Lisbon 2 The Return!

K-9

The Tories should be honest and stop playing politics.

Lisbon is a side issue in the UK. EU Membership is the real issue.

j1smithy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You could say the very same about the rest of Europe (including France and Holland who voted against it ) and they all got walked over by their own governments into this mess because their constitutions could not hold water. These nations now deeply regret it.

Do they really? I've seen no mass protests reported over the Lisbon treaty in those countries


We Irish are very fortunate to have one of the most water tight constitutions in the whole of Europe, so much so that we had to put Lisbon to the floor before it could even be attempted to be ratified.

It is a great shame that our own Governments are willing to sacrifice this great constitution against the will of Irish the people.

How so? We are being asked in a referendum to allow for the inclusion of the provisions within the Lisbon treaty. Our constitution, and Crotty V An Taoiseach still stands.


The following links sum up the critical situation of our constitution with this Lisbon pact.

Worse still Brian Cowen is trying to collaborate the opposition party that this is all a good thing. :eek:





No, those links illustrate the lies, falsehoods and deliberate confusion spread by the No side. Its not about microchipping babies, abortions, end of nations, a new world order or any other loony Jim Corr conspiracy theory spouted. This treaty is about making a 27 member state Union work without everyone agreeing on everything. If we don't have it the Union will be paralysed and not able to take action on anything as it is highly likely one state will object to something in whatever the union tries to undertake.

.

Lloydface

The idea of voting no this time purely because we're being asked to vote again is ridiculous and petty. As little faith as I have in the government, I believe that the more involved we are in the EU, the better. I'm voting yes.

AuRevoir

Lloydface wrote: »

The idea of voting no this time purely because we're being asked to vote again is ridiculous and petty.

If people feel that democracy has been ignored then it's their right to vote as they choose.

Scofflaw

j1smithy wrote: »

Such a shame what they're spouting isn't actually true though. I mean how are you meant to counter such stupid claims?

I'm wondering what is Cóirs real motive here though? I know they are also known as Youth Defence but abortion isn't an issue in this. I get the feeling is they want us to withdraw totally from Europe to form some sort of ultra conservative state with Catholic teaching at the heart of all our Law, sort of like a Catholic version of Saudi Arabia? The destruction of Lisbon would be the first step in this isolationist strategy.

Am I right or are they simply just a group of people who oppose everything for the sake of opposing, ie a shower of nutters?

It's quite possible for an organisation like COIR to have more than one political dimension. They themselves claim that they stand for:

JUSTICE:

for all Irish people, especially the preborn, the elderly and the vulnerable

SOVEREIGNTY:

the right of the Irish people to make our own laws

INTEGRITY:

a commitment to honesty and ethics in public life

I like the last one in particular. However, one could also say that COIR are the flip side of the fact that much of our 'socially progressive' legislation has come via the EU, and that engagement with the EU (and more generally, Europe) has led to a decline in the social conservatism of the country - as, of course, has prosperity. Importantly, that decline in conservative Ireland has taken place over really quite a short span - 30 years ago this was a very different country, and I suspect that unless you were old enough at the time to have experienced that, you don't know just how different.

That means that organisations like COIR - and COIR is also Youth Defence, and the Mother and Child Campaign, and also SPUC - who have been active over the years, have seen that change, and perhaps they hold the view that if Ireland was more disengaged from the EU, then the decline of conservatism could be slowed, or even reversed. It's long term thinking, but, as I said, they've been around for years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JupiterKid

I voted no to Lisbon the last time becuase I was confused and unsure of the issues. But I'm clear about them now - and backward thinking, bigoted groups like Coir make me more determined then ever to cast my Yes vote in the coming (re)referendum.

Sparks43

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw_bRBIbOmw

Sparks43

JupiterKid wrote: »

I voted no to Lisbon the last time becuase I was confused and unsure of the issues. But I'm clear about them now - and backward thinking, bigoted groups like Coir make me more determined then ever to cast my Yes vote in the coming (re)referendum.

the issues are the same we the people are still getting a raw deal from europe

sometimes times come to side with the devil

Sam Vimes

AuRevoir wrote: »

If people feel that democracy has been ignored then it's their right to vote as they choose.

If people feel that democracy has been ignored then they don't quite understand how democracy works. Agreement is reached through negotiations and compromise. If something is rejected you don't just throw it in the bin, you find out why it was rejected and see if anything can be done to handle the objections.

Run_to_da_hills

JupiterKid wrote: »

I voted no to Lisbon the last time because I was confused and unsure of the issues. But I'm clear about them now - and backward thinking, bigoted groups like Coir make me more determined then ever to cast my Yes vote in the coming (re)referendum.

I voted no to Lisbon the last time because I was confused and unsure of the issues.

But I'm clear about them now and the aggressive thinking, wealthy union hating bigoted man like O Leary make me more determined then ever to cast my no vote again in the coming (re)referendum :rolleyes:

An Fear Aniar

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If people feel that democracy has been ignored then they don't quite understand how democracy works.

Keep saying stuff like that, it's very helpful to the NO side.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Agreement is reached through negotiations and compromise. If something is rejected you don't just throw it in the bin, you find out why it was rejected and see if anything can be done to handle the objections.

So can we negotiate to get the cancelled referendums reinstated for the countries that planned to hold them to give the people a say?

Why were they thrown in the bin?

Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, Portugal and the UK and also a second referendum in France and the Netherlands (seeing as we're going through with this farce in Ireland).

No, I didn't think so.

Sounds like you don't know how democracy works.
.

Sam Vimes

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Keep saying stuff like that, it's very helpful to the NO side.

If someone is saying something that shows a lack of understanding of democracy I'm not going to sugar coat it and pretend that what they're saying is in any way valid

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

So can we negotiate to get the cancelled referendums reinstated for the countries that planned to hold them to give the people a say?

No we can't because the ratification of treaties is a national competence and none of our business. The same way that the rest of the EU can't effect our direct tax rates because it's none of their business. We can renegotiate articles of the treaty but the ratification procedure is separate

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Why were they thrown in the bin?

Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, Portugal and the UK and also a second referendum in France and the Netherlands (seeing as we're going through with this farce in Ireland).

No, I didn't think so.

Sounds like you don't know how democracy works.
.

Honestly, I think the referendums were cancelled because they were afraid that what happened in Ireland would happen there, that all the nutbags would come out of the woodwork, spread a pack of lies and trick people into furthering their anti-EU agenda. Seems fair enough to me

Bob_Harris

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Honestly, I think the referendums were cancelled because they were afraid that what happened in Ireland would happen there, that all the nutbags would come out of the woodwork, spread a pack of lies and trick people into furthering their anti-EU agenda. Seems fair enough to me

The concept of people being tricked into voting No is very condescending.

Sam Vimes

Bob_Harris wrote: »

The concept of people being tricked into voting No is very condescending.

The first thing that pops into my head is that 30% of people thought that Lisbon effected our corporate tax rates. It's not condescending if it's true

Bob_Harris

What percentage of Yes voters this time around will be of the delusion that our economy will recover faster if Lisbon is passed? Or that we will be isolated in Europe if we vote No? A sizeable amount due to the lies of the Yes campaign we can see already.

Both sides use dubious tactics to get votes. Both sides lie. The feeling you get from a place like Boards is that the Yes voters see themselves as intellectually superior while they see the No voters as slack jawed baffons duped by silly lies by silly groups like COIR.

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The first thing that pops into my head is that 30% of people thought that Lisbon effected our corporate tax rates. It's not condescending if it's true

The Treaty is largely open to interpretation though. Much of it isn't black or white. There are shades of grey too. The ECJ has a history of controversial interpretations of the Treaties and EU law, including the Metock case, the Chen case, the Mangold case etc. Admittedly those cases don't relate to taxation, but they do relate to the question of convoluted reasoning sometimes employed by the ECJ in its judgements.

dub_skav

A lot of the yes side - notably those on here - seem to think this revote is democracy in action.

I was presented with a 300 page treaty I never asked for and do not see the reason for*. I voted No to this treaty. A survey is then done to see specifically which bits people don't agree with.
That is underhanded and undemocratic.

I also am very happy being part of Europe and see myself as a European. It is just that I am happy to be an Irish European and believe we are perfectly within our rights to say, this far no further.
For what it's worth there is some stuff in the treaty that is good - ability to deal with people trafficking for instance. But lumping it all into a 300 page document and forcing it down our throats is not democratic or in my opinion honest.

* I am happy with the way the EU works for me and Ireland. I do not believe the much publicised gridlock will take place. I believe that every country in the EU benefits from eachother's membership and so voting should not be skewed to the larger countries.

Sam Vimes

Bob_Harris wrote: »

What percentage of Yes voters this time around will be of the dilusion that our economy will recover faster if Lisbon is passed? Or that we will be isolated in Europe if we vote No? A sizable amount due to the lies of the Yes campain we can see already.

Is it a delusion? Personally I am embarrassed to be associated with a lot of the nonsense coming out about this treaty. I'm also embarrassed to be associated with people who think it's appropriate to use a European treaty that has been (or soon will be) accepted by 26 other nations as a stick to beat the Irish government with. Such things damage Ireland's reputation and reputation is crucial in business

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Treaty is largely open to interpretation though. Much of it isn't black or white. There are shades of grey too. The ECJ has a history of controversial interpretations of the Treaties and EU law, including the Metock case, the Chen case, the Mangold case etc. Admittedly those cases don't relate to taxation, but they do relate to the question of convoluted reasoning sometimes employed by the ECJ in its judgements.

It's really not open to interpretation. There are the correct interpretations and the ones that the no side won't let go of despite being corrected thousands of times.

dub_skav wrote: »

A lot of the yes side - notably those on here - seem to think this revote is democracy in action.

I was presented with a 300 page treaty I never asked for and do not see the reason for*. I voted No to this treaty. A survey is then done to see specifically which bits people don't agree with.
That is underhanded and undemocratic.

Are you actually serious? How the fcuk is finding out why you object to something and trying to satisfy you underhanded? You never responded to this the last time so I'll just copy and paste it:

Say you were signing a very important contract with a business partner, one that would make or break your business and the contract had 500 clauses. You come in one morning and you find the contract returned unsigned with a note explaining why.

The note gives five reasons, three of which are valid objections to certain clauses and two of which he has simply misunderstood and he would probably accept if they were explained properly.

Would you rewrite the contract with the three contentious clauses removed and attempt to explain his error with the other two or would you say "he's made his decision" and throw the contract in the bin, even though it's very important to you, he only objects to a tiny portion of it that can be renegotiated and the misunderstandings can be easily clarified?

dub_skav

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Are you actually serious? How the fcuk is finding out why you object to something and trying to satisfy you underhanded?

No need for swearing, stop getting so worked up.
Yes I am serious, I find it insulting to be presented with a document I see no need for and fundamentally disagree with and then others are asked what specific small fixable parts they disagree with, then i am asked to vote again on the same document I see no need for and fundamentally disagree with. As has been said ad nauseum I did not vote no through ignorance so I feel justified in my position. As I also said before ignorance and voting in Ireland go hand in hand, why should this time be any different.

You never responded to this the last time so I'll just copy and paste it:

I didn't respond because I didn't see the point and found the comparison insulting. But if you insist

Say you were signing a very important contract with a business partner, one that would make or break your business and the contract had 500 clauses. You come in one morning and you find the contract returned unsigned with a note explaining why.

The note gives five reasons, three of which are valid objections to certain clauses and two of which he has simply misunderstood and he would probably accept if they were explained properly.

In this situation you assume that both parties require the contract and that there is not a perfectly valid currently working contract in place - which is false.
You also assume that this is a 1 on 1 contract where it is very easy to understand the other person's objections and to remedy them.
A fairer example would be where I had decided i wanted to change the way I did business to make it easier for me to work with other companies, to do this i would require the ability to make decisions on behalf of the other person in your example and also to give him less say in how deals are done because he is only a small company afterall.

Would you rewrite the contract with the three contentious clauses removed and attempt to explain his error with the other two or would you say "he's made his decision" and throw the contract in the bin, even though it's very important to you, he only objects to a tiny portion of it that can be renegotiated and the misunderstandings can be easily clarified?

And here is the crux of the argument. It's very important to you, not to the person whose signature you require.

Examples like this serve no purpose because this is a very complex issue and trivialising it to silly examples is insulting both to the people who wrote the treaty and to those who felt justified in rejecting it.

Sam Vimes

dub_skav wrote: »

No need for swearing, stop getting so worked up.
Yes I am serious, I find it insulting to be presented with a document I see no need for and fundamentally disagree with and then others are asked what specific small fixable parts they disagree with, then i am asked to vote again on the same document I see no need for and fundamentally disagree with. As has been said ad nauseum I did not vote no through ignorance so I feel justified in my position. As I also said before ignorance and voting in Ireland go hand in hand, why should this time be any different.

You fundamentally disagree with it and you don't see any need for it but you are not the entirety of the Irish population. Surveys showed that people did not fundamentally disagree with it but mostly didn't fully understand it and many had misconceptions about it.

dub_skav wrote: »

In this situation you assume that both parties require the contract and that there is not a perfectly valid currently working contract in place - which is false.

In your opinion it's not needed, in the opinion of those who who work for the EU it is. And my situation does not require that both parties need it, just that one person proposes it and the other accepts it or not

dub_skav wrote: »

You also assume that this is a 1 on 1 contract where it is very easy to understand the other person's objections and to remedy them.

I don't assume that at all. The objections might not be clear at all, that's why you enter into a dialogue, negotiate and clarify instead of just throwing it in the bin.

dub_skav wrote: »

A fairer example would be where I had decided i wanted to change the way I did business to make it easier for me to work with other companies, to do this i would require the ability to make decisions on behalf of the other person in your example and also to give him less say in how deals are done because he is only a small company afterall.

Oh no but it wouldn't be a fairer example because lack of understanding and misconceptions were by far the biggest issues. If you object to the move to QMV in more areas then by all means vote no but that's not what the majority of people gave as their reason.

Zillah

Bob_Harris wrote: »

The concept of people being tricked into voting No is very condescending.

People are idiots who get duped into doing things for invented reasons all the time. You can call it condescending all you like but that's pretty irrelevant.

marco_polo

Just reading the Sinn fein launch speech from last month.

Still full of lies.

- 'So called' guarantees
- Neutrality
- Commissioner
- Tax Harmonization
- Erosion of Workers rights
- Loss of Commissioner


And we have people seriously giving out about fluff like 'Europe is Good' etc?

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/17149

“The Government and the Yes side are claiming that the so called legally binding guarantees secured at the European Council meeting in June have addressed the concerns of the Irish people about this Treaty. These ‘guarantees’ are nothing more than a series of clarifications of some aspects of the Lisbon Treaty. They do not alter the text of the treaty in any way nor do they change the impact that the treaty will have on Ireland and the EU. Their legal status is irrelevant. On October 2nd we will be voting on exactly the same treaty, with exactly the same consequences for Ireland and the EU, as we did last year.

“These consequences include the erosion of Irish Neutrality, the weakening of Ireland’s position in Europe, the loss of the Irish Commissioner, the erosion of workers’ rights and public services, the loss of an automatic right to a referendum on future treaty changes, continued participation in the European Atomic Energy Community, advancing the cause of tax harmonisation, the promotion of common foreign and defence policies and the militarisation of Europe and much, much more.

PHB

Can somebody please tell me, please, how voting on something is undemocratic?

Surely if everyone felt the way you did, everyone would vote the exact same way as they did last time. Lots of people think its ok to change your minds. I know people who voted Yes who are voting No, and people who voted No who are voting Yes.

In a democracy, you are allowed change you mind

Anyone who says this referendum is undemocratic is saying that you aren't allowed change your mind.

Run_to_da_hills

PHB wrote: »

Can somebody please tell me, please, how voting on something is undemocratic?

Easily, when we are forced to vote twice on the matter. :rolleyes:

Not mentioning those that never had a chance to vote :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Easily, when we are forced to vote twice on the matter. :rolleyes:

Not mentioning those that never had a chance to vote :rolleyes:

was the second divorce referendum undemocratic?

watch now as you give me a list of reasons why people might have changed their minds between the first and the second divorce referendums and I will counter with my own list of reasons why people might have changed their minds about Lisbon

Zillah

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Easily, when we are forced to vote twice on the matter.

If the "no" crowd are feeling bitter about being forced to vote again, I would kindly suggest that you not bother voting at all this time. It's win win.

An Fear Aniar

PHB wrote: »

In a democracy, you are allowed change you mind

Anyone who says this referendum is undemocratic is saying that you aren't allowed change your mind.

In a democracy, your vote counts. All the people who voted NO in the referendum?

The EU is saying their vote means nothing.

And don't give me guff about "assurances" because it's still the same European Constitution that got voted down in 2005.

.

CCCP^

PHB wrote: »

Can somebody please tell me, please, how voting on something is undemocratic?

Surely if everyone felt the way you did, everyone would vote the exact same way as they did last time. Lots of people think its ok to change your minds. I know people who voted Yes who are voting No, and people who voted No who are voting Yes.

In a democracy, you are allowed change you mind

Anyone who says this referendum is undemocratic is saying that you aren't allowed change your mind.

Because this pisses all over democracy. Let's say tomorrow there's a general election and Fianna Failed get in, are we ok to suddenly change our mind and vote again? **** no. You wouldn't see the politicians turning around asking us if we wanted another go, just in case we changed our mind.

In some countries they rig votes. Here they just ask us to go again, but it's the same thing in reality, they are just looking to get what they want, there is no respect.

When it comes to taking a vote, you stick with your decision, your convictions and principles. Btw, if we vote Yes this time, am I allowed change my mind and we go again? Best 2 out of 3? Sure why not. That's democracy.

ShooterSF

PHB wrote: »

Can somebody please tell me, please, how voting on something is undemocratic?

Surely if everyone felt the way you did, everyone would vote the exact same way as they did last time. Lots of people think its ok to change your minds. I know people who voted Yes who are voting No, and people who voted No who are voting Yes.

In a democracy, you are allowed change you mind

Anyone who says this referendum is undemocratic is saying that you aren't allowed change your mind.

*The following post assumes you're against the idea of re-joining the UK*

Lets say the govt. run a referendum to rejoin the UK. You are against the idea and thankfully it's rejected. The govt. get a few promises from the UK and run another referendum the following week. Turn out is down but it still fails. One or two slight changes are made and another referendum is ran the following week. Turn out drops further as people realise that their spending their own time every week fighting something that won't go away 'til it's passed.
That's the nearest reason I can think of a referendum being undemocratic.

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

*The following post assumes you're against the idea of re-joining the UK*

Lets say the govt. run a referendum to rejoin the UK. You are against the idea and thankfully it's rejected. The govt. get a few promises from the UK and run another referendum the following week. Turn out is down but it still fails. One or two slight changes are made and another referendum is ran the following week. Turn out drops further as people realise that their spending their own time every week fighting something that won't go away 'til it's passed.
That's the nearest reason I can think of a referendum being undemocratic.

I still don't see that as undemocratic, that's compromise, trying to satisfy as many people as possible. If certain people had objections on Tuesday but got a concession on Wednesday that made them change their mind, why shouldn't they be given the opportunity to voice their new opinion?


If the government were just doing a Mrs. Doyle of "go on go on go on go on go on", that would be an undemocratic attempt to beat people into submission but that's not what happened. Significant numbers of previous no voters have had their objections handled so I see no reason why they shouldn't be given the opportunity to change their minds