEES, WE WILL NOT BE FORCED INTO A MILITARY SITUATION OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. I'M SICK OFF ALL THIS PROPAGANDA ALREADY.
REASON FOR VOTING YES (8) : WE GOT THE GUARANTEES WE WANTED AND OUR FEARS ON TAXATION FAMILY AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND SO ON WAS AND WILL BE SET IN LISBON WHEN IT IS RATIFIED AND WILL BE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AS STATED. WHY FOR THE LIFE OF ME THESE PEOPLE ARE SAYING IT CAN'T BE TRUSTED WITHOUT A PROTOCALL IS BEYOND ME. I WAS LIKE THAT FOR A WHILE THINKING IT WAS ALL A CON BUT AFTER RESEARCHING IT I FOUND THE ANSWER. PARANOIA IS A GOOD THING BUT WHEN YOU SEE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION SET in STONE YOU WILL BE LESS PARANOID.
REASON FOR VOTING YES (9) : BRUSSELS RUNS 85% OF OUR LAWS AS IT STANDS THE REST THE GOVERNMENT F*UCKED UP. BUT WILL HAVE TO COME TO PROPER ORDER WHEN WE VOTE YES. FOR HOW MANY YEARS DID WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH OUR DRACONIAN LAWS IN IRELAND, A BURGLAR WOULD BREAK INTO YOUR HOUSE AND IF YOU INJURED HIM HE COULD SUE YOU EVEN THOUGH HE TRESSPASSED ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY. WELL THE GOVERNMENT HAD TO SORT THAT OUT WITH THE EU AND BROUGHT THE NEW STANDING LAW IN THAT CITIZENS CAN NOW PROTECT THEMSELVES IN THEIR OWN HOME. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE EU'S LAW REFORM GOOD JOB AS WELL OR WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE BURGLARS A CUP OF TEA THE NEXT TIME THEY ROBBED US.
I HAVE SEEN TOO MANY LIES AND BULLS*HIT FROM THE NO CAMP AND IT P*ISSED ME OFF SO MUCH THAT I HAVE SWUNG MY VOTE.I have seen alot of s*hit from the yes side as well but it is really up to the individual to research the facts in a world of s*hit. I CAN HONESTLY SEE A BETTER FUTURE AHEAD. NOTHINGS PERFECT BUT I THINK NOW THAT GOING IN ON LISBON IS the right dicision AND WE HAVE THE GUARANTEES THAT WE WANTED. CALL ME MAD IF YOU WANT BUT LIKE AN ALCOHOLIC WOULD SAY, I HAD A MOMENT OF CLARITY. sorry about the way the text came out i wrote it in notepad typical but thats the way it came out just like the lisbon treaty a mess.

FutureTaoiseach

zenno wrote: »

they say the legal guarantees are empty political promises. I as a no voter have a problem with that. it say's Its most widely cited article is article 26 - which starts 'Pacta sunt servanda' (Agreements must be kept - arguably the oldest principle in international law). 'Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. I believe that. The agreement on the Irish guarantees will in effect be a treaty in its own right. It would come into force on the same day as the Lisbon treaty (if it is ratified). Both would then be registered at the UN under the terms of the Vienna Convention. So the guarantees would be binding in international law, not just EU law or Irish law. well i honestly believe that will be the case. even though i have my reasons to vote no i don't like the irregularities in that report on the no side.

Are you really a no voter?

I disagree. I would refer you to a case last September 3rd, where the ECJ struck down an EU regulation responsible for implementation of a UN Security Council Resolution freezing the assets of suspected terrorists. Ominously for the Government, they referred to the UNSC resolution (the highest instrument of international law) as "an international agreement". They argued that they were entitled to "review" the resolution on the grounds that an EU regulation was implementing it, and because there were no provisions for appeal for the effected persons. Well some of the 'guarantee' were enshrined in European Council 'decisions', which have some bearing in EU law but which can be annulled by the ECJ if they are judged as falling foul of the Treaties. But the provisions on workers-rights and the Commissioner are not contained in the Council decisions and therefore are not legally-binding. The point is this. If the ECJ won't even respect a UNSC resolution - the highest form of international law - then how can we trust them to respect an 'international agreement' which hasn't even undergone any ratification procedures in a member state? :rolleyes:

On September 3, the European Court of Justice delivered an unprecedented and stunning blow to the international terrorism sanctions regime by annulling the EU freezing of assets imposed on Yassin Al Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation pursuant to a UN Security Council Resolution (ECJ Press Release and ECJ ruling.pdf).

While intervening countries had raised the “absolute lack of jurisdiction of the (Court) to carry out any review of resolutions of the Security Council”, the Court claimed an indirect competence based on the fact that the UN Security Council Resolution was implemented by EU regulations, and therefore subject to the Court review. The Court added that because the sanctions were not an “act directly attributable to the United Nations as an action of one of its subsidiary organs (…) or an action falling within the exercise of powers lawfully delegated by the Security Council”, no international principle excluded the “judicial review of the internal lawfulness of the (EU) regulation in the light of fundamental freedoms.”

Another problem with the guarantees is the plan to insert some of them as a Protocol in Croatia or Iceland's Accession Treaty. For one thing, Liberal Democrat UK MEP Andrew Duff claims this would be illegal and subject to court challenge, as EU accession treaties can only contain provisions on the accession process, rather than extraneous matters contained in an Irish protocol. Secondly, it is unclear if we will still get the protocol if these countries reject EU membership, which is far from unlikely. The latest poll in Iceland shows a majority opposed to EU membership 48-34, while in Croatia the gap is just 8.5% with respect to the "yes" side lead. So if these countries do not join the EU, our protocols fall.

zenno

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Are you really a no voter?

I disagree. I would refer you to a case last September 3rd, where the ECJ struck down an EU regulation responsible for implementation of a UN Security Council Resolution freezing the assets of suspected terrorists. Ominously for the Government, they referred to the UNSC resolution (the highest instrument of international law) as "an international agreement". They argued that they were entitled to "review" the resolution on the grounds that an EU regulation was implementing it, and because there were no provisions for appeal for the effected persons. Well some of the 'guarantee' were enshrined in European Council 'decisions', which have some bearing in EU law but which can be annulled by the ECJ if they are judged as falling foul of the Treaties. But the provisions on workers-rights and the Commissioner are not contained in the Council decisions and therefore are not legally-binding. The point is this. If the ECJ won't even respect a UNSC resolution - the highest form of international law - then how can we trust them to respect an 'international agreement' which hasn't even undergone any ratification procedures in a member state? :rolleyes:

look i have read so much garbage about this treaty it's coming out my ears. what you are saying might be true but at this stage in the game i don't care. i have heard nothing but lies on both sides actually i have been up all night with the lads having long discussions about this treaty and even they were talking c*rap. so either way my dicision stands i was a hard no voter for the last year or more but i seen through the s*hit. i have nothing more to say on this until october 2nd. all i can say is best of luck to both sides and the beauty of all this is that even if the yes or no side wins it shows that democracy in this country is working well and people had the gift of being able to have a referendum in this country.

FutureTaoiseach

It would be anti-democratic to force on the French and Dutch peoples a near carbon-copy of the EU Constitution they rejected in referenda in 2005. It would be a victory for anti-democratic forces in the EU, and for the principle of self-determination - namely that no nation should be forced to relinquish sovereignty against its will. Vote no.

zenno

the problem with this forum is that for the last year everyone was going around like headless chickens talking about how bad it's going to be if we vote yes and how bad it will be to vote no. i have heard numerous comments about conspiracy theories on lisbon as well. but like the world, half will think this way and half the people will think the other it has always been the same. facts are very hard to come by and it's all up to how you interpret them. the no campaign which i was with have me troubled on how they went about this and i am the fool as well.

zenno

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It would be anti-democratic to force on the French and Dutch peoples a near carbon-copy of the EU Constitution they rejected in referenda in 2005. It would be a victory for anti-democratic forces in the EU, and for the principle of self-determination - namely that no nation should be forced to relinquish sovereignty against its will. Vote no.

i understand what you are saying perfectly. we do have a month left to make up our minds. i respect their position in all this but we will all have to make up our bloddy minds soon. mine is made already the no campaign should have made a better report than they did it will only swing the vote with all their lies.

i recommend that those 8.50% not voting get up of your a*rses and vote whether it be yes or no don't waste your vote. pure laziness.

FutureTaoiseach

zenno wrote: »

i understand what you are saying perfectly. we do have a month left to make up our minds. i respect their position in all this but we will all have to make up our bloddy minds soon. mine is made already the no campaign should have made a better report than they did it will only swing the vote with all their lies.

i recommend that those 8.50% not voting get up of your a*rses and vote whether it be yes or no don't waste your vote. pure laziness.

The yes side are the ones with the lies, telling us we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no, which is legally impossible. The men and women of 1916 were fighting for a sovereign, independent Ireland. We must not betray them by surrendering that sovereignty just because powerful foreign elites tell us to. No to the new Act of Union.

zenno

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The yes side are the ones with the lies, telling us we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no, which is legally impossible. The men and women of 1916 were fighting for a sovereign, independent Ireland. We must not betray them by surrendering that sovereignty just because powerful foreign elites tell us to. No to the new Act of Union.

no need to quote that to me. i know, my great grandfater micheal thomas traynor died for this country he was buried in england and it took donkey's years to get him back to ireland. i know all about sovereignty.

Sam Vimes

TheZohan wrote: »

I have.

My opinion is that the some of the Yes campaigners on here are doing the Yes campaign more harm than good by stating that anyone who is misinformed is a liar or is telling lies, and anyone that has a different view to them is scaremongering.

It was this very same attitude that helped the No campaign win last time around.

If someone asked me about a particular topic that I had a great interest in and had extensive knowledge on I would help them out, if they were misinformed I would not accuse them or telling lies.

I would show a positive attitude towards helping people understand something I have a passion for and/or something I believe in.

I don't think anyone's accusing the posters directly of telling lies, I'm sure they believe what they're saying but what do you say to someone who repeats a lie they heard and refuses to listen when you try to correct them?