Lisbon 2 The Return!

TheZohanS

marco_polo wrote: »

I am more interested in preventing the spread of BS than convincing you to vote yes.

Backup your point first or admit lying.

Are you telling me that every time the Lisbon Treaty needs to be amended the people of Ireland will hold another referendum to ratify the changes?

If so I am misinformed and offer my sincerest apologies.

Dinner

TheZohan wrote: »

Are you telling me that every time the Lisbon Treaty needs to be amended the people of Ireland will hold another referendum to ratify the changes?

If so I am misinformed and offer my sincerest apologies.

If it requires a referendum then yes, a referendum will need to be held. Article 48 (the so called self amending article) just lays out the methods through which an amendment can be made. It doesnt affect how it is ratified. Any changes must be ratified through each countries constitutional requirments, which in the case of Ireland can be a referendum.

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

Are you telling me that every time the Lisbon Treaty needs to be amended the people of Ireland will hold another referendum to ratify the changes?

If so I am misinformed and offer my sincerest apologies.

Apology accepted

Itis quite specific in the treaty that all member states must ratify any changes in accordance with their constitutional requirements. And if that amendment affects our Constitution then we must hold a referendum on it.

Sam Vimes

TheZohan wrote: »

Are you telling me that every time the Lisbon Treaty needs to be amended the people of Ireland will hold another referendum to ratify the changes?

If so I am misinformed and offer my sincerest apologies.

Anything that currently requires a referendum will still require a referendum. Just like today, many things could pass without a referendum, that does not change.

TheZohanS

So everytime the Lisbon treaty needs to be amended the people of Ireland will not hold a referendum to ratify the changes.

That's what I thought.

Therefore I am not incorrect.

uprising

I'll be voting NO again, nothing has changed, a second rate promise to Ireland that can and will be over turned at some point in the future if it actually comes to pass in the first place
A yes vote means "yes! man in brussells, do with us as you will".

Lisbon treaty for dummies
http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html

Point 8: The changes mean that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.
This really puts Ireland in the driving seat.What happens when legislation even the yes camp oppose is passed?, sorry too late you said yes.

Point 5. Smaller commission.....This means that only two-thirds of member states will have their own commissioner at any one time, and each country will lose its commissioner for five years at a time.
Does this mean while the commissioner is away the mice can play (with the absent commissioners country)????

Ireland is the only country in the EU to hold a referendum on the treaty, as required by our constitution. Every other member state can ratify the treaty by a vote in their national parliament. As such, we hold responsibility for supporting or rejecting the treaty on behalf of about 490 million Europeans who do not have the option to vote.
Because when they were let vote france and denmark said NO. But no means yes in a democracy:eek:.

This mumbo jumbo of a treaty is a pile of crap that your children and theirs will curse you for voting in if it is, the legally binding agreements will be fukked out the window, your kids will be drafted into the mighty euro militia, fighting for big business, killing for the capatilists, its a fukking stepping stone to a dark place, where we cant yet see, and once the prikks get a yes we'll have no more input into our own lives.

Simply put (as if it can with the bullsh1t wording), vote yes now, then you wont be required to vote again for anything as the big decisions will be made on your behalf.

Sam Vimes

TheZohan wrote: »

So everytime the Lisbon treaty needs to be amended the people of Ireland will not hold a referendum to ratify the changes.

That's what I thought.

Therefore I am not incorrect.

No you are not incorrect but that statement is as true now as it would be if we ratified Lisbon. Right now our government could make a whole host of decisions on our behalf in Europe as long as they didn't require a change to our constitution.

Dinner

uprising wrote: »

Simply put (as if it can with the bullsh1t wording), vote yes now, then you wont be required to vote again for anything as the big decisions will be made on your behalf.

Simply put, completley wrong.

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

So everytime the Lisbon treaty needs to be amended the people of Ireland will not hold a referendum to ratify the changes.

That's what I thought.

Therefore I am not incorrect.

And what is your point? The compatencies of the EU cannot be extended in this manner. You think we should have a referendum on every little piece of EU policy, Mr I is votin no cuz I hate FF?

Sam Vimes

uprising wrote: »

I'll be voting NO again, nothing has changed, a second rate promise to Ireland that can and will be over turned at some point in the future if it actually comes to pass in the first place

Well that's not true

TheZohanS

marco_polo wrote: »

And what is your point? The compatencies of the EU cannot be extended in this manner. You think we should have a referendum on every little piece of EU policy, Mr I is votin no cuz I hate FF?

My point is that I made a comment stating that the Lisbon Treaty is self amending and you said it was not.

It is self amending to a certain degree as in all further changes to the Treaty will not have to be ratified by a referendum.

And if you read my post you would have read:

Voting No will show the government that we mean business and that we want the mess that this government made of the economy sorted out now.

The above reason alone is a good enough one for me to vote No.

I did not say it was the main reason, but IMHO good enough to vote no. Politics in Ireland needs to be shaken up, we need action now.

I also asked you to give me one good reason to vote yes and you have been unwilling or unable to do so.

In fact the entire Yes campaign have failed to give me one good reason to vote yes.

Sam Vimes

More specifically:

uprising wrote: »

I'll be voting NO again, nothing has changed, a second rate promise to Ireland that can and will be over turned at some point in the future if it actually comes to pass in the first place
A yes vote means "yes! man in brussells, do with us as you will".

Not true

uprising wrote: »

Point 8: The changes mean that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.
This really puts Ireland in the driving seat.What happens when legislation even the yes camp oppose is passed?, sorry too late you said yes.

Vague scaremongering. 63 unimportant competences are moving to QMV such as sporting policy. Anything remotely important such as tax remains a unanimous decision and if it requires a change to our constitution we will have a referendum

uprising wrote: »

Point 5. Smaller commission.....This means that only two-thirds of member states will have their own commissioner at any one time, and each country will lose its commissioner for five years at a time.
Does this mean while the commissioner is away the mice can play (with the absent commissioners country)????

Old news, we got a guarantee of a permanent commissioner. And anyway, commissioners are impartial and do not represent their countries

uprising wrote: »

Ireland is the only country in the EU to hold a referendum on the treaty, as required by our constitution. Every other member state can ratify the treaty by a vote in their national parliament. As such, we hold responsibility for supporting or rejecting the treaty on behalf of about 490 million Europeans who do not have the option to vote.
Because when they were let vote france and denmark said NO. But no means yes in a democracy:eek:.

It was France and Holland. We also hold the responsibility for the people who want a yes vote. And the way those countries choose to run their governments is none of our business and it's none of the EU's business. If France wants a referendum they should lobby for it

uprising wrote: »

This mumbo jumbo of a treaty is a pile of crap that your children and theirs will curse you for voting in if it is, the legally binding agreements will be fukked out the window, your kids will be drafted into the mighty euro militia, fighting for big business, killing for the capatilists, its a fukking stepping stone to a dark place, where we cant yet see, and once the prikks get a yes we'll have no more input into our own lives.

Simply put (as if it can with the bullsh1t wording), vote yes now, then you wont be required to vote again for anything as the big decisions will be made on your behalf.

Wow, just wow. That was an awful lot of fiction for a short post. It really goes to show that there's not a whole lot wrong with the treaty that no one can come up with one bad thing about it that's true

uprising

Sam Vimes wrote: »

More specifically:

Not true

Vague scaremongering. 63 unimportant competences are moving to QMV such as sporting policy. Anything remotely important such as tax remains a unanimous decision and if it requires a change to our constitution we will have a referendum


Old news, we got a guarantee of a permanent commissioner. And anyway, commissioners are impartial and do not represent their countries

It was France and Holland. We also hold the responsibility for the people who want a yes vote. And the way those countries choose to run their governments is none of our business and it's none of the EU's business. If France wants a referendum they should lobby for it


Wow, just wow. That was an awful lot of fiction for a short post. It really goes to show that there's not a whole lot wrong with the treaty that no one can come up with one bad thing about it that's true

Denmark first rejected the treaty on 2 June 1992 by fewer than 50,000 votes in a referendum. The treaty was ratified by Denmark on 18 May 1993 with the addition of the Edinburgh Agreement which lists four Danish exceptions.
My point being denmark rejected maastricht, it was ratified

i57dwun4yb1pt8

Morzadec wrote: »

FF will stay in power if this treaty is defeated.

D

no they wont, they will be fcuked .

100%

and yes we all know the other partys want a yes vote ,
youll get it when FF are gone .

Sam Vimes

TheZohan wrote: »

My point is that I made a comment stating that the Lisbon Treaty is self amending and you said it was not.

It is self amending to a certain degree as in all further changes to the Treaty will not have to be ratified by a referendum.

Changes currently do not have to be ratified by a referendum. It's our system of government that's "self amending" in that the Dail can make decisions for us in all matters except where the constitution has to be changed. They drafted the new defamation and criminal justice bills in the past week without a referendum, it's what governments do.

TheZohan wrote: »

I did not say it was the main reason, but IMHO good enough to vote no. Politics in Ireland needs to be shaken up, we need action now.

So you think that your vote on a treaty that was drafted and proposed by the European union and that is supported by every major political party in the country should be effected by your hatred of Fianna Fail. If you voted on Britain's got talent, was your vote also effected by your hatred of Fianna Fail? I ask because Britain's got talent has exactly as much to do with FF as Lisbon does.

TheZohan wrote: »

I also asked you to give me one good reason to vote yes and you have been unwilling or unable to do so.
In fact the entire Yes campaign have failed to give me one good reason to vote yes.

Here's ten:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60775332&postcount=57

thelordofcheese

uprising wrote: »

Denmark first rejected the treaty on 2 June 1992 by fewer than 50,000 votes in a referendum. The treaty was ratified by Denmark on 18 May 1993 with the addition of the Edinburgh Agreement which lists four Danish exceptions.
My point being denmark rejected maastricht, it was ratified

1] Don't copy and past from wikipedia, it looks lazy

2] And your point is what?

Sam Vimes

DaDumTish wrote: »

no they wont, they will be fcuked .

100%

and yes we all know the other partys want a yes vote ,
youll get it when FF are gone .

Destroying the economy didn't fcuk them. Massive cutbacks to their voter base didn't cut them. Their former leader stepping down due to corruption didn't fcuk them. Getting 12% in the local elections didn't fcuk them. Enda Kenny calling for a vote of no confidence didn't fcuk them. Calls for a general election over the Bord Snip report didn't fcuk them. The first Lisbon vote didn't fcuk them (despite widespread claims that it would).

But you think that this will be the final straw. This treaty that is supported by every major political party and that can be blamed on a multitude of other things if it fails. I would love to see Fianna Fail gone but this will not do it. All you will do is show Europe that Ireland will hold it to ransom over internal affairs.

Sam Vimes

uprising wrote: »

Denmark first rejected the treaty on 2 June 1992 by fewer than 50,000 votes in a referendum. The treaty was ratified by Denmark on 18 May 1993 with the addition of the Edinburgh Agreement which lists four Danish exceptions.
My point being denmark rejected maastricht, it was ratified

Denmark never rejected Lisbon. That was France and Holland. Denmark had a second referendum to ratify Maastricht after the concessions were made

Sam Vimes

Another point to the people saying that they're voting no because other countries are not having referendums.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

For the purposes of this post, Representative Ratification means ratification by means of a representative body, such as a parliament.

So I've heard it mentioned in this Forum that other countries are doing something abnormal by not holding referenda on the Lisbon Treaty, and that somehow Representative Ratification is historically illegitimate. It's been claimed that the voting pattern for Lisbon sets some sort of precedent.

Lets have a look at the history:

Treaty of Paris
0/6 Referenda, 6/6 Representative Ratification

Treaties of Rome
0/6 Referenda, 6/6 Representative

Single European Act
2/12 Referenda, 10/12 Representative

Maastricht Treaty
3/12 Referenda, 9/12 Representative (First time there was a 2nd Referendum, Denmark)

Amsterdam Treaty
2/15 Referenda, 13/15 Representative

Nice Treaty
1/15 Referenda, 14/15 Representative (Second time there was a 2nd Referendum, Ireland)

Constitution
10/27 Referenda (Planned or Held), 17/27 Representative (First time a treaty was rejected by more than one country, France; Netherlands)

Lisbon
1/27 Referenda, 26/27 Representative (Third time there will be a 2nd Refernedum, Ireland)

So this leaves us over all EU Treaties with the following number of possible Referenda:
6 + 6 + 12 + 12 + 15 + 15 + 27 + 27 = 120

And all Referenda either planned or held:
0 + 0 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 10 + 1 = 19

So in the history of the EU we have had (or planned) Referenda 15.8% of the time we could have.

I think this should hopefully prove that Representative Ratification of Treaties (84.2%) is by far and away the normal practice in the EU, and hopefully put to bed the idea that not having Referenda across Europe for Lisbon is somehow abnormal, or a precedent.

Sources:
http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Const.htm
Wikipedia
http://crossborder.practicallaw.com/3-100-9183

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

My point is that I made a comment stating that the Lisbon Treaty is self amending and you said it was not.

It is self amending to a certain degree as in all further changes to the Treaty will not have to be ratified by a referendum.

And if you read my post you would have read:


I did not say it was the main reason, but IMHO good enough to vote no. Politics in Ireland needs to be shaken up, we need action now.

I also asked you to give me one good reason to vote yes and you have been unwilling or unable to do so.

In fact the entire Yes campaign have failed to give me one good reason to vote yes.

Amendments will require the agreement of all members states, they are not going to be enforced upon us. We are voting because part of the treaty affects our constitution, it so happens that it is mixed in with is alot of other stuff that does not require a referendum for the Government to decide upon. On what planet does it make sense to hold a referendum over a change to a part of the treaty that does not affect the constitution? I don't need or want to be asked about every single minutae of EU business.

Politics here should have been shaken up at the last General Election. But I guess we will have to make do with the next one.

I see Sam has posted a nice list of reasons to vote yes.

K-9

TheZohan wrote: »

It's not a good enough reason to vote yes K-9.

Voting No will show the government that we mean business and that we want the mess that this government made of the economy sorted out now.

The above reason alone is a good enough one for me to vote No.

And a new Govt. will not touch Lisbon again and the EU isn't going to force us to hold one. Lisbon will be gone, dead.

TheZohan wrote: »

So everytime the Lisbon treaty needs to be amended the people of Ireland will not hold a referendum to ratify the changes.

That's what I thought.

Therefore I am not incorrect.

Not everytime. Everytime it affects our constitution which is why we have referenda. There really is nothing to see here.

uprising wrote: »

Point 5. Smaller commission.....This means that only two-thirds of member states will have their own commissioner at any one time, and each country will lose its commissioner for five years at a time.
Does this mean while the commissioner is away the mice can play (with the absent commissioners country)????


This mumbo jumbo of a treaty is a pile of crap that your children and theirs will curse you for voting in if it is, the legally binding agreements will be fukked out the window, your kids will be drafted into the mighty euro militia, fighting for big business, killing for the capatilists, its a fukking stepping stone to a dark place, where we cant yet see, and once the prikks get a yes we'll have no more input into our own lives.

Your Govt. changed the Commissioner proposal.

Love the last paragraph.:D

DaDumTish wrote: »

no they wont, they will be fcuked .

100%

and yes we all know the other partys want a yes vote ,
youll get it when FF are gone .

What part of No and No again do you not understand? :pac:

Even many committed Yes voters would vote No on a 3rd Referendum.

uprising

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Denmark never rejected Lisbon. That was France and Holland. Denmark had a second referendum to ratify Maastricht after the concessions were made

Concessions were made????
Section A: Citizenship
The provisions of Part Two of the Treaty establishing the European Community relating to citizenship of the Union give nationals of the Member States additional rights and protection as specified in that Part. They do not in any way take the place of national citizenship. The question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State will be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned.
NOTE: With the adoption of a similar clause applying to all member states in the Amsterdam Treaty, this opt-out is de facto meaningless.

Wonder what will happen to our concessions in a future treaty

Sam Vimes

uprising wrote: »

Concessions were made????
Section A: Citizenship
The provisions of Part Two of the Treaty establishing the European Community relating to citizenship of the Union give nationals of the Member States additional rights and protection as specified in that Part. They do not in any way take the place of national citizenship. The question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State will be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned.
NOTE: With the adoption of a similar clause applying to all member states in the Amsterdam Treaty, this opt-out is de facto meaningless.

Wonder what will happen to our concessions in a future treaty

Yes, concessions were made. The Danish people rejected the treaty, explained why, the treaty was amended until they were happy with it and they then accepted it through a referendum, as reasonable people do.

I'm not sure what your point is here....

edit: sorry I think I know what you're saying now. What they mean is that the part in the treaty of Amsterdam means the same thing as the opt-out so the opt out is no longer necessary. The opt-out effectively applies to everyone now

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

DeCoR18 wrote: »

Will vote no. Keep Ireland soverign please.

Will not vote again in my lifetime if the yes succeeds.

What are you basing your no vote on exactly?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'll be voting No. I think it's a disgrace it's being held again.

EU democracy: I may not agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it but you'll keep having to vote again until I do.

Things have changed, have you read them?

Will be voting yes this time. I hope it gets passed this time around. Will be good for us.

I think people should not be allowed vote if they know nothing about the treaty. Voting no because your parents do or the likes is not a good thing O.o

uprising

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes, concessions were made. The Danish people rejected the treaty, explained why, the treaty was amended until they were happy with it and they then accepted it through a referendum, as reasonable people do.

I'm not sure what your point is here....

Well read it again, my point being Denmark voted no first time, like us, concessions were given, denmark ratified it, concessions were later made meaningless, so can it be possible that any concession given to us now may possibly in the future be made meaningless.

Can you point out where it says our concessions/promises cannot be made meaningless in the future.

marco_polo

uprising wrote: »

Well read it again, my point being Denmark voted no first time, like us, concessions were given, denmark ratified it, concessions were later made meaningless, so can it be possible that any concession given to us now may possibly in the future be made meaningless.

Can you point out where it says our concessions/promises cannot be made meaningless in the future.

Because they voted to accept of the Amsterdam treaty?

Sure our concessions could be made meaningless at some point in the future, but not without our full agreement.

Sam Vimes

uprising wrote: »

Well read it again, my point being Denmark voted no first time, like us, concessions were given, denmark ratified it, concessions were later made meaningless, so can it be possible that any concession given to us now may possibly in the future be made meaningless.

Can you point out where it says our concessions/promises cannot be made meaningless in the future.

You missed my edit. What they mean is that the part in the treaty of Amsterdam means the same thing as the opt-out so the opt out is no longer necessary. The opt-out effectively applies to everyone now.

So the opt out was not removed, it was expanded so it applied to everyone. It was made meaningless because it was no longer an opt out, it was an opt-in that everyone signed up to

What I can point to to say our concessions will not be removed is this, from article 48.

"That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."


If they want to remove a concession, our country has to give them permission. If removing the concession would require a change to our constitution, it would require a referendum

uprising

Miriam Warm Men wrote: »

What are you basing your no vote on exactly?



Things have changed, have you read them?

Will be voting yes this time. I hope it gets passed this time around. Will be good for us.

I think people should not be allowed vote if they know nothing about the treaty. Voting no because your parents do or the likes is not a good thing O.o

So you actually fully understand every detail of this treaty, its a confusing piece of crap full of bullsh1t wording.

K-9

uprising wrote: »

Well read it again, my point being Denmark voted no first time, like us, concessions were given, denmark ratified it, concessions were later made meaningless, so can it be possible that any concession given to us now may possibly in the future be made meaningless.

Can you point out where it says our concessions/promises cannot be made meaningless in the future.

That concession became part of EU wide law. It certainly did not become meaningless as the whole EU adopted it, if anything it became more powerful.

Sam Vimes

uprising wrote: »

So you actually fully understand every detail of this treaty, its a confusing piece of crap full of bullsh1t wording.

You don't have to read it all, legal experts on both sides of the debate have read it for you. 99% of it is boring procedural changes and the 1% that is contentious has been all over the news for two years. So just read those parts and make your decision based on who makes the most compelling case and, more importantly, who's not making sh!t up like the people talking about conscription