Lisbon 2 The Return!

Sam Vimes

twinytwo wrote: »

And you obviously dont understand mine... they will try to save lisbon if it is defeated change its name or whatever

So you've assumed that they will try to trick people by doing nothing but changing its name. Do you not think there's any possibility that they'll honestly try to handle people's objections, which may or may not result in a treaty that's very similar?

twinytwo wrote: »

but with labour gone a new document would want to be something special for the brits to agree... Throw it in the bin its not even worthy of that... what you and others seem to miss... maybe because your blinded by the bs tossed out by members of the eu is that all this does is give the countries with money the more power and control...

Actually it gives, in some areas, the countries with a large population a larger voting weight, while still giving the small countries a voting weight that is greater than their population would warrant. Quite democratic imo

twinytwo wrote: »

i wouldnt turst them to cut my grass not to mind decide my future

Which is of course the problem. There is nothing that can be changed to satisfy you, you just don't like the EU

Sam Vimes

scargill wrote: »

how would anyone know what parts were objected to ?
The ballot paper is a simple YES or NO to the treaty ?

By doing surveys like Milward Brown did after the last one

twinytwo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you've assumed that they will try to trick people by doing nothing but changing its name. Do you not think there's any possibility that they'll honestly try to handle people's objections, which may or may not result in a treaty that's very similar?


Actually it gives, in some areas, the countries with a large population a larger voting weight, while still giving the small countries a voting weight that is greater than their population would warrant. Quite democratic imo


Which is of course the problem. There is nothing that can be changed to satisfy you, you just don't like the EU

god i was waiting for that one... im against this countries government does that make me anti-ireland?

FutureTaoiseach

marco_polo wrote: »

You cannot reclassify a Direct Tax as an Indirect Tax, the main obstacle standing in the way is the fact that it is a direct tax. Could this point be any clearer?

Corporation tax is a tax on profits not turnover or sales.

It isn't a turnover/sales tax at present, but Commissioner Kovacs plan to tax exports wiht the money going to the govt of sales-destination would effectively remodel CT as a turnover tax imho.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It isn't a turnover/sales tax at present, but Commissioner Kovacs plan to tax exports wiht the money going to the govt of sales-destination would effectively remodel CT as a turnover tax imho.

Any such tax on sales / exports / turnover etc is by defination an indirect tax. Corporate tax is calculated against profits made in the country of origin. It cannot be charged against exports in the destination country, whatever such a hypothetical tax would be it would certainly not be Corporation tax.


Any such hypothetical export tax against Irish companies would also surely be ripe for a challenge under Article 110.

Article 110

No Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products.

Furthermore, no Member State shall impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.

Morgoth

Voting Yes a second time because:

* I perceive that the EU is more competant than the Irish government ever will be, and we should not distance ourselves from Europe.

* The "after all they've done for us" argument. It's rubbished by the No side, and countered by factoids on fishing and farming quotas imposed on us by the EU. But I truly believe this country will have the best chance to prosper at the heart of Europe. A No vote won't kick us out of Europe, of course not, but can you really see the main EU powers looking as kindly on us in the future? Let's call a spade a spade here... does the No side really think we can do better on the fringes?

* The blatant lies from the No side last time around. I acknowledge that the Yes side used scare-mongering tactics (see my last point :rolleyes: ) but come on... using made-up arguments like abortion and corporate tax control as reasons for voting No was sickening. Of course, the No side will say I'm just a gullible fool who believes the propaganda...

* I'm actually against Ireland keeping a full-time commissioner. Why should our 4.5 million people have the same voice as Germany's 81 million? I think the reduced set of rotating commissioners is fairer. Even using the misguided comparisons to the United States, a state like Idaho (4 electoral votes, 1.5 mil pop) does not have the same voice as a state like California (55 votes, 37 mil pop) in their presidential elections. Why should Ireland have the same voice as the bigger EU members? I want the Treaty, without the legal guarantees. :rolleyes:

* I look at big corporations like Intel, Microsoft, Ryanair etc. all publicly stating their support for the Treaty, some of them even planning to run campaigns. I don't know all the inner depths of the Treaty but when multinational employers similar to my own are ready to spend hundreds of thousands of euro advocating a Yes vote, I think I'll vote Yes. I'd rather live in an Ireland where tens of thousands of people are employed in well-paid, highly skilled jobs than have these jobs go to other countries because of the idealism of the No side. I don't care what Intel's agenda is, or what IBEC's agenda is. If it is genuinely the case that a Yes vote is a vote for jobs, I don't understand why a country that has gone from full employement to... what are we at, 11% or 12% unemployment?... why we would then vote No.

* Double majority - I like this. It's like the voting for Lisbon itself. I accept that we are not the only country whose citizens would probably have rejected the Treaty. Probably for similar reasons that Ireland rejected it. But that aside, 26 out of 27 countries have accepted the Treaty. The EU has a population of nearly 500 million people. A country of 4.5 million people reject a Treaty, therefore it cannot be instated for the other ~490 million?? At least part of the EU will be able to make decisions based on a majority, not an unattainable unanimity.


All that said, I think it's a bit of a farce to be asked to vote a second time. But I'm not going to vote against an important piece of legislation because of this, or because of an unpopular government "that needs a wake-up call", or because I "can't make head nor tale of this here Treaty thing-bob" or any of the other questionable reasons people put forward.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It isn't a turnover/sales tax at present, but Commissioner Kovacs plan to tax exports wiht the money going to the govt of sales-destination would effectively remodel CT as a turnover tax imho.

Out of interest since you accept that the CCCTB has nothing whatsover to do with Lisbon in any case, what are your motives for continually bringing in up on Lisbon threads?

FutureTaoiseach

marco_polo wrote: »

Out of interest since you accept that the CCCTB has nothing whatsover to do with Lisbon in any case, what are your motives for continually bringing in up on Lisbon threads?

I think Lisbon might have implications for the chances of success in a court challenge to CCCTB because of the objectives of combatting 'distortions of competition' and the references to turnover taxes in the amended TFEU treaty. My primary aim in this aspect of the debate is to outline the inadequacy of the tax 'guarantees' by pointing out their failure to include a ban on CCCTB. The central problem with the guarantees is what they don't contain, rather than what they do. I have concerns about the Treaty itself, however.

twinytwo

Morgoth wrote: »

Voting Yes a second time because:

* I perceive that the EU is more competant than the Irish government ever will be, and we should not distance ourselves from Europe.

* The "after all they've done for us" argument. It's rubbished by the No side, and countered by factoids on fishing and farming quotas imposed on us by the EU. But I truly believe this country will have the best chance to prosper at the heart of Europe. A No vote won't kick us out of Europe, of course not, but can you really see the main EU powers looking as kindly on us in the future? Let's call a spade a spade here... does the No side really think we can do better on the fringes?

* The blatant lies from the No side last time around. I acknowledge that the Yes side used scare-mongering tactics (see my last point :rolleyes: ) but come on... using made-up arguments like abortion and corporate tax control as reasons for voting No was sickening. Of course, the No side will say I'm just a gullible fool who believes the propaganda...

* I'm actually against Ireland keeping a full-time commissioner. Why should our 4.5 million people have the same voice as Germany's 81 million? I think the reduced set of rotating commissioners is fairer. Even using the misguided comparisons to the United States, a state like Idaho (4 electoral votes, 1.5 mil pop) does not have the same voice as a state like California (55 votes, 37 mil pop) in their presidential elections. Why should Ireland have the same voice as the bigger EU members? I want the Treaty, without the legal guarantees. :rolleyes:

* I look at big corporations like Intel, Microsoft, Ryanair etc. all publicly stating their support for the Treaty, some of them even planning to run campaigns. I don't know all the inner depths of the Treaty but when multinational employers similar to my own are ready to spend hundreds of thousands of euro advocating a Yes vote, I think I'll vote Yes. I'd rather live in an Ireland where tens of thousands of people are employed in well-paid, highly skilled jobs than have these jobs go to other countries because of the idealism of the No side. I don't care what Intel's agenda is, or what IBEC's agenda is. If it is genuinely the case that a Yes vote is a vote for jobs, I don't understand why a country that has gone from full employement to... what are we at, 11% or 12% unemployment?... why we would then vote No.

* Double majority - I like this. It's like the voting for Lisbon itself. I accept that we are not the only country whose citizens would probably have rejected the Treaty. Probably for similar reasons that Ireland rejected it. But that aside, 26 out of 27 countries have accepted the Treaty. The EU has a population of nearly 500 million people. A country of 4.5 million people reject a Treaty, therefore it cannot be instated for the other ~490 million?? At least part of the EU will be able to make decisions based on a majority, not an unattainable unanimity.


All that said, I think it's a bit of a farce to be asked to vote a second time. But I'm not going to vote against an important piece of legislation because of this, or because of an unpopular government "that needs a wake-up call", or because I "can't make head nor tale of this here Treaty thing-bob" or any of the other questionable reasons people put forward.

this whole at the heart of europe thing is a joke... we are and always have been at the fringes...

so you think that because germany has 85 million people that gives them a right to decide what is best for us?

u seem to forget that countries accepted the treaty through their governments even when the people didnt want it.....

Sam Vimes

twinytwo wrote: »

god i was waiting for that one... im against this countries government does that make me anti-ireland?

It would make you anti-Irish government. And the way you're talking doesn't make you anti-Europe but it does make you anti-EU, which is the group running the European Union just like FF are the group running Ireland. The way you're talking, nothing short of a complete overhaul and throwing out of all those people you don't trust to cut your grass will be satisfactory

TheZohanS

Morgoth wrote: »

Voting Yes a second time because:

* I perceive that the EU is more competant than the Irish government ever will be, and we should not distance ourselves from Europe.

The Lisbon treaty should have nothing to do with our faith or lack of faith in the government

* The "after all they've done for us" argument. It's rubbished by the No side, and countered by factoids on fishing and farming quotas imposed on us by the EU. But I truly believe this country will have the best chance to prosper at the heart of Europe. A No vote won't kick us out of Europe, of course not, but can you really see the main EU powers looking as kindly on us in the future? Let's call a spade a spade here... does the No side really think we can do better on the fringes?

How will voting yes give us the best chance to prosper? Where is it written in the treaty?

* The blatant lies from the No side last time around. I acknowledge that the Yes side used scare-mongering tactics (see my last point :rolleyes: ) but come on... using made-up arguments like abortion and corporate tax control as reasons for voting No was sickening. Of course, the No side will say I'm just a gullible fool who believes the propaganda...

There are some lies on both sides, however from my reading of the Treaty the No side are focusing on a worst case scenario, there is little or no chance that abortion and corporation tax will change but there is still a tiny chance. However for the EU would have to change their entire way of thinking to impliment these changes and it would be a long and drawn out process that would meet with many objections from different states. It's not going to happen.

* I'm actually against Ireland keeping a full-time commissioner. Why should our 4.5 million people have the same voice as Germany's 81 million? I think the reduced set of rotating commissioners is fairer. Even using the misguided comparisons to the United States, a state like Idaho (4 electoral votes, 1.5 mil pop) does not have the same voice as a state like California (55 votes, 37 mil pop) in their presidential elections. Why should Ireland have the same voice as the bigger EU members? I want the Treaty, without the legal guarantees. :rolleyes:

A rotating Comissioner would have been better for Ireland, it's a pity it has been changed back.

* I look at big corporations like Intel, Microsoft, Ryanair etc. all publicly stating their support for the Treaty, some of them even planning to run campaigns. I don't know all the inner depths of the Treaty but when multinational employers similar to my own are ready to spend hundreds of thousands of euro advocating a Yes vote, I think I'll vote Yes. I'd rather live in an Ireland where tens of thousands of people are employed in well-paid, highly skilled jobs than have these jobs go to other countries because of the idealism of the No side. I don't care what Intel's agenda is, or what IBEC's agenda is. If it is genuinely the case that a Yes vote is a vote for jobs, I don't understand why a country that has gone from full employement to... what are we at, 11% or 12% unemployment?... why we would then vote No.

Intel and Microsoft have Anti-Trust cases with the EU, by being seen to help push Lisbon they are helping themselves. Ryanair want to take over AerLingus, the EU bocked the move last time around, they have their own agenda too.

Where does it say in the Treaty that we will secure jobs by voting Yes?

* Double majority - I like this. It's like the voting for Lisbon itself. I accept that we are not the only country whose citizens would probably have rejected the Treaty. Probably for similar reasons that Ireland rejected it. But that aside, 26 out of 27 countries have accepted the Treaty. The EU has a population of nearly 500 million people. A country of 4.5 million people reject a Treaty, therefore it cannot be instated for the other ~490 million?? At least part of the EU will be able to make decisions based on a majority, not an unattainable unanimity.

Can you name the 26 countries that have accepted the Lisbon Treaty?


All that said, I think it's a bit of a farce to be asked to vote a second time. But I'm not going to vote against an important piece of legislation because of this, or because of an unpopular government "that needs a wake-up call", or because I "can't make head nor tale of this here Treaty thing-bob" or any of the other questionable reasons people put forward.

There are some very valid reasons for voting Yes to the Lisbon Treaty, unfortunately you haven't mentioned one of the.

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It would make you anti-Irish government. And the way you're talking doesn't make you anti-Europe but it does make you anti-EU, which is the group running the European Union just like FF are the group running Ireland. The way you're talking, nothing short of a complete overhaul and throwing out of all those people you don't trust to cut your grass will be satisfactory

The EU has to earn the support of its people. It does not have a divine right to our support in all its works and deeds. For a start, the corruption needs to be addressed, and the shortcomings in the EU accounts which have led to them not being signed off on for 14 years must be addressed. Martha Andreassen, newly elected UKIP MEP, was sacked in the 1990's as chief accountant for "disloyalty" when she went public about manipulation of the EU accounts which were compiled on Excel spreadsheets.

There is a Nixonian quality to the lack of transparency in Brussels that is disturbing to many EU citizens. The European Parliament Budgetary Affairs Committee also closed ranks to suppress a report (Galvin Report) on corruption in the EP expenses system. Things are too cosy out there by half. Until they clean up their act they have no right to demand our unconditional support. If the Irish govt accounts hadn't been signed off on for 14 years FG would have something to say about it. But because it's in the EU, which is a sacred cow in Irish politics, it gets ignored by the political and media elites here. I support the EU as an organisation, but I differentiate between supporting it on the one hand, and supporting its personalities and policies on the other hand. Any attempt to resurrect the archaic doctrine of "divine-right" must be resisted.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I think Lisbon might have implications for the chances of success in a court challenge to CCCTB because of the objectives of combatting 'distortions of competition' and the references to turnover taxes in the amended TFEU treaty. My primary aim in this aspect of the debate is to outline the inadequacy of the tax 'guarantees' by pointing out their failure to include a ban on CCCTB. The central problem with the guarantees is what they don't contain, rather than what they do. I have concerns about the Treaty itself, however.

We do not need a ban on the CCCTB because it is completely voluntary proposal under enhanced co-operation. Because of this you then need to create an outlandish scenario where the defination of Corporation tax as agreed throughout the world becomes some sort of export duty and an indirect tax. The reason there are no guarantees on the matter is because it is frankly impossible, except in the fantasies of a handful of people.

As an example distortion of competition would be favourable rates of Irish companies over Foreign companies, not differences in tax rates the setting of which remains entirely the responsibility of each member state with regard to drect taxation.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is a Nixonian quality to the lack of transparency in Brussels that is disturbing to many EU citizens.

And yet you want to vote down a treaty that will force the council to meet in the open where they currently meet behind closed doors

edit: btw I think the term 'elites' should be the first thing banned under the new big brother federal state for it's paranoia inducing effects

RandomName2

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

If we reject it again, will we be asked a 3rd time?

Can Crotty Vs An Taoiseach be revoked or in any way by-passed in the future? If the majority of the Dail and Senate are against it I cannot see it lasting indefinately.

I would imagine that if there is a No vote that Lisbon II will be renamed, given a couple of bells and whistles (i.e. the guarantees would be added to the text of the document) and re-ratification across Europe begun. If the Conservatives are in power in the UK, Brussels might have to wait until Labour/Liberals have sufficient numbers in order to force the treaty through (could be a long wait).

Gay Mitchell candidly stated his opposition to the Irish public being granted referendae on Europe, but this was not a position personal to him but shared by almost all of our representatives :eek:.

How about having everybody being eligible to vote on matters as important as this except the politicians?

humanji

RandomName2 wrote: »

Can Crotty Vs An Taoiseach be revoked or in any way by-passed in the future? If the majority of the Dail and Senate are against it I cannot see it lasting indefinately.

I would imagine that if there is a No vote that Lisbon II will be renamed, given a couple of bells and whistles (i.e. the guarantees would be added to the text of the document) and re-ratification across Europe begun. If the Conservatives are in power in the UK, Brussels might have to wait until Labour/Liberals have sufficient numbers in order to force the treaty through (could be a long wait).

Gay Mitchell candidly stated his opposition to the Irish public being granted referendae on Europe, but this was not a position personal to him but shared by almost all of our representatives :eek:.

How about having everybody being eligible to vote on matters as important as this except the politicians?

I'd be all for that if voting was mandatory and everyone was given an exam before hand to prove that they knew what the vote was on.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Can Crotty Vs An Taoiseach be revoked or in any way by-passed in the future? If the majority of the Dail and Senate are against it I cannot see it lasting indefinately.

I would imagine that if there is a No vote that Lisbon II will be renamed, given a couple of bells and whistles (i.e. the guarantees would be added to the text of the document) and re-ratification across Europe begun. If the Conservatives are in power in the UK, Brussels might have to wait until Labour/Liberals have sufficient numbers in order to force the treaty through (could be a long wait).

What would be the point of doing that? It would just be voted down again.

Although even if every single problem that anyone in Europe had with the treaty was highlighted and removed I still highly doubt it would go through. People are so terrified of this treaty at this point that they could insert a "give everyone €1 billion" clause and it would still be voted down

Sam Vimes

humanji wrote: »

I'd be all for that if voting was mandatory and everyone was given an exam before hand to prove that they knew what the vote was on.

And if anyone who said that they were voting yes, no, maybe or atari jaguar as some sort of misguided, shooting yourself in the foot-type protest at Fianna Fail was immediately thrown to the wolves

Min

I will be voting no and then the mention of Gay Mitchell brought back memories of the first vote on the treaty.

Gay, if you are reading this, please could you do that contempt for the Irish voter look again when you didn't get your way?
You look funny when angry.

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And yet you want to vote down a treaty that will force the council to meet in the open where they currently meet behind closed doors

edit: btw I think the term 'elites' should be the first thing banned under the new big brother federal state for it's paranoia inducing effects

They don't need a Treaty to do that. More transparency in the form of meeting in public is welcome. But not sufficient to justify the scale of the transfer of sovereignty to Brussels in the Lisbon Treaty. I want the lack of transparency in the European Parliament expenses-system and with respect to the European budget (not signed off on for 14 years) to be addressed. They are more important. When you ask to be given more power, then surely with that should come requisite greater responsibilities?

Randomname2 wrote:

Can Crotty Vs An Taoiseach be revoked or in any way by-passed in the future? If the majority of the Dail and Senate are against it I cannot see it lasting indefinately.

I would imagine that if there is a No vote that Lisbon II will be renamed, given a couple of bells and whistles (i.e. the guarantees would be added to the text of the document) and re-ratification across Europe begun. If the Conservatives are in power in the UK, Brussels might have to wait until Labour/Liberals have sufficient numbers in order to force the treaty through (could be a long wait).

In that context, we should examine the referendum legislation that contains the proposed wording we are being asked to insert into our Constitution, in particular the reference to Ireland's 'commitment to the EU'. What will be justified in the future on the basis of fulfilling that "commitment"?

28th Amendment to the Constitition Bill 2009 wrote:

4° Ireland affirms its commitment to the European Union withinwhich the member states of that Union work together to promote peace, shared values and the well-being of their peoples.

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What would be the point of doing that? It would just be voted down again.

Although even if every single problem that anyone in Europe had with the treaty was highlighted and removed I still highly doubt it would go through. People are so terrified of this treaty at this point that they could insert a "give everyone €1 billion" clause and it would still be voted down

Err... hardly. If Crotty was removed, Lisbon would be ratified by Ireland faster than you could say 'Where's my vote?'

Irish Guitarist

I voted no the first time. I don't see the point in voting again because they'll just keep having referendums until they get their own way.

It also pees me off that all these Europeans come out with claptrap about the Irish being racist because they voted no when something like 10% of the population of Ireland are Polish people with pretty decent jobs (or are getting the same dole money as Irish citizens). If these people are trying to shame me into voting yes they can take a running jump.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They don't need a Treaty to do that. More transparency in the form of meeting in public is welcome. But not sufficient to justify the scale of the transfer of sovereignty to Brussels in the Lisbon Treaty. I want the lack of transparency in the European Parliament expenses-system and with respect to the European budget (not signed off on for 14 years) to be addressed. They are more important. When you ask to be given more power, then surely with that should come requisite greater responsibilities?

More important those issues may be but they are not effected by Lisbon and so not a direct reason to vote the treaty down. There is nothing stopping you campaigning for all of these side issues to be addressed in a new treaty, in fact Lisbon would make it easier for these changes to be made, but unless you think that surveys are going to show that significant numbers of people voted no because of lack of transparency in the expenses system you're wasting your time giving a protest vote on that issue. A protest vote is only worthwhile if it has a legitimate chance of achieving the thing you're protesting over (without causing other unwanted side effects) and I don't think lack of transparency over expenses was even mentioned in the survey.

We're being asked to vote on the contents of the Lisbon treaty so:

1. If you have a valid objection to a part of the treaty then campaign to have those parts removed or renegotiated.
2. If you have objections to how the EU is run that are independent of the treaty then campaign to have those changed but those reasons are not directly associated with the treaty and so not a reason to vote no to it
3. And (this doesn't apply to you btw) if you can't point to the parts of the treaty that you don't like, if the only thing you know about the treaty is that you don't like it, then you're the reason people talk about Ireland's reputation being damaged by a no vote

humanji

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I voted no the first time. I don't see the point in voting again because they'll just keep having referendums until they get their own way.

It also pees me off that all these Europeans come out with claptrap about the Irish being racist because they voted no when something like 10% of the population of Ireland are Polish people with pretty decent jobs (or are getting the same dole money as Irish citizens). If these people are trying to shame me into voting yes they can take a running jump.

Should they just call the Irish lazy f*ckers because they couldn't be arsed voting?

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Err... hardly. If Crotty was removed, Lisbon would be ratified by Ireland faster than you could say 'Where's my vote?'

I was responding to the "I would imagine that if there is a No vote that Lisbon II will be renamed, given a couple of bells and whistles" part of your post. Is there any suggestion that the Crotty judgement will be overturned?

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

More important those issues may be but they are not effected by Lisbon and so not a direct reason to vote the treaty down. There is nothing stopping you campaigning for all of these side issues to be addressed in a new treaty, in fact Lisbon would make it easier for these changes to be made, but unless you think that surveys are going to show that significant numbers of people voted no because of lack of transparency in the expenses system you're wasting your time giving a protest vote on that issue. A protest vote is only worthwhile if it has a legitimate chance of achieving the thing you're protesting over (without causing other unwanted side effects) and I don't think lack of transparency over expenses was even mentioned in the survey.

We're being asked to vote on the contents of the Lisbon treaty so:

1. If you have a valid objection to a part of the treaty then campaign to have those parts removed or renegotiated.
2. If you have objections to how the EU is run that are independent of the treaty then campaign to have those changed but those reasons are not directly associated with the treaty and so not a reason to vote no to it
3. And (this doesn't apply to you btw) if you can't point to the parts of the treaty that you don't like, if the only thing you know about the treaty is that you don't like it, then you're the reason people talk about Ireland's reputation being damaged by a no vote

No. We are being asked to vote on the proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution. That is the wording we are being asked to include in the Irish Constitution. Of course, it includes allowing the Oireachtas/govt to ratify Lisbon, but it includes other measures too, including allowing them to join Schengen (passport free travel Para 7) and to abolish the optout Protocol (on the position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the European Area of Justice and Freedom). It's not just Lisbon we are voting on. It's the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. If that means issues extraneous to Lisbon come up in the debate, then that is partly the fault of the govt for introducing some of them in the text of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Surely voting no is more likely to result in a Treaty with the increased oversight mechanism needed to increase transparency and ethics in the EU because when people want something from you badly, they will - if pushed (which this govt didn't do) - be more likely to give it to you? I don't recall Cowen even asking for a renegotiation of Lisbon. Remember - this is the man who - in front of the TV cameras of the world's media - said "sorry" to then Commission President Prodi for our no vote. Renegotiations can happen if we have a govt with the backbone to hang tough and demand it, on pain of refusing ratification.

Irish Guitarist wrote:

I voted no the first time. I don't see the point in voting again because they'll just keep having referendums until they get their own way.

I disagree. There has never been a third referendum on an EU treaty in an EU member state. I'm pretty sure a second no vote will kill it, especially with the UK General Election coming up.

marco_polo

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I voted no the first time. I don't see the point in voting again because they'll just keep having referendums until they get their own way.

It also pees me off that all these Europeans come out with claptrap about the Irish being racist because they voted no when something like 10% of the population of Ireland are Polish people with pretty decent jobs (or are getting the same dole money as Irish citizens). If these people are trying to shame me into voting yes they can take a running jump.

Have you some links to all these people calling us racists?

FutureTaoiseach

marco_polo wrote: »

Have you some links to all these people calling us racists?

The now-defunct quango NAPAR (National Action Plan against Racism) accused no voters of racism:

Sunday Business Post wrote:

Ask Lucy Gaffney, chairperson of the NAPR, whose assertion this was. According to the NAPR website this week, Gaffney said: ‘‘The revelation that immigration was a contributory factor towards the No vote in the referendum demonstrates the major challenge of confronting and eliminating racism in modern Ireland. For all of us who are active in the area of integration, anti-racism and multiculturalism, this is extremely worrying.”

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No. We are being asked to vote on the proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution. That is the wording we are being asked to include in the Irish Constitution. Of course, it includes allowing the Oireachtas/govt to ratify Lisbon, but it includes other measures too, including allowing them to join Schengen (passport free travel Para 7) and to abolish the optout Protocol (on the position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the European Area of Justice and Freedom). It's not just Lisbon we are voting on. It's the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. If that means issues extraneous to Lisbon come up in the debate, then that is partly the fault of the govt for introducing some of them in the text of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Surely voting no is more likely to result in a Treaty with the increased oversight mechanism needed to increase transparency and ethics in the EU because when people want something from you badly, they will - if pushed (which this govt didn't do) - be more likely to give it to you? I don't recall Cowen even asking for a renegotiation of Lisbon. Remember - this is the man who - in front of the TV cameras of the world's media - said "sorry" to then Commission President Prodi for our no vote. Renegotiations can happen if we have a govt with the backbone to hang tough and demand it, on pain of refusing ratification.I disagree. There has never been a third referendum on an EU treaty in an EU member state. I'm pretty sure a second no vote will kill it, especially with the UK General Election coming up.

They are simply covering all bases as Britain have been making noises about introducing electronic borders effectively disolving the CCA for all intents and purposes. And our opt outs on Schengen are valid only as long as the Common Travel Area exists.

There is nothing to suggest that exercising those options even now would require a referendum in any case, as under the Crotty Judgement referenda are only required in relation to changes in foreign policy, not visa and immigration policy which is what the Schengen Aquis covers.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No. We are being asked to vote on the proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution. That is the wording we are being asked to include in the Irish Constitution. Of course, it includes allowing the Oireachtas/govt to ratify Lisbon, but it includes other measures too, including allowing them to join Schengen (passport free travel Para 7) and to abolish the optout Protocol (on the position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the European Area of Justice and Freedom). It's not just Lisbon we are voting on. It's the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. If that means issues extraneous to Lisbon come up in the debate, then that is partly the fault of the govt for introducing some of them in the text of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Surely voting no is more likely to result in a Treaty with the increased oversight mechanism needed to increase transparency and ethics in the EU because when people want something from you badly, they will - if pushed (which this govt didn't do) - be more likely to give it to you? I don't recall Cowen even asking for a renegotiation of Lisbon. Remember - this is the man who - in front of the TV cameras of the world's media - said "sorry" to then Commission President Prodi for our no vote. Renegotiations can happen if we have a govt with the backbone to hang tough and demand it, on pain of refusing ratification.

I've highlighted the important bit. Do we have such a government? If we have a general election and put FG in will we then have such a government? And if there are a thousand voices all shouting about their own personal objections to general EU issues and Irish issues with nothing to do with the EU such as a dislike of FF, would such a government even have the authority to demand such changes if surveys showed that only a small number of people gave each issue as an objection and if very few of them had anything directly to do with Lisbon?