If Ireland does indeed get bullied into accepting the Lisbon treaty...

Furious-Dave

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Recently? I'd say since 1922 tbh. That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't govern ourselves, we just need to do it better.

Fascism I tells ya! For about 10 years. That will straighten everything out. :pac:

tlev

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we need a 3rd party to govern us either I'm merely pointing out the complete ineptitude of the current party . The sad thing is a don't really have faith in any of the other parties doing much better either...actually maybe we should outsource our politicians :rolleyes::rolleyes:, I wonder how much it would take to get Obama :D

seamus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is basically my other main reason for opposing (apart from the loss of national sovereignty, that our country should be governed by, and ONLY by the Irish citizens).

Personally I believe that home government is wasted in a lot of areas that could very easily be harmonised across the EU and be run by EU departments with separate "branch offices" in each country distinct from that country's government.

Just to take one example - the food safety authority. This is effectively governed by the Department of Health. But surely food safety is food safety whether you're in Ireland or Denmark? So why is this an authority under local remit? Why not make the food safety authority an independent function under the European Department of Health, reporting to and funded by the EU? The the Minister for health and her staff can forget about having to deal with this at all and give more focus to more pressing issues.

There hundreds of such bodies and departments which we don't need to run ourselves and by having a relevant EU department which runs each of these functions in every state of the EU, then you get some semblance of harmonisation of standards across these bodies and functions.

That allows our own government to massively downsize and focus our monies and energies on areas that really matter - such as the IFSRA.

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

... Just to take one example - the food safety authority. This is effectively governed by the Department of Health. But surely food safety is food safety whether you're in Ireland or Denmark? So why is this an authority under local remit? Why not make the food safety authority an independent function under the European Department of Health, reporting to and funded by the EU? The the Minister for health and her staff can forget about having to deal with this at all and give more focus to more pressing issues.

There hundreds of such bodies and departments which we don't need to run ourselves and by having a relevant EU department which runs each of these functions in every state of the EU, then you get some semblance of harmonisation of standards across these bodies and functions....

We do actually have a bit of that, in the setting of European standards for many products and services, including food safety. We adopt (sometimes adapt) European standards, but have local enforcement; the local enforcement bit is necessary, as we couldn't have our inspectors working out of Bologna or Oporto.

Let me remind you of where it gets us. We get some decent evidence-based standards; we get some political gamesmanship (for example, rows about the making of cheese with unpasteurised milk); we provide ammunition for Eurosceptics (real issues about defining sausages; myths about straight bananas); we get conflict about policy on GMOs.

I agree with the essence of what you propose: we should minimise duplication of costly exercises where it is feasible to pool our efforts and resources. I think that lies more in the realm of setting standards than in enforcement.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

The only independent possibility of a refusal was Germany, but their constitutional court gave Lisbon a clean bill of health.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not quite true, The German Court still halt the Ratification by preventing the German president signing of Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty until the German Parliament put in safeguards/Conditions recommended by the Court. The German Government is now under pressure to get it done before their elections in October.

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

Not quite true, The German Court still halt the Ratification by preventing the German president signing of Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty until the German Parliament put in safeguards/Conditions recommended by the Court. The German Government is now under pressure to get it done before their elections in October.

You are both right, the court ruled that there is nothing in Lisbon that is incompatable with German law, but ratification is being held untill legislation the German granting parlimentary bodies more power over future changes and amendments.

But trust me Scofflaw knows all this already

limklad

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Fascism I tells ya! For about 10 years. That will straighten everything out. :pac:

Yea, they are currently known as Fianna Failers and their dodgy leader shown here in business dealing is shown here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3vEOSkk5AM :eek:

KINGVictor

marco_polo wrote: »

You are both right, the court ruled that there is nothing in Lisbon that is incompatable with German law, but ratification is being held untill legislation the German granting parlimentary bodies more power over future changes and amendments.

But trust me Scofflaw knows all this already

This is so perplexing ....what reasearch have you personally carried out.Scoff has done his and has come to conclusions based on his own understanding.For you and others to continually revert to Scoff knows...scoff is a always right ...crap is absolute rubbish.He may be right but it is very lazy to counter other peoples post based on one person's conclusion..Educate us on your own findings.

Mario007

KINGVictor wrote: »

This is so perplexing ....what reasearch have you personally carried out.Scoff has done his and has come to conclusions based on his own understanding.For you and others to continually revert to Scoff knows...scoff is a always right ...crap is absolute rubbish.He may be right but it is very lazy to counter other peoples post based on one person's conclusion..Educate us on your own findings.

i think what he means is that scoff, as you said, always does his research and thus knows the facts and is pretty much 100% right when it comes to facts and no one can dispute that. its almost like referring to the news report you've seen on tv.

but the thing about the german court is pretty much well known anyway and doing your research does actually tell you this same fact

marco_polo

KINGVictor wrote: »

This is so perplexing ....what reasearch have you personally carried out.Scoff has done his and has come to conclusions based on his own understanding.For you and others to continually revert to Scoff knows...scoff is a always right ...crap is absolute rubbish.He may be right but it is very lazy to counter other peoples post based on one person's conclusion..Educate us on your own findings.

Whoa boy

What Limlad said "The German Court still halt the Ratification by preventing the German president signing of Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty until the German Parliament put in safeguards/Conditions recommended by the Court. The German Government is now under pressure to get it done before their elections in October."

And I meerly suggested out, tongue somewhat in cheek, that Scoff would probably know this already.

As for the rest of my post if my understanding is incorrect or incomplete in some ways then by all means enlighten me.

While I may not have time to read the full judgement, From the half a dozen or so articles I have read I think I have got the major theme of the judgement about right.

There just a good article from the Irish Times that I posted a few pages back if you want to have a look.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

Not quite true, The German Court still halt the Ratification by preventing the German president signing of Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty until the German Parliament put in safeguards/Conditions recommended by the Court. The German Government is now under pressure to get it done before their elections in October.

I can't quite agree. The German court found nothing in Lisbon that conflicted with German Basic Law (amongst other interesting findings), but also found that their internal democratic controls were not strong enough to properly implement the provisions of the Basic Law when dealing with the EU.

Specifically, they found that the German government could not by itself give up vetoes in the 'passerelle' clauses, but required a vote of the parliament(s). Essentially, that's a judgement that giving up vetoes is something requiring a ratification-like step. It's by no means unreasonable, and hardly paints Lisbon as unhealthy, since once those conditions are fulfilled, the court has no issues with it, and it does not consider the passerelle clauses themselves repugnant, only the mechanism by which the government proposed to act on them.

Something worth considering is that the proposed Amendment we'll be voting on in October contains a very similar mechanism to that required by the German court:

The new subsection 12° provides for the State to avail of certain options and discretions and to agree to certain legal acts under the Treaty on foot of the prior approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It updates the provisions inserted in relation to the Treaties of Amsterdam and of Nice covering those situations where, because the discretion exists to opt into a given action, Irish participation is not deemed to be legally ‘‘necessitated’’ by Union membership. This subsection provides for the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas for the exercise of options and discretions referred to therein. Some of the provisions, relating to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, are specific to Ireland while others, relating to ‘‘enhanced co-operation’’, are relevant to all twenty-seven Member States.

In other words, our government's proposed mechanism for activating the relevant passerelles is already as strong as the German requirement laid down by the court.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is basically my other main reason for opposing (apart from the loss of national sovereignty, that our country should be governed by, and ONLY by the Irish citizens).

To point out the obvious, it is perfectly valid for the electorate to decide to pool/transfer sovereignty to either the EU or international bodies, such as the ICC, if they believe it is in their best interest.

Your belief, founded as it is on fundamental opposition to such decisions by the electorate, is in effect based on denying the electorate their sovereign right to participate in such international bodies should they so choose.

P. Breathnach

View wrote: »

To point out the obvious, it is perfectly valid for the electorate to decide to pool/transfer sovereignty to either the EU or international bodies, such as the ICC, if they believe it is in their best interest...

It's interesting to note where people draw lines. I cede personal sovereignty to the state, where it is pooled with that of the rest of the citizenry, and used to the benefit of all (in theory, and usually in practice). Those of us who are married or in similar relationships also participate in sovereignty-pooling. A business partnership involves sovereignty pooling.

What is so sacrosanct about the idea of Ireland that we have to have a sovereignty frontier? I identify also with Europe and, indeed, with humanity.

Anyway, we have already traded sovereignty in many areas through a raft of international treaties and through accepting international conventions.

Maintenance of sovereignty is not a principle; it's a tactic.

PopeBuckfastXVI

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's interesting to note where people draw lines. I cede personal sovereignty to the state, where it is pooled with that of the rest of the citizenry, and used to the benefit of all (in theory, and usually in practice). Those of us who are married or in similar relationships also participate in sovereignty-pooling. A business partnership involves sovereignty pooling.

What is so sacrosanct about the idea of Ireland that we have to have a sovereignty frontier? I identify also with Europe and, indeed, with humanity.

Anyway, we have already traded sovereignty in many areas through a raft of international treaties and through accepting international conventions.

Maintenance of sovereignty is not a principle; it's a tactic.

Get ready to duck P. I can see a few misplaced references to Hobbes & Rousseau being flung in your direction...

P. Breathnach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Get ready to duck P. I can see a few misplaced references to Hobbes & Rousseau being flung in your direction...

It's all right: I donned full body armour before posting.

rumour

starbelgrade wrote: »

Democracy is a myth & wasted on the foolish who don't know what's good for them . Frankly, I'd prefer a good, honest dictatorship with a real vision, just to see if it makes any diference.

Vote YES. Seems at least on the right route to deliverying!!

ButcherBoiz

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm sorry but I define being told "vote yes or you're screwed" as bullying to be honest - it's not true and is simply a form of coercive propaganda.

^Are you basically saying that if we pass it the last remaining objecting countries will also agree to pass it?

And McCreevey has already stated that he believes most countries would have rejected it if their electorate's had a say in whether it got passed or not. The illusion of democracy which you are trying to present is and always has been fundamentally flawed.

In Ireland for example, there was no party you could have voted for which would have both been big enough to form a majority in government and opposed the Lisbon treaty. Things like this are issues in which representative democracy just isn't enough. The people deserve a direct say in what's going on. Which is in fact one of my reasons for being generally apprehensive of handing over power to the EU. It gives the people even less control over their own country.

Please, pretty please tell me that you are not appealing to the authority of a rocket-scientist like Charlie McCreevey in order to establish an argument. Next you'll be appealing to the wisdom of George W. Bush. How do these people get into positions of power... oh yes, that's right, 'democracy'.

At least you are voting nooooooo.

I cannot believe that several very active posters in this forum are soooo enamored with these muppets and talking heads, as if that would convince a majority to vote for or against Lisbon.

Now really, the people who are desperate to do their little bit for a yes vote, might well be characterised as a 'middle-class', terrified of the hard times ahead.... and who would sell their granny for promised of european funding. I really can not get the mindset. And btw, most people who think of themselves as being in a cozy middle-class are a joke. In the States, if you own a bank you are considered "upper middle-class". A job in an office and a pension makes you Joe Soap. So while all of our money (and future income) is being poured into banks (privately owned by the super-rich) don't think that being a good little pro-European will bring any money back your way.

Rant over.

Unfortunately, I will be bowing out of the discussions for at least a week. But as you know who says: I'll be back!

K-9

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Please, pretty please tell me that you are not appealing to the authority of a rocket-scientist like Charlie McCreevey in order to establish an argument. Next you'll be appealing to the wisdom of George W. Bush. How do these people get into positions of power... oh yes, that's right, 'democracy'.

At least you are voting nooooooo.

I cannot believe that several very active posters in this forum are soooo enamored with these muppets and talking heads, as if that would convince a majority to vote for or against Lisbon.

Now really, the people who are desperate to do their little bit for a yes vote, might well be characterised as a 'middle-class', terrified of the hard times ahead.... and who would sell their granny for promised of european funding. I really can not get the mindset. And btw, most people who think of themselves as being in a cozy middle-class are a joke. In the States, if you own a bank you are considered "upper middle-class". A job in an office and a pension makes you Joe Soap. So while all of our money (and future income) is being poured into banks (privately owned by the super-rich) don't think that being a good little pro-European will bring any money back your way.

Rant over.

Unfortunately, I will be bowing out of the discussions for at least a week. But as you know who says: I'll be back!

Well there isn't much to discuss in there.

We might get back to a debate on the Referendum by the time you are back.

ButcherBoiz

K-9 wrote: »

Well there isn't much to discuss in there.

We might get back to a debate on the Referendum by the time you are back.

Sorry K-9 from Donegal, but I did acknowledge that it was merely meant as a rant (doesn't everyone do that from time to time, being merely human?).

K-9

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Sorry K-9 from Donegal, but I did acknowledge that it was merely meant as a rant (doesn't everyone do that from time to time, being merely human?).

Yep. It was a mindless rant.

BlitzKrieg

sadly politics are not allowed on the ranting and raving forum.

ButcherBoiz

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

sadly politics are not allowed on the ranting and raving forum.

Cool customers! Tell me, do ye ever get hot under the collar?

BlitzKrieg

I havnt used the ranting and raving forum, but yes I have gotten hot under the collar recently, but it has nothing to do with politics, but a personal issue.

Scofflaw

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Cool customers! Tell me, do ye ever get hot under the collar?

People do, and then cold water is liberally applied. The idea is to have a discussion without rudeness and aggression, and to try to avoid the pantomime "yes it is, no it isn't" games that take place elsewhere under the guise of political discussion. It isn't to everyone's taste, admittedly, but then neither is bare-knuckle boxing.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ButcherBoiz

Scofflaw wrote: »

People do, and then cold water is liberally applied. The idea is to have a discussion without rudeness and aggression, and to try to avoid the pantomime "yes it is, no it isn't" games that take place elsewhere under the guise of political discussion. It isn't to everyone's taste, admittedly, but then neither is bare-knuckle boxing.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Man, how did you get time to make thousands of posts. You should get a euro for each one. Why do you put up with it?

demakinz

SCOFFLAW can you give me a few reasons to vote yes?

ButcherBoiz

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I havnt used the ranting and raving forum, but yes I have gotten hot under the collar recently, but it has nothing to do with politics, but a personal issue.

it just hit me, you're a seasoned veteran at this. :rolleyes:

BluntGuy

If Ireland does accept the treaty we'll be "at the heart of Europe".

That's apparently what we've been told.

Funny, I find it hard to see how we'll be at "the heart of Europe", when:

1) We've NEVER been at the heart of Europe

2) Our voting power is to be halved (to 0.8%)

rumour

I have got to agree with you there. Any idea that we are at the heart of europe or ever were, is such utter nonsense that I cannot take seriously anyone who cites that particular reason.

This is where sceptism then comes in. Either these people are clueless (in which case why should I belive them) or they are cynically treating the voters as stupid idiots to be manipulated. If the later is the case I certainly I have to think why?

The biggest advoctaes are the ones with most to loose, usually public servants. With no meaningful or adequate private sector left in this country (meaning taxes cannot be extracted at will) we are being told this will save us (or it is economical suicide not to vote yes). Masking our current woes under the guise of our falure to ratify the Lisbon treaty the first time is yet another cynical move.

The country was buggered by the same class of people who now tell us we will be at the 'heart of europe'. Anybody who believes this has a serious analytical deficiency.

K-9

BluntGuy wrote: »

If Ireland does accept the treaty we'll be "at the heart of Europe".

That's apparently what we've been told.

Funny, I find it hard to see how we'll be at "the heart of Europe", when:

1) We've NEVER been at the heart of Europe

2) Our voting power is to be halved (to 0.8%)

It will not be halved.