Ryanair backs yes vote

Jim236

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

He already supported Lisbon last year. No doubt Ryanair will profit from the provisions in Lisbon to increase cheap labour in the economy, such as Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which allows asylum-seekers to work by declaring that "everyone has the right to work".

Pure scaremongering here. Under current treaties all citizens of the EU are entitled to freedom of movement within the EU, but the Irish government still manages to impose work permits on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens, and so limits the amount of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens that can enter Ireland. So your arguement is flawed. Agreeing to Lisbon will not blow open the doors of immigration for everyone to travel to Ireland and be entitled to work here at the expense of the Irish citizen.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No doubt Ryanair welcome the provisions of the proposed Article 29.4.7 (para 7 of the 28th Amendment to the Constiotion Bill 2009) of the Irish Constitution which will allow the Government (with Oireachtas consent) to take us into the Schengen Area, abolishing passport checks on travel between 25 countries and Ireland. The agenda behind Lisbon is the race to the bottom and cheap-labour - just like Nice (which I foolishly voted for twice).

Again, more scaremongering. If Ireland entered Schengen after Lisbon, it might abolish passport checks between the other 25 EU countries, but it would result in increased security and passport checks for anyone travelling to the UK because the UK refuses to join Schengen, and as long as the border exists with the North, Ireland won't either because you know no Irish person(either side of the border) will tolerate border checks for travelling across to the North.

Not just that, but your arguement it would benefit Ryanair is bullsh*t. Around 5 of Ryanair's 10 busiest routes are ones between the UK and Ireland, any measures that would result in more security and passport checks for travelling between the countries would damage Ryanair's operations. Its not just Ryanair who'd be badly effected but every airline travelling between Britain and Ireland. There are also flights between Cork and Belfast which would be subject to extra passport and security checks, which would only serve to benefit the Unionist agenda who argue the border is here to stay, and I really doubt the Irish government would do anything that increases the perception of the North as being 'foreign'.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Get over this hang-up about Britain. Yes - we were oppressed and we fought for 700 years to get our independence. But we were fighting for independence - not to join some Euro-empire instead. The GFA means that NI is sorted, so the basis for the Anglo-Irish quarrel is over.

Firstly, wtf has the last 800 years and the North got to do with anything? Thats completely irrelevant here. Ireland is not like Britain, we are pro-European, pro-EU and generally pro-immigration and unlike countries like Britain and the Czech Republic we're not staunchly eurosceptic. By being Britain's nearest neighbour, by voting No we're sending the message to other EU countries that we're like them, that we're as eurosceptic and anti-EU as they are. And by voting No we're also sending the message to Britain we want to forge a closer relationship with them, which we don't.

Its nothing to do with the past, its nothing to do with the North(which isn't sorted btw as the border still exists), its about being different and being seen as being different.

Its not that long ago that Irish MEPs used to speak French in meetings in order not be associated with British MEPs.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

For someone who is so concerned about us not wanting to fall under British sway, you seem awfully keen on a Treaty that would give them not merely sway over us in terms of political-views, but would give the Brits actual power over this country on the Council of Ministers with respect to the 60 areas where the national veto is abolished. Which is worse - being on the same side as someone, or having them passing laws for you? :rolleyes:

Thats a fair arguement and one of the reasons I voted No last year. But I disagree with your spin on it. Britain alone doesn't have enough of a majority to impose any laws on Ireland and would need the support of a lot of other member states. Theres nothing to stop Ireland getting the support of other member states to counter laws proposed by Britain. So again your arguement is flawed.

But I don't think any member state should be forced into passing a law they don't agree with, and would otherwise veto if given the power to do so.

asti_mivec

I haven't read all of this thread due to time constraints but I have read enough to see the same common themes running through it as in pretty much every other thread RE: the Lisbon Treaty on boards and any other fora for that matter.

I am voting NO, for several reasons (and YES, I do understand the treaty and it scares the bejesus out of me that so many people are thinking that we should vote Yes because it "makes sense")

I am afraid that the amount of Yes siders who keep the same mantra of "people are only voting No because they don't understand the treaty" is really starting to annoy the sh!t out of me.

Lets get one thing clear please....If WE vote NO again, we will not be ousted from the EU.

The above is the most important thing I have to say as so many people are comparing voting no with leaving the EU altogether and that is simply not right.

Of course O Leary is voting Yes. It is in the benefit of all big businesses to get (and no doubt there are plenty of perks promised for such ones that publicly side with the govt, but that's for another thread!!!) to get the treaty ratified.

I think there are a lot of good ideas in the treaty which can be adopted in a new treaty when this one fails for the 3rd time! By voting No we are simply using Democracy to give us a chance to fight for a better deal.

The treaty is not all bad, nor is it anywhere near all good (particularly from a civil rights and social perspective) but we don't need to settle for it.

We are the only ones in Europe with a say and too many people are attempting to make people afraid to use that right to democracy.

Vote no, suggest the best points to your MEPS, TD's, whoever you see canvassing and let's do it properly (ie. the way WE want) in true democratic fashion and don't let people misguide you by suggesting that there's something wrong with you for wanting to make the best choice (whether it be left/right or somewhere in the middle looking for the best of both worlds!!!)

We are being given the chance to make changes like we all keep saying we want to do so lets take the chance and do something!!!

An Fear Aniar

thebman wrote: »

Jesus there are still a lot of people voting no it seems :-/

And most still don't seem to know why

You reckon? Just because someone has a different opinion you think it's because they don't have all the facts or are too stupid to decide something for themselves?

.

Johnnnybravo

amacachi wrote: »

Nice. You said that due to the campaign you won't be flying with Ryanair again, I'm asking that since the IFA are also campaigning for a "yes" vote would you by the same logic not buy produce from IFA members, simple yes or no answer really.

I WILL BE BUYING IFA PRODUCE

I WILL NOT BE FLYING WITH RYANAIR. My main issue with ryanair is my hatred of M o leary and his fukn PR stunts.

A lot of my freinds are voting yes doesnt mean I stop talking to them.

for fuk sake we dont all have to agree on everything do we???

biko

ei.sdraob wrote: »

once again do you have one reason to vote NO that has anything to do with Lisbon and doesn't involve a lie or a paranoid delusion?

"It's far from Dublin to Brussels but even further from Brussels to Dublin".
By this I mean that the treaty will be used to centralise power in Europe even more than today and even more divide the working from the "owning" class.

Many seem to think EU will disown Ireland for turning the treaty down again but how would that even be possible? There is no current process to leave the union. I guess we could just roll back all Irish laws stating we are a part of EU.

Oh and that the Brits will want to bring Ireland back into the realm again sounds like manure to me. Both UK and Ireland are still in the EU, before and after this vote, that's not changing.

Jim236

Magnus wrote: »

Oh and that the Brits will want to bring Ireland back into the realm again sounds like manure to me. Both UK and Ireland are still in the EU, before and after this vote, that's not changing.

When did anyone argue us voting No would mean it'd lead to us becoming part of the UK or 'British Empire' again?

javaboy

Jim236 wrote: »

When did anyone argue us voting No would mean it'd lead to us becoming part of the UK or 'British Empire' again?

It's a ridiculous scaremongering notion with absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever........... of course somebody argued it on one side or the other.

biko

Jim236 wrote: »

When did anyone argue us voting No would mean it'd lead to us becoming part of the UK or 'British Empire' again?

Here:

Rebelheart wrote: »

Irish people are seriously delusional if they think it is smart to vote against Lisbon. Waiting in the wings is the most anti-Irish group the Irish people have ever known: British nationalists/eurosceptics. With their daily weapons, the Oirish tabloids, they are impatient with the thought of recreating what they call the "British Isles" where the Irish give up on their thoughts of independence and get into their "proper" position as a mere regional identity of the English state that is currently named the United Kingdom. Did anybody else see their delight when we voted 'No'? As if, all of a sudden, a 'No' vote meant a vote in favour of British rule in Ireland. That was a warning shot for me anyway. I didn't vote then; this time I will definitely vote, and vote 'Yes'.

An Fear Aniar

Magnus wrote: »

Oh and that the Brits will want to bring Ireland back into the realm again sounds like manure to me. Both UK and Ireland are still in the EU, before and after this vote, that's not changing.

It's a ridiculous suggestion. Britain is just about keeping it together as it is, without adding more territory.

.

sneakerfreak

the brits would dump the north in a second if it was of no use to them

theyre not stupid,they dont keep land for no good reason

King of Kings

Michael O'Leary wants us to vote yes.

reminds me of the simpsons when Lenny said something along the lines of "Burns is doing it, rich people always have our best interests at heart"

O'Leary is a cock.
I'm voting no - but for reasons other than O'leary

Jim236

Magnus wrote: »

Here:

Rebelheart wrote:

Irish people are seriously delusional if they think it is smart to vote against Lisbon. Waiting in the wings is the most anti-Irish group the Irish people have ever known: British nationalists/eurosceptics. With their daily weapons, the Oirish tabloids, they are impatient with the thought of recreating what they call the "British Isles" where the Irish give up on their thoughts of independence and get into their "proper" position as a mere regional identity of the English state that is currently named the United Kingdom. Did anybody else see their delight when we voted 'No'? As if, all of a sudden, a 'No' vote meant a vote in favour of British rule in Ireland. That was a warning shot for me anyway. I didn't vote then; this time I will definitely vote, and vote 'Yes'.

Fair enough I didn't read all of Rebelheart's reply, but I do partly agree with what he says, whereby us voting No will send out all the wrong messages to not just other EU countries but the eurosceptic, anti-EU, far-right, anti-immigration Brits in particular who have already regarded our No vote last June as a vote against the EU and a signal of Ireland wanting closer ties with Britain to go against the EU agenda. With the British Conservatives set to take power in Britain soon, I think by us voting No again in October will mean an uncomfortably close relationship with Britain that the Irish people don't want or need, and more importantly the perception of the country being seen as "the same as Britain", anti-EU, eurosceptic etc etc.

For all the cons of the Lisbon Treaty, I think its worth voting Yes just to avoid our country being put in the same boat as those looneys in Britain and the Czech Republic.

Red Sleeping Beauty

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you do realize that referendums are illegal in some EU countries


like Germany where they were last used by Hitler to .. well if you ever read a history book you know what ...

Congratulations on proving Godwin's law

can you even come up with one reason to vote NO that actually has anything to do with the treaty?


no?? didn't thinks so!

please go to the European politics forum to gather more information and some education

same on you

/

Increased militarisation, increased spending/investment and research for the weapons of mass destruction. It's a cosy headline that this increased militarisation is for peace keeping missions but the reality is that the armaments industry is getting a shoe in the door here and that's wrong.




That's in Article 28 or is it Article 17 ? or is it 42 ?
There's another reason, the damn thing is unintelligible purposefully to deceive because it's essentially the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0013:0045:EN:PDF

SECTION 2

PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY

Article 42

(ex Article 17 TEU)

...
...
3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as "the European Defence Agency") shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00014.en07.pdf

‘SECTION 2

PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY’



49) An Article 28 A shall be inserted, taking over the wording of Article 17, with the following amendments:

(a) the following new paragraph 1 shall be inserted and the next paragraph shall be renumbered 2:
1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.’;






(b) paragraph 1, renumbered 2, shall be amended as follows:

(i) the first subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:
2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.’;






(ii) in the second subparagraph, the words ‘in accordance with this Article’ shall be replaced by ‘in accordance with this Section’;



(iii) the third subparagraph shall be deleted.







(c) the present paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be replaced by the following paragraphs 3 to 7:
3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

4. Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

5. The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 28 C.

6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 28 E. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 28 B.

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.’

And this below also may be of relevance

DECLARATION BY THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL On THE ENHANCEMENT OF
THE EUROPEAN SECURITY AnD DEFENCE POLICY (ESDP)

Page 17, chapter 5 :

Restructuring of the European defence technological and industrial base, in particular around
centres of European excellence, avoiding duplication, in order to ensure its soundness and its
competitiveness, is a strategic and economic necessity. It calls for a strengthening of corporate
governance mechanisms, for an increased research and technology drive and for making the
European armaments market more dynamic. In this connection, the European Council calls
for early finalisation of the Directives on intra-Community transfer of defence goods and on
defence procurement.

Riddle101

Didn't Ireland vote no to the Nice Treaty the first time we voted? And then in the second vote it was passed. It seems to me like history is repeating itself again.

Anyway in relation to the people saying the opposide side is just scaremongering. In all fairness both sides are guilty of scaremongering so it dosen't do the argument any better if you insist people are scaremongering. The truth is, people are scared. They're scared of what will happen if Lisbon is passed and I think it's in good measure as well. Ireland has been backed into a corner. Either way Ireland dosen't seem to have much luck with Lisbon. I only hope things will work out because I sure as hell won't be sticking around any longer if things go to sh!t.

K-9

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Congratulations on proving Godwin's law

Doesn't apply in this case as it is relevant to why referenda are not allowed in some countries.

Germany and Italy don't allow them on international treaties for some strange reason!

thebman

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You reckon? Just because someone has a different opinion you think it's because they don't have all the facts or are too stupid to decide something for themselves?

.

No whenever asked why they are voting no they give no answer or reply with something that isn't in the treaty.

That is stoopid. I don't think I've heard a proper reason for voting no yet.

limklad

If Ryanair is involved then you never get what you, they fly way of the mark. The Closest Ryanair fly to Lisbon is 132miles to Faro in the south coast.

I have no doubt O'Leary is getting far more in return for his support, because with or without Lisbon Ryanair will still fly to the cheapest destinations and if you are lucky with the lotto wins you might land close to where you want to go. The Main reason is to get the EU Commission of their backs for subsidies Ryanair received from Airports and attempt to gain control of Aer Lingus.
http://resources.bnet.com/topic/brussels+and+commission+and+ryanair.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/innovationNews/idUSBFA00042220070627
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/02/03/story259524857.asp
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/eu-may-close-ryanair-site-over-pricing-irregularities-1218785.html

eubusiness.com O'Leary Interview wrote:

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/ireland-ryanair.7r

"Ireland must vote 'Yes to Europe' on 2nd October; otherwise our economic future will be destroyed by government and civil service mismanagement and the narrow vested interests of the public sector trade unions," he said.

Without the EU, Ireland's economy would be run by "incompetent politicians", an "inept civil service" and "greedy public sector trade union bosses", said the boss of Europe's biggest budget airline.

Are people actually sure that he support the Treaty as he attack and degrade everybody who supported it as well as those who are against it.

As for Intel they need the EU commission off their backs too. After all the EU did fine them heavily (€1.06 bn) in the past.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleases...ence=IP/09/745

meglome

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

He already supported Lisbon last year. No doubt Ryanair will profit from the provisions in Lisbon to increase cheap labour in the economy, such as Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which allows asylum-seekers to work by declaring that "everyone has the right to work". No doubt Ryanair welcome the provisions of the proposed Article 29.4.7 (para 7 of the 28th Amendment to the Constiotion Bill 2009) of the Irish Constitution which will allow the Government (with Oireachtas consent) to take us into the Schengen Area, abolishing passport checks on travel between 25 countries and Ireland. The agenda behind Lisbon is the race to the bottom and cheap-labour - just like Nice (which I foolishly voted for twice).

You know it might be worth noting that businessmen are not baby killers. We seem to forget who actually generates the wealth in this economy. I run a business and so do several friends of mine and to my knowledge none of us has ever exploited an employee. This poor exploited workers bull**** really pisses me off.

An Fear Aniar

Jim236 wrote: »

Fair enough I didn't read all of With the British Conservatives set to take power in Britain soon, I think by us voting No again in October will mean an uncomfortably close relationship with Britain that the Irish people don't want or need, and more importantly the perception of the country being seen as "the same as Britain", anti-EU, eurosceptic etc etc.

European voters are overwhelmingly Eurosceptic now, all over Europe.

They have consistently voted NO to further EU integration when given the opportunity.

Stop listening to the threats and help save European democracy.

.

meglome

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

European voters are overwhelmingly Eurosceptic now, all over Europe.

They have consistently voted NO to further EU integration when given the opportunity.

Stop listening to the threats and help save European democracy.

.

Where did all this No voting take place?

ShooterSF

thebman wrote: »

No whenever asked why they are voting no they give no answer or reply with something that isn't in the treaty.

That is stoopid. I don't think I've heard a proper reason for voting no yet.

The risk that the church or scientology or for that matter any large cult could use this new citizen's initiative in an effort to pressure the EU into protecting them or worse.
That would be one of my big concerns.

thebman

ShooterSF wrote: »

The risk that the church or scientology or for that matter any large cult could use this new citizen's initiative in an effort to pressure the EU into protecting them or worse.
That would be one of my big concerns.

They only have to consider the proposal with a million signatures so they'll just tell them to feck off.

I don't think any such cult would get the signatures of a million EU citizens anyway.

ShooterSF

thebman wrote: »

They only have to consider the proposal with a million signatures so they'll just tell them to feck off.

I don't think any such cult would get the signatures of a million EU citizens anyway.

How many members does the catholic church for example have in Europe?
How do you know they'll just tell them to feck off, what's the point in introducing it if they aren't going to be influenced by these petitions?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Anyway, we all know the EU will make us abort our babies and then conscript them into an army to fight. :rolleyes:

An army of fighting dead babies??? Genious... I will get working on it right away...

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

anonymous_joe wrote: »

We'll all profit from a yes and suffer from a no when the EU turns against us. So trust nobody.

Anyway, we all know the EU will make us abort our babies and then conscript them into an army to fight. :rolleyes:

Oh yea, this is why I will be voting no

Of course, the yes voters will attack me with "that's just paranoid sh!te, bla bla bla". Well I really don't care about you, or what you think, I am voting no for ME...

Jim236

Fox Shaggy Toothache wrote: »

Oh yea, this is why I will be voting no

Of course, the yes voters will attack me with "that's just paranoid sh!te, bla bla bla". Well I really don't care about you, or what you think, I am voting no for ME...

The people who make those videos are complete nutjobs, watch this video here and you'll just cringe:

I'd take what they say with a pinch of salt, maybe some of what they're saying is true, but they don't they themselves any favours by getting some dope with a freaky voice to narrate their videos.

thebman

ShooterSF wrote: »

How many members does the catholic church for example have in Europe?
How do you know they'll just tell them to feck off, what's the point in introducing it if they aren't going to be influenced by these petitions?

The point is they find out if something means a lot to the people of Europe. If it is something to do with a church it is unlikely to influence when most of the politicians working in Europe would support separation of church and state.

What is the likelihood of them implementing something petitioned for by a church that got a million of its members to sign something?

Not very likely I would say. The whole point of it is to give the people of Europe a voice to say a lot of us want this, can you consider if this is a good idea, it is not an order to them precisely because of the crazies I would imagine.

smidgy

First of all OP - dont think Michael O Leary thinks anything of anybody but himself. There is only one person and one thing In Michael O Leary’s world. He will say whatever he will profit from so in that way I would not hold his opinion too high. It is an opinion that really doesn’t relate or apply to you. Michael O Leary will sellhis vote to Europe.

Also if you think that Irish politicians are a unique bunch of political buffoons then you are sadly mistaken. The idiom 'better the devil you know than the devil you don’t' would apply here. Consider taking the Irish politicians to Italy and letting them rule Ireland from there and you have an idea of the nightmare you are creating by outsourcing authority to some strangers in Europe. Also consider the scenario where you could not even elect in another bunch to replace them. Then you have an idea of what the Lisbon treaty is creating in Europe.

Declaration 17
"The treaties and the law adopted by the union on the basis of the treaties have primacy over the laws of the member states"

Also I would like to say that anyone who doesnt vote the same as me is a complete idiot and doesnt have the brain capacity to understand anything. They should yield to my superior brainpower and insight! (Just kidding - but this comical attitude is being repeatedly expressed by voters on the YES side)

K-9

thebman wrote: »

The point is they find out if something means a lot to the people of Europe. If it is something to do with a church it is unlikely to influence when most of the politicians working in Europe would support separation of church and state.

What is the likelihood of them implementing something petitioned for by a church that got a million of its members to sign something?

Not very likely I would say. The whole point of it is to give the people of Europe a voice to say a lot of us want this, can you consider if this is a good idea, it is not an order to them precisely because of the crazies I would imagine.

It is funny that one of the best and most democratic parts of the Treaty is subject to scare mongering like the above. The Commission has to consider the proposal, they do not have to pass it.

Of course No campaigners will then point out it isn't strong enough!

Joey the lips

Ah fook its another no so! Unless we all plan to fly to brussels!

An Fear Aniar

K-9 wrote: »

It is funny that one of the best and most democratic parts of the Treaty ....

It's ironic that you call this monstrosity "democratic" seeing as it's already been rejected by the Irish electorate, yet... here we are again.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

.

K-9

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It's ironic that you call this monstrosity "democratic" seeing as it's already been rejected by the Irish electorate, yet... here we are again.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

.

The citizens initiative is a great thing, could do with it here. Now No campaigners scare mongering say it will bring in Scientology as a religion etc. It will not, because the Commission does not have to accept it, obviously.

Others then say it is toothless!

I am afraid at how people see a vote as undemocratic.

thebman

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It's ironic that you call this monstrosity "democratic" seeing as it's already been rejected by the Irish electorate, yet... here we are again.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

.

Why people an just vote no again if they still want no.

Are you afraid they've changed their minds?

An Fear Aniar

thebman wrote: »

Why people an just vote no again if they still want no.

Are you afraid they've changed their minds?

Look, the French, the Dutch and the Irish voted NO to this thing. Yet they continue with their plans. it's an all-out attack on democracy, they don't even bother to conceal their contempt for the electorate these days.

.

K-9

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Look, the French, the Dutch and the Irish voted NO to this thing. Yet they continue with their plans. it's an all-out attack on democracy, they don't even bother to conceal their contempt for the electorate these days.

.

The French and the Dutch voted no to the constitution and there is no constitution. Spain and Luxembourg voted yes.

We voted no and there is no and there will be no Lisbon, unless we vote Yes. The people decide that, not the Govt., not the EU, not No campaigners. There are new guarantees and the Commissioner is kept. Whether that is enough is up to the people.

An Fear Aniar

K-9 wrote: »

The French and the Dutch voted no to the constitution and there is no constitution. Spain and Luxembourg voted yes.

It's exactly the same thing, it's just been re-branded. Seriously, are you this gullible?

.

Teferi

O'Leary is gas.

K-9

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It's exactly the same thing, it's just been re-branded. Seriously, are you this gullible?

.

Are you always this economical with the truth?

dresden8

K-9 wrote: »

Are you always this economical with the truth?

That's as loaded as

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Well, have you?

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

That's as loaded as

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Well, have you?

You know it isn't the truth.

FutureTaoiseach

Should smooth things over for a future Aer Lingus takeover bid.

UnderpantsGnome

Government: Ireland , you have a chioce. Please vote Yes or No.

Ireland NO! ! !

Government: Oops, sorry, try again...

An Fear Aniar

K-9 wrote: »

You know it isn't the truth.

Well, you may disagree with the Wiki, but the main differences it lists appear to be changing a few names and hiding offensive phrases deeper in the text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Compared_to_the_Constitutional_Treaty


.

K-9

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Well, you may disagree with the Wiki, but the main differences it lists appear to be changing a few names and hiding offensive phrases deeper in the text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Compared_to_the_Constitutional_Treaty


.

So, it isn't

An Fear Aniar wrote:

exactly the same thing

?

K-9

It is Wiki, so it is limited.

A good link on it from a Dutch Govt. point of view:http://www.clingendael.nl/cesp/publications/?id=6936

Clearly novel was the defensive approach of the Dutch delegation towards a number of specific issues, which allegedly served to do justice to the concerns voiced by the electorate upon rejection of the Constitutional Treaty draft in June 2005. To that aim, the Dutch negotiating position focused specifically on the incorporation of a number of concrete checks and balances, safeguards and emergency breaks into the treaty text. Two key points included the Dutch demand for clarification of the existing division of competencies between member states and the Union, and the incorporation into the treaty text of a reference to the accession criteria for candidate member states. It was successfully made clear to the EU negotiating partners that conceding these particular demands would be instrumental for the Dutch delegation in bringing the treaty back home. The vulnerability of the Dutch position in terms of legitimacy was thereby effectively turned into a strength in the negotiations.

And from the Irish Govt. white paper last year:

27. The mandate given to the IGC was, therefore, to draw up a Treaty, called the “Reform Treaty”, which would consist of amendments to the current Treaties with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the enlarged Union, as well as the coherence of its external action. The idea of replacing the existing European Union Treaties with a single Constitutional Treaty was abandoned. This was done in a direct response to what were seen as legitimate concerns among many of Europe’s citizens.

28. Instead, the new Reform Treaty would preserve the balance of the practical improvements to the Union’s decision making and structures which had been agreed by the Heads of State or Government under the 2004 Irish Presidency. At the same time, it would drop those elements which had had a constitutional character. For example, the title “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs” would be changed to “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”. In this context, it was also agreed not to proceed with the formal adoption in the Treaty of the Union’s symbols – the EU flag, the anthem and Europe day.

29. Other modifications introduced as a result of the period of reflection and of further consultation with the Member States related to: the respective competences of the EU and the Member States and their delimitation; the specific nature of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP); the enhanced role for national parliaments; the treatment of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and a revised mechanism, in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police co-operation, enabling Member States to go forward with a proposed measure while allowing others not to participate. An Irish Government proposal to include a reference to combating climate change under the Union’s environmental policy was also agreed.

You'll see quotes of 90/95/98% of it being the same, which is rather meaningless!

Are the above changes 2/5/10%?

Run_to_da_hills

This is best thing O Leary could ever do for the NO campaign.

Run_to_da_hills

Came across this.

http://i28.tinypic.com/34oad1s.jpg