Lisbon 2 The Return!

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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?

If we don't get such a govt, then I would be prepared to live with Nice as the lesser of two evils.

ghost_ie

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?

We're not the only ones who have not ratified the treaty. Neither have Germany, Poland or the Czech Republic. The German supreme court has declared that the Treaty conflicts with the German Constitution

BlitzKrieg

The German supreme court has declared that the Treaty conflicts with the German Constitution

No it hasnt. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0701/1224249838658.html)

utick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If we reject it again and we can give a list of things that we object to in it, what will most likely happen and what should happen is that the parts we object to will be renegotiated. There is no reason to throw out things that no one objects to.

will the yes side give us permission to reject lisbon as a whole, rather than parts?

BlitzKrieg

will the yes side give us permission to reject lisbon as a whole

is there a reason why it has to be everything rather then a more constructive approach?

K-9

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?

You had a debate with another poster on that decision. Did you learn nothing from it?

If the ECJ won't even respect a UNSC resolution - the highest form of international law -

You have been made aware of the facts on that case and still you ignore them?

An Fear Aniar

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

No it hasnt. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0701/1224249838658.html)

Dunno what the original reads like but this statement is mind-boggling:


In a 147-page ruling, they tackled the complaints at their common root: the claim of a democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union.

The flaw in this claim, the judges said, was trying to measure the legitimacy of a supranational organisation using the democratic yardstick of a sovereign state.


Holding government to account is a flaw?:eek:

.

the groutch

got the leaflet through the door today, which I thought is supposed to be impartial

what I found was that it was pretty much a YES campaign, listing all the things that won't change if we vote yes, most of which are misleading as the treaty itself changes most of these particulars, and will only be saved if the guarantees are followed through

utick

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

is there a reason why it has to be everything rather then a more constructive approach?

why not work it the other way then, if there is a yes vote i bet you wouldnt find the no side coming out trying to claim that voters only said yes to some parts of the treaty, so the whole thing shouldnt pass but on;y the bits voters voted yes to.

Stark

How do you reckon it will change the particulars? In some cases it changes them for the better (Council meets out in the open instead of in secrecy etc.). I don't think the guarantees offered anything that wasn't already protected by the treaty.

marco_polo

the groutch wrote: »

got the leaflet through the door today, which I thought is supposed to be impartial

what I found was that it was pretty much a YES campaign, listing all the things that won't change if we vote yes, most of which are misleading as the treaty itself changes most of these particulars, and will only be saved if the guarantees are followed through

What parts did you find misleading? And the guarantees on are legally binding should Lisbon be ratified.

marco_polo

utick wrote: »

will the yes side give us permission to reject lisbon as a whole, rather than parts?

Input like this will be crucial in determining the vision Irish voters have for the future of Europe, when we go back to the table to get the better deal Sinn Fein promised we could in the event of the rejection of Lisbon again.

Sam Vimes

the groutch wrote: »

got the leaflet through the door today, which I thought is supposed to be impartial

what I found was that it was pretty much a YES campaign, listing all the things that won't change if we vote yes, most of which are misleading as the treaty itself changes most of these particulars, and will only be saved if the guarantees are followed through

I unfortunately expected this, that people would think the leaflets were biased because they didn't give what people had been hearing from the no side. The thing is that most of the things from the no side are wrong, such as the suggestions that they might go back on the guarantees, and that's why they're not included in the leaflet. When you say "it's a yes campaign", what you mean is it's giving the facts in an unbiased way

oppenheimer1

I see Cóir already look like being the focal point of the opposition to the treaty with their rather outlandish posters:

http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_1.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_2.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_3.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_4.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_5.jpg

Posters 2 and 3 I'm guessing will be the most controversial. I must say I'm also looking forward to what the PR department in Ryanair is going to come out with!

An Fear Aniar

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I see Cóir already look like being the focal point of the opposition to the treaty with their rather outlandish posters:

http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_1.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_2.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_3.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_4.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_5.jpg

Posters 2 and 3 I'm guessing will be the most controversial. I must say I'm also looking forward to what the PR department in Ryanair is going to come out with!

I really like these, nice design and a good, strong impact.

.

K-9

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

I really like these, nice design and a good, strong impact.

.

YEP!

I like Paris Hilton too!

Not much substance!

BlitzKrieg

K-9 wrote: »

You had a debate with another poster on that decision. Did you learn nothing from it?

If the ECJ won't even respect a UNSC resolution - the highest form of international law -

You have been made aware of the facts on that case and still you ignore them?

no actually he has *most* of them there , he did change his stance from the EU striking down a UN resolution, to striking down a EU regulation ataining to a UN resolution after our discussion over on the european union forum.

What he left out was that the court's specified that the UN resolution was in the right and that they would do no action to harm its goal, hence they kept the original regulation in force while a new one was done up, insuring the highest respect for the resolution by keeping it enforced whille the EU regulation was adjusted.

I am happy to see though that he didnt simply ignore my discussion with him on the issue and that he took something away with him.

An Fear Aniar

K-9 wrote: »

YEP!

I like Paris Hilton too!

Not much substance!

I don't like Paris Hilton, she's anti-democratic, just like this RIDICULOUS LISBON CONSTITUTION FARCE!:)

.

tonycascarino

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

I really like these, nice design and a good, strong impact.

.

Agreed...

K-9

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

no actually he has *most* of them there , he did change his stance from the EU striking down a UN resolution, to striking down a EU regulation ataining to a UN resolution after our discussion over on the european union forum.

What he left out was that the court's specified that the UN resolution was in the right and that they would do no action to harm its goal, hence they kept the original regulation in force while a new one was done up, insuring the highest respect for the resolution by keeping it enforced whille the EU regulation was adjusted.

I am happy to see though that he didnt simply ignore my discussion with him on the issue and that he took something away with him.

In fairness to him, I did think he changed his stance, though left out a subtle, but important point.

Anyway, it's AH.

Lisbon must be good. It shares a capital city name with Paris.

Stark

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I see Cóir already look like being the focal point of the opposition to the treaty with their rather outlandish posters:

http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_1.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_2.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_3.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_4.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_5.jpg

Posters 2 and 3 I'm guessing will be the most controversial. I must say I'm also looking forward to what the PR department in Ryanair is going to come out with!

Needs more microchipped fetuses tbh.

BlitzKrieg

they'll show up as stickers stuck onto the backseats of buses like last time.

Grace29

I think it's really important that we vote again, because last time, too many people voted no because they believed all the lies the No side came out with, or because they didnt have a clue what it was about!

Ignore the lying, twisted No campaign posters, and do a bit of research online and decide then which way to vote.

Personally, I think if we vote no again, while we won't be kicked out or anything, we will become isolated, our influence within the EU will be diminished and it will send a really bad signal to the rest of Europe - economically speaking, is this really a good time to throw an Irish hissy fit over a treaty, that at the end of the day will make European integration easier??

SoupyNorman

Grace29 wrote: »

Ignore the lying, twisted No campaign posters

Of course the NO posters are being sensationalist and probably not being 100% truthful but to even suggest the YES posters are totally on the level is naive, short sighted and just plain wrong.

I'll reiterate, I'm voting NO...purely to take a swipe at the d**ks in Dail Eireann. Cowen and his big fat head have the gall to try scaremonger us into voting YES, makes my blood boil. I find it farcical that we were given a vote at all, there wouldnt of been half this hassle if we were not asked to vote.

ShooterSF

Grace29 wrote: »

I think it's really important that we vote again, because last time, too many people voted no because they believed all the lies the No side came out with, or because they didnt have a clue what it was about!

Hmm. There was no "fill in your reason for voting" on my ballot paper. There were some media and EU ran polls that can be misleading due to their bias on the treaty, an example, the Irish Times ran a poll asking if peoples objections to the treaty were rectified would they vote yes. Who the hell would vote no if all their individual issues with the treaty were fixed. They then claimed people were now in favour of a treaty that fixed their concerns. :rolleyes:

Ignore the lying, twisted No campaign posters, and do a bit of research online and decide then which way to vote.

But don't ignore the YES side's scaremongering? I agree research yourself but why only ignore one side's bull?

Personally, I think if we vote no again, while we won't be kicked out or anything, we will become isolated, our influence within the EU will be diminished

Will our vote be reduced or something (also see YES side's scaremongering above)

and it will send a really bad signal to the rest of Europe - economically speaking, is this really a good time to throw an Irish hissy fit over a treaty, that at the end of the day will make European integration easier??

Again see previously mentioned scaremongering.

---

On another point I HATE posters. What's the point of them. NONE offer any actual facts pertinent to the vote. "Vote YES/NO <Insert catchy slogan>"

Sam Vimes

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Of course the NO posters are being sensationalist and probably ot being 100% truthful but to even suggest the YES posters are totally on the level is naive, short sighted and just plain wrong.

I'll reiterate, I'm voting NO...purely to take a swipe at the d**ks in Dail Eireann. Cowen and his big fat head have the gall to try scaremonger us into voting YES, makes my blood boil. I find it farcical that we were given a vote at all, there wouldnt of been half this hassle if we were not asked to vote.

When people talk about Ireland's reputation being damaged by a no vote, reasons like that are why. The Lisbon treaty is a European treaty, it is has nothing to do with Brian Cowen. Denying a treaty to the other 26 countries that have either ratified it or will ratify it as soon as we do because you don't like Brian Cowen can do nothing but damage this country. You might as well be voting no because you hate marmalade, it makes Ireland look just as bad

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

Hmm. There was no "fill in your reason for voting" on my ballot paper. There were some media and EU ran polls that can be misleading due to their bias on the treaty, an example, the Irish Times ran a poll asking if peoples objections to the treaty were rectified would they vote yes. Who the hell would vote no if all their individual issues with the treaty were fixed. They then claimed people were now in favour of a treaty that fixed their concerns. :rolleyes:

Are you questioning Milward Brown's motives and surveying techniques? They are a company whose existence relies on giving accurate results so that's a fairly serious accusation

And the many people who are voting for reasons with fcuk all to do with the treaty wouldn't vote yes if their objections were rectified because they don't have any specific objections to the treaty

marco_polo

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Of course the NO posters are being sensationalist and probably not being 100% truthful but to even suggest the YES posters are totally on the level is naive, short sighted and just plain wrong.

I'll reiterate, I'm voting NO...purely to take a swipe at the d**ks in Dail Eireann. Cowen and his big fat head have the gall to try scaremonger us into voting YES, makes my blood boil. I find it farcical that we were given a vote at all, there wouldnt of been half this hassle if we were not asked to vote.

Don't forget you are also taking also swipe at FG, Labour, IFA, Impact, CSPU, INO, American Chamber of Commerce, IBEC, the Irish Taxation Institute, the Irish Hotels Federation, Chambers Ireland, the Irish Exporters Association and the Small Firms Association to name but a few.

SoupyNorman

marco_polo wrote: »

Don't forget you are also taking also swipe at FG, Labour, IFA, Impact, CSPU, INO, American Chamber of Commerce, IBEC, the Irish Taxation Institute, the Irish Hotels Federation, Chambers Ireland, the Irish Exporters Association and the Small Firms Association to name but a few.

Even better.

RandomName2

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I see Cóir already look like being the focal point of the opposition to the treaty with their rather outlandish posters:

http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_1.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_2.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_3.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_4.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_5.jpg

Posters 2 and 3 I'm guessing will be the most controversial. I must say I'm also looking forward to what the PR department in Ryanair is going to come out with!

And how is the misinformation perpetuated by such groups as Coir countered? Through bluster, boast and bullying. Perhaps political parties should let the facts speak for themselves instead of actually ignoring the details of the Treaty, and isntead summising for the sake of the electorate 'Be at the heart of Europe' or some such guff. Declan Ganley lost a hell of a lot of credibility when his response to accusations was merely to bluster 'How can you say stuff like that? That's totally unreasonable. I'm going to sue you (etc.)' Maybe the proponents of Lisbon should learn something from this instead of resorting to Dick Roche styled bellowing.

Saw the FIA's full page advert for Lisbon in the Indo today. Not a single word refers to Lisbon, but instead, EU membership.

It's akin to saying 'Vote Yes to divorce, after all look at what Ireland has done for you.'

This isn't a referendum on EU membership.... either the IFU doesn't understand what the issue is, or they, too, are deliberately pertetuating this sort of misinformation.