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

oscarBravo

BluntGuy wrote: »

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

I guess that depends how you define being at the heart of Europe.

We've had a hugely popular Irish president of the European Parliament. At various times in the past, the Irish presidency of the Council has successfully negotiated treaties to conclusion. There are other examples that I can't quite bring to mind at the moment.

What's your definition of being at the heart of Europe?

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

It's not. This has been refuted so many times it's getting incredibly tiresome.

Martin 2

BluntGuy wrote: »

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

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

What about relative position. You're defining being at the "heart of Europe" as an absolute, either you're there or not, but what about our relative position, we could be close to the "heart of Europe" or far away, and then the question could be posed does voting Yes or No put us closer or further away from the "heart of Europe". Btw, I don't like this expression as it has become so cliched at this stage.

On your second point if you're going to present a figure as a fact (rather than an opinion) then really you should provide some supporting evidence.

djpbarry

rumour wrote: »

Masking our current woes under the guise of our falure to ratify the Lisbon treaty the first time is yet another cynical move.

Can you find one single quote from anyone of consequence to back up this statement? I’m guessing you can’t.

BluntGuy

Martin 2 wrote: »

What about relative position. You're defining being at the "heart of Europe" as an absolute, either you're there or not, but what about our relative position, we could be close to the "heart of Europe" or far away, and then the question could be posed does voting Yes or No put us closer or further away from the "heart of Europe". Btw, I don't like this expression as it has become so cliched at this stage.

"Heart of Europe" implies taking some kind of central role in European affairs; or some kind of increased role, what you have said is "closer to the heart of Europe" which would be a more honest argument (I still disagree with it however). The "heart of Europe" catchphrase is just being thrown around to make people believe that somehow we'll have some sort of greater influence in Europe due to voting "yes". That is quite simply untrue.

On your second point if you're going to present a figure as a fact (rather than an opinion) then really you should provide some supporting evidence.

Well, let's look at the current system:

Under the Treaty Of Nice, we have 7 votes. In essence, that gives us 2% of the overall vote. Under the present rules, 74% of the votes (as well as being supported by the majority of member states and 62% of the population) is required to pass a decision.

The weighted votes system gives Ireland (and other small nations) and relative over-representation that allows us to have more influence than we otherwise might've had.

Under the proposed Lisbon system:

A majority of countries would need to accept the treaty (55%), representing at least 65% of the population. That would now represent a qualified majority.

Under this newer system we would lose a lot of our voting weight, as voting weight would be a lot closer tied to population.

Now this makes things a lot trickier for smaller countries like Ireland to block legislation. And that's exactly what they want.

The fact that new policy areas are to shift to this system of voting, further reduces our influence on these key areas (in some cases however, that may not be a bad thing I'll admit).

Now, while the 0.8% figure has been used to showcase our degree of representation, in reality, it is likely to be slightly higher than that given the safeguards that have been built into the system.

HOWEVER, I do not see how LOSING voting power equates to putting as at "the heart of Europe" or having a stronger voice in Europe. It quite simply doesn't.

BluntGuy

K-9 wrote: »

It will not be halved.

Evidence?

BlitzKrieg

the voting system being used is called a double majority voting system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_majority)

Which requires two criteria for anything to be passed.

The 2nd criteria ignores population size.

K-9

BluntGuy wrote: »

Evidence?

Your own post and this:

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

the voting system being used is called a double majority voting system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_majority)

Which requires two criteria for anything to be passed.

The 2nd criteria ignores population size.

rumour

djpbarry wrote: »

Can you find one single quote from anyone of consequence to back up this statement? I’m guessing you can’t.

It has been insinuated numerous times in the media and I'm not trolling through the net to please you. I note your cavaet of including 'anyone of consequence'.

A nice little bit of typical political squirming, as you well know what I have said has been brandied about over the last year.

djpbarry

rumour wrote: »

It has been insinuated numerous times in the media and I'm not trolling through the net to please you.

I’ll take that as the ‘No’ I was expecting.

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

It has been insinuated numerous times in the media and I'm not trolling through the net to please you.

I’ll take that as the ‘No’ I was expecting.

I'd have to second that. We've had references for the claim that conscription was brought up as an issue - surely, if the line about the recession being caused the No vote is being used by anyone of interest, it should be easy enough to demonstrate? I haven't actually seen it demonstrated, I have to say, although it appears to be a common belief amongst No proponents that it's being used.

I'd accept insinuations or implications, but naturally reserve the right to determine for myself whether they are in fact inferences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd have to second that. We've had references for the claim that conscription was brought up as an issue - surely, if the line about the recession being caused the No vote is being used by anyone of interest, it should be easy enough to demonstrate? I haven't actually seen it demonstrated, I have to say, although it appears to be a common belief amongst No proponents that it's being used.

I'd accept insinuations or implications, but naturally reserve the right to determine for myself whether they are in fact inferences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

did a few quick googles

havnt found any references to anyone saying it.

But I have found news reports saying opinion of Lisbon has changed because of the recession

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0601/1224247818187.html


http://www.cafebabel.com/inc/article/28997/lisbon-treaty-recession-ireland-treaty-eurozone.html

From what I can tell, the opinion that a lisbon 2 yes vote will save us from a recession is an opinion developed from the dramatic irish times poll changes.

Which makes sense in a *what is everyone talking about* and *what has changed* to explain why such a dramatic change.


We do have this wonderful article from indymedia from the first referendum with the title

voting no to lisbon: to avoid the collapse of economy

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87857

So...

Not only can I not find anything blaming the recession on a lisbon *no* vote I can even find one article with a title that nods and winks that the first *no* vote would have saved our economy.

Course the article itself fails to deliver on an answer, but thats a whole other thread.

Though I found another word for EU elite...*the political class*

heh

funny...

BluntGuy

djpbarry wrote: »

Can you find one single quote from anyone of consequence to back up this statement? I’m guessing you can’t.

Luckily, I can:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0915/breaking38.html

Even Enda Kenny, (obviously) a supporter of the Lisbon Treaty, said it was basically crap:

He added: "All the Government seems to be able to do is congratulate itself - in advance - for tough actions they haven't yet taken, and they'd never have needed to take if they'd done their job well enough in the first place.

"They also do something else. They blame everything and everybody in the world for their problems. The economic meltdown is all the fault of external circumstances."

The No vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum was the Government's latest excuse for our economic difficulties. "The blunt fact is that none of that is true."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0918/1221689952883.html

I assume Cowen is a person of enough "consequence" for you.

PopeBuckfastXVI

BluntGuy wrote: »

Luckily, I can:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0915/breaking38.html

Even Enda Kenny, (obviously) a supporter of the Lisbon Treaty, said it was basically crap:



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0918/1221689952883.html

I assume Cowen is a person of enough "consequence" for you.

Actually what you've done there is quote a person of consequence stating that voting 'No' to Lisbon, did not ruin our economy.

If you found the source of whatever Kenny was referring to, it would be game, set and match to you

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd have to second that. We've had references for the claim that conscription was brought up as an issue - surely, if the line about the recession being caused the No vote is being used by anyone of interest, it should be easy enough to demonstrate? I haven't actually seen it demonstrated, I have to say, although it appears to be a common belief amongst No proponents that it's being used.

I'd accept insinuations or implications, but naturally reserve the right to determine for myself whether they are in fact inferences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Haven't seen them either. Have seen references to a Yes vote In Spain on a Constitution that never came into place, causing unemployment though!

BlitzKrieg

be nice if you quoted cowen http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking38.html

At this afternoon’s session in Galway, the party will examine Ireland’s place in Europe in the aftermath of the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.

“We failed to address some people’s genuinely held concerns and we failed to get the message through that a rejection of the Treaty could exacerbate the already tough economic situation we find ourselves in,” Mr Cowen said today.

BluntGuy

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually what you've done there is quote a person of consequence stating that voting 'No' to Lisbon, did not ruin our economy.

If you found the source of whatever Kenny was referring to, it would be game, set and match to you

Cowen links economic difficulty to Lisbon rejection

Taoiseach Brian Cowen said today it was “increasingly obvious” to him that the current economic difficulties and the political dilemma posed by the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty were linked.

Check out the first link.

PopeBuckfastXVI

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

be nice if you quoted cowen http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking38.html

Can you give the date of the article please... no login for the times

BlitzKrieg

september 15 2008

Bluntguy's link works, mine for some reason doesnt.

rumour

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ll take that as the ‘No’ I was expecting.

Your point being?

If you assume what I am saying is untrue you must therefore agree, that the no vote to the Lisbon Treaty had no negative implications for our economy nor will a 'no' vote in the future?

BluntGuy

K-9 wrote: »

Haven't seen them either. Have seen references to a Yes vote In Spain on a Constitution that never came into place, causing unemployment though!

Since demanding references is a running theme in this thread, I demand some references! I have actually never seen any to be pretty honest.

BlitzKrieg

If you assume what I am saying is untrue you must therefore agree, that the no vote to the Lisbon Treaty had no negative implications for our economy nor will a 'no' vote in the future?

its almost as if the economy is the only thing that matters...

PopeBuckfastXVI

BluntGuy wrote: »

Check out the first link.

Cheers,

Cowen is such a fool... :rolleyes:

BlitzKrieg

BluntGuy wrote: »

Since demanding references is a running theme in this thread, I demand some references! I have actually never seen any to be pretty honest.

actually thats a low dig at futuretaoiseach cause he repeatable brings up this issue and it is sort of a running joke by now.

PopeBuckfastXVI

BluntGuy wrote: »

Since demanding references is a running theme in this thread, I demand some references! I have actually never seen any to be pretty honest.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=7857855

K-9

BluntGuy wrote: »

Since demanding references is a running theme in this thread, I demand some references! I have actually never seen any to be pretty honest.

No bothers, I'll dig it out later. A poster on here uses it continuously and another poster used it today. I suppose if you repeat something often enough!

BlitzKrieg

no worries K9 got it right here for the lols

Futuretaoiseacht's spanish unemployment is the result of the EU constitution post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61243434&postcount=22

The near doubling of Spanish unemployment since their yes vote to the EU Constitution in 2005 does not inspire confidence that a voting for Lisbon will bring an economic divident to help us to economic safe-harbour.

BluntGuy

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Cowen is such a fool... :rolleyes:

Indeed.

A truly pathetic attempt to exempt himself from any blame for the economic disaster.

BluntGuy

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Futuretaoiseacht's spanish unemployment is the result of the EU constitution post

I certainly wouldn't agree with that. There's no connection between the two.

However, it just goes to prove that arguments like:

Ireland's economic misery is due to not ratifying Lisbon.
Ireland's economy will be in peril if we don't ratify Lisbon.

... are bogus.

We may be slightly better or worse off depending on the result, but Lisbon is neither going to be the magic cure for our economic woes nor the bomb that blows our economy to bits, regardless of how people vote.

BlitzKrieg

I would agree with you. personnally the economic consequences would be a very minor element in my reasoning on my Lisbon vote.

But when you consider that a large number of posters see (or want to see) the EU as a purely economic organisation, you can understand how it becomes the lynchpin of all issues.

rumour

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

its almost as if the economy is the only thing that matters...

The Irish economyand our population of 1% of europe should not matter,however the proponents of a yes vote appear to use any tool available to secure a yes vote.

It is all but impossible to debate whether or not the responsibility of giving a democratic tag to this treaty is for the betterment of Europe as a whole. Instead it is entirely centered around disproving and riducling the previous 'no' vote.

I understand this treaty does not confer anything additional to Ireland, in summary we are loosing. However is it democratically justifiable that we should be represented above our 1% of the population and if so at whose expense?

I think to argue on these grounds is to much like being honest and God forbid trusting the electorate to do the right thing. However the advocates of the 'yes' vote are so self serving and ingrained with manipulating the electorate as evidenced by the management of our economy that the whole debacle is hardly surprising.

Today on Newstalk the dissenting Fianna Fail TD let it slip that he believe's the IMF are on their way anyway. If that is the 'behind the scenes' view in the back benches of Fianna Fail a 'yes' vote will make little or no difference to the economy or our country as it will essentially be foreign owned.

I think it is curious that the majority of yes campaigners come from groups that can legally take money away from you. Whereas the 'no' groups appear to be either independently weathy or poor. Does anyone agree with that generalisation?